AFL investigation

[old dee 23,801]

Especially as this strategy was published openly on the internet.

Whiteboard Wednesdays really kept people informed about our youth policy , maybe too much.

IMHO Biffen we are going to be issued with steep fines.

Who pays is another matter.

[daisycutter 29,624]

IMHO Biffen we are going to be issued with steep fines.

Who pays is another matter.

i the afl issues steep fines then they must know that it will not end there

regardless of whether mfc goes to court or not

singling out one club for a practice endorsed by the afl will not make the matter go away and whitewash the afl

if one goes then eventually all must go or the afl will be seen to be left with blood on their hands and nothing really resolved

and i don't buy your argument that the mfc neccessarily handled it less better than others. give the others 6 months of gestapo like interrogation and a rabid dog media personality or to and i'm sure they wouldn't look any better

[old dee 23,801]

i the afl issues steep fines then they must know that it will not end there

regardless of whether mfc goes to court or not

singling out one club for a practice endorsed by the afl will not make the matter go away and whitewash the afl

if one goes then eventually all must go or the afl will be seen to be left with blood on their hands and nothing really resolved

and i don't buy your argument that the mfc neccessarily handled it less better than others. give the others 6 months of gestapo like interrogation and a rabid dog media personality or to and i'm sure they wouldn't look any better

We are never going to agree on this subject dc

IMO we handled this poorly from the time we did it.

I don't care how well other clubs did it.

again IMO we did a poor job of it.

I also don't agree that if the AFL fine the Dees that compels them to investigate other clubs.

They simply say " we investigated previously and that is it.

They don't have to be fair.

Just look at the " Mitfod " saga

[daisycutter 29,624]

....

I also don't agree that if the AFL fine the Dees that compels them to investigate other clubs.

They simply say " we investigated previously and that is it.

They don't have to be fair.

Just look at the " Mitfod " saga

of course they won't want to investigate others, but if they don't the issue will not be seen to have been finally dealt with

it just won't go away like they would want, the footy public aren't that stupid and the afl's claim to integrity will be in the gutter

vlad wants to go out shortly with a clean slate and no smells, but if mfc only is scapegoated their will be left an almighty stench

i don't think vlad wants that because sticking a charge against mfc is in all reality an indictment against half a dozen other clubs and the afl itself

as for being fair we are already past that point.

[Damo 3,362]

If you work in a middle management role in an unhealthy workplace and the regulators of that workplace formally explain that their wish is to create a strong and sustainable workplace and in doing so, would like to ask you a few questions and hope you will be frank with them...

For all the posturing about tactics and strategy, it is actually very hard to lie for most self respecting people.

Especially those who work in leading young sports men.

If you do decide to lie, you would need to be coached probably, which in itself should be a total anathema to your personal standards.

Think about it.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I'm surprised I am writing this because just about everything WYL has posted over the past few months I have agreed with - and everything Fan has said has made me angry - very angry.

But as effectively all of those who have - apparently - "dobbed us in" are now outside the club, I see little point stressing over who said what to whom during the investigation. So on Tuesday 99th July Fred told the investigators that "the selectors were more interested in developing next year's list than in winning last weeks game " . Does that make Fred a white ant? Do we need to know that he said that on the Tuesday? What if on the Wednesday, he told the investigators not to take his comment out of context? What if the Coordinator of Shredding at the AFL told Caro that Fred's testimony was significant? Should Fred be smoked out? "Tanking" is an ambiguous term.............

We need to put this detail behind us - and move on ( which is fairly close to what Fan said!)

Disagree, I want to know who they are and I want the wider football community know who they are so if they are employed elsewhere, other clubs will know the type of person they are employing.

It may come to a point where one of these people is re employed by the club because we don't know what he/she did in the first place.

As I said above we have the right to face our accusers; basic justice, we have toe right to refute their evidence and it can't be "person x" said.

[Sydney Pennski 296]

Openness and transparency isn't exactly the way the AFL does things.

[sue 9,107]

When people say 'we should be told who gave evidence against the MFC' it is sometimes unclear who the 'we' is.

Surely the AFL must tell the MFC or accused individuals who has accused whom of what. Anything else is entirely contrary to natural justice. Whether that should be made public is another question and may depend on the nature of the evidence, though I suspect that information would leak in any case.

I won't form an opinion on whether "we need to put all this behind us and move on" until we see what the AFL's case is, the MFC's response and the level of any penalties, if any. Then I can judge whether we should fight, demand an extension to other clubs etc. or just acquiesce. Not before.

[stuie 7,374]

Stuie , when it comes to trying, you are the most.

Work on your schtick with your family and friends before you publish.

Try to make it original.

Get your own jokes.

Then gradually build up your confidence and abilities to the point where you might actually say something mildly amusing.

I know it seems a long way off now but with ten years work , a character transplant and a lot of luck ,it may happen.

Case in point.

[pitmaster 3,561]

I reckon we're stuffed. We clearly tanked in 2009, you and I know it. You and I were demanding winning less than 5 games. Lets cop our punishment and move onto Port Adelaide in rd1.

Does the term Vichy French mean anything to you?

[old55 23,625]

hoop

We need to know who ratted and why. Then we can move on.

The cupboards must be emptied.

You couldn't handle the truth.

[dee-luded 2,959]

" I don't think we have any rights to know who said what and IMO it would be quite wrong for that information to be available."

Why would Fan say this? Let us not forget he is also a moderator of this site.

Is it because he has himself been interviewed in this sordid affair?

I do not know the answer, but it is a very strange statement to make...He is either taking the p!ss or beginning to get very worried about his own little world.

As a member of this club for many years i want to know who said what to whoever...i want it all out in the open

so this club can grow upright as it should..Jimma started the process but it is far from finished...

The people who wish to bring this club down will be smoked out....

Maybe this topic has run on way past the officials thought it would?

Maybe there is a pre ordained prescription for our medicine to be taken?

Maybe some want it to die down so they can get on with taking that medicine without too much kerfuffle?

I don't know but I also find it a bit mischievous, & IMO this fits the character.

Is it designed to divide the troops into fighting one another instead of focusing on the Aim of our injustice???

[dee-luded 2,959]

I'm surprised I am writing this because just about everything WYL has posted over the past few months I have agreed with - and everything Fan has said has made me angry - very angry.

But as effectively all of those who have - apparently - "dobbed us in" are now outside the club, I see little point stressing over who said what to whom during the investigation. So on Tuesday 99th July Fred told the investigators that "the selectors were more interested in developing next year's list than in winning last weeks game " . Does that make Fred a white ant? Do we need to know that he said that on the Tuesday? What if on the Wednesday, he told the investigators not to take his comment out of context? What if the Coordinator of Shredding at the AFL told Caro that Fred's testimony was significant? Should Fred be smoked out? "Tanking" is an ambiguous term.............

We need to put this detail behind us - and move on ( which is fairly close to what Fan said!)

The AFL & the clubs would want to keep the mushrooms in their darkened cupboards, wouldn't they.... lest the cockroaches get seen in the daylight.

not what the afl want.

[Clintosaurus 7,852]

The major problem I have with the investigation/inquisition/kangaroo court is that 2012 rules are being applied to 2009 happenings. In 2009 all of this was considered OK and within the rules that applied at the time and still do outside of Caro and these so-called integrity officers. Even worse is that the weakest animal in the herd has been singled out for this retrospective application. Total [censored]. If Vlad and his cronies (Fitzpatrick et al) were fair dinkum an amnesty as suggested by Mark Fine would take place so all clubs perceived of 'tanking' could be looked at and a clear set of rules on what is and what is not tanking can be devised, plus the introduction of a lottery for the first 10 draft picks (all teams that missed the finals).

The lottery might happen but I have no faith that any of the rest will. I also want to know who has sold out the club during the 'investigation'.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

You couldn't handle the truth.

sorry?

The truth is what i would like to know.

Love Jack's work by the way...

[old dee 23,801]

You couldn't handle the truth.

Yes we could.

It was not me so I can handle who it was.

Pray tell who?

[old55 23,625]

Try this for starters - we tanked and Jimmy Stynes ordered it.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

Try this for starters - we tanked and Jimmy Stynes ordered it.

Sauce or fuel to the fire?

[mjt 640]

Try this for starters - we tanked and Jimmy Stynes ordered it.

Never bag a man that cant defend himself.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

of course they won't want to investigate others, but if they don't the issue will not be seen to have been finally dealt with

The AFL don't want to investigate others, and so won't. And even if they do, what good does that do us? Don't hang your hat on the idea that the AFL "has to" investigate other clubs. It wouldn't help us one jot.

i don't think vlad wants that because sticking a charge against mfc is in all reality an indictment against half a dozen other clubs and the afl itself

Vlad doesn't want a charge to stick because then the AFL is officially a competition where tanking occurs.

Vlad doesn't want his key sponsors and their lovely dollars saying, "about this corrupt competition of yours. I've got a squeaky clean image to protect."

Vlad doesn't want all the gambling companies and their lovely fees saying, "about this rigged competition of yours. I've got angry punters on my tail."

[mjt 640]

Thats crap, if we get done for Tanking Carlton are next, thats how a Democracy works, the Blues will have no were to hide.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1. The AFL is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.

2. Let's say a miracle occurs and the AFL, having pinned our hides to the wall, then go after Carlton. Explain how that benefits the MFC.

3. Do you imagine that Carlton and all other clubs are not studying this investigation? Do you think they have not shored up their defences accordingly?

The only club with any chance of going down for tanking is us. Anderson's been scalped for his rashness, but again, what good does that do us now?

[mjt 640]

1. The AFL is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.

2. Let's say a miracle occurs and the AFL, having pinned our hides to the wall, then go after Carlton. Explain how that benefits the MFC.

3. Do you imagine that Carlton and all other clubs are not studying this investigation? Do you think they have not shored up their defences accordingly?

The only club with any chance of going down for tanking is us. Anderson's been scalped for his rashness, but again, what good does that do us now?

Listen mate i respect your opinion, but the AFL isnt a dictatorship, its a fair competition apart from the draw, they have a very fair distribution fund for clubs like ours that just simply cant get it rite on the park, Malthouse has just come to Carlton and virtually made a clean sweep of there coaching staff in a very bitter way , the Blues are next, once the media are done with us there next, this kind of crap sells papers.

[sue 9,107]

The AFL don't want to investigate others, and so won't. And even if they do, what good does that do us? Don't hang your hat on the idea that the AFL "has to" investigate other clubs. It wouldn't help us one jot.

I tentatively hang my hat on it helping. If they plan to clobber us heavily we may threaten to take them to court where their lack of investigation of other clubs could be raised. They neither want to answer that or investigate other clubs, so it could do us some good in negotiatios over penalties.

And if they clobber other clubs you ask again 'what good does that do us'. Well first we won't be bitter and self-destructive about being singled out for the next 20 years; and less importantly, if they also penalize other clubs we are in competition with, then it evens things somewhat.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Carlton will not get done whilst Fitzpatrick is leading the commission.

It won't happen.