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!

In 2009 we had one of the older sides in the game, here are a few notables that were on our list in 2009: (ps, I have gone on the player's years here so I included any who were 26 years old as they might be in fact 27).

7. Bruce, Cameron (was 31)

10. Davey, Aaron (was 26)

14. Green, Brad (was 29)

16. Jamar, Mark (was 27)

23. McDonald, James (was 33)

27. Miller, Brad (was 26)

32. Rivers, Jared (was 26)

33. Robertson, Russell (was 31)

38. Wheatley, Paul (was 28)

39. Whelan, Matthew (was 30)

I know between 2007 and 2010 we had most amount of listed players over 30 years old in the AFL - the exact year I cant remember

Just thought you would be interested

Ps, one side which I feel has constantly battled age is Carlton. Since 2001 when they finished 6th I feel they have always been rebuilding and rebuilding to no avail:

2002 - 16th

2003 - 15th

2004 - 11th

2005 - 16th

2006 - 16th

2007 - 15th

2008 - 11th

2009 - 7th

2010 - 8th

2011 - 4th

2012 - 10th

This history spans 3 different coaches: Brittian, Pagan, and Ratten

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?

I'm not sure whether anyone can predict the full dimensions of their exit strategy (it is the AFL after all) but I think the Judd move is particularly interesting. They're obviously clearing the decks so they can take a bigger swing at the Crows. The sideshow to come on this might be the distraction they need as they start quietly burying the tanking debacle.

Edit: On Fan's DL status (maybe this applies to Rhino's often caustic interventions, though some of these are quite enjoyable) perhaps we need two classes of moderation here: moderators and immoderators.

Despite the unpleasant subject matter I have enjoyed reading this topic immensely. Let's hope that these difficulties galvanise those at the club as it has those on demonland.

Maybe the footy group's no nonsense philosophy has somehow leached into land.

I also loved her last bit about cameron schwab.

Chief executive Cameron Schwab also faces penalties if it is established he communicated any form of instruction to lose games.

Replace camerons name with anyone else and it is still true.

But she couldnt resist having a go could she?

Again, the rule in question only cover players and coaches. They can get CS for bringing the game into disrepute, but they can get anyone for that.

Again, the rule in question only cover players and coaches. They can get CS for bringing the game into disrepute, but they can get anyone for that.

Like Mifsud for starters.

Wilson today:

With investigator Brett Clothier returning to Adelaide in recent days to re-interview former Demons coach Dean Bailey, the inquiry has widened with the league now scrutinising the behaviour of coaches on the Melbourne bench during specific games in 2009.

Fairfax Media understands the AFL has summoned Adam Paulo, who was the club's fitness coach that year ...

What needs investigating is who at the AFL is leaking this stuff to Wilson? Is it Clothier their investigator or somebody close to him? What do they hope to gain? Is their investigation of MFC so weak that they need to resort to trial by media (with Wilson and her apparent hatred of MFC the willing bunny)?

In any case, by leaking the gist of their investigation and having Wilson pass her own biased judgements and even pronounce her own idea of sentences, they have totally stuffed the investigation (from the legal point at least).

So as long as this gets played out in a legal arena and not simply an internal AFL matter, the investigators have for whatever reason (incompetence, likely, considering the lack of natural justice in their methods) stuffed this one.

Wilson today:

With investigator Brett Clothier returning to Adelaide in recent days to re-interview former Demons coach Dean Bailey, the inquiry has widened with the league now scrutinising the behaviour of coaches on the Melbourne bench during specific games in 2009.

Fairfax Media understands the AFL has summoned Adam Paulo, who was the club's fitness coach that year ...

What needs investigating is who at the AFL is leaking this stuff to Wilson? Is it Clothier their investigator or somebody close to him? What do they hope to gain? Is their investigation of MFC so weak that they need to resort to trial by media (with Wilson and her apparent hatred of MFC the willing bunny)?

In any case, by leaking the gist of their investigation and having Wilson pass her own biased judgements and even pronounce her own idea of sentences, they have totally stuffed the investigation (from the legal point at least).

So as long as this gets played out in a legal arena and not simply an internal AFL matter, the investigators have for whatever reason (incompetence, likely, considering the lack of natural justice in their methods) stuffed this one.

So the question is whether or not we choose to take the AFL to court - which would be a huge call - which we could only really justify if the penalties are draconian..........

Hopefully the AFL see it that way ..... and come up with a nice little "No case to answer" conclusion

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!

I can understand why you don't want to discuss it any further, the longer it goes on the worse you look. Stick to gushing over Wilson in the privacy of your own home.

Any theories on how that exit strategy will look?

I'll have a go.

1. Interview, re interview, talk to as many people as possible, make it evident that the 'investigation' is extremely thorough and robust.

2. Make a statement that says that the evidence suggests that the MFC did not maximise their chances of winning more games than they did there is no definitive evidence that they deliberately conspired to lose - ie tanking. The statement will say something along the lines of 'however it is of great concern that a senior FD employee would make comments to a group that suggested, even in jest, that the club did not want to win any more games. Further there were some unusual positional moves and choices to bench players that appear suspect and indeed were questioned by many in the media at the time. This is not a good look but again they do not represent evidence of tanking, nor can evidence of systematic tanking be found'

3. Finalise the exit strategy with something like: 'Over a period of some years questioned have been raised about a number of scenarios and actions by clubs, We do not believe tanking - deliberately fixing games - has occurred, however we are very concerned about the perception that it is occuring. Consequently we are going to engage a panel of experts to review how we can address this perception issue. This might involve changing the rules to make it clearer what we regard to be unacceptable, when potentially suspect action occur (for example who may derive a benefit from finishing last choosing to rest most of it decent players) we will interview the club immediately and seek an explanation and finally looking at the draft system and exploring options such as a lottery to reduce the reward for finishing last.'

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 ?

The line about "personal bias" is poor - and I'm being generous. "Any club interest"? Really?

While I am all for defending the club against the vindictive outside interests, I think that the club needs some serious scrutiny about its behaviours from us. You are not interested in doing that; you just dissect players. What, management a bit too big a target? You got stuck into bailey as the disasters unfolded in 2011. That was crisis stage but it didn't stop you then. What is the magic threshold for criticism of a club? We were already a laughing stock. So many of your ingredients were already present. not so relevant then for you - this crisis issue - but it is now. why? Crisis bad enough now but not bad enoguh then?

This "defend the club" guff has no basis in reason. None. If the club is strong then we can withstand it. If it is weak then the weakness needs to be addressed. To do nothing is to accept that our leaders actions are beyond scrutiny and to accept the club is too weak to even bare scrutinise on the interent fan forum. Seriously. A fan forum. As if it the MFC is that bad; as if it is that weak. The next concern is that the boogie man is going to come and get me if I think the wrong thing.

You are the fan of a right-wing conservative who rails against all sorts of stuff - including forcing people to think the politically correct line. That is exactly what you are espousing. To the letter. Don't criticise. Accept all for the betterment of the club. Disregard all external criticism. Do not doubt. And here you are, champion of the open minded man who doubts the 'experts', saying that doubt is dangerous and disloyal. FMD.

It is important to discern when evidence leads conclusion, and when conclusion leads evidence.

I'm afraid the 'exit strategy' of the AFL in this mess will be along the lines of an 'insufficient evidence' sideways step that doesn't give me what I want and that is a full mea culpa 'sorry we started this pointless thing, the MFC didn't tank' from the AFL.

They will be lambasted for it, such is the groupthink out there about that one bloody game that we won before we lost - the HUN and Wilson will hound them mercilessly unless they slap us around in some fashion.

I don't think we will be punished but I also don't think we are going to be happy with the outcome (probably about as happy as we are about the process).

The line about "personal bias" is poor - and I'm being generous. "Any club interest"? Really?

While I am all for defending the club against the vindictive outside interests, I think that the club needs some serious scrutiny about its behaviours from us. You are not interested in doing that; you just dissect players. What, management a bit too big a target? You got stuck into bailey as the disasters unfolded in 2011. That was crisis stage but it didn't stop you then. What is the magic threshold for criticism of a club? We were already a laughing stock. So many of your ingredients were already present. not so relevant then for you - this crisis issue - but it is now. why? Crisis bad enough now but not bad enoguh then?

This "defend the club" guff has no basis in reason. None. If the club is strong then we can withstand it. If it is weak then the weakness needs to be addressed. To do nothing is to accept that our leaders actions are beyond scrutiny and to accept the club is too weak to even bare scrutinise on the interent fan forum. Seriously. A fan forum. As if it the MFC is that bad; as if it is that weak. The next concern is that the boogie man is going to come and get me if I think the wrong thing.

You are the fan of a right-wing conservative who rails against all sorts of stuff - including forcing people to think the politically correct line. That is exactly what you are espousing. To the letter. Don't criticise. Accept all for the betterment of the club. Disregard all external criticism. Do not doubt. And here you are, champion of the open minded man who doubts the 'experts', saying that doubt is dangerous and disloyal. FMD.

Yes we are a laughing stock but it's because we are factionalized and can't keep our fighting to in house, we like to do it in public.

There are too many that have an axe to grind or a score to settle or some other agenda; I'm sick of these clowns with their bruised egos, putting themselves ahead of the club. I don't care if some previous board members feel they don't get the recognition they believe they deserve, I don't care if they don't like Connolley or Schwab. If they feel aggrieved take it up with the board or run for the board, but don't air your dirty laundry in public.

We are like a patient that was on life support and whether you like it or not Jimmy and McLardy breathed some life in to us, we now are financial and seemingly on the right track, but instead of rejoicing our dissenters are happy to tear it all down to make a point or settle a score. You talk about allowing thee people the right to voice their opinions but don't seem to be too keen on allowing others to respond, it's a two way street.

I have no doubt that there have been mistakes made and that Connolley and Schwab have made a few but to sack them would be an admission we were wrong even if we weren't. It would seem that it would be giving in to Wilson; well I couldn't give a [censored] about her and I'm not prepared to give her the satisfaction. It would confirm to the rest of the football World that we are as weak as [censored] and give in as soon as the pressure is applied; I doubt the club are as weak as some of the supporters here.

This site is available for the use of all Dees supporters but I question the motives of those that use it to continually run down the club.

Like Mifsud for starters.

He brings himself into it.

And hopefully out of it as well.

I think that the club needs some serious scrutiny about its behaviours from us.

Which implies that you've reached your conclusions prior to any such scrutiny being undertaken?

Scrutiny, whether here or elsewhere, not a problem. Witch hunts, speculation based on nothing more than conjecture (or stories based on "my girlfriend's hairdresser heard from the wife of ...."), personal vendettas masquerading as "for the good of the club" etc. etc. are not what I (for one) would consider "scrutiny".

While I am all for defending the club against the vindictive outside interests, I think that the club needs some serious scrutiny about its behaviours from us.

If there's one thing this is not about it's the idea of sparing the club and its officials from scrutiny for their actions. You're quite right in pointing out that a strong club needs to be able to respond in those circumstances but, in this case (because of the legal ramifications) it can't even do that at this point in time.

However, the core of what this is about is the practice of engaging in a McCarthyist witch hunt against one AFL club and its officials using ad hominem attacks based on rumour and innuendo, without proof and with the aim of trashing the club's brand and affecting people's livelihoods. To extend this to the giving of succor and legitimacy to the perpetrator of those attacks is what I find totally unacceptable but it should be noted that nobody (as far as I'm aware) has been prevented from expressing that point of view on this thread.

If anyone needs further reminding of the proposition I put in my previous post, I commend them to view last week's edition on catch up TV of ABC's Offsiders programme (11/11/12) which featured Wilson as a panellist. The others were Roy Masters and Francis Leach and they were as one in their groupthink in condemning Melbourne as being guilty without charge of ... er, alleged "match fixing". It's no longer called "tanking" or "experimentation", no other AFL club was mentioned. Needless to say, no real evidence was presented but it never is when you're putting on a show trial.

Goebells and Joe McCarthy would have been proud.

If anyone needs further reminding of the proposition I put in my previous post, I commend them to view last week's edition on catch up TV of ABC's Offsiders programme (11/11/12) which featured Wilson as a panellist. The others were Roy Masters and Francis Leach and they were as one in their groupthink in condemning Melbourne as being guilty without charge of ... er, alleged "match fixing". It's no longer called "tanking" or "experimentation", no other AFL club was mentioned. Needless to say, no real evidence was presented but it never is when you're putting on a show trial.

Goebells and Joe McCarthy would have been proud.

Fan would have been proud of them.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

Sounds all too familiar : "he is a misogynist, he is a misogynist, he is a misogynist" with all the 'evidence' that Caro has produced in her 'case' against us.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

Very heavy stuff monoccular for 8.11 on sunday morning!

Very true though.

God we must have boring lives mate to be on here.

We should both get a life

Fan would have been proud of them.

So you preach to us about unity and your abhorrence of those who stray from the party line but can't help but make a series of cheap shots when the poster in question has made it clear they've walked away. Nice work.

News Flash Melbourne fans dismayed

After a whole preseason of exaustive investigations MELBOURNE were NOT TANKING

I'll have a go.

1. Interview, re interview, talk to as many people as possible, make it evident that the 'investigation' is extremely thorough and robust.

2. Make a statement that says that the evidence suggests that the MFC did not maximise their chances of winning more games than they did there is no definitive evidence that they deliberately conspired to lose - ie tanking. The statement will say something along the lines of 'however it is of great concern that a senior FD employee would make comments to a group that suggested, even in jest, that the club did not want to win any more games. Further there were some unusual positional moves and choices to bench players that appear suspect and indeed were questioned by many in the media at the time. This is not a good look but again they do not represent evidence of tanking, nor can evidence of systematic tanking be found'

3. Finalise the exit strategy with something like: 'Over a period of some years questioned have been raised about a number of scenarios and actions by clubs, We do not believe tanking - deliberately fixing games - has occurred, however we are very concerned about the perception that it is occuring. Consequently we are going to engage a panel of experts to review how we can address this perception issue. This might involve changing the rules to make it clearer what we regard to be unacceptable, when potentially suspect action occur (for example who may derive a benefit from finishing last choosing to rest most of it decent players) we will interview the club immediately and seek an explanation and finally looking at the draft system and exploring options such as a lottery to reduce the reward for finishing last.'

Seems completely plausible to me

Everybody gets a slap but no real penalty Excellent scenario

So you preach to us about unity and your abhorrence of those who stray from the party line but can't help but make a series of cheap shots when the poster in question has made it clear they've walked away. Nice work.

One quote is not a series; not that I'm aware of anyway, unless you are referring to my response to another poster TimD. Perhaps you should look at all the posts after he signed off and comment on them, not mine.

Plus your post makes absolutely no sense and seems pointless.

I'll have a go.

1. Interview, re interview, talk to as many people as possible, make it evident that the 'investigation' is extremely thorough and robust.

2. Make a statement that says that the evidence suggests that the MFC did not maximise their chances of winning more games than they did there is no definitive evidence that they deliberately conspired to lose - ie tanking. The statement will say something along the lines of 'however it is of great concern that a senior FD employee would make comments to a group that suggested, even in jest, that the club did not want to win any more games. Further there were some unusual positional moves and choices to bench players that appear suspect and indeed were questioned by many in the media at the time. This is not a good look but again they do not represent evidence of tanking, nor can evidence of systematic tanking be found'

3. Finalise the exit strategy with something like: 'Over a period of some years questioned have been raised about a number of scenarios and actions by clubs, We do not believe tanking - deliberately fixing games - has occurred, however we are very concerned about the perception that it is occuring. Consequently we are going to engage a panel of experts to review how we can address this perception issue. This might involve changing the rules to make it clearer what we regard to be unacceptable, when potentially suspect action occur (for example who may derive a benefit from finishing last choosing to rest most of it decent players) we will interview the club immediately and seek an explanation and finally looking at the draft system and exploring options such as a lottery to reduce the reward for finishing last.'

As jackaub says - I can see it happening.

But the AFL doesn't seem to keen to slap themselves over the PP and that is what this would hinge on.

I can see them clearly laying suspicion at our feet, tell the world that evidence cannot be found, and the investigation is closed.

I would really dislike this scenario.

I would like AA and a 'Panel of Experts' © to get up in a long presser and explain to the noobs out there what 'bottoming out' is and explain why misguided people who don't know footy might be outraged.

Because even with a lottery or any other mechanism these words hold true for all of competitive sports for the rest of time:

Teams in losing seasons will protect players, play youth, and experiment.