The fitness guy?

They really are stretching for it now.

We may be 'stained' by this beat up but that doesn't mean the current band of idiots must go.

But, boy, I would love to know you has been pushing this behind the scenes. And who has Wilson on a drip feed.

I would be getting a decent PR consultant in at the end of this. We have to take control of this crap at some point.

It is obvious Fan has personal issues with the current board as do Hazy and a couple of others.

But if it is any of them leaking or revelling in the leaking of information then i take a very dim view of such.

As i do that any of them should be a moderator of this "sacred" site.

This affair has tainted us whether we like it or not and that taint won't go unless there are changes in senior personnel.

I'd be curious to know why you think that changing the senior personnel would remove the taint.

I believe the taint is one of 'brand'. Even if we suffer no formal penalty, we are up for mocking by other supporters, hesitation by sponsors etc. I do not see how the names or history of senior personnel affects any of that. Sponsors know that 99.9% of supporters (ie. their market) don't know who is CEO of any club (though perhaps not true of posters to these sorts of boards), so how would changing the CEO affect their decision to sponsor a club? I doubt that they'd shy away just because the senior people had done something a bit off in the past - if business worked like that, how come <insert long list of prominent dodgey business people's names here> are still raking it in?

So please explain, or I may be tempted to think you might more motivated to replace the senior personnel than wash away the taint.

edit: grammar

I'd be curious to know why you think that changing the senior personnel would remove the taint.

I believe the taint is one of 'brand'. Even if we suffer no formal penalty, we are up for mocking by other supporters, hesitation by sponsors etc. I do not see how the names or history of senior personnel affect any of that. Sponsors know that 99.9% of supporters (ie. their market) don't know who is CEO of any club (though perhaps not true of posters to these sorts of boards), so how would changing the CEO or whatever affect their decision to sponsor a club? I doubt that they'd shy away just because the senior people had done something a bit off in the past - if business worked like that, how come <insert long list of prominent dodgey business people's names here> still be raking it in?

So please explain, or I may be tempted to think you might more motivated to replace the senior personnel than wash away the taint.

BANG...Well said Sue...you are left wide open here Fan...Good Luck.

I was kidding last week when I wrote of Wilson rummaging around garbage bins and about the club bootstudder being interviewed but that seems to be where this is all going now. It's high farce and becoming more than embarrassing for her and the investigators feeding her this bilge.

Demetriou should be aware that the entire investigative process is heading towards complete derailment.

In all this, Lynden Dunn stands out as the likely hero. Wilson states that he is "one player several Melbourne officials and former officials believed to have staged an unofficial protest during ¾ time of the Richmond game ..."

Well that's odd because there's no evidence that any official or former official instructed Dunn or any player to try to lose the game. Further, Melbourne was IIRC in front at ¾ time of that game so what exactly was he unofficially protesting about?

The only answer is that he, like McLean and possibly others, might have been unhappy about the general perception out there among the fans that it wasn't in the interests of the club to win many more matches from that stage of the season onwards. That's fair enough but it's no crime or offence for supporters to want their club to get the best possible draft position at the end of the year. Nor for that matter is it an offence for club officials to feel that way. The AFL had, on several occasions, already stated its position on what was ultimately permissible and what was not.

The fact that we had players who were outwardly urging their teammates on to win a match and that, in the end, we would have won had Jordan McMahon missed from 50 metres after the siren is the proof that there is no case to answer.

This is where I have a problem. The events that we're discussing took place in 2009 and many of those involved in them have either gone or are now employed in different roles at the club and are indeed, by all accounts, doing well.

Should we upset the apple cart because certain malcontents have told their grubby little stories to an over zealous investigator who has in turn passed this information on to a person in the media who despises thes "senior personnel"?

This is the opposite of a democratic and fair result and, as a member I object strongly to such an outcome which would be tantamount to handing a victory to those who plotted against these personel and thereby jeopardised the interests of the club.

I can see how some consider that this is not really about tanking and breaking AFL rules (whatever they may be) but instead, its about doing a hatchet job on people at the club who might not be popular with their critics.

You sum it up very well.

Wilson's article this morning - whether she intended it or not - highlights the investigator's extraordinary reliance on the views of disgruntled former personnel - whether or not those people are in a position to provide any meaningful evidence ( doctors on the bench!)

You'd think that the journalist herself might actually make that the headline. But she can't help herself - her "if statement" about Schwab is a classic giveaway - a nice little link back to her long-term obsession

Exactly. It's the same as one of her initial articles where she said that Josh Mahoney had been interviewed on more than one occasion and may have changed his story. She then immediately follows up with "Mahoney was absent from today's training session." She constantly writes nothing of importance, yet wants an inference to be drawn from what are on face value innocuous comments. Those that already believe the club tanked put these pieces of information together and form the opinion that it's only a matter of time before that conclusion is taken to the AFL Commission. Industry group-think at its finest, because it reinforces long held beliefs. A seamless jigsaw that easily comes together.

Doctors, or fitness staff on a bench can't establish any intent on losing. They may have a gut feel, or even have raised eyebrows at certain instructions, but unless they've been included in sensitive conversations their opinions are about as important as mine. Bailey, or any decent defence counsel would be able to quickly explain decisions and cast enough doubt on any suggestion that they were designed to inhibit a player's output.

In the end, I suspect the AFL want to be seen to be doing as much due diligence as possible to send a clear message that any club that wants to entertain going down this path in the future would have rocks in their head. And if the findings ultimately state that the MFC have no case to answer then they can show that their investigation was exhaustive and that despite some people's interpretations no concrete evidence could be found. The AFL need irrefutable evidence, because circumstantial evidence won't be enough to heavily sanction a club that has the courts in mind.

The head coach denies it, the players deny they were ever told not to play on their merits, the former President denies it in print, and Chris Connolly joked about it. There's no smoking gun. Just speculation, innuendo, unusual moves on the back of experimentation, and some with a gut feel. As I said, nothing.

I hope you are right. The other view is that they won't leave us alone until they find enough to hang someone - even if its the boot studder. It's possible that the AFL has decided that someone has to be punished for this - to justify the tens /thousands of dollars they have spent on it already.

Perversely we might get more support from the general football public if we are punished : "poor Melbourne - talk about a scapegoat" . If we "get off" , they'll cry "blxxdy Melbourne - how lucky are they"

I'd be curious to know why you think that changing the senior personnel would remove the taint.

I believe the taint is one of 'brand'. Even if we suffer no formal penalty, we are up for mocking by other supporters, hesitation by sponsors etc. I do not see how the names or history of senior personnel affect any of that. Sponsors know that 99.9% of supporters (ie. their market) don't know who is CEO of any club (though perhaps not true of posters to these sorts of boards), so how would changing the CEO or whatever affect their decision to sponsor a club? I doubt that they'd shy away just because the senior people had done something a bit off in the past - if business worked like that, how come <insert long list of prominent dodgey business people's names here> still be raking it in?

So please explain, or I may be tempted to think you might more motivated to replace the senior personnel than wash away the taint.

Surely, you'll concede this Fan.

You seem to assume that the market is comprised those already immersed in the detail of who's who. Our market is the broader community of young people , business people, immigrants who don't know Chris Connolly from a bar of soap - they know the Melbourne Demons. And headlines like " pathetic and disgusting Demons" and (down the track , perhaps) " disgraced Demons sack officials " damage that name !!

I was kidding last week when I wrote of Wilson rummaging around garbage bins and about the club bootstudder being interviewed but that seems to be where this is all going now. It's high farce and becoming more than embarrassing for her and the investigators feeding her this bilge.

Demetriou should be aware that the entire investigative process is heading towards complete derailment.

In all this, Lynden Dunn stands out as the likely hero. Wilson states that he is "one player several Melbourne officials and former officials believed to have staged an unofficial protest during ¾ time of the Richmond game ..."

Well that's odd because there's no evidence that any official or former official instructed Dunn or any player to try to lose the game. Further, Melbourne was IIRC in front at ¾ time of that game so what exactly was he unofficially protesting about?

The only answer is that he, like McLean and possibly others, might have been unhappy about the general perception out there among the fans that it wasn't in the interests of the club to win many more matches from that stage of the season onwards. That's fair enough but it's no crime or offence for supporters to want their club to get the best possible draft position at the end of the year. Nor for that matter is it an offence for club officials to feel that way. The AFL had, on several occasions, already stated its position on what was ultimately permissible and what was not.

The fact that we had players who were outwardly urging their teammates on to win a match and that, in the end, we would have won had Jordan McMahon missed from 50 metres after the siren is the proof that there is no case to answer.

Correct .......... straight to the bottom line ( especially as we kicked the previous goal!)

Thanks for all the interest everyone but I'll bow out now. My intention was to suggest that Caro is a good journalist doing her job but the discussion is now based around other issues which I've no interest in discussing on this forum.

It was in part my fault for letting it go there but in the "heat of discussion" and the suggestions and comments that were made about me I felt the need to respond.

FWIW I think it's terrific that the general feeling is one of unity with the Club and there are some on here who are pivotal to that.

I hope that in the heat of battle next year if things get difficult you will all show the same unity. Remember, BH says not to kick the club when it's down, I hope we support our players the same way.

It's been a hoot!

Thanks for all the interest everyone but I'll bow out now. My intention was to suggest that Caro is a good journalist doing her job but the discussion is now based around other issues which I've no interest in discussing on this forum.

It was in part my fault for letting it go there but in the "heat of discussion" and the suggestions and comments that were made about me I felt the need to respond.

FWIW I think it's terrific that the general feeling is one of unity with the Club and there are some on here who are pivotal to that.

I hope that in the heat of battle next year if things get difficult you will all show the same unity. Remember, BH says not to kick the club when it's down, I hope we support our players the same way.

It's been a hoot!

Guilty. The end.

I'm curious as to why you think this affair has tainted us? As you note yourself there is every chance the AFL will not have sufficient evidence to sanction us. However they are likely to paint us in a light that suggests that at the least we minimised the chance of winning more than 5 games.

I would argue that there is a widespread belief that at least half a dozen clubs did the exactly the same thing and that in fact it was to be expected given the rewards. For heaven sakes it occurred just last season. GWS were never going to win their second game against GC, never. And they made sure of it by resting at least 5 of their best players. Their reward? The number 1 pick in the upcoming draft. Have they been tainted?

Tainted, why? Where we have been impacted in terms of how we are viewed is that once again we have failed to keep things in house and remained tight in the way Carlton usually are (a club that has historically also had lots of back room drama). This makes us look silly as a club and yes taints us. But is that the fault of the senior personnel or is that fault of those looking to push their own agenda in a pretty grubby way (to be clear i not suggesting you are in that boat at all, Fan, but clearly there are some people who are doing so)?

What is interesting is that thus far there has been no evidence incriminating CS. There may well be some but it hasn't come out. What if the investigation never uncovers any? Will critics of his be satisfied?

A question Fan if you'll indulge me. If the AFL concludes we have no case to answer would you still hold the view that there should be changes to senior personnel? alter?

This hits the nail on the head IMO. As late as this season GWS sent all its players off for season ending surgery so that they wouldn't accidentally win against GC and lose top pick. Why hasn't anyone made comment, where are the Caroline Wilson's and Dwayne Russell's of the world now. In the same discussion leading up to the game Guy McKenna stated that they wanted to win , they had enough kids and needed some more mature bodies and win's. If there is anything to learn from this saga that bottoming out and losing is bad long term for the fabric of the club

Thanks for all the interest everyone but I'll bow out now. My intention was to suggest that Caro is a good journalist doing her job but the discussion is now based around other issues which I've no interest in discussing on this forum.

It was in part my fault for letting it go there but in the "heat of discussion" and the suggestions and comments that were made about me I felt the need to respond.

FWIW I think it's terrific that the general feeling is one of unity with the Club and there are some on here who are pivotal to that.

I hope that in the heat of battle next year if things get difficult you will all show the same unity. Remember, BH says not to kick the club when it's down, I hope we support our players the same way.

It's been a hoot!

Would you care to re-write this conciliatory note - without the demeaning little dig at the end (unless you are acknowledging that all our posts represent such wise utterings that they could be attributed to a footy-wise owl)

Guilty. The end.

Patronising to the end.

Not that you were ever interested in discussing whether Wilson is a good journalist, merely in asserting it.

Patronising to the end.

Not that you were ever interested in discussing whether Wilson is a good journalist, merely in asserting it.

wilson is a reporter. Flanagan is a journalist. I have seen both styles first hand.

I remember having arguments against the likes of Fan at the end of Daniher era and during the Bailey era. It is not surprising to find out he was involved with the club at the time and that Neeld has taken the team in a completely different direction.

..........The other view is that they won't leave us alone until they find enough to hang someone - even if its the boot studder. It's possible that the AFL has decided that someone has to be punished for this - to justify the tens /thousands of dollars they have spent on it already.

....then...."welcome Mr Finkelstein - take up the cudgel"

I'd be curious to know why you think that changing the senior personnel would remove the taint.

.....

So please explain, or I may be tempted to think you might more motivated to replace the senior personnel than wash away the taint.

edit: grammar

I wrote as above to Fan. A simple request, but he didn't respond and 'bows out'. I had an open mind on his motivations, but sadly I (who know nothing of past or present Board machinations) have to agree with those who think he has an axe to grind.

wilson is a reporter. Flanagan is a journalist. I have seen both styles first hand.

Wilson couldn't write "bum" on a wall or her name in the sand .

She should go back to writing what she knows.

i.e nothing .

What disgust me the most about this article is how she manage to write Cameron Schwab's name for no reason

I think what Fan is alluding to is that it's good to see that we rally around the flag and stick up for our own in times of "crisis" as many of us have done here and yet, when the season's on, there are those who don't mind sticking the boots into our own players (often in the most cutting and unkind manner), especially when the chips are down and the team's losing.

I'm not averse to criticism of anyone at the club if its warranted, but outright abuse of players, officials, coaches etc shouldn't be tolerated (and won't be if the mods here do their jobs properly).

But I think that's part of the reason for the strident defence of some of the club personnel in this debate. They do their job and its not easy, and then they get bagged for having been incompetent but with not much more to back it up other than the bald accusation.

Having been involved at club, league and district level in a couple of different sports at a junior level, I know how easy it is for critics to attack hard working officials who, for the most part, do their jobs properly.

Perhaps, what we need is to ditch our code of conduct and just replace it with the golden rule.

Please let this go to trial, if only so we can see ....

VS

I don't like players being abused, but providing a fair critique should be in order.

But when the club has arguably had its worst year in history - President dying, coach questioned over racial prejudice, as well as a media commentator saying he'd lost the players prior to round 2, the major sponsor sacked in disgrace, terrible on-field performances, allegations of tanking, which the club denies, followed by formal AFL investigation - any supporter that had the club's interest at heart would call for unity until things settled down.

The last thing they would advocate is club sackings in the middle of such an investigation, which would only make the club look as guilty as sin, and it would help circumvent due process. Fan's personal bias seems to override any club interest. And to equate that with me saying during the season that Rohan Bail is a poor kick is surely a joke.

He's kidding, isn't he ?

Patronising to the end.

Not that you were ever interested in discussing whether Wilson is a good journalist, merely in asserting it.

And gave nothing persuasive to debunk the arguments in this thread he admitted he hadn't read.

We have all types on this forum don't we?

Our own little microcosm of life.

The fact remains, just moving past this two day 'moderated' sideshow, that we have not heard of any damning evidence that justifies the focus and ferocity of Ms Wilson a few weeks ago.

So stepping back - how anyone can say that Wilson and Fairifax are 'just doing what they are supposed to do' have little solid ground to stand on.

If Clothier had anything worthwhile - Adam Paolo is unlikely to provide the killer blow, and we are left again with the feeling that the AFL has nothing but it has also no place to go.

The AFL make up the rules as they go, we all know this and they require an exit strategy from this that saves face and doesn't have the odour of a monumental waste of time.

Any theories on how that exit strategy will look?

Just some meanderings of an ageing supporter. In 2009 we had a young side & it was crap, the same scenario that could be applied to many clubs over many past years! And as a lot of those clubs did we threw players around to see if there was anything extra they could bring to the side. In years gone by this tactic would not even have raised an eyebrow, but these days there is an advantage to be had by finishing as low as possible so in the cynical world of todays press we must have tanked. not just done what every other club would have done in the past, go figure.

Question: if 2 highly rated sides are playing & 1 finds itself a few goals down at 3/4 time and makes a few positional changes to try and win the game but fails dismally - Is that throwing the game or just bad coaching?

What would have happened if we beat richmond that day?

We would have gone 5 wins, 3 wins, 5 wins.

And missed out on a priority pick.

The media probably would have started up about how we actuallydeserved one because we had been so crap for so long.

No, if we'd beaten them that day we'd have gone to 4 wins and would, somehow, have had to manufacture a result against the Dockers - a near-impossible task that day IMO.