Broke McUnclean's big mouth has cost the AFL a lot of money, let alone bad publicity.

Hard to imagine for comments that held no evidence whatsoever, just opinions.

He's bound to go a long way at Carlscum

This inquisition may now take as long as the Spanish Inquisition. Tighten the seatbelts, 350 years to go fellas.

Oh well ,we've waited this long .

Broke McUnclean's big mouth has cost the AFL a lot of money, let alone bad publicity.

Hard to imagine for comments that held no evidence whatsoever, just opinions.

I really do think the AFL has grounds to caution McLean. Three years after the fact ( and contrary to his own statements at the time) McLean has come and made damning public comments about the inside workings of his former employer. So what , you say, he has the right to say what he likes? Imagine what would happen to the AFL's reputation if every player with a grievance against his former club came out and had a crack. Members of other professional associations have to abide by codes of ethics in the interests of their professions as a whole. Isn't part of every AFLPA contract that you not bring the game into disrepute? Hasn't McUnclean done precisely that?

You can tell me that bias is affecting my judgment - and perhaps you'd be right - but you wouldn't want every unhappy player to follow his lead At the very least the AFL should make it clear that disgruntled players should take their concernsdirectly to the AFL and not to the media!

Last season the reaction of Melbourne supporters to Scully hit the headlines.I reckon our response to McLean next year might be even more colourful. Of course Malthouse may not give us the opportunity - by leaving him in the VFL where he belongs

Edited December 12, 201212 yr by hoopla

The AFL won't get anywhere but there is no conclusive evidence, its all heresay and bitter ex-players. lf we do get charged it will be taken to court and they will throw it out, we are going to deny it. There might be a bit of truth but the AFL forced everybody's hand. There is at least 6 other teams in the same boat.

I know that's the other argument - and how I hope its the right one.

But I can't imagine the AFL coming out and saying that we have spent 6 months (plus!) chasing down every thing that moved at the MFC in 2009 and there is no evidence they tanked ( threw games or whatever).

I can imagine exactly that. Its what the AFL wants, Put to bed forever.

I really do think the AFL has grounds to caution McLean. Three years after the fact ( and contrary to his own statements at the time) McLean has come and made damning public comments about the inside workings of his former employer. So what , you say, he has the right to say what he likes? Imagine what would happen to the AFL's reputation if every player with a grievance against his former club came out and had a crack. Members of other professional associations have to abide by codes of ethics in the interests of their professions as a whole. Isn't part of every AFLPA contract that you not bring the game into disrepute? Hasn't McUnclean done precisely that?

Its exactly what Fevola and Liberatore have done. Result - nothing. And McLean said specifically the players were not told to lose. He said it was a vibe. FMD.

I keep going back to that post about a Few Good Men with Jack Nicholson - " PLease tell me AFL that you have something more than numbnuts McLean and a cheap aside by Chris Connolly.

Edited December 12, 201212 yr by jnrmac

I can imagine exactly that. Its what the AFL wants, Put to bed forever.

................ well they are going about it all wrong. The best way to do that is to stop looking !!

................ well they are going about it all wrong. The best way to do that is to stop looking !!

Theyll probably have to soon unless theres a cupboard full of Cornflake packets theyve yet to delve through. Still only likely to find the remains of Brocks intelligence should they pursue that path !!

As such the media only point to Feb as thats the next meeting of Vlads imperial army. Whos to say that the inqiuisition as such wont have fizzled out completely by then.

Even the hounds will want Christmas in peace and theyll be hard pushed to rev up anything afterwards.....and so the silent death begins !! lol

I know, I know, it is all well and good to quote an unnamed source, but I have been told with some authority, that the word is the MFC will be told it has no case to answer. The reason it is taking so long is in the hope that the dust settles enough for the AFL to be comfortable to make an official announcement at a time of its own choosing.

I know, I know, it is all well and good to quote an unnamed source, but I have been told with some authority, that the word is the MFC will be told it has no case to answer. The reason it is taking so long is in the hope that the dust settles enough for the AFL to be comfortable to make an official announcement at a time of its own choosing.

Positive trolling! Joke iv'a. My gut feeling is your source is probably correct. If so i wonder if CW (or perhaps EQ?) will 'break' the story.

If we do end up cleared it surely will be huge blot on CW's reputation as a journalist. By going past reporting what her sources have told her into the realm of giving her own views of/opinion of the key people involved and likely outcomes she has a fair bit at stake i would have thought.

Sure she can come out swinging and perhaps attack the AFL for not finding something or more likely continue to claim the evidence form our sources suggests we tanked. In fact attack as a form of defense is the most likely approach for her to take (she's not going to admit she got it wrong). What ever approach she takes her reputation as a journo will take a massive hit - at a time when EQ's balanced, insightful reporting of the Crows drama has enhanced her reputation.

As i have noted before her gossipy approach to reporting requires good sources. I suspect the quality of her sources is somewhat related to her standing as a journalist and if that takes a hit so will her ability to get inside info.

................ well they are going about it all wrong. The best way to do that is to stop looking !!

We only have Jon Ralph's assumption that the investigation is continuing. Since AD came back from his holidays, the AFL and the MFC have been very tight with information.

Jon Ralph wouldn't have a clue whether it's continuing or not if you ask me, all he knows is that nothing was to be bought up at the last meeting of the AFL Commission for the year. He then makes the assumption it will come up at the next one in February (at the earliest) it's pretty impressive deduction skills for a muppet to work such things out I know, but there you have it....

I'd be amazed if they are still going through stuff, I suspect the only work that these AFL investigators are probably doing at the moment is tying things up and writing up a report/recommendation stating that there is no case to answer for the MFC, and/or recommendations to the AFL on how to have a tighter policy to prevent such things occurring in the future.

Edited December 13, 201212 yr by Oucher

A perfect opportunity for Emma to assume her rightful position as "most lauded and respected football writer at The Age " by authoring the article that announces our 'innocence"

It would be impossible for the demented one to do so as she'd probably disappear into smoke as the first words hit the keyboard !!

Edited December 13, 201212 yr by belzebub59

I know, I know, it is all well and good to quote an unnamed source, but I have been told with some authority, that the word is the MFC will be told it has no case to answer. The reason it is taking so long is in the hope that the dust settles enough for the AFL to be comfortable to make an official announcement at a time of its own choosing.

you mean the rumour that Hadad wants to re-interview UnClean so he can water-board him and try out the latest truth-serum injections are false?

Whew that's a relief, I was worried some of Cuddles more risque jokes about football end-of-season trips might emerge

I know, I know, it is all well and good to quote an unnamed source, but I have been told with some authority, that the word is the MFC will be told it has no case to answer. The reason it is taking so long is in the hope that the dust settles enough for the AFL to be comfortable to make an official announcement at a time of its own choosing.

Well, the natives won't like this if it's true...

Can you expand on the authority?

................ well they are going about it all wrong. The best way to do that is to stop looking !!

Disagree. They have already tried that and it didn't work. Take as long as they like so there can be no questions about stones left unturned.

End of story.

I reckon theyve just about run out of stones by now !!

I reckon theyve just about run out of stones by now !!

ah but there are many more cuddles' jokes to be turned over. could go on for ever

I know, I know, it is all well and good to quote an unnamed source, but I have been told with some authority, that the word is the MFC will be told it has no case to answer. The reason it is taking so long is in the hope that the dust settles enough for the AFL to be comfortable to make an official announcement at a time of its own choosing.

Well, they may as well announce it on New Year's Eve, because once the new year is in and the 'journo's' and the wannabe's get back to their desks the re-hashing will most likely resume, and I wonder if the AFL will ever be comfortable with it's choosing.

Well, the natives won't like this if it's true...

Can you expand on the authority?

Let's just say someone with a legal background who is quite close to the club

Let's just say someone with a legal background who is quite close to the club

You are giving me a small glow IWS.

Please be correct.

"You can all go home now....Nothing to see here..."

"You can all go home now....Nothing to see here..."

love it wyl.

For a couple of seconds I thought it was from Forest Gump.

Then realised I was wrong,

All my fingers and toes are crossed.

Let's just say someone with a legal background who is quite close to the club

Just quietly I am very happy hearing that..

I know, I know, it is all well and good to quote an unnamed source, but I have been told with some authority, that the word is the MFC will be told it has no case to answer. The reason it is taking so long is in the hope that the dust settles enough for the AFL to be comfortable to make an official announcement at a time of its own choosing.

Merry Xmas everyone

Not sure i am disagreeing with you bb

Just trying to point out that if they find any evidence they can use "bringing the game into disrepute"

I just don't trust the AFL on anything.

They are looking bad on this subject and as a result they are IMO trying desperatly to find evidence to nail us.

I really hope you are right that they have nothing.

I just don't trust the barstards

The AFL old, or the Blue Bayou, Fits Patrick?

most if not all of this scourge has come from Jack Dyers Smoke from Bemm River. Blue smoke, & he knew, where theres Smoke,,, theres Blue Cod on the grill.

Those blue white ants would like nothing more than to dump all Tanking Issues in our Lap as the last protagonist of they're game rules. They don't want to wear the Tank Cap, & would want another to cop the Cap.