Demons found guilty, fined

"It was that meeting which appears to have provided the best and most damaging evidence of what former Demon Brock McLean declared last year ''Blind Freddie'' could see. That Melbourne had deliberately lost games of football."

Wait, what?

You could drive a tank through this totally expected self-serving drivel but what the heck?

The AFL decided we did not tank - she never would have guessed that if we were going to be guilty of anything, it would be of employing two blokes for doing something so totally bizarre that it rendered the AFL's credibility barely a notch above hers.

Now that it's done and dusted, whatever Wilson writes is beyond irrelevance - it's delusional.

Whilst everyother journalist, including many at her own club acknowledge that Melbourne were found not guilty, but she has to say "Demons found guilty, fined"... always needs to get the last word in, at the cost of what little dignity and credibility she has left - if you open up the dictionary and look up Hubris you'll find her mug shot.

Caroline Wilson I dislike you so much that if you needed some poo change for your parking - I wouldnt give you any. Your mother is a hampster, and your father smells like elderberries.

With that great weight off my chest I'm done, opening a beer, and can't wait to put this crap behind us!

It's great. I'm getting off on her hate. The more she hates the more she's not getting what she wants.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

I'm tired of Wilson using sentences like these:

• "Both Connolly and Bailey are the scapegoats of something the AFL privately believes was sanctioned by others."
• "The Demons also fought for Cameron Schwab not to be charged and in the end McLachlan admitted there was not sufficient evidence to do so despite some strong opinion to the contrary."

Exactly who is "the AFL" that "privately believes" something? Just who is the "some" that has the "strong opinion to the contrary"? Demetriou? McLachlan? Fitzpatrick? The cleaner?

They're unidentified, faceless sources, with more "unofficial" opinions and "private" beliefs. Wilson is trying to save face now by putting up more nameless sources that she knows (and therefore we don't). You can't challenge these "opinionated" sources because they're like ghosts. Trying to Identify the "private" individuals they refer to is like trying to herd cats.

I'm tired of Wilson using sentences like these:

"Both Connolly and Bailey are the scapegoats of something the AFL privately believes was sanctioned by others."

Actually, it was sanctioned by the AFL.

I now intend to devote more time to examination of the contribution made by 'the first woman of football'. My studies this evening kick off with a very enlightening discussion on FS sometime during 2004...http://www.crikey.com.au/2004/07/23/caroline-wilson-savaged-by-footy-show-heavies/

She tanked

Oh Irony, kero should be good at Irony.

then again, maybe not. shed never be home. boom boom.

But seriously, she did tank,, her own investigation.... either that or she just plain crap at jounalism. croocd or in epticled.

Imagine a real investigative Journo only doing one sixth of the job.... lucky she's not teaching young trainees the way to do it. the poor culture would be horrendous.

Its about time the footy got a real Journpo to show the way its done.

EmmaQ, & Whately, your time is nye to take the leadership mantle, before the wheels completely fall off.

I now intend to devote more time to examination of the contribution made by 'the first woman of football'. My studies this evening kick off with a very enlightening discussion on FS sometime during 2004...http://www.crikey.com.au/2004/07/23/caroline-wilson-savaged-by-footy-show-heavies/

I intend to avoid visiting the age .com.au from now on.. I'll find other avenues.

whatever it takes to get decency back into reporting.

Edited February 20, 201312 yr by dee-luded

She strikes me as an anti intellectual bogon, which unfortunately is probably reflective of most of her readership base.

No doubt, she's therefore got wide readership base in this country.

Schwab was clearly in CW's sights and Caro, aided and abetted by media and her our own sources have been waging a losing battle to cause embarrassment.

It's been going on for yonks

Ok so we are not guilty of tanking and Caro publishes an article saying we are found guilty and outright states we tanked. I think a lawsuit in the vicinity of, say, $500k would be reasonable for the financial and brand damage her unfounded drivel has caused.

On current performance we'd be too weak to sue her.

On current performance we'd be too weak to sue her.

Ok so we are not guilty of tanking and Caro publishes an article saying we are found guilty and outright states we tanked. I think a lawsuit in the vicinity of, say, $500k would be reasonable for the financial and brand damage her unfounded drivel has caused.

Reckon someone at the Age might be a bit worried too -

Title to the article changed -

Demons cleared, guilty, fined

Disgraced themselves again ...

Edited February 19, 201312 yr by Nark Meeld

On current performance we'd be too weak to sue her.

What more do you want .A knock em down brawl in court against a corporation (AFL) with billions in cashflow ?

Are you a petulant bogan girlfriend that urges your bloke into fights?

The outcome was not weak .We made the AFL grovel you twit .

As for suing her ,what is the point again of taking on Fairfax (with Australia's richest and most litigious woman at the helm).

Some battles you "lose" so the war can be won .

Read the texts of Sun Tzu.

You will learn something.

I'm tired of Wilson using sentences like these:

• "Both Connolly and Bailey are the scapegoats of something the AFL privately believes was sanctioned by others."
• "The Demons also fought for Cameron Schwab not to be charged and in the end McLachlan admitted there was not sufficient evidence to do so despite some strong opinion to the contrary."

Exactly who is "the AFL" that "privately believes" something? Just who is the "some" that has the "strong opinion to the contrary"? Demetriou? McLachlan? Fitzpatrick? The cleaner?

They're unidentified, faceless sources, with more "unofficial" opinions and "private" beliefs. Wilson is trying to save face now by putting up more nameless sources that she knows (and therefore we don't). You can't challenge these "opinionated" sources because they're like ghosts. Trying to Identify the "private" individuals they refer to is like trying to herd cats.

What happened to 'small, semantical mistakes,' maurie?

What happened to 'small, semantical mistakes,' maurie?

Like mis-labelling 'the vault'? Nothing. She still made them. They were small. And semantic.

Like mis-labelling 'the vault'? Nothing. She still made them. They were small. And semantic.

No they were not.

All the perception that people are so apoplectic about now was defined by Wilson illustrating a picture of a conspiratorial club.

You can make all the claims of semantics you want to but her lies and mistruths in Nov 2012 were more damaging than any desperate attempts to spin the ruling that she is doing now.

Our love of AFL and the 24/7 reporting of it leads to these sorts of

TV now has some of these newspaper experts or print media as special panel members: -

Mark Robinson - took over from Mike Sheahan and battles for credibility. Tries to sensationalise everything on tv with an irritating voice;

Caroline Wilson - biased towards certain clubs, does not accept criticism well, afl's first lady - a stretch there;

Mark Stevens - slow monotone talker that has been put in the shadows by Barrett;

Damien Barrett - nothing to say but good head for newspaper;

Jay Clark - appears on after the game with Luke Darcy and various channel 10 celebrities.

I liked the old days when the all footy was called by television commentators including the footy news stories, now we have these flogs that have to be involved in every type of media.

Give me Gerard Whateley any day!

Our love of AFL and the 24/7 reporting of it leads to these sorts of

TV now has some of these newspaper experts or print media as special panel members: -

Mark Robinson - took over from Mike Sheahan and battles for credibility. Tries to sensationalise everything on tv with an irritating voice;

Caroline Wilson - biased towards certain clubs, does not accept criticism well, afl's first lady - a stretch there;

Mark Stevens - slow monotone talker that has been put in the shadows by Barrett;

Damien Barrett - nothing to say but good head for newspaper;

Jay Clark - appears on after the game with Luke Darcy and various channel 10 celebrities.

I liked the old days when the all footy was called by television commentators including the footy news stories, now we have these flogs that have to be involved in every type of media.

Give me Gerard Whateley any day!

big discussion on bomberblitz about Whately after he gave McVeigh a serve over comments re Reimers.

lot of discussion on how he has become "tabloid" since leaving abc and joining the Hun

I know they are obviously bias about the press at the moment but will be interesting to see if Whately changes from being a reasonable, balanced and not too emotional journo, under the pressure of working tabloid

big discussion on bomberblitz about Whately after he gave McVeigh a serve over comments re Reimers.

lot of discussion on how he has become "tabloid" since leaving abc and joining the Hun

I know they are obviously bias about the press at the moment but will be interesting to see if Whately changes from being a reasonable, balanced and not too emotional journo, under the pressure of working tabloid

I think he likes being the juxtaposition, DC.

Watching him on AFL360 last night next to a live ape lifts his standing immensely without a word said.

...

Give me Gerard Whateley any day!

Yes, he has a good nose for a story.

Yes, he has a good nose for a story.

A very good nose 'Ben', nice piece of levity.

I'm tired of Wilson using sentences like these:

• "Both Connolly and Bailey are the scapegoats of something the AFL privately believes was sanctioned by others."
• "The Demons also fought for Cameron Schwab not to be charged and in the end McLachlan admitted there was not sufficient evidence to do so despite some strong opinion to the contrary."

Exactly who is "the AFL" that "privately believes" something? Just who is the "some" that has the "strong opinion to the contrary"? Demetriou? McLachlan? Fitzpatrick? The cleaner?

They're unidentified, faceless sources, with more "unofficial" opinions and "private" beliefs. Wilson is trying to save face now by putting up more nameless sources that she knows (and therefore we don't). You can't challenge these "opinionated" sources because they're like ghosts. Trying to Identify the "private" individuals they refer to is like trying to herd cats.

My source tells me she is a harpie.

BTW there was nothing of any relevance about CS in the report, hence he wasn't even mentioned by the AFL. Her revenge filled diatribes, against CS have been nothing short of scandalous and probably defamatory.

Like mis-labelling 'the vault'? Nothing. She still made them. They were small. And semantic.

Also today the "vault" meeting has gone from a regular recruiting meeting, to a "secret" one. The reporting is just disgusting. Like the Adelaide hack who said yesterday we were found guilty of tanking.

We should let our pre schoolers do the job, they couldn't be worse.