THE WILSON FILE - the arrogance at the heart of the innuendo

[sue 9,102]

I'm amazed at Fan's posts. Of course there is an element here of loyal club members reacting as expected to attacks on the club, however legitimate.

But as someone who has little idea of the internal politics and history of the MFC and the AFL, but who does follow non-AFL politics pretty closely, I see all the hallmarks of a hatchet-job, not good journalism.

However accurate (or inaccurate) the things she has written are, however incompetent the MFC admin has been, however good her journalism has been in the past on other issues, she clearly has an axe to grind against the MFC or some people within it.

Your refusal to see that and your sudden rush of postings on the topic (without having bothered to read the whole thread) makes me suspect you are sucking up to her for some reason. Only a suspicion of course.

[jnrmac 20,058]

I'm not sure we are a divided club at the moment ........ but I agree we do need to move on

Unfortunately Wilson just keeps throwing up the past - not just 2009 but now the "salary cap breach"

I'll keep my views on Gutnick to myself - but I will say that - in this context - his knee-jerk admission was most unfortunate for it has muddied on our record of compliance with AFL rules. As Ridley's book explains in detail, it is by no means clear that we did actually breach the salary cap that year.

Back to topic it is amazing how regularly Wilson manages to have a dig at CS and the MFC . Let's not follow her lead by digging up divisions of the past

I agree with the Gutnick comments and won't say anything further on it.

But I will say this - I think we are the most united as a club as we have been for some years. The outside barbs from journos should all make us band together. The stuff of 186 can be consigned to the history pages by fielding a committed team. It would seem that the on-field leadership issues have been addressed (proof will be in the pudding) and the character of the draftees we have was a key focus from Neeld. The footy dept knows what we were lacking and went out to deliberately and systematically improve our leadership and character. From afar it looks to me like they have done a reasonable job

[rpfc 28,383]

How could she have reported something as a threat "before any of the bolded was know"?

Now who is nitpicking...

Before the bolded was clarified then.

[hoopla 418]

Caro has historically broken the big stories and has been accurate in her reporting. She has excellent contacts, particularly into the MFC. Schwab's loan from the Club, the Neeld appointment process ant the Nathan Carroll delisting issue in 2008 are just examples where she's broken stories and had that facts right.

Oh dear - you really are scratching for justification here.

She broke the Schwab loan story did she? Well firstly it wasn't a story in any sense let alone in a football sense - and secondly she didn't break it - it was fully disclosed to the members by the club itself 4 months prior !!

What about the Neeld appointment process? She selected an incomplete set of "facts" to support her own criticisms of Neeld. That;s a point against yourself.

Nathan Carroll's delisting - huge story that one !! Am I right in saying that Nathan Carroll was hauled over the coals for an incident overseas which also involved that bastion of integrity - Brock McLean? Perhaps he was the source.... perhaps the Richmond link through Uncle Ricky is more important than we thought.

Sorry Fan - you'll have to do better than that

QED

[red and blue forever 1,018]

R&B I said "in many of the things..". She's been terrible on occasions, specifically her comment on disabled Olympics.

But she's very good for a lot of the time. And Misfud?? She knew of the Misfud/Davey issue well before it became public and didn't report it because she didn't think it held water. She, unlike Thomas, did her homework.

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/caro-the-afl-definitely-believes-it-was-aaron-davey/20120404-1wcxk.html

wilson running with the misfud story

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/caro-mifsud-would-not-have-made-allegations-up/20120403-1wal8.html

even after the misfud stuff broke as being wrong, she still denied she hat made a mistake.

[beelzebub 23,347]

I must confess to not having read this whole thread but I'd imagine there are few if any posts in support of Caro. Personally I think she is a must read and an important cog in the business of the AFL because she keeps everyone pretty honest.

I have no issue with her treatment of MFC. She is sussing out the facts and reporting them and then just offering an opinion. I don't like what I hear but I can't see she's done anything wrong.

I'm with her all the way on Adelaide. Without the likes of her clubs would be much freer to break rules and the larger clubs would hold the whip hand. She keeps them honest.

She also reports on the part of the game I enjoy, the politics and the uneasy relationship that exists between the AFL and the Clubs. Without her we would be more ignorant of issues than we are now and there would be much greater reward and willingness for "bending the rules". What club now would risk being as blatant as MFC or Carlton in pursuit of draft picks?

There is no doubt she has hurt our club with her attacks in the last few weeks but the only reason we are in this position is because we were incompetent in the execution of an AFL approved methodology and one that we probably all thought was "tacky" at best. She has been in part responsible for removing the PP which is a good thing.

Keep up the good work Caro.

maybe you SHOULD have read the whole thread

She is an abomination come contextual reporting of the truth.

She's vendetta driven. Her red rag looks remarkably like Cam Schwab

perhaps read all with both eyes open aswell fan.

Edited November 15, 2012 by belzebub59

[rpfc 28,383]

Your refusal to see that and your sudden rush of postings on the topic (without having bothered to read the whole thread) makes me suspect you are sucking up to her for some reason. Only a suspicion of course.

I don't think Fan gives a rip about Wilson.

I think it is, and this is just my journalistic instincts at work here, more about a stance that is anti the current admin as he can see the pressure being lessened after the the last few weeks.

I believe, and this is just my right as a person who is often right and knows his stuff, that Fan has an agenda and loves to be the enlightened minority harrassed by the unthinking mob.

At best I am just 'sussing out the facts' and at worst I am being a d!ck.

But it's my right to say it - you know because I am me and I know my stuff and all...

Edited November 15, 2012 by rpfc

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

You can nitpick all you like. The point is there was a meeting and CC did say some very provocative things at worse or cracked a very poor joke at best.

My view on McLardy, Schwab and others is totally irrelevant to my view on Wilson but you'll struggle to see that as you do with so many issues that are not straightforward.

I'll make sure you an Caro don't hear anything from my Boardroom. By the way, we affectionately call the boardroom the "crypt" and there aint no dead bodies in it either.

Talk about drawing a long bow Fan, you are making it an art form. Be careful mate or it might snap and go right up your nose.

And another point for reflection. One can only wonder who Caro might have been writing for if she had not been born to Octa Wilson. Maybe the local Southern Cross newspaper?

[nutbean 8,838]

I acknowledge that in general terms Caro breaks a lot of stories.

My issue with her reporting on the MFC issue is she has presented very little of her opinions as opinions. She has presented a whole lot of her opinions, assumptions, snippets of untested truths and the words of a player with credibility zero as FACT.

She has not editorialised - she has factualised with little facts.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

She didn't even know what the "Vault" was.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Look I'm afraid I don't have time to answer everything.

However accurate (or inaccurate) the things she has written are, however incompetent the MFC admin has been, however good her journalism has been in the past on other issues, she clearly has an axe to grind against the MFC or some people within it.

Couldn't agree more Sue, she clearly has it in for Schwab but so what? If the MFC were a competent organization managed efficiently then she'd have nothing to go at. We aren't so she has ammunition. I'm often accused of having an agenda, but that doesn't render a position incorrect. For the record I wish she'd get off our back but I wish even more we didn't give her the oxygen to continue to target us.

Oh dear - you really are scratching for justification here.

She broke the Schwab loan story did she? Well firstly it wasn't a story in any sense let alone in a football sense - and secondly she didn't break it - it was fully disclosed to the members by the club itself 4 months prior !!

What about the Neeld appointment process? She selected an incomplete set of "facts" to support her own criticisms of Neeld. That;s a point against yourself.

Nathan Carroll's delisting - huge story that one !! Am I right in saying that Nathan Carroll was hauled over the coals for an incident overseas which also involved that bastion of integrity - Brock McLean? Perhaps he was the source.... perhaps the Richmond link through Uncle Ricky is more important than we thought.

Sorry Fan - you'll have to do better than that

QED

Well let see.

1. It wasn't common knowledge that Schwab had taken a loan and wasn't an issue until she reported it. It became an issue because it was so totally inappropriate and had people be aware of it it would have been an issue earlier. It was a big issue because we'd gone to the membership to raise money to eliminate debt but still saw fit to give a substantial amount to Schwab. She made an issue of it, others didn't. And it was "an issue".

2. Nathan Carroll's delisting was a result of a "mad monday" in which he punched Ben Holland and racially abused a Jewish employee. She got the story.

3. Her article on Neeld's appointment wasn't an article against Neeld, it was an article highlighting the "unusual" employment process that was instituted by Lyon, McLardy and Schwab. It was part of her agenda to highlight Schwab and his practices.

Sorry I've haven't responded to others, it's difficult to keep up.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,237]

I wish you people would stop this bickering. It's quite clear to me that the whole sorry business is Jack Watts' fault.

[hoopla 418]

I don't think Fan gives a rip about Wilson.

I think it is, and this is just my journalistic instincts at work here, more about a stance that is anti the current admin as he can see the pressure being lessened after the the last few weeks.

I believe, and this is just my right as a person who is often right and knows his stuff, that Fan has an agenda and loves to be the enlightened minority harrassed by the unthinking mob.

The fact that he began by saying that he hadn't read the thread suggests you are right

HIs lack of familiarity with the balance of Wilson's "writing" adds more weight to your view

[H_T 3,043]

She didn't even know what the "Vault" was.

I don't think Fan read that either.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

The fact that he began by saying that he hadn't read the thread

I said I hadn't read the whole thread. Seems accuracy isn't one of your strengths.

I don't think Fan read that either.

Yes, I read that article with particular interest H_T. My view is that the emotive words like "The Vault" are journalistic puff and the real story was what CC had said. People who want to discount the story on descriptions like "the Vault" miss the point IMO. But each to their own.

[sue 9,102]

Look I'm afraid I don't have time to answer everything.

Couldn't agree more Sue, she clearly has it in for Schwab but so what? If the MFC were a competent organization managed efficiently then she'd have nothing to go at. We aren't so she has ammunition. I'm often accused of having an agenda, but that doesn't render a position incorrect. For the record I wish she'd get off our back but I wish even more we didn't give her the oxygen to continue to target us.

You praise her as a journalist and then agree that she is motivated by a personal agenda against Schwab. Sure, a journalist often needs motivation to uncover the nasties (eg. Matt Peacock and Hardies). So one can sometimes say 'so what' with which you dismissed criticism of her. But before saying that, you have to examine if the motivation is distorting the journalism. Her factualizing (love the word Nutbean) and vendetta have distorted her journalism. As I said, a hatchet-job. You don't have to to a hatchet-job on a "Hitler" - the facts speak for themselves.

[markc 975]

all this makes for a interesting afternoon of reading thanks

I knew someone will kick it off again

glad to see we all getting along

[daisycutter 29,613]

That's all we need, a Carowhine Agenda Wilson apologist who can't be bothered reading the thread and who harbors his own agenda

This (he) represents what is unsavoury and divisive about (some of) this clubs "supporters"

[MO FINE 166]

My view is that the emotive words like "The Vault" are journalistic puff and the real story was what CC had said.

So what exactly did CC say and in what context did he say it?

[diesel 420]

I said I hadn't read the whole thread.

Then read it, including linked articles which do often contain ERRORS! If you haven't got the time then don't come on here with your well thought out position of 'I really like Caro therefore I think she's right on this'.

[hoopla 418]

Look I'm afraid I don't have time to answer everything.

Couldn't agree more Sue, she clearly has it in for Schwab but so what? If the MFC were a competent organization managed efficiently then she'd have nothing to go at. We aren't so she has ammunition. I'm often accused of having an agenda, but that doesn't render a position incorrect. For the record I wish she'd get off our back but I wish even more we didn't give her the oxygen to continue to target us.

Well let see.

1. It wasn't common knowledge that Schwab had taken a loan and wasn't an issue until she reported it. It became an issue because it was so totally inappropriate and had people be aware of it it would have been an issue earlier. It was a big issue because we'd gone to the membership to raise money to eliminate debt but still saw fit to give a substantial amount to Schwab. She made an issue of it, others didn't. And it was "an issue".

2. Nathan Carroll's delisting was a result of a "mad monday" in which he punched Ben Holland and racially abused a Jewish employee. She got the story.

3. Her article on Neeld's appointment wasn't an article against Neeld, it was an article highlighting the "unusual" employment process that was instituted by Lyon, McLardy and Schwab. It was part of her agenda to highlight Schwab and his practices.

Sorry I've haven't responded to others, it's difficult to keep up.

Just for the record

1. It was common knowledge to anyone with sufficient interest in the finances of the MFC to have read the Annual Report. It wasn't a big story because the debt was relatively small, and fully secured - and had been substantially repaid before the article was published.

2. The fact that Mad Monday was the straw that broke the camel's back doesn't invalidate my point. It was no big deal. The point about McLean remains

3. Yes - it wasn't a direct criticism of Neeld - but it was a criticism of Melbourne and of Cameron Schwab in particular - which as you point out clearly supports my contention.

You seem to agree that she has an agenda to undermine Schwab. Why is that ? Do you have any inside knowledge of Wilson - Schwab family tensions?

[dee-luded 2,959]

from what she has said in last few weeks

thats like her giving us a kiss !

i was taliking to friend in usa and he lives in Brooklyn and we was discussing a email that he was sent from one of my competitors and i said how bad it was , he came back with. mark I am from Brooklyn, thats like a kiss , if he didnt say stuff like that he would be worried .

Does anyone reckon she has sold anymore broad sheates over the last few weeks, because of her tanties.

I just wish she's started alphabetically, but maybe she not alpha-beta-cally adapted? Ha well,

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

You praise her as a journalist and then agree that she is motivated by a personal agenda against Schwab. Sure, a journalist often needs motivation to uncover the nasties (eg. Matt Peacock and Hardies). So one can sometimes say 'so what' with which you dismissed criticism of her. But before saying that, you have to examine if the motivation is distorting the journalism. Her factualizing (love the word Nutbean) and vendetta have distorted her journalism. As I said, a hatchet-job. You don't have to to a hatchet-job on a "Hitler" - the facts speak for themselves.

I've said I don't like what she's doing to us, it hurts the Club. But the main point I wanted to make is that journalists who highlight issues that exist between the AFL and stakeholders and report on and find issue that wouldn't otherwise come to light will most probably advantage us if we can get our act together. She's terrific at it.

When she takes on the AFL on an issue that hurts us everyone thinks she's terrific and a "must read". When she continues her modus operandi but the target is the MFC then she is a villain.

Anyway if you don't like her don't read or listen to her. It's a pretty simple choice. Believe me, Demonlanders are taking much more notice of her than anyone else.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Fan is just happy the club rolls over and takes it up the clacker. Because these are the Gospel words of Wilson?

What was so strange about the appointment of Neeld?

Wilson Agenda.

Nathan Carroll was a walking time bomb, what did Wilson expect the MFC to do...keep him on?

Time to write about your own backyard Wilson. The sacred Tigers.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Just for the record

1. It was common knowledge to anyone with sufficient interest in the finances of the MFC to have read the Annual Report. It wasn't a big story because the debt was relatively small, and fully secured - and had been substantially repaid before the article was published.

2. The fact that Mad Monday was the straw that broke the camel's back doesn't invalidate my point. It was no big deal. The point about McLean remains

3. Yes - it wasn't a direct criticism of Neeld - but it was a criticism of Melbourne and of Cameron Schwab in particular - which as you point out clearly supports my contention.

You seem to agree that she has an agenda to undermine Schwab. Why is that ? Do you have any inside knowledge of Wilson - Schwab family tensions?

Nice to see you've recognized the errors in your relevant post. Thanks.