Flush them out...it is the only way to move forward.

Indeed. Expose them, shame them, pillory them and in no uncertain words tell them to well and truly [censored] OFF !! Never welcome back at Melbourne...ever. They are a cancer and cancers need to be eradicated.

Let's not get too carried away with this sort of silly stuff about Ms. Wilson. The subject of this thread is quite serious and the fact that the tanking enquiry is over does not mean its the end of the vendetta against the club and its current board and administration. There's a lot more to come out of this and in particular the connection between her, those who snitched to the tanking enquiry and the sources of her "vault" story and other news stories that broke in 2011 and 2012 about our club.

Stay tuned.

Dying to have my suspicions confirmed Jack.

aw come on fair go shes not that cute , !

...... hahaha, & this picture was whispered to be shot thru a beer goggle lens with harsh filter.

allowing for the dim lighting & speed of the broom, the shutter speed had to be fairly quick, otherwise the filter may have cracked.

Dying to have my suspicions confirmed Jack.

He did say "stay tuned".

Let's not get too carried away with this sort of silly stuff about Ms. Wilson. The subject of this thread is quite serious and the fact that the tanking enquiry is over does not mean its the end of the vendetta against the club and its current board and administration. There's a lot more to come out of this and in particular the connection between her, those who snitched to the tanking enquiry and the sources of her "vault" story and other news stories that broke in 2011 and 2012 about our club.

Stay tuned.

agreed Jack, & the broom shouldn't be discounted, as its also old, & you know what a new broom does.

Well I look forward to hearing about it BUT not if we are going to spend the next two years mired in crap and in-fighting.

We need to move on as a club and focus on winning games of footy.

Nope, I don't agree.

If we've got worms, we need to know now, find out what type & where, & take the appropriate remedy.

Otherwise these worms will come back to cause disease when we least need it.

Let's not get too carried away with this sort of silly stuff about Ms. Wilson. The subject of this thread is quite serious and the fact that the tanking enquiry is over does not mean its the end of the vendetta against the club and its current board and administration. There's a lot more to come out of this and in particular the connection between her, those who snitched to the tanking enquiry and the sources of her "vault" story and other news stories that broke in 2011 and 2012 about our club.

Stay tuned.

My major frustration with this whole situation is the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club - rifts that jimma suppossedly eradicated. Now, Hazy has come on and launched into people and has been roundly criticised for fomenting trouble and not backing up what he says.

Right now you'd be lined up as doing exactly the same thing. You are implying a lot and stating nothing and it is EXACTLY what Hazy does.

There is no way I can pick between (a) people who know stuff and say nothing; (b) people who know stuff and say a little; © people who know nothing and spout; (d) people who know a lot and express it poorly. Right now what you are saying is in no way more believable than the prognostic nonsense of WYL, RR, Dr. Who, Hazy, ADC etc. It is no more reasonable than Robbie's pathetic character-smearing of FanBob - you are just keeping a smarter distance. What you are saying is that people associated closely with the club - current and past - are undermining it. Well, I'd think it is reasonable to see you make that crucial difference between yourself and that pack by backing up your claims. One of the outrageous aspects of the tanking issue was investigating us and not everyone else. So, now it would be only fair to apply the same standard to all, wouldn't you agree?

My major frustration with this whole situation is the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club - rifts that jimma suppossedly eradicated. Now, Hazy has come on and launched into people and has been roundly criticised for fomenting trouble and not backing up what he says.

Right now you'd be lined up as doing exactly the same thing. You are implying a lot and stating nothing and it is EXACTLY what Hazy does.

There is no way I can pick between (a) people who know stuff and say nothing; (b) people who know stuff and say a little; © people who know nothing and spout; (d) people who know a lot and express it poorly. Right now what you are saying is in no way more believable than the prognostic nonsense of WYL, RR, Dr. Who, Hazy, ADC etc. It is no more reasonable than Robbie's pathetic character-smearing of FanBob - you are just keeping a smarter distance. What you are saying is that people associated closely with the club - current and past - are undermining it. Well, I'd think it is reasonable to see you make that crucial difference between yourself and that pack by backing up your claims. One of the outrageous aspects of the tanking issue was investigating us and not everyone else. So, now it would be only fair to apply the same standard to all, wouldn't you agree?

Big words there Mr. Tim...Big words indeed.

My major frustration with this whole situation is the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club - rifts that jimma suppossedly eradicated. Now, Hazy has come on and launched into people and has been roundly criticised for fomenting trouble and not backing up what he says.

Right now you'd be lined up as doing exactly the same thing. You are implying a lot and stating nothing and it is EXACTLY what Hazy does.

There is no way I can pick between (a) people who know stuff and say nothing; (b) people who know stuff and say a little; © people who know nothing and spout; (d) people who know a lot and express it poorly. Right now what you are saying is in no way more believable than the prognostic nonsense of WYL, RR, Dr. Who, Hazy, ADC etc. It is no more reasonable than Robbie's pathetic character-smearing of FanBob - you are just keeping a smarter distance. What you are saying is that people associated closely with the club - current and past - are undermining it. Well, I'd think it is reasonable to see you make that crucial difference between yourself and that pack by backing up your claims. One of the outrageous aspects of the tanking issue was investigating us and not everyone else. So, now it would be only fair to apply the same standard to all, wouldn't you agree?

He did say "stay tuned".

My major frustration with this whole situation is the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club - rifts that jimma suppossedly eradicated. Now, Hazy has come on and launched into people and has been roundly criticised for fomenting trouble and not backing up what he says.

Right now you'd be lined up as doing exactly the same thing. You are implying a lot and stating nothing and it is EXACTLY what Hazy does.

There is no way I can pick between (a) people who know stuff and say nothing; ( B) people who know stuff and say a little; © people who know nothing and spout; (d) people who know a lot and express it poorly. Right now what you are saying is in no way more believable than the prognostic nonsense of WYL, RR, Dr. Who, Hazy, ADC etc. It is no more reasonable than Robbie's pathetic character-smearing of FanBob - you are just keeping a smarter distance. What you are saying is that people associated closely with the club - current and past - are undermining it. Well, I'd think it is reasonable to see you make that crucial difference between yourself and that pack by backing up your claims. One of the outrageous aspects of the tanking issue was investigating us and not everyone else. So, now it would be only fair to apply the same standard to all, wouldn't you agree?

timD, I'm certain it & they will All comeout, in the washup.

.... and I'm waitin', with a bucket of Bleach.

My major frustration with this whole situation is the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club - rifts that jimma suppossedly eradicated. Now, Hazy has come on and launched into people and has been roundly criticised for fomenting trouble and not backing up what he says.

Right now you'd be lined up as doing exactly the same thing. You are implying a lot and stating nothing and it is EXACTLY what Hazy does.

There is no way I can pick between (a) people who know stuff and say nothing; ( B) people who know stuff and say a little; © people who know nothing and spout; (d) people who know a lot and express it poorly. Right now what you are saying is in no way more believable than the prognostic nonsense of WYL, RR, Dr. Who, Hazy, ADC etc. It is no more reasonable than Robbie's pathetic character-smearing of FanBob - you are just keeping a smarter distance. What you are saying is that people associated closely with the club - current and past - are undermining it. Well, I'd think it is reasonable to see you make that crucial difference between yourself and that pack by backing up your claims. One of the outrageous aspects of the tanking issue was investigating us and not everyone else. So, now it would be only fair to apply the same standard to all, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I am happy to move on.

The main point that I hope those who wish to see the end of this board and the CEO take from this sorry episode is that unless you have got something HUGE, you can't bring down those you think shouldn't be there. This has just entrenched those in charge and hurt the club's image and financial standing.

So whoever helped along this mess started by an idiot (BM) and The Misguided One (Anderson) and trumpeted by Her Bitterness (WIlson) with whispers and 'semantic lies' (as Maurie would call them) should realise that it's time to let go of whatever issues they have and move on.

If they move on, so should we.

*BTW, I DO NOT think these people are still at the club in any official capacity.

My major frustration with this whole situation is the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club - rifts that jimma suppossedly eradicated. Now, Hazy has come on and launched into people and has been roundly criticised for fomenting trouble and not backing up what he says.

Right now you'd be lined up as doing exactly the same thing. You are implying a lot and stating nothing and it is EXACTLY what Hazy does.

There is no way I can pick between (a) people who know stuff and say nothing; ( B) people who know stuff and say a little; © people who know nothing and spout; (d) people who know a lot and express it poorly. Right now what you are saying is in no way more believable than the prognostic nonsense of WYL, RR, Dr. Who, Hazy, ADC etc. It is no more reasonable than Robbie's pathetic character-smearing of FanBob - you are just keeping a smarter distance. What you are saying is that people associated closely with the club - current and past - are undermining it. Well, I'd think it is reasonable to see you make that crucial difference between yourself and that pack by backing up your claims. One of the outrageous aspects of the tanking issue was investigating us and not everyone else. So, now it would be only fair to apply the same standard to all, wouldn't you agree?

Tim, I agree with you in a sense but let me tell you my main frustration first and that is the propensity of people to misinterpret what others are saying.

You started off with saying that you are frustrated with "the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club which Jim Stynes supposedly eradicated". You seem to have this belief that Jim Stynes had some sort of power over disgruntled people who lost their positions on the board or lost their jobs as a result of the changes that took place when he came to power because that is the crux of the matter.

Where did you get this idea from and what is your source? Jim Stynes put together a united the board (and they still appear united with the support of the majority of members to this day) but could he have done anything to prevent his predecessor from talking to the media in disparaging terms about the club over tanking at the time an AFL investigation was being instigated? Did Stynes and his board have the power to prevent disgruntled ex-board members from strongly criticising the current board over its handling of the Bailey dismissal or anything else it was doing?

I don't believe that it had (or even should have had) the power to muzzle ex-Board members or ex-employees from speaking out (even if anonymously on supporter forums) if that's what they wanted. We live in a democracy and they're entitled to express their views and their feelings. The issue of whether it's appropriate for them to do so in all the circumstances is another matter.

I've received a substantial amount of information from various people over the past 18 months about this issue (including one major source of information parts of which I need to respect some confidentiality over). I haven't accepted some of the things I've been told because they can't be checked.

One thing I ascertained was that before the old Board left power in the hands of the Stynes administration, they requested and received an agreement from the incoming Board to refrain from issuing any criticism of them - a non-disparagement agreement if you like - which has been confirmed to me by a former board member (the confirmation gave added credibility to my main source of information). In those circumstances, I find it disappointing that any former board member found it necessary to disparage the new board (even though they didn't sign a reciprocal agreement). But to suggest that there were no remaining rifts between the old and the new (whether it be board, administration or other employees) as a result of the many changes that have taken place is naive in the extreme.

I said above that there's a lot more to come out of this and in particular the connection between Wilson, those who "snitched" to the tanking enquiry and the sources of her "vault" story and other news stories that broke in 2011 and 2012 about our club. I believe that much of this emanated from some of the rifts I mention above. I will tell the full story in my own good time.

Do you really think that there is no such connection or that those recently in the employ of the club didn't know what Caro knew and what she didn't know?

Tim, I agree with you in a sense but let me tell you my main frustration first and that is the propensity of people to misinterpret what others are saying.

You started off with saying that you are frustrated with "the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club which Jim Stynes supposedly eradicated". You seem to have this belief that Jim Stynes had some sort of power over disgruntled people who lost their positions on the board or lost their jobs as a result of the changes that took place when he came to power because that is the crux of the matter.

Where did you get this idea from and what is your source? Jim Stynes put together a united the board (and they still appear united with the support of the majority of members to this day) but could he have done anything to prevent his predecessor from talking to the media in disparaging terms about the club over tanking at the time an AFL investigation was being instigated? Did Stynes and his board have the power to prevent disgruntled ex-board members from strongly criticising the current board over its handling of the Bailey dismissal or anything else it was doing?

I don't believe that it had (or even should have had) the power to muzzle ex-Board members or ex-employees from speaking out (even if anonymously on supporter forums) if that's what they wanted. We live in a democracy and they're entitled to express their views and their feelings. The issue of whether it's appropriate for them to do so in all the circumstances is another matter.

I've received a susbstantial amount of information from various people over the past 18 months about this issue (including one major source of information parts of which I need to respect some confidentiality over). I haven't accepted some of the things I've been told because they can't be checked.

One thing I ascertained was that before the old Board left power in the hands of the Stynes administration, they requested and received an agreement from the incoming Board to refrain from issuing any criticism of them - a non-disparagement agreement if you like - which has been confirmed to me by a former board member (the confirmation gave added credibility to my main source of information). In those circumstances, I find it disappointing that any former board member found it necessary to disparage the new board (even though they didn't sign a reciprocal agreement). But to suggest that there were no remaining rifts between the old and the new (whether it be board, adminsitration or other employees) as a result of the many changes that have taken place is naieve in the extreme.

I said above that there's a lot more to come out of this and in particular the connection between Wilson, those who "snitched" to the tanking enquiry and the sources of her "vault" story and other news stories that broke in 2011 and 2012 about our club. I believe that much of this emanated from some of the rifts I mention above. I will tell the full story in my own good time.

Do you really think that there is no such connection or that those recently in the employ of the club didn't know what Caro knew and what she didn't know?

Jack, I said 'supposedly' because I did not for a minute think that Jimma did actually fix rifts. I think Jimma did a lot of good but to suggest that he somehow magically fixed everything is a fantasy that exists in the mind of some of the posters here. I'd have hoped that you'd remember that I spoke about Jimma being done in his role a few years ago. Great as he was, he was not the second coming. It's sad. I think it is quite apt that you talk about misunderstanding...things are hard to do by text only, who'd have thought?

It is naive to believe that there are no rifts or resentments. But are they leading to trouble? As for former board members, I have heard only gardiner criticise us in public. I've heard no others. Sorry, I remember Dr. Michael Coglin cracking the sads at Jimma's invention of a sexist MFC that Jimma personally saved. But other than than, nothing. I'd expect wounds or resentments between boards and have been amazed that so little has been said. 186 could have given rise to enormous media-lambasting of the MFC fed by disgruntled sources...and it didn't.

Is there more to come out about Caro and her involvement, with whom and to what degree? I think its' unlikely. Who would know? Those involved have no incentive to speak up. What evidence could we rely on?

There are people who left - flack and prendergast in particular - they might have spoken. That has nought to do with club 'rifts' and much to do with man management I would have thought.

So again we come to proof. We know there are rifts. We know that they might have led to Caro to being fed something. You've implied Caro is/was being fed info from ex-board members who were close enough to know what was going on and when - enough for Caro's story to have more than just a ring of truth at times. That risks tarring a few (Say Andrew Leoncelli for example) with no clear sense as to who I can rule in and who I can rule out - or what they've said. And it doesn't address things like Caro being told by a current director about the state of affairs which was suggested on this site by a poster whose name eludes me at this time - rumors of a text or email? I cannot remember the specifics, but, I read the rumor here and was amazed that it didn't create more horror.

It is the frustration of it all: whom to I trust?

Yes, I am happy to move on.

The main point that I hope those who wish to see the end of this board and the CEO take from this sorry episode is that unless you have got something HUGE, you can't bring down those you think shouldn't be there. This has just entrenched those in charge and hurt the club's image and financial standing.

So whoever helped along this mess started by an idiot (BM) and The Misguided One (Anderson) and trumpeted by Her Bitterness (WIlson) with whispers and 'semantic lies' (as Maurie would call them) should realise that it's time to let go of whatever issues they have and move on.

If they move on, so should we.

*BTW, I DO NOT think these people are still at the club in any official capacity.

RPFC, who are these people and what are they actually doing?

Right now we have whispers of a conspiracy that no-one can name, with proponents no-one can name, doing things no-one can substantiate for ends that seem stupid across a period of 6,12, 18 and 48 months.

We have a board that has made a decent handful of errors that we know of being defended against a 'shadow' conspiracy that no-one can prove or bring evidence of. AND dissenting voices here are criticised as supporting the nameless conspiracy. WTF?

To say that this is primitive and circular is to give it more credibility than it deserves.

I'd argue that unless you have something huge, you shouldn't be besmirching the reputations of anyone. That burden of responsibility seems only to travel in one direction ATM.

You know what Tim, you're right...

There is no evidence that this club is not united and that we have any former staff working against those still at the club, and that the former board is fully behind the current board, and that there is zero behind the scenes dissent...

But every club always has elements of all this and we are no different.

I have seen in this investigation former employees use a threat of Zulus to take down the club, and I have seen Gardner in the press with a misguided view of when the club tanked (especially considering it started under him).

That much I can substantiate.

WJ can obviously give his own account and we can all make judgements on the veracity of his words.

This is no conspiracy, but this is not a united club and former Demons are more of a hindrance than a help at the moment.

I agree RPFC

There seems to be a united view that those who have left are the main ones who have spoken. As I have previously stated it is hard to tell lies to a professional interogator at an arranged meeting.

Stories told may not have been for bitter reasons and may merely have just provided information. It is then twisted into propagander by Wilson et al.

I hate the way we are eager to accuse and incite hatred to those that worked for us or served in a voluntary role on the board.

Sure some arent happy but that doesnt mean they are working against us.

It works against us as a club if we dont let it go.

You started off with saying that you are frustrated with "the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club which Jim Stynes supposedly eradicated". You seem to have this belief that Jim Stynes had some sort of power over disgruntled people who lost their positions on the board or lost their jobs as a result of the changes that took place when he came to power because that is the crux of the matter.

All that you say is true, but the true strength of Jim Stynes was his ability bring people in & focus their skills.

Members & supporters loved the man, and anyone who might have been anti Stynes would have been foolhardy to be seen to be so.

Love to hear your story sooner rather than later, Jack. I just want to know.

186 could have given rise to enormous media-lambasting of the MFC fed by disgruntled sources...and it didn't.

It is the frustration of it all: whom to I trust?

I'm convinced this was because the media were reluctant to take on Jim Stynes negatively.

As far as trust goes, I will continue to put faith in the current administration. At least until someone can show why I shouldn't.

..............................

As far as trust goes, I will continue to put faith in the current administration. At least until someone can show why I shouldn't.

Agree ........but more than that we have no option but to present a united front after years of upheaval.

I know that members of the former board are still aggrieved by the manner of Jim's takeover. To an extent their bitterness is understandable - but to continue to gossip about times past is just going to hurt what they worked hard to save and rebuild. The club must be bigger than the individual .....................

We desperately need some on-field success now to keep us together.

It works against us as a club if we dont let it go.

Now this isn't easy. There are those that still hold grudges from events 17 years ago.

But we can't afford to just purge those we think are working against the club.

We need every supporter we can get, especially former involved Demons as they have shown a desire to help the club directly.

However, this isn't a one-way street - it requires those that have been so far unable to commit to the club to committ to the club.

I think the club should swallow some pride and reach out to those they believe are unhappy and ask them to get involved again and/or air their greivances.

Then they can shut up and watch the footy.

I agree RPFC

There seems to be a united view that those who have left are the main ones who have spoken. As I have previously stated it is hard to tell lies to a professional interogator at an arranged meeting.

Stories told may not have been for bitter reasons and may merely have just provided information. It is then twisted into propagander by Wilson et al.

I hate the way we are eager to accuse and incite hatred to those that worked for us or served in a voluntary role on the board.

Sure some arent happy but that doesnt mean they are working against us.

It works against us as a club if we dont let it go.

Agree. Being totally non aligned, I just see this discussion as a vehicle for perpetuating a 'flogging a dead horse'. What is done is done . I acknowledge the Gardner administration for what it tried to do and I acknowledge the current administration in the same manner.Its pretty much a thankless task. Who knows who lagged? Might come out in the wash and if it does we can all make our own judgements then. For the time being , is there a chance we can pull our heads in, get behind the joint and support the club and the young and encouraging playing group we have. Who knows we might start getting somewhere if we moved in the same direction.

I say the same to ex board members/ex presidents/ex anyones as I do to ex pollies - thank you for your services when you were in position to actually implement policy/change and whether you were succcessful or not you are thanked for your efforts. Now you are not in a position to implement change/policy it would be appreciated if you would fade quietly into the background making neither comments or actions detrimental to your former club/party. You had your moment and it is over - what is required are people who are going to be constructive and support the current administration - if you are truly unhappy with the current administration, then in a calm non destructive manner put your hand up publicly to stand at the next election.

I have read on here people alluding to people agitating in the background and if this is correct then this means you - there has only been one public agitator so I am directing this to him as well.

Hmm doesn't bode well if there is more dirty laundry to be aired......

A quick kill is required or the wound will fester...

Hmm doesn't bode well if there is more dirty laundry to be aired......

A quick kill is required or the wound will fester...

Rather than a "kill", I'd prefer a quick - quiet - surrender. The club has been through enough pain in the last few years to last at least until its next centenary.

Those members of the Gardiner Board hurt by Jim's bloodless coup can rightly claim a good chunk of the credit if we can grow from here into some sort of power........ and that is how they must see it.

Let's face it ......... it all comes back to achieving continual improvement on the field

My major frustration with this whole situation is the idea that there are 'rifts' in the club - rifts that jimma suppossedly eradicated. Now, Hazy has come on and launched into people and has been roundly criticised for fomenting trouble and not backing up what he says.

Right now you'd be lined up as doing exactly the same thing. You are implying a lot and stating nothing and it is EXACTLY what Hazy does.

There is no way I can pick between (a) people who know stuff and say nothing; (b) people who know stuff and say a little; © people who know nothing and spout; (d) people who know a lot and express it poorly. Right now what you are saying is in no way more believable than the prognostic nonsense of WYL, RR, Dr. Who, Hazy, ADC etc. It is no more reasonable than Robbie's pathetic character-smearing of FanBob - you are just keeping a smarter distance. What you are saying is that people associated closely with the club - current and past - are undermining it. Well, I'd think it is reasonable to see you make that crucial difference between yourself and that pack by backing up your claims. One of the outrageous aspects of the tanking issue was investigating us and not everyone else. So, now it would be only fair to apply the same standard to all, wouldn't you agree?

I have maintained throughout that people who were once close to the club undermined it during the course of the tanking investigation. Given that it is now common knowledge that four such people (all former employees) gave their version of the "vault" to Clothier and Haddad that proposition would seem self-evident. The club's interests were undermined by the evidence they gave. That is a fact and not a smear. I am not suggesting they lied but it's clear that others gave different evidence.

My information is that at a particular point in time (September/October) the enquiry was going nowhere and was indeed in danger of folding. I have been informed that the "vault" information was voluntarily provided to the investigation by a former employee and the consequences were that the investigators recalled all witnesses and a number of different versions of the vault story entailed. As we know, despite the different versions, both the AFL and the MFC had advice from their respective senior counsel that the "tanking" case against the club had little likelihood of success in court. The "vault" evidence was therefore crucial to the ultimate outcome (convoluted as it was). I was also told that whoever informed the investigation of that story gave that information to Wilson as well. In addition, I know several people connected with the club (past or present) were privy to what Wilson knew and what the AFL knew and that there was a difference between the two stories. This connects Wilson directly to this group of people and the informants to the investigation.

One other matter suggested was that the person who "squealed" to Wilson had previously supplied her with information about a different matter which was designed to embarrass the club and which subsequently proved to be untrue.

Do you really believe that Wilson came about information which led her to produce her damning opinion pieces aimed at the club, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly and suggesting that all would be heavily punished from friendly or benign sources?

The story and its back stories ring true with me and suggest there are people with past associations with the club who have continuing grievances with individuals at the club which might undermine the club's interests in the future.

Please note that contrary to what you might think, I am not pointing to a specific person or even a group of people: they could come from a number of groups with past associations with the club who might be disgruntled. However, based on what I know, there are more people involved than just the four disgruntled former employees out of thirty witnesses who gave the "evidence" upon which the AFL made its decision notwithstanding that its clear that the club did not breach the AFL's tanking laws which was what the investigation was supposed to be about.

This may explain why Wilson took a "Holiday" from Footy Classified last week.