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.

Wrong.

As yet Melbourne has not been charged with an offence and is not required to respond to anything.

Wrong.

As yet Melbourne has not been charged with an offence and is not required to respond to anything.

I thought Judge Wilson had charged us, found us guilty on all counts (and more) and sentenced us

The media do run the justice system don't they? I'm confused.

I thought Judge Wilson had charged us, found us guilty on all counts (and more) and sentenced us

The media do run the justice system don't they? I'm confused.

lol

Yeah, like being asked for our input in an article written by someone biased against our club and its CEO is being 'given the chance to reply.'

I thought Judge Wilson had charged us, found us guilty on all counts (and more) and sentenced us

The media do run the justice system don't they? I'm confused.

Surely this is not a new feeling dc?

Surely this is not a new feeling dc?

too true od......it seems to be a chronic condition lately

The AFL has found fresh evidence of Melbourne tanking as late as 2011.

Secret photos of senior Melbourne staff liaising with camouflaged US military personnel in March 2011 close to the entrance to the hidden Burnley tunnel have emerged.

It is understood discussions included sharing the strategies used in tanking manoeuvres. It is also understood discussions were held around how to ensure injured personnel did not take to the field of battle.

In what is a disgusting series of events Cameron Schwab must be sacked as he can be clearly seen as the driver of the van in one of the photos.

http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

The AFL has found fresh evidence of Melbourne tanking as late as 2011.

Secret photos of senior Melbourne staff liaising with camouflaged US military personnel in March 2011 close to the entrance to the hidden Burnley tunnel have emerged.

It is understood discussions included sharing the strategies used in tanking manoeuvres. It is also understood discussions were held around how to ensure injured personnel did not take to the field of battle.

In what is a disgusting series of events Cameron Schwab must be sacked as he can be clearly seen as the driver of the van in one of the photos.

http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

Oh, I thought this was evidence of intimidation tactics employed by Haddad and Clothier in their interview process....

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.

If you read it, you'll see that wasn't what I said. It is the leaking of information from the investigation, and consequent media trial and public pronouncements as if fact, that raise natural justice concerns. Legally you cannot conduct an unbiased investigation in this way.

I would presume that privately, MFC are aware of the issues under investigation and of the potential seriousness of the consequences, which is proper. Obviously too, if the investigation leads to any adverse findings, MFC will be given fair opportunity to present their case and answer any adverse decisions.

The media could never provide such commentary on any criminal case before the courts (or criminal investigation before getting to court). It would be contempt.

Edited November 22, 201212 yr by heartbeatstrue

If you read it, you'll see that wasn't what I said. It is the leaking of information from the investigation, and consequent media trial and public pronouncements as if fact, that raise natural justice concerns. Legally you cannot conduct an unbiased investigation in this way.

I would presume that privately, MFC are aware of the issues under investigation and of the potential seriousness of the consequences, which is proper. Obviously too, if the investigation leads to any adverse findings, MFC will be given fair opportunity to present their case and answer any adverse decisions.

The media could never provide such commentary on any criminal case before the courts (or criminal investigation before getting to court). It would be contempt.

And this is the essence of the entire issue. One can hypothesise as much as one likes, but it does not change the facts as so cogently put by HBT.

Wrong.

As yet Melbourne has not been charged with an offence and is not required to respond to anything.

Sorry posting too quickly. They have been offered the chance to respond to the media. As they have chosen not to they are printing what they like with impunity.

The contents of this post have been removed at the request of Pegasus. Subsequent posts which refer to this post have been hidden from view - Whispering Jack

From: C Schwab

To: Dean Bailey

CC: CC

Please note I want you to tank games this year so we can get a priority pick in the draft.

This email will self destruct in 30 seconds.

I know that with our side, this won't be mission impossible.

I so often think that this whole thing revolves around Chris Connolly's sense of humour. I believe it is rather wicked and often not politically correct, but it has a great sense of naughtiness about it, which I enjoy.

Go back to 2009 when Collingwood had moved into their Lexus Centre. We were in a tin shed (supposedly) and had a platinum sponsor in Volvo. It was a parody Volvo = Vault. Now google Volvo vault. Interesting.

Let's get this thread back on the right track and start from where it began:

The promo for Episode 24 of On The Couch read like this:

Episode 24: ... and Mike takes aim at the "irrelevant" Demons.

.

When they were discussing Melbourne, it was Roos who used the words, "the worst thing you could say about Melbourne is that they're an irrelevant team".

The entire discussion was a set up. Brock McLean was led right into the middle of the controversy by Sheahan. How is it that the panelists looked surprised in view of the contents of the promo?

If if was a set up, who put them up to it and why?

Who has been feeding stories to the media and why?

What's their agenda?

Let's get this thread back on the right track and start from where it began:

The promo for Episode 24 of On The Couch read like this:

.

When they were discussing Melbourne, it was Roos who used the words, "the worst thing you could say about Melbourne is that they're an irrelevant team".

The entire discussion was a set up. Brock McLean was led right into the middle of the controversy by Sheahan. How is it that the panelists looked surprised in view of the contents of the promo?

If if was a set up, who put them up to it and why?

Who has been feeding stories to the media and why?

What's their agenda?

I don't think the McLean interview was a "set-up."

In fact, I believe Brock was a last minute substitute for a more illustrious(and interesting) Carlton player who found he was unable to attend, and notified the organisers late.The question that led to the "tanking "remarks was most likely a spur of the moment discussion.

I don't think the McLean interview was a "set-up."

In fact, I believe Brock was a last minute substitute for a more illustrious(and interesting) Carlton player who found he was unable to attend, and notified the organisers late.The question that led to the "tanking "remarks was most likely a spur of the moment discussion.

Agree with that. If it was a "set up" , it would have been strongly promoted beforehand - and a few follow-up programs would have been in the pipeline.

Its been a third party journo ( read Wilson plus an appropriate adjective) who has tried to get mileage out of it.

After all this is over and we're completely cleared of any wrong doing there should be no recriminations - none .

CC and CS have had their names muddied through the media yet as far as I can see, neither of them have done anything wrong . We should stand by them after this is over . Any immediate change to either of their positions could easily be perceived as a sign of weakness and/or an admission of guilt .

All of this stuff 'extolled' by Caro and her cohorts is flimsy and has no foundation . Just like hundreds of other sporting teams in all sorts of sports, our club simply went into a mode of planning for future seasons . When this 'story' started to gain legs, GWS were in that same mode (planning for future seasons) . Yet no finger pointing .

This is an agenda driven story (Wilson vs Schwab) and our club has been used as a kind of conduit . Words have been twisted and misinterpreted to suit needs . Wilson's articles re this story could best be described as one big 'Gossip Column' after another .

Certain phrases come in and out of the way we speak . One of them "They've started planning for next year" used to be used all the time (back in the day) . You start calling it something else and suddenly it has sinister connotations .

According to KB this morning Paul Roos instruction to McVeigh to go forward but don't kick a goal was "tongue in cheek", I guess the same defence could be mounted by CC given his renowned sense of humour.

Seems Wilson's case against us is not based on any solid evidence.

According to KB this morning Paul Roos instruction to McVeigh to go forward but don't kick a goal was "tongue in cheek", I guess the same defence could be mounted by CC given his renowned sense of humour.

Seems Wilson's case against us is not based on any solid evidence.

Agree 100% heard that as well this morning.

Wilson just might be a little concerned because I do not expect the MFC Legal Team to forget anything.

Agree with that. If it was a "set up" , it would have been strongly promoted beforehand - and a few follow-up programs would have been in the pipeline.

Its been a third party journo ( read Wilson plus an appropriate adjective) who has tried to get mileage out of it.

The last thing they would have done if it was a set up was to promote it beforehand. It had to look spontaneous and even with a late call up for Brock, this could have been done over lunch on the same day.

Interesting comments today from Neeld press conference when asked about the tanking investigation.

Gave CW a bit of a slap.

The last thing they would have done if it was a set up was to promote it beforehand. It had to look spontaneous and even with a late call up for Brock, this could have been done over lunch on the same day.

A quick 10 minute pep talk could have easily set up the show.

New guest new questions...The first "why did you leave Melbourne?"....The rest takes care of itself.

I don't think the McLean interview was a "set-up."

In fact, I believe Brock was a last minute substitute for a more illustrious(and interesting) Carlton player who found he was unable to attend, and notified the organisers late.The question that led to the "tanking "remarks was most likely a spur of the moment discussion.

I think it was a set up for sure and have said so previously. They've only been spinning out the Brock was a sub stuff recently, funny about that. There was no mention of it at all at the time or in the weeks after, it seems they are covering themselves.

Interesting comments today from Neeld press conference today when asked about the tanking investigation.

Gave CW a bit of a slap.

really..How interesting. Maybe the Beaks have given the club the green light.

The cone of silence is lifting...?

The contents of this post have been removed at the request of Pegasus. Subsequent posts which refer to this post have been hidden from view - Whispering Jack

WOW!

We all have days when DL posters seem to have a contrary view but Pegasus, your posts on other topics show you are a real demon fan so hope you continue posting.