I'd say our official response from Don and the appointment of Finkelstein clearly indicate our intention not to be hung alone, if at all.

This explains why Jon ralph on his twitter page just reposted the pointless article that was in the herald sun 6 days ago. Well obviously Caro has been spoken to by different melbourne people who dont have a vendetta against bailey or schwab and maybe she is realising we dont have a lot to hide.

But good to see we are getting the heavies in.

Two things struck me about this piece.

FIrst that Caro has returned to trying to be a reporter instead of a shock jock.

The second was this,

Clothier, a former tax lawyer, had his team beefed up last year when the internationally recognised police officer Haddad joined the AFL as its first intelligence co-ordinator.

As the league intensified its fight to preserve the game's integrity and protect it from match-fixing and the threat of performance-enhancing drugs, Haddad, who worked in Sierra Leone and Cambodia and has worked as a tactical intelligence operative for the Victoria Police sexual crimes squad, came on board and quickly had his involvement at head office widened.

WTF! It's like we've been accused of "match fixing" for money! It's good that we've got a QC on side except by the time this is finished, whatever the result, his fee is going to be the equivalent of a big fine. Whatever the case, we absolutely need to fight this...

I am no lawyer but i would be going the AFL for his fee , if charges are not proven

I am no lawyer but i would be going the AFL for his fee , if charges are not proven

If we take this to court and win we will be awarded costs but I believe we would only get schedule costs and not necessarily what we pay him; mind you he may be a demon fan and do it pro bono.

Last day tomorrow Mark, looking forward to it, will then catch up for coffee.

I am not sure about Hogan being our first pick.

I Know he is ours but do we lust sign him up or do we have to use a draft pick on him. If so why can't we use pick 88 or whatever on him?

I don't understand how next years draft can be "X 4" better than this one. Does that mean there are 4 Lachie Whitfields or the depth runs to the 40's instead of a top ten?

If it is we will be in as good a position to take advantage of it as any other club, we will not be penalised any draft picks from what I am reading here. The alleged tanking will be put to bed either by the AFL or through legal means.

I don't know F'n'Dee, I'm just relaying what one of our, & ex hawk scouts has told me. that is all.

I haven't been to any U-18's for about 12 months or more.

Surname not Scully by any chance?

I am not sure about Hogan being our first pick.

I Know he is ours but do we lust sign him up or do we have to use a draft pick on him. If so why can't we use pick 88 or whatever on him?

??

He is already ours. We've already used a pick on him. Locked and loaded.

smacks of desperation to me. The AFL Heavies are not getting the answers they had hoped for thus far.

smacks of bullying to me.....

We just upped the ante with the selection of Representation. The AFL will not want to see this in the courts, and won't want to lose. Solution: have it go away.....

As it must for all concerned including the AFL ( At the end of the day Wilson will the only one disappointed by that result!)

The Paragraph talking about "turning on & off interview tapes" is not a good look for the heavies.

Editing these interviews is a big no no

That;'s just about enough to discredit their whole case - or - with Wilson involved - should we say instead their whole "witch hunt"

And what's this interview and re-interview about. If we don't get the tape right we'll try again?

This is already a dreadful waste of time and money

Let's not forget Barassi's key point : if you penalise Melbourne you have to look at other clubs ........ more time - more money

I don't understand how next years draft can be "X 4" better than this one. Does that mean there are 4 Lachie Whitfields or the depth runs to the 40's instead of a top ten?

Quite a few bottom agers stood out at the National Champs and TAC Cup. Off the top of my head Lewis Taylor, Jack Billings, James Aish, Tom Boyd and Josh Kelly all stood out. Cutler from the Chargers may go high next year too.

At this stage I would say top end depth (A grade potential) and depth overall is projecting to be better, but a lot can happen in 12 months. 2012 was a superdraft 12 months ago. That said, I think it will produce some very good players.

We've escaped the possibility of us losing our picks this year which was no. 1 for me. But to hear how the club is proceeding with this is heart lifting, we have been in the AFL's pocket for a very long time and rolled over at their whim.

We won't be rolling over this time.

There is very little physical evidence to prove anything, and it appears any (hearsay) evidence they have can be discredited by the way the investigation has been carried out. At the end of the day they have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that our motives were based purely on us losing the games in question. Out priority may not have been winning, we don't deny this, but was it our priority to lose?

Edited November 12, 201212 yr by Pates

??

He is already ours. We've already used a pick on him. Locked and loaded.

OK that makes sense.

Thanks for that.

I don't understand how it's a good idea to fight the afl in court. They are sitting on bags of cash and every club relies on them for their distribution of wealth. And the mfc gets additional support being one of the smaller clubs. So we take them to court and win then the afl simply decide mfc dont need the extra assistance we are currently receiving or we lose and we waste a whole lot of money anyway. The problem is that the afl has way too much power these days.

Firstly, I changed the title to this thread because I am sick and tired of these media bozos refusing to credit the Melbourne Football Club with the presumption of innocence. We have yet to be charged with anything. As far as I know the club hasn't been given the benefit of seeing the alleged evidence against it or to respond. How can anyone say in those circumstances that we've "escaped penalties". Penalties happen when you've been found guilty of something, not before you've even been charged.

Secondly, take note of this:

I know this bloke and all I will say is that he's pretty much the best in the business. We're in good hands to deal with and repel the disgraceful attacks on the club we've witnessed in the media in the past month.

WJ what about seconding him - pro bono of course!

I don't understand how it's a good idea to fight the afl in court. They are sitting on bags of cash and every club relies on them for their distribution of wealth. And the mfc gets additional support being one of the smaller clubs. So we take them to court and win then the afl simply decide mfc dont need the extra assistance we are currently receiving or we lose and we waste a whole lot of money anyway. The problem is that the afl has way too much power these days.

Obviously its a last resort. But if we're hammered with penalties ( even draft penalties which will hit sponsorship and membership monies) - the money's gone anyway. To keep us viable in an 18-team competition the AFL will have to give us back the money........... which makes the whole thing ludicrous in any event.

We have to stand up for our rights

what isn't it?

what do you know?

Having spoken to 2 player agents and a recruiter (not MFC) - next year's draft is ok without this year's depth. Also not too many good talls.

This is Demon fans reaction after finding out we are not getting penalized this draft

what isn't it?

what do you know?

Like your an expert, I work in the field an can assure you 100% next years draft is not 4x better,I can't believe you would even post that. Have a read of what you posted again and then ask yourself if you even believe what you wrote.

I'd say our official response from Don and the appointment of Finkelstein clearly indicate our intention not to be hung alone, if at all.

It's like I always say to people considering suicide.

Dont do it -it's crazy .

Or at least try to take a few dirtbags out with you before you go .

I just don't get a few things with this.

If you are a so called investigator brought in as a heavy for the AFL surely you would want to ensure the authencity of your investigation is not compromised. Therefore generally I would have thought anyone you interview would need to be explained that information exchanged in interviews is confidential.

Point is people are muddying the transparency of the investigation by feeding bits to Caro.

The thing to also take into account is therefore unless its the AFL or the investigators leaking to Caro we must assume its some of the ex club people who are leaking and therefore she is running what is effectively a side by side investigation without full access to all the facts. In short she is drawing conclusions from limited facts.

I also would have thought if the AFL and investigators had integrity front of mind they would be revisiting this fact with interviewees after interviewing.

I think there should be an investigation done on how Caro is getting her info as it totally compromises outcomes of the case.

Not to mention what Caro herself has revealed as the coercion the get the answers they want coming from investigators themselves.

If I was just employed by the afl as a heavy investigator and this is my first case that will ensure I stake a reputation, I too would be going hard to prove my worth.

It is my opinion that there are many factors about the nature of the 'investgation' that don't seem to comply with standard procedure reading between the lines.

In her latest instalment, she has quite significantly toned back the attack:

Demons and league on collision course

She now recognises the 'vault' was a name for the room (note her swipe at our financials, as it was a 'tin shed').

She now recognises that what Connolly said may have been tongue in cheek.

She now recognises that the meeting may not have been as serious as she first said.

In other words, she's finally provided a bit of balance and a lack of hyperbole. And she's slowly confirming what we all know now; that the allegations against us aren't strong enough and the evidence is lacking.

It is outrageous that these "facts" formed the basis of one of her ferocious full frontal assaults on the MFC, and now she conveniently qualifies and contextualises such "facts". Unbelievable. She has no legitimacy to question anyone's integrity IMO.

Clearly totally irresponsible, sensationalist journalism. If The Age had any standards, she would be stood down.

The problem I see with this whole issue is that the AFL denied the concept of 'tanking' despite the turbulence about the priority pick system at the time.

As a result, there is no definition as to what actually constitutes 'tanking'. It's all shades of grey.

As such, it has allowed the likes of ordinary journalists like CW to run sensationalist, though ultimately plainly compromised, articles about the issue.

It seems to me that short of establishing that there was a clear directive by club officials/coaches to the player group to lose games then there is no way 'tanking' occurred at the MFC in 2009.

And next year, can we get Carlton's other Brock McLean, Brendan Fevola, to appear On The Coach and tell those bozos what he witnessed in the lead up to round 22, 2007 (ie, to launch an investigation into that club).

It seems that's all one needs these days.

I giggled when I read the Jon Ralph article. I imagined the conversation.

AFL source to Jon Ralph "no mate, the investigation won't wind up before this years draft".

Later ...

Editor to Jon Ralph, "what did your source say?"

Jon Ralph to Editor "no penalties for this draft but boy, oh boy are they in trouble for the next draft".

As suspected:

- step one - no report before this years draft - check

- step two - lots of shuffling papers and official looking interviews conducted by AFL and media taking it all in = "ohhhh big trouble" - check

- step three - legal heavy hired by the MFC just to reinforce to the AFL that this should go away - check

- step four - report handed down during bush fire/tidal wave/snap election week- finding of insufficient evidence to conclusively prove that tanking within the AFL definition actually took place - stand by ...

The Paragraph talking about "turning on & off interview tapes" is not a good look for the heavies.

Editing these interviews is a big no no

...and the bastard continues to hypocritically talk of "integrity". What an oaf.

I don't understand how it's a good idea to fight the afl in court. They are sitting on bags of cash and every club relies on them for their distribution of wealth. And the mfc gets additional support being one of the smaller clubs. So we take them to court and win then the afl simply decide mfc dont need the extra assistance we are currently receiving or we lose and we waste a whole lot of money anyway. The problem is that the afl has way too much power these days.

...and the alternative, should they come down on us, is.......??? Roll over again and remain their kicking boy?

If the latest CW article is an accurate account of the AFL case, without any admission by the Coach, we have no case to answer.

All that I can see that is alleged, is a comment by CC and a reaction by CS. Both have different explanations. No one has admitted to actually tanking.