AFL investigation

[Tony Tea 2,806]

As for posting regularly, it's not my thing. And for my previous posts being negative? In 20+ years of watching Melbourne (as a member) I cannot remember a more demoralising season of football.

Without doubt. Could any more have gone wrong both on and off the field? Could we have played any worse?

I often cite 1997 as one of my most enjoyable years watching footy. We came last, and played plenty of slop, but for some reason I really enjoyed following the Dees that year and even went on a couple of interstate trips. Not so 2012 - complete filth.

[nutbean 8,838]

Billy,

I will continue to critique anyone who is advocating now - ( yes you - Bring back Powell) - that we plead guilty and try and damage control the penalties.

Before contemplating this course of action two things need to happen first

1/ We need to be charged with something

2/ The evidence that led to the charges need to be scrutinized for strength and reliability

Then and only then can a sensible, rational, clear thinking MFC make a decision as to the course of action to take.

So when anyone posts that the AFL must have something or they wouldnt be doing this or how can half the footy journo's be wrong and the investigators are judge and jury ( judge and judy ?) and no use fighting their outcomes - when anyone wants to raise the white flag NOW and plead guilty - I will continue to harshly ( but with respect) critique their posts

EDIT - the above refers to "whoa is us " posters not Deegirl. I'll prefer to withhold my whoa is us until I actually have something to whoa about

Edited December 20, 2012 by nutbean

[beelzebub 23,304]

Billy,

I will continue to critique anyone who is advocating now - ( yes you - Bring back Powell) - that we plead guilty and try and damage control the penalties.

Before contemplating this course of action two things need to happen first

1/ We need to be charged with something

2/ The evidence that led to the charges need to be scrutinized for strength and reliability

Then and only then can a sensible, rational, clear thinking MFC make a decision as to the course of action to take.

So when anyone posts that the AFL must have something or they wouldnt be doing this or how can half the footy journo's be wrong and the investigators are judge and jury ( judge and judy ?) and no use fighting their outcomes - when anyone wants to raise the white flag NOW and plead guilty - I will continue to harshly ( but with respect) critique their posts

EDIT - the above refers to "whoa is us " posters not Deegirl. I'll prefer to withhold my whoa is us until I actually have something to whoa about

yeah ....wot ee sed !!

[rjay 24,778]

Billy,

I will continue to critique anyone who is advocating now - ( yes you - Bring back Powell) - that we plead guilty and try and damage control the penalties.

Before contemplating this course of action two things need to happen first

1/ We need to be charged with something

2/ The evidence that led to the charges need to be scrutinized for strength and reliability

Then and only then can a sensible, rational, clear thinking MFC make a decision as to the course of action to take.

So when anyone posts that the AFL must have something or they wouldnt be doing this or how can half the footy journo's be wrong and the investigators are judge and jury ( judge and judy ?) and no use fighting their outcomes - when anyone wants to raise the white flag NOW and plead guilty - I will continue to harshly ( but with respect) critique their posts

EDIT - the above refers to "whoa is us " posters not Deegirl. I'll prefer to withhold my whoa is us until I actually have something to whoa about

Fully agree mate and my consternation has nothing to do with Deegirl post either. That is information, but the roll over posts just p me off.

Adelaide were charged with something and decided they should give themselves a penalty, good for them. We have not been charged with anything yet and may not be charged at all. If we are then we deal with it.

[nutbean 8,838]

The head in the sand, no way they can single us out group here amazes me. I love your optimism but we are dealing with the AFL remember so anything can happen. I am told that there is enough evidence for the Commission to lay charges if they feel like it and there is enough wriggle room if they don't want to. In the end it will come down to those people on the Commission reaching a consensus one way or the other - so it's just like a jury verdict. Plenty of innocent have been found guilty by juries and plenty of guilty have walked free. It will be close, for people to just sit back and bah humbug the whole thing is niave.

And it amazes me that you dont think that AFL commission will consider that if wants to take down the MFC for tanking that they will have the luxury of not being able to justify their actions and then not have to hold other clubs to the same standard. It amazes me that you dont consider what we know so far to be completely subjective in nature and the AFL commission will not have considered the possibility of long drawn out court case over evidence that is not black and white.

Again with the big disclaimer that we have not seen the evidence and do not know what the AFL has uncovered but if it is as reported it amazes me that you think the AFL will be so cavalier to charge us on such defendable evidence against a broadbrush rule.

Ponder this - have you not considered that there is a reason the Vlad has stated since the day dot that tanking does not exist in the AFL ? To be charged with the evidence that has been in the media the AFL will know it is on a hiding to nothing trying to take this on both from a MFC alone perspective and the wider past actions of other clubs.

I dont have my head in the sand - I just assume that the AFL and commission have smart people working for them.

[loges 6,767]

Billy,

I will continue to critique anyone who is advocating now - ( yes you - Bring back Powell) - that we plead guilty and try and damage control the penalties.

Before contemplating this course of action two things need to happen first

1/ We need to be charged with something

2/ The evidence that led to the charges need to be scrutinized for strength and reliability

Then and only then can a sensible, rational, clear thinking MFC make a decision as to the course of action to take.

So when anyone posts that the AFL must have something or they wouldnt be doing this or how can half the footy journo's be wrong and the investigators are judge and jury ( judge and judy ?) and no use fighting their outcomes - when anyone wants to raise the white flag NOW and plead guilty - I will continue to harshly ( but with respect) critique their posts

EDIT - the above refers to "whoa is us " posters not Deegirl. I'll prefer to withhold my whoa is us until I actually have something to whoa about

Actually for those that didn't hear it Ralph actually said on SEN the only thing they ( the journos ) actually knew of for sure was CC's throw away line

[nutbean 8,838]

Fully agree mate and my consternation has nothing to do with Deegirl post either. That is information, but the roll over posts just p me off.

Adelaide were charged with something and decided they should give themselves a penalty, good for them. We have not been charged with anything yet and may not be charged at all. If we are then we deal with it.

And why did Adelaide roll ? They knew exactly what the AFL had. We will also know what the AFL have and can respond accordingly.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,588]

Anyone else hearing that there is actually no hard evidence other than third party recollections of comments made? From what I understand the evidence isnt overly compelling.

As for going to court - the AFL would not want this because of the negative publicity but also because they dont actually have a strong case.

[beelzebub 23,304]

I dont have my head in the sand - I just assume that the AFL and commission have smart people working for them.

Because the idiot who started this has left the building!! ( and NO longer works for them )

[ILLDieADemon 804]

Tell her she's dreaming

[dee-luded 2,959]

The head in the sand, no way they can single us out group here amazes me. I love your optimism but we are dealing with the AFL remember so anything can happen. I am told that there is enough evidence for the Commission to lay charges if they feel like it and there is enough wriggle room if they don't want to. In the end it will come down to those people on the Commission reaching a consensus one way or the other - so it's just like a jury verdict. Plenty of innocent have been found guilty by juries and plenty of guilty have walked free. It will be close, for people to just sit back and bah humbug the whole thing is niave.

If what you say is correct & the AFL Commission have enough to go either way, I expect them to charge us, or penalise us to save time.

They will want to be seen by the footy fans, that they are doing something.

With that, I think they'll give us some wiggle room not wanting to shoot down the New reborn.

We will inturn, put up a stern fight, prior to the season start, & a watered down penalty will ensue....?

All hold heads up & blow the whistle for the " kickoff ". 'it's a bit like american sport played in the indoor courts'

[Pennant St Dee 13,026]

Just read the "Aged" little article in todays rag.

Can't half tell what verdict the want to push.

Don't want the Chief Football Writer to look like a fool do we...

Sooner that paper goes under the better.

I think her silence may say it all WYL, she would have penned a massive article on this if she had further info.

I think Caro's biggest concern is, her junior (in terms of years) Emma Quayle making her look totally unprofessional & amatuer.

[PaulRB 6,320]

I don't understand why people compare our situation with the issues Adelaide have faced. In regards to salary cap and draft tampering there are clear well defined rules that clubs are aware of and break at their peril. In our case there are no clear and well defined rules and the case seems to be about censoring CC for talking too loudly and openly about what clubs in our position have been doing for a decade, positioning themselves for the future.

It seems weird that people are talking about our being penalised for CC's big mouth.

[nutbean 8,838]

Because the idiot who started this has left the building!! ( and NO longer works for them )

I rephrase - I assume that the AFL and commission MOSTLY have and had smart people working them.

I am tipping Vlad has an Adrian Anderson voodoo doll that he is currently sticking pins into.

[nutbean 8,838]

I don't understand why people compare our situation with the issues Adelaide have faced. In regards to salary cap and draft tampering there are clear well defined rules that clubs are aware of and break at their peril. In our case there are no clear and well defined rules and the case seems to be about censoring CC for talking too loudly and openly about what clubs in our position have been doing for a decade, positioning themselves for the future.

It seems weird that people are talking about our being penalised for CC's big mouth.

Bingo - a black and white breach of a black and white rule with concrete evidence vs subjective evidence of a subjective practice breaching a non descript rule.

[Pennant St Dee 13,026]

The majority of readers seemed to haven drawn the conclusion that my post was to stir everyone up. It wasn't, it was to share news about the club with other keen supporters. I was a little surprised by the majority being so quick to dismiss the post but that's fair, any reasonable person would want to ask questions. You guys will just have to take my word that when I post these things I'm doing it because I think other MFC tragics will want to hear them.

As for posting regularly, it's not my thing. And for my previous posts being negative? In 20+ years of watching Melbourne (as a member) I cannot remember a more demoralising season of football.

I can only speak for myself on this deegirl but my initial comment of "Nothing to see here" was in no way dismissing your post or stating you were just stiring the pot. I don't know you and the fact you may have only had 3 posts to me is of no relevance. We all have to start somewhere on demonland even if we have reviewed the site for years beforehand.

My initial comment related more to nothing has changed regarding the investigation outcome being confirmed. I don't question what you passed on was true to what you heard and I appreciate it.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Just heard on sen that Barrett has tweeted that the MFC will go to the supreme court....Any one heard anything.......

[Bossdog 2,002]

If CC made some idiotic remarks about this issue, joking or otherwise, I sincerely hope the club privately drag him over the coals.

Come on Rob.........Never cracked a joke at works expence at work......

[beelzebub 23,304]

Those that suppose we will entertain any penalty or for that matter suggest the AFL by such will impose a penalty after sustaining a charge seem to be overlooking the reality that in order for the AFL to do so it will expose themselves to no end of litigation from any 3rd party who deems hard done by by such events.

And lets not trivialise what those amounts may add to. Were talking 6 zero numbers and then some. The barest modicum of logic ought to deem that no such outcome can come. The only recourse the AFL actually has is to not just close the door on this issue but slam it tight for all eternity lest the monster reappears.

But they ( Vlad & Co ) cant simply whitewash this nor sweep it under the green grass of the G. No they have to appear diligent lest someone else takes them to task for not being earnest.

This is an elaborate hoax worthy of George Roy Hill.

roll the Joplin !!!

[The Chazz 4,077]

Billy,

I will continue to critique anyone who is advocating now - ( yes you - Bring back Powell) - that we plead guilty and try and damage control the penalties.

Before contemplating this course of action two things need to happen first

1/ We need to be charged with something

2/ The evidence that led to the charges need to be scrutinized for strength and reliability

Then and only then can a sensible, rational, clear thinking MFC make a decision as to the course of action to take.

So when anyone posts that the AFL must have something or they wouldnt be doing this or how can half the footy journo's be wrong and the investigators are judge and jury ( judge and judy ?) and no use fighting their outcomes - when anyone wants to raise the white flag NOW and plead guilty - I will continue to harshly ( but with respect) critique their posts

EDIT - the above refers to "whoa is us " posters not Deegirl. I'll prefer to withhold my whoa is us until I actually have something to whoa about

Well said Nutbean, and I thank you for showing respect in regards to your post. I'm over the disrespectful posts on here, especially when someone voices an opinion that is different to the masses.

Bingo - a black and white breach of a black and white rule with concrete evidence vs subjective evidence of a subjective practice breaching a non descript rule.

On the otherhand, this bit I have bolded is just speculation on your behalf. I hope you're right, I hope to hell that it is subjective evidence that the AFL has in their hands. But, as Loges highlighted above, even the journo's no nothing. Is this because that's the point, that there is nothing? Or is it becasue the AFL has managed to keep a tight hold of what they have and are giving the journo's nothing?

Let's face it, the people Caro contacted to fuel her argument are most likely punters that the AFL wouldn't even bother interviewing.

I do admire the confidence that some have regarding the fact that the evidence is weak and that we will be fine. At this stage, I haven't seen anything, so I'd love to know what they have, or more to the point, what they don't have. Until then, I await the MFC's response to the recent statement made by the people that know, the AFL.

[Sir Why You Little 36,858]

Just heard on sen that Barrett has tweeted that the MFC will go to the supreme court....Any one heard anything.......

good.

Let's sort this shite out once and for all.

We will have enough pro bono beaks to rip this apart.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Just heard on sen that Barrett has tweeted that the MFC will go to the supreme court....Any one heard anything.......

Barrett is a [censored] that is reporting on nothing new. At least Deegirl's OP yesterday was actually current information, which was backed up by the fact that the AFL made an announcement yesterday afternoon.

[PaulRB 6,320]

I see it as subjective as the investigation and "crime" the MFC is being accused of in not "tanking", but rather "talking openly about tanking'. This is evident in their refusal to look at other instances of "tanking" and for the crimes being presented to the club relating not to the club doing it (tanking) but, far worse, talking about doing it...

It's a farce and subjective in that the crime is not in the "tank" but in the trail of evidence of the club's "open intent to tank".

Edited December 20, 2012 by PaulRB

[Bossdog 2,002]

Barrett is a [censored] that is reporting on nothing new. At least Deegirl's OP yesterday was actually current information, which was backed up by the fact that the AFL made an announcement yesterday afternoon.

Just telling what I heard.......No more ...No less....Make of it what you want...

[DeeZee 7,361]

One things for sure...we ain't takin any carp from anyone.