CW is running out of places to run.

Time to interview Wallace Caroline.....

Just watched the Offsiders program on iView. Boy does CW have it in for MFC. She states MFC is guilty repeatedly but not a word about the more general issue. She effectively says that disgruntled 'a player' is superior evidence to anything else. Doubtless a rejected player - wonder what a disgruntled ex-journo sounds like.

Most interesting was her remarks about things about to get nastier and how the lawyers will enjoy that. Is this the first time she has indicated legal involvement? I wonder what is behind it.

Interesting to see a decidedly jaded CW on the ABC's Offsiders program yesterday. Both Roy Masters and Francis Leach virtually told CW how wrong she was and that the AFL was to blame for putting in place a system which promoted less than 100% efforts. Masters - understanding he is a NRL hack - was particularly caustic in his criticism of the AFL.

Once again, in her meek defence of herself, CW said, but the difference here is that a "player" has provided evidence. A player or ex-player Caroline? Who is that player Caroline? Sorry, I forgot, you have to protect your source. Ever heard of disgruntled former employees?

If this goes to Court, your protected source will no longer be protected and may well wilt under close examination of that "Player's" testimony. As you said yesterday Caroline, the only ones likely to win here will be the Lawyers. So why the sensationalist diatribe?

I think her "player" is McLean. If he is going to be the Prosecutions star witness? Wilson's effort to give this legs has been nothing short of shambolic. BTW, did she actually make reference to that player providing "evidence". Hearsay is not evidence, but it would be the catalyst for the fictitious interpretations of the blinkered and ignorant. I think her effort to nail Melbourne to the cross while dismissing the mischief of Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn, West coast, etc says it all.

She either knows a lot more which she isn't letting on yet (which proves Melbourne's guilt*), or she went too early and she is paddling up the Nile.

*The evidence would need to be concrete.

BTW, did she actually make reference to that player providing "evidence".

What she said (almost verbatim) after Bailey's sacking-press-conference was raised and she said he'd backed away form that, was:

" very telling... very significant that it took a player... to come out and say it " where it=tanking.

Noone asked her why it was 'very telling'. She had said coaches had an AFL job for life, so the implication was that noone with a future in AFL would say anything. Read into that what you will....

If she is relying on a player as "telling evidence" then she is in a lot of trouble with her story.

The only constant ( including Brock McLean) is the line that the coaches never told any players to lose or not to try.

Therefore if that is the case that the players knew "what was going on" is rubbery at best.

If she had a coach on record as saying "we went out to lose game" then I would be worried but the only damage a player's story can do is if the player's story was that he was told not perform.

Interesting to see a decidedly jaded CW on the ABC's Offsiders program yesterday. Both Roy Masters and Francis Leach virtually told CW how wrong she was and that the AFL was to blame for putting in place a system which promoted less than 100% efforts. Masters - understanding he is a NRL hack - was particularly caustic in his criticism of the AFL.

Once again, in her meek defence of herself, CW said, but the difference here is that a "player" has provided evidence. A player or ex-player Caroline? Who is that player Caroline? Sorry, I forgot, you have to protect your source. Ever heard of disgruntled former employees?

If this goes to Court, your protected source will no longer be protected and may well wilt under close examination of that "Player's" testimony. As you said yesterday Caroline, the only ones likely to win here will be the Lawyers. So why the sensationalist diatribe?

If a player's view is so pivotal Ms Wilson - why have you conveniently dismissed the views of a player who spent a large chunk of the Kreuzer Cup on the bench - Brendan Fevola? Oh - that's right - Fev is a mug - while "Burn Out/Tweets" McLean is a model citizen ( whose Uncle Ricky's frequent visits to the tribunal were totally unfair)

So you think it is about to get nasty do you Ms Wilson? There was nothing nasty about your "pathetic and disgusting" article or about your assertion that CC and CS ought to be sacked for rumoured actions 3 years ago ?

Shouldn't have watched that show - didn't need a reminder of her utter determination to kick the MFC !!

"A player" FMD....... I guess Fevola mustn't have ever played for Carlton, yet he has been quite open on their tactics for Kruezer and Judd. This is a one woman war against the MFC

Edit: ahhhh beat me to it Hoopla

"A player" FMD....... I guess Fevola mustn't have ever played for Carlton, yet he has been quite open on their tactics for Kruezer and Judd. This is a one woman war against the MFC

Wish we could get someone to trawl back into the relationship between the Schwabs and the Wilsons. Must be Australia's Hatfields and McCoys !!

Wish we could get someone to trawl back into the relationship between the Schwabs and the Wilsons. Must be Australia's Hatfields and McCoys !!

Anyone aware of any issues between their respective fathers when they both were involved with Richmond?

I think her "player" is McLean. If he is going to be the Prosecutions star witness? Wilson's effort to give this legs has been nothing short of shambolic. BTW, did she actually make reference to that player providing "evidence". Hearsay is not evidence, but it would be the catalyst for the fictitious interpretations of the blinkered and ignorant. I think her effort to nail Melbourne to the cross while dismissing the mischief of Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn, West coast, etc says it all.

From my reading of her comments, she is claiming Chook's On the Couch interview was the catalyst, but she now has 'evidence' that another 'player' - who clearly shall remain nameless as far as she is concerned - has given evidence to the AFL Star Chamber investigation.

The case she has chosen to prosecute is getting weaker by the day.

Given her remarks about Bailey and coaches having an AFL job for life, I suspect her line now is "anyone whose future career in the AFL area will lie about tanking because the AFL would rub them out if they admitted it, but an ex-player (whose future may be in real-estate or used-car sales), has no such fears and that therefore what he alleges was said is more believable".

Well, that may be true, but it isn't evidence. (Apparently in her view only MFC has ex-players.)

She either knows a lot more which she isn't letting on yet (which proves Melbourne's guilt*), or she went too early and she is paddling up the Nile.

*The evidence would need to be concrete.

I think it is the latter, CB.

Went way too early. With the evidence being the amount of times they have had to correct her pieces (Gysberts delist, The Vault Codename Bullsh!t, etc).

The issue seems to me is that she thinks it is a 'slam dunk' because we minimised our chances of winning, and if she is right that the investigators believe the same, I hope the Comission says to Clothier: "Your point being?"

I don't think Wilson understands footy as much as she thinks she does - especially perfectly legal 'bottoming out' that every team does in truly awful seasons.

If reports are correct about the pressure placed on 'witnesses' to CC's admission of a 'Losing Strategy' and his 'Threatening Behaviour' by Clothier then I doubt his expertise on footy matters.

That isn't to say that he is wrong on the ethics - we tried to minimise the chances of winning. But it does mean he would be wrong on the rules - we did not cross the 'water's edge' of telling players to lose. Everything up to that point is perfectly legal.

I believe Clothier's mindset can be seen in the report a few days ago that Bailey had to reiterate recently to Clothier that he never told players to lose; if they are asking that question or intimating to Bailey that that is what is being investigated then they don't know what they are looking for - and if they do, then they won't find that...

I still think there is nothing in this.

She's up the proverbial creek with only Brock McLean and potentially some other jaded, washed up, failed MFC player to use for paddles.

As was the case when they were Melbourne players, they just don't get the job done.

She's up the proverbial creek with only Brock McLean and potentially some other jaded, washed up, failed MFC player to use for paddles.

As was the case when they were Melbourne players, they just don't get the job done.

One thing that concerns ADC has been banging on about something much more serious yet to be revealed, seriously hope its just a lot of hot air. Probably something his associates have provided to the press & the AFL. Any clues anyone?

One thing that concerns ADC has been banging on about something much more serious yet to be revealed, seriously hope its just a lot of hot air. Probably something his associates have provided to the press & the AFL. Any clues anyone?

Both her and Patrick Smith have referred to the next couple of weeks as both "getting nasty" and "very busy" respectively. We'll see I guess.

I noticed in the Offsiders iView clip that Wilson referred to our time in 2009 as "blatant match fixing" now.

There's one for the record books.

Both her and Patrick Smith have referred to the next couple of weeks as both "getting nasty" and "very busy" respectively. We'll see I guess.

I noticed in the Offsiders iView clip that Wilson referred to our time in 2009 as "blatant match fixing" now.

There's one for the record books.

The comments fitted in with a more general "match fixing", "race fixing" and so on discussion with the original focus being on the VRC more than the AFL.

Altogether,I felt the discussion was more a headline looking for a story, than anything relating to the truth.

In that regard Francis Leach was even worse than Caroline.

At one point she even said she thought his comments about us were a "bit harsh"...

The comments fitted in with a more general "match fixing", "race fixing" and so on discussion with the original focus being on the VRC more than the AFL.

Altogether,I felt the discussion was more a headline looking for a story, than anything relating to the truth.

In that regard Francis Leach was even worse than Caroline.

At one point she even said she thought his comments about us were a "bit harsh"...

Pretty sure that he was directed those comments at the AFL, implying that they were either burying their head in the sand or were involved in a conspiracy to protect us when there was supposedly "evidence of tanking" in 2009.

It's interesting that Caroline states "In the next few weeks, I think that particular investigation is going to get very very nasty indeed, and a lot of lawyers are going to make a lot of money out of it."

Moments later she says...

"If melbourne has done what its alleged to have done..."

My guess is she has no idea

My guess is she has no idea

thats all you need to say

Pretty sure that he was directed those comments at the AFL, implying that they were either burying their head in the sand or were involved in a conspiracy to protect us when there was supposedly "evidence of tanking" in 2009.

It's interesting that Caroline states "In the next few weeks, I think that particular investigation is going to get very very nasty indeed, and a lot of lawyers are going to make a lot of money out of it."

Moments later she says...

"If melbourne has done what its alleged to have done..."

My guess is she has no idea

Alleged by who, disgruntled former board members?

I think it is the latter, CB.

Went way too early. With the evidence being the amount of times they have had to correct her pieces (Gysberts delist, The Vault Codename Bullsh!t, etc).

The issue seems to me is that she thinks it is a 'slam dunk' because we minimised our chances of winning, and if she is right that the investigators believe the same, I hope the Comission says to Clothier: "Your point being?"

I don't think Wilson understands footy as much as she thinks she does - especially perfectly legal 'bottoming out' that every team does in truly awful seasons.

If reports are correct about the pressure placed on 'witnesses' to CC's admission of a 'Losing Strategy' and his 'Threatening Behaviour' by Clothier then I doubt his expertise on footy matters.

That isn't to say that he is wrong on the ethics - we tried to minimise the chances of winning. But it does mean he would be wrong on the rules - we did not cross the 'water's edge' of telling players to lose. Everything up to that point is perfectly legal.

I believe Clothier's mindset can be seen in the report a few days ago that Bailey had to reiterate recently to Clothier that he never told players to lose; if they are asking that question or intimating to Bailey that that is what is being investigated then they don't know what they are looking for - and if they do, then they won't find that...

I still think there is nothing in this.

You make a lot of good points here - I just hope your final conclusion is correct.

She certainly seems to think that "tanking" is far more of a "black and white" issue than it is. You could certainly argue that if we were totally committed to losing the Richmond match we wouldn't have let the outcome rest on a 50 metre kick after the siren.

As to Clothier's questioning I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was more like a terrorist inquisition than a civil enquiry. If he has shone a spotlight in the eyes of some unsuspecting (former) players under threats of de-registration (our) lawyers will be chafing at the bit - things will get nasty.

The AFL should cut their losses - accept Wilson's criticisms - and move on.

Interesting that in the face of overwhelming argument - Wilson never suggests that the AFL should do the job properly by looking at the clubs who bottomed out so effectively that their access to early draft picks didn't turn on the last kick of a match. To her the whole thing is about the Melbourne Football Club ! She wants to see us on our knees

The fact that for all her looking she hasn't turned up more evidence against us is a good sign

Edited November 12, 201212 yr by hoopla

Wish we could get someone to trawl back into the relationship between the Schwabs and the Wilsons. Must be Australia's Hatfields and McCoys !!

I wonder if she has any pigs...

Alleged by who, disgruntled former board members?

I don't know what sources, if any, are giving her information but you could bet almost anything that if she had been supplied any real news, then we would have known about it by now. This witch hunt is purely media driven, looking for a "shocking" scandal because that's what sells. It's frustrating to watch as it is clearly evident that most media commentators don't know what constitutes tanking and our name is getting slurred in the process.

Edited November 12, 201212 yr by Nascent

I won't defend CW or any of the other journo's but I also cant help thinking that part of this is nothing more than journo's desperate desires to keep the flames burning ( and to fan flames where none exist) to give them something to write about.

I won't defend CW or any of the other journo's but I also cant help thinking that part of this is nothing more than journo's desperate desires to keep the flames burning ( and to fan flames where none exist) to give them something to write about.

I'm sure every Melbourne supporter hopes you're right.

That the club and the AFL have said nothing for quite some time - and when they did it was quiet vague - could be an indication things are going on behind the scenes to work out a compromise.

It is not in the AFL or MFC interests to have this drag out into a lengthy and very expensive legal matter.

I would also like to think the AFL can see the turn around going on at the team level and not want to kill it off.

More if they were to penalise us in this year's draft just think of the mess it would create.

Would we have to give back players we have taken on board in return for draft picks?

If so, how could it be done?

It would effect to whole draft, because of all the deals within deals already agreed to.

Next year maybe. But, at least we could prepare for that - if we are found guilty.