When this is over and we are found to have done nothing wrong, do we get a guarantee from the AFL that it's over?

Or do we have to go through this every time some idiot former player decides to put his two bob's worth in?

im suspecting that after this theyll stamp the file file 'case closed-never to be reopened'

Demetriou's starting position is that there was no tanking. The AFL can't afford for there to have been any tanking. The investigation has to take a long time because what they are trying to establish absolutely is that there is no evidence that tanking happened. And, importantly, being seen to have established the lack of any evidence. That will close the file, after which you can bet there will be some clearly worded advice to players who imagine themselves achieving media fame at the expense of the AFL's repute.

If there was smoke coming out of a barrel anywhere, the fact would surely have been leaked by now.

Surely admissions of players in different positions and experimentation cannot in itself be proof of deliberately losing matches. This practise has been going on for my 50 years of watching football particularly with lower clubs , and never an eyebrow even being raised. this has only become an issue through the AFL creating a priority pick, the act itself has never been an issue. Surely they must need more than that to go us for anything?

Totally agree.

If the priority pick was still in play, we would've been accused of tanking in 2012. Most of our backs played in the forward line in 2012 and Dunn, previously a forward, became a half back flanker.

Watts, recruited as a key forward, is now a permanent fixture in our backline.

We lost the first 9 games straight.

Many of our senior players were dumped from the leadership group, and the B&F winner from the year before couldn't find the ball. He reckons he was played in the 'wrong role'.

Clearly we tanked. Surely that's what the evidence suggests.

But heh, no one cares - because there's no priority pick anymore.

When this is over and we are found to have done nothing wrong, do we get a guarantee from the AFL that it's over?

Or do we have to go through this every time some idiot former player decides to put his two bob's worth in?

We don't have too many as thick as McLean!

Now that these clown investigators have the MFC computers, if there's ever any hint that ANYTHING of a private or confidential nature has been leaked to the unscrupulous gossip-mongerer Wilson, then Melb should take them all to the cleaners.

Imagine the damage if some of our info gets into the hands of other clubs like Richmond for instance.

We don't have too many as thick as McLean!

Now that these clown investigators have the MFC computers, if there's ever any hint that ANYTHING of a private or confidential nature has been leaked to the unscrupulous gossip-mongerer Wilson, then Melb should take them all to the cleaners.

Imagine the damage if some of our info gets into the hands of other clubs like Richmond for instance.

You mean they might beat us by a bigger margin in 2013!

Oh no sue I say

Heartbeatstrue sorry for the smart arse above but like what?

Not sure what anyone could learn from the MFC that would be a danger at this point.

If we were in the top four teams not the bottom three it might be a problem perhaps

If they really have our computers I think we have more to worry about than tanking - its the finding of the happy snaps from 30 years of end of season footy trip that really worries me ( Nathan Carroll - I would start checking on the statute of limitations if I was you and Brock - if they find your photos it will be karma biting you on the arse)

There are two articles in today's Age about Richmond, one by Wilson about Trent Cotchin and the other by Michael Gleeson about Tiger boss Gary March wanting to change the AFL draw.

Inexplicably, neither article makes even passing mention of comments by then coach Terry Wallace of how Richmond tanked its last game of 2007 in order to secure the draft pick it used to get Corchin.

Disgraceful journalism and an obvious cover up by the Age.

They were diversion articles because the HS was running the Connors and Martin story. Cotchin wants to keep his number written in the most glowing terms...wow what a story...Not one reference to the ongoing Martin drama which is the biggest news.

And had throw in a line about their 3m profit...which includes their fighting fund donations. I could be wrong but we seperate out debt demolition donations when reporting ours?

Totally agree.

If the priority pick was still in play, we would've been accused of tanking in 2012. Most of our backs played in the forward line in 2012 and Dunn, previously a forward, became a half back flanker.

Watts, recruited as a key forward, is now a permanent fixture in our backline.

We lost the first 9 games straight.

Many of our senior players were dumped from the leadership group, and the B&F winner from the year before couldn't find the ball. He reckons he was played in the 'wrong role'.

Clearly we tanked. Surely that's what the evidence suggests.

But heh, no one cares - because there's no priority pick anymore.

Exactly!

Good post, important line of argument.

You mean they might beat us by a bigger margin in 2013!

Oh no sue I say

Heartbeatstrue sorry for the smart arse above but like what?

Not sure what anyone could learn from the MFC that would be a danger at this point.

If we were in the top four teams not the bottom three it might be a problem perhaps

That's OK, OD!

Things like list management, player development, salary and financial issues. With free agency, inside knowledge is getting more valuable. I dunno, I'd like to think there's the odd game plan lurking somewhere...

Best wishes and roll on actual footy!

And had throw in a line about their 3m profit...which includes their fighting fund donations. I could be wrong but we seperate out debt demolition donations when reporting ours?

MFC were required under accounting rules to treat and disclose the debt demolition donations as income that impacts the bottom line profit. Its sensible to analyse the profit to determine what is sourced from normal operations and what comes from extraordinary or one off sources.

The same applies to RFC and all other Clubs.

That's OK, OD!

Things like list management, player development, salary and financial issues. With free agency, inside knowledge is getting more valuable. I dunno, I'd like to think there's the odd game plan lurking somewhere...

Best wishes and roll on actual footy!

With one exception, That makes me another 4 months older.

MFC were required under accounting rules to treat and disclose the debt demolition donations as income that impacts the bottom line profit. Its sensible to analyse the profit to determine what is sourced from normal operations and what comes from extraordinary or one off sources.

The same applies to RFC and all other Clubs.

I agree we did the right thing. The tigers on the other hand are putting spin on it led by CW.

They were diversion articles because the HS was running the Connors and Martin story. Cotchin wants to keep his number written in the most glowing terms...wow what a story...Not one reference to the ongoing Martin drama which is the biggest news.

And had throw in a line about their 3m profit...which includes their fighting fund donations. I could be wrong but we seperate out debt demolition donations when reporting ours?

What about the inclusion of how Richardson picked Richmond over Melbourne because he had been offered Jack Dyers number. Just turn the dagger a little more Caro. Am I starting to get paranoid or what.

At school we've all been studying ethics and it has partly covered the Universal declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and i had a look over it today and noticed a part of it that CW may be out of line with!

Article 11: You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you're guilty. If you are accused to a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.

imo she is out of line with this one, the first and last sentence anyway.

What about the inclusion of how Richardson picked Richmond over Melbourne because he had been offered Jack Dyers number. Just turn the dagger a little more Caro. Am I starting to get paranoid or what.

How does he get to pick? He was in the draft 1992. In fact he agreed to be a father/son selection

How does he get to pick? He was in the draft 1992. In fact he agreed to be a father/son selection

I quote" According to Richardson, ......., it was the lure of Dyer's number that led to him choosing Richmond over Melbourne in 1964"

"Melbourne had offered me an MCC Membership which was a big thing but it was Jack's number that got me over the line to Richmond."

Wrong Richo. Do you think we offered a MCC Membership to Dawsey to get him over the line. No, no there were no outside incentives not like all the extra cardboard boxes that Visy deliver to the Carlton players.

I quote" According to Richardson, ......., it was the lure of Dyer's number that led to him choosing Richmond over Melbourne in 1964"

"Melbourne had offered me an MCC Membership which was a big thing but it was Jack's number that got me over the line to Richmond."

Wrong Richo. Do you think we offered a MCC Membership to Dawsey to get him over the line. No, no there were no outside incentives not like all the extra cardboard boxes that Visy deliver to the Carlton players.

Think I'm confused. 1964? Is that referring to Alan Richardson, Matthew's father?

Think I'm confused. 1964? Is that referring to Alan Richardson, Matthew's father?

Has to be Bull!

Matthew would not have existed in 1964.

Even I was young then

Barry

At school we've all been studying ethics and it has partly covered the Universal declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and i had a look over it today and noticed a part of it that CW may be out of line with!

Article 11: You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you're guilty. If you are accused to a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.

imo she is out of line with this one, the first and last sentence anyway.

You Dee Enthusiast ... you really are a ... young Dee enthusiast.

Keep it up!

At school we've all been studying ethics and it has partly covered the Universal declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and i had a look over it today and noticed a part of it that CW may be out of line with!

Article 11: You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you're guilty. If you are accused to a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.

imo she is out of line with this one, the first and last sentence anyway.

Great thinking, yde. Throw the UN book at her, definitely.

The investigation with its widespread press reporting and assumptions of guilt also breaches natural justice, do you agree?

Here's a bit on natural justice from Wikipedia:

The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias.

The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case.

Thinking of studying law? Good luck with the exams.

At school we've all been studying ethics and it has partly covered the Universal declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and i had a look over it today and noticed a part of it that CW may be out of line with!

Article 11: You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you're guilty. If you are accused to a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.

imo she is out of line with this one, the first and last sentence anyway.

Good call Mate. I reckon you should have a crack at writing to the Age with that point

Great thinking, yde. Throw the UN book at her, definitely.

The investigation with its widespread press reporting and assumptions of guilt also breaches natural justice, do you agree?

Here's a bit on natural justice from Wikipedia:

The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias.

The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case.

Thinking of studying law? Good luck with the exams.

Agree with you there hbt. innocent until proven guilty(which we're not), with CW it seems to be the other way around!

As for studying law, it isn't really my forte, more interested in physio and sports medicine. And thanks re exams, I just finished them today

Good call Mate. I reckon you should have a crack at writing to the Age with that point

Never really considered it, worth a shot though

I quote" According to Richardson, ......., it was the lure of Dyer's number that led to him choosing Richmond over Melbourne in 1964"

"Melbourne had offered me an MCC Membership which was a big thing . . ."

Under the table dealings hey? Looks like the makings of Caro's next story to me.

Great thinking, yde. Throw the UN book at her, definitely.

The investigation with its widespread press reporting and assumptions of guilt also breaches natural justice, do you agree?

Here's a bit on natural justice from Wikipedia:

The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias.

The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case.

Thinking of studying law? Good luck with the exams.

Melbourne have been offered the chance to respond and have chosen not to at this point. So its not correct to say we haven't been given a right of reply.