AFL investigation

[low flying Robbo 979]

I always had a a liking for brock mclean & a respect.

No longer.

release the Kraken... #7

[Scoop Junior 3,472]

Fan gets dismissed not because of what he says but what people feel about what he says. Same with Hazy. What they are saying needs questioning but most don't even get that far. CC (or comments attributed to him) has questioned the club...and the board (who else would move him - not CS!). He therefore should be dealt with the same way as Fan and Hazy - belittled because of saying something the mob didn't like. Hell he displayed internal rifts to an outsider - BETRAYAL!!! BETRAYAL!!!

timD can you point me to the part of the article that says CC questioned the club and the board.

From my reading of the article, I'm not sure it can be concluded 100% that the people Connolly allegedly refers to are still at the club. The quotes leave open the possibility that those people are no longer at the club. If they are actually former employees, then it cannot be said that Connolly has questioned the club and the board as you have alleged.

And how has he displayed internal rifts to an outsider? He is defending himself when questioned as part of a private investigation. He has not gone public in airing his views. It was not even Connolly (and perhaps not even the club's lawyer) that went to the Age to leak this information.

[rpfc 28,527]

its almost like saying "warning. don't go down this path"

why would they do this now (unless prompted) when some sort of decision is imminent?

it smacks of unnecessary intervention and grand-standing

JMO

The intention was for the AFL to know what the ramifications were for one of the clubs in the competition if they were found to be in breach of gambling laws through deliberate "forfeiting" of matches (as CW likes to say). I don't see it as grandstanding or intervention, this is hardly an independent inquiry - the AFL should know where its findings will lead to from a regulatory stand point.

I wonder if the Melbournefc were also sent the same letter.

For the licence to be removed, it would need to be based on a conviction against a specific charge.

It couldn't be DB not tring hard enough. If they only gave licences to people who tried their best all the time then there wouldn't be many licences.

I wonder about bringing the game into disrepute. Been a heap of these charges in the past, and I struggle to see the link between this and a licence.

If it is the draft tampering, then I wonder if the same thing has happended to Adelaide (although would be a different State's authority).

Also, surely there would need to be a law broken, not just a an AFL Rule. Also, this all happened more than 3 years ago. Wondering how this affects it all.

It's the gambling aspect that is the concern. 'Forfeiting' of matches is far different to draft tampering and salary cap breaches.

You can't simply find a club in breach of integrity rules by deliberately losing matches and expect regulatory authorities to stand by and do nothing.

The letter was sent before the charges were laid and the charges certainly reflect the desire to target, for questioning or punishment, individuals rather than the club.

I think it is fairly safe to assume that the club will be absolved but the AFL may want a patsy...

[daisycutter 29,619]

Cuddles and the MFC in general get a good report card for their work in the general Casey community in "Your Say" Letters to the editor in today's Hun

I can't find an online link to it so here it is

GO Melbourne FC

It is often easy to be critical and join the masses who heap scorn on organisations that are alleged to operate outside acceptable rules.

Such is the case with Melbourne Football Club over alleged tanking

As general manager of the Cranbourne Football Club which plays in the Casey Cardinia division of the MPNFL, I can say the Melbourne Football Club is held in high regard in he City of Casey

Under the leadership of Chris Connolly the club has introduced programs in the City of Casey to support young women, provide pathways for youth to participate in sport, support the the less privileged support primary and secondary school programs and formed partnerships with local clubs and leagues.

Connolly has always been willing to attend numerous functions and participates in all activities.

Those quick to point the finger should take into account the wonderful things the Melbourne Football Club is doing to support the community

Danny Mulqueen, Cranbourne

[Redleg 40,951]

someone ought to have a quiet word with little boy Jay !!

Don,t think we would like to be seen as interfering with the freedom of the press. However once this is all over I don,t think he should plan on a gig at the MFC for 2013.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

The mob reacts without logic or reason. They rationalise their spite and vitriol. You don't. Don't make the mistake of extending your grace to them. They have not earned, nor do they deserve, it.

Does this 'mob' (whoever they are) indulge in sweeping generalisations like this as well? Of course there's only a 'mob' if you ignore individual differences in the first place.

But even if an opinion or attitude is broadly shared, that doesn't make it wrong, just as it doesn't make it right. You'd need a bit more than that.

[Slartibartfast 17,333]

Fan can be cheeky (and it strikes me as annoying but then I am an intolerant [censored] at times) but does that mean that his insights should be summarily dismissed? Fan argues for integrity and process. Yet he can be provocative and inconsistent. When do I dismiss? He's not backing up his insights because of an ethical decision. When do I discount and just take pot shots at him? Where is his proof?

Interesting response Tim, fancy calling me cheeky!!

I can cop cheeky, I can cop provocative (I try to be) and I can cop inconsistent (we all are because our views can change over time and this medium limits our ability to fully outline our views and reasons) and to an extent I can cop "agenda" albeit that I think everyone here has the same agenda - to see the MFC do well.

But what I can't cop is "proof". This is an opinion Board. I get attacked because I want some changes in the club I think will benefit it. How do I prove that? Hazy thinks the previous Board is unfairly treated and supports them, but that is not a "proof" issue. BH thinks Jack Viney will have an immediate impact at AFL level. Proof? Proof is just a silly defence for those who what to dismiss the argument.

Whispering Jack said

I don't think you can dismiss out of hand the possibility that some (not all) of the controversial events surrounding the club over the past 1½ years have been fueled by either former board members or officials with axes to grind against the incumbents and against officials of the club.

Where is his proof? Not one shred. And guess what. Those that agree don't call for proof. The excitable RobbieF "likes" it. BB59 "likes" it. What a surprise. WJ assertion makes it easier to blame the troubles we face on evil past doers and not the current incumbents who people like Robbie support without question.

This is an opinion forum where the majority of issues can't be proved.

[daisycutter 29,619]

Does this 'mob' (whoever they are) indulge in sweeping generalisations like this as well? Of course there's only a 'mob' if you ignore individual differences in the first place.

But even if an opinion or attitude is broadly shared, that doesn't make it wrong, just as it doesn't make it right. You'd need a bit more than that.

maybe we could all provide inkblots to settle the issue?

[old55 23,621]

timD can you point me to the part of the article that says CC questioned the club and the board.

From my reading of the article, I'm not sure it can be concluded 100% that the people Connolly allegedly refers to are still at the club. The quotes leave open the possibility that those people are no longer at the club. If they are actually former employees, then it cannot be said that Connolly has questioned the club and the board as you have alleged.

And how has he displayed internal rifts to an outsider? He is defending himself when questioned as part of a private investigation. He has not gone public in airing his views. It was not even Connolly (and perhaps not even the club's lawyer) that went to the Age to leak this information.

Scoop, I'd be quite happy to read that CC thinks that disgruntled former MFC employees have attempted to set him up in this investigation because I reckon that's probably true and would discredit their "evidence" and the investigation.

But that doesn't sound like who he's talking about in this quote. "...who lined me up to move sideways from football manager" ???

"He goes to quite an extent to say that, 'I have been lined up by certain people at the club, these are the same people who lined me up to move sideways from football manager', to what he is doing now.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/connolly-claims-conspiracy-20130114-2cpwu.html#ixzz2I6CNlBDW

[Sir Why You Little 37,049]

Jack, I think you are being generous to the majority. The majority railed because they did not like what they heard. They generally ignored the content - or just did not think about it beyond 'not liking' it. Few actually questioned it. PaulRB did and I PM'd him to tell him what a good post I thought he'd made and how weak it was that Hazy did not respond. Paul was an exception.

Fan gets dismissed not because of what he says but what people feel about what he says. Same with Hazy. What they are saying needs questioning but most don't even get that far. CC (or comments attributed to him) has questioned the club...and the board (who else would move him - not CS!). He therefore should be dealt with the same way as Fan and Hazy - belittled because of saying something the mob didn't like. Hell he displayed internal rifts to an outsider - BETRAYAL!!! BETRAYAL!!!

To then argue that Hazy's posts were "agenda based... without..proof" is flimsy. Having an agenda does nothing to undermine the point they make. You need to understand it to understand the point, but it does not invalidate it like you imply. Fan can be cheeky (and it strikes me as annoying but then I am an intolerant [censored] at times) but does that mean that his insights should be summarily dismissed? Fan argues for integrity and process. Yet he can be provocative and inconsistent. When do I dismiss? He's not backing up his insights because of an ethical decision. When do I discount and just take pot shots at him? Where is his proof?

As for ad hominem attacks...I'll raise you Ben Hur. Ben Hur regularly posts in an aggressive or demeaning way. Does that mean that his insights into footy are lessened? You are arguing that for Hazy but I bet you won't about B-H.

The mob reacts without logic or reason. They rationalise their spite and vitriol. You don't. Don't make the mistake of extending your grace to them. They have not earned, nor do they deserve, it.

Fan gets a hard time on here because of

1. He states his opinion by shoving it down peoples mouths then starts abusing people for disagreeing. That i can handle.

What i don't like is

2. When asked a rational question like yesterday about why he does not rate the current President (or board. They go together) he has never put forward an alternative at all. A replacement board should always be better. But we get nothing from Fan, just dissention about the current regime. He then runs away only to pop in days later.

I am still waiting for an answer as to why he "stepped down" as a moderator on here.

I am not part of any mob by the way. I speak for me only.

Hazy is another story altogether...he has not been happy since Jimma said hello.

Edited January 16, 2013 by why you little

[Slartibartfast 17,333]

timD can you point me to the part of the article that says CC questioned the club and the board.

I must confess that when I first read it I assumed he was referring to those no longer at the club but then reread it and thought not because it says "he is the victim of a conspiracy within the Melbourne Football Club".

That does seem to imply they are still there as no likely interviewee has left since the investigation started. And I also thought that with it's "simple reading" if he was being misquoted there would have been a clarification by the MFC reasonably quickly - certainly by now. The general impression to the footy world is that Connolly thinks he's been shafted by those still within the Club.

I don't for a minute dismiss your comment that he could be referring to those no longer at the club and in fact I tend to that view myself as it fits better with everything else that's happening. But I do think TimD's comment is a fair one.

[pitmaster 3,561]

Fan gets a hard time on here because of

1. He states his opinion by shoving it down peoples mouths then starts abusing people for disagreeing. That i can handle.

What i don't like is

2. When asked a rational question like yesterday about why he does not rate the current President (or board. They go together) he has never put forward an alternative at all.

And I am still waiting for an answer to my direct question on the matter - when have we had a board and president who were better?

I'm not saying it's not possible. I just want to see what his standard is - so far no response...

[Bossdog 2,002]

I must confess that when I first read it I assumed he was referring to those no longer at the club but then reread it and thought not because it says "he is the victim of a conspiracy within the Melbourne Football Club".

That does seem to imply they are still there as no likely interviewee has left since the investigation started. And I also thought that with it's "simple reading" if he was being misquoted there would have been a clarification by the MFC reasonably quickly - certainly by now. The general impression to the footy world is that Connolly thinks he's been shafted by those still within the Club.

I don't for a minute dismiss your comment that he could be referring to those no longer at the club and in fact I tend to that view myself as it fits better with everything else that's happening. But I do think TimD's comment is a fair one.

I don't believe that CC or his (our) lawyers have said anything.....It was reported that this information was by a legal person with knowledge of the case......Bloody hell that could have been anyone ,even me........Another loose fitting report from the media......No wonder the club or CC have not commented....

Edited January 16, 2013 by Bossdog

[Slartibartfast 17,333]

Fan gets a hard time on here because of

2. When asked a rational question like yesterday about why he does not rate the current President (or board. They go together) he has never put forward an alternative at all. A replacement board should always be better. But we get nothing from Fan, just dissention about the current regime. He then runs away only to pop in days later.

I am still waiting for an answer as to why he "stepped down" as a moderator on here.

1. I won't discuss why I think McLardy and Schwab are less that best practice because I agree with BH that the last thing supporters and contributors to this forum need or want is a discussion of the mistakes of the past. This club is under pressure and I'll leave my reasons for another day if anyone is interested. And my reasons have been stated in other threads at other times.

2. I didn't "run away" yesterday as you put it. Believe it or not I had a previous commitment that I needed to attend and didn't have time, or the inclination, to continue the debate.

3. There is nothing sinister in stepping down as a mod. I did it because I wanted to enter this and other debates to offer alternative views that some might be interested in and knew that if I was a moderator the hurly burly of those debates would likely prompt me to respond in a way I didn't want to as a moderator. I stepped down to obtain the freedom to debate and I think you'll agree I been much more vocal since.

Edit: I don't want the Board replaced, I don't even want McLardy off it, I want a better Chairman and I think there may well be existing Board members who could fill the bill.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Fan

[mjt 640]

Interesting response Tim, fancy calling me cheeky!!

I can cop cheeky, I can cop provocative (I try to be) and I can cop inconsistent (we all are because our views can change over time and this medium limits our ability to fully outline our views and reasons) and to an extent I can cop "agenda" albeit that I think everyone here has the same agenda - to see the MFC do well.

But what I can't cop is "proof". This is an opinion Board. I get attacked because I want some changes in the club I think will benefit it. How do I prove that? Hazy thinks the previous Board is unfairly treated and supports them, but that is not a "proof" issue. BH thinks Jack Viney will have an immediate impact at AFL level. Proof? Proof is just a silly defence for those who what to dismiss the argument.

Whispering Jack said

Where is his proof? Not one shred. And guess what. Those that agree don't call for proof. The excitable RobbieF "likes" it. BB59 "likes" it. What a surprise. WJ assertion makes it easier to blame the troubles we face on evil past doers and not the current incumbents who people like Robbie support without question.

This is an opinion forum where the majority of issues can't be proved.

IF they dont like your opinion certain fruitcakes think your running for the board, can totally see were your coming from.

[dee-luded 2,959]

maybe we could all provide inkblots to settle the issue?

good, the more dots the better the definition of the picture, until those who don't want the image seen, splatter it, covering it in 'all sorts'.

[old55 23,621]

I don't believe that CC or his (our) lawyers have said anything.....It was reported that this information was by a legal person with knowledge of the case......Bloody hell that could have been anyone ,even me........Another loose fitting report from the media......No wonder the club or CC have not commented....

It purports to directly quote CC from the report - if that's not in the report then the club should come out and say so.

[dee-luded 2,959]

1. I won't discuss why I think McLardy and Schwab are less that best practice because I agree with BH that the last thing supporters and contributors to this forum need or want is a discussion of the mistakes of the past. This club is under pressure and I'll leave my reasons for another day if anyone is interested. And my reasons have been stated in other threads at other times.

2. I didn't "run away" yesterday as you put it. Believe it or not I had a previous commitment that I needed to attend and didn't have time, or the inclination, to continue the debate.

3. There is nothing sinister in stepping down as a mod. I did it because I wanted to enter this and other debates to offer alternative views that some might be interested in and knew that if I was a moderator the hurly burly of those debates would likely prompt me to respond in a way I didn't want to as a moderator. I stepped down to obtain the freedom to debate and I think you'll agree I been much more vocal since.

Edit: I don't want the Board replaced, I don't even want McLardy off it, I want a better Chairman and I think there may well be existing Board members who could fill the bill.

Fair enough Fan, so tell us one thing, exactly when was it you were removed as a moderator.

You want us to trust you & take you at your word.

[Slartibartfast 17,333]

You want us to trust you & take you at your word.

Why is this important?

From memory it was around the beginning of December and it was at my request.

Tell me why it's important. Perhaps a PM would be more appropriate if it's so important to you.

[nutbean 8,838]

Interesting response Tim, fancy calling me cheeky!!

I can cop cheeky, I can cop provocative (I try to be) and I can cop inconsistent (we all are because our views can change over time and this medium limits our ability to fully outline our views and reasons) and to an extent I can cop "agenda" albeit that I think everyone here has the same agenda - to see the MFC do well.

But what I can't cop is "proof". This is an opinion Board. I get attacked because I want some changes in the club I think will benefit it. How do I prove that? Hazy thinks the previous Board is unfairly treated and supports them, but that is not a "proof" issue. BH thinks Jack Viney will have an immediate impact at AFL level. Proof? Proof is just a silly defence for those who what to dismiss the argument.

Whispering Jack said

Where is his proof? Not one shred. And guess what. Those that agree don't call for proof. The excitable RobbieF "likes" it. BB59 "likes" it. What a surprise. WJ assertion makes it easier to blame the troubles we face on evil past doers and not the current incumbents who people like Robbie support without question.

This is an opinion forum where the majority of issues can't be proved.

My major issue with some posters, and I do take them to task (without vitriol) is where their opinion is so forcefully put that the poster is masquerading opinion as fact.

"there is no doubt that Tom Scully signed with GWS in November of 2010." as opposed to " I believe that Tom Scully signed...".

I know this is semantics and I am being pedantic but when a poster passes off opinion as fact I will call for proof.

I am the master of writing " i feel, I think, I believe and in my opinion" because I get zero facts from the inside or others so all I have is my opinions ( hopefully they are logically reasoned)

FYI - this is my number one problem with Caroline Wilson - she is highly respected and well read but she has continually passed off opinion as fact.

[rpfc 28,527]

It purports to directly quote CC from the report - if that's not in the report then the club should come out and say so.

The club is not going to come out and say anything at the moment.

And I know how it is written in the article and you are right but let's get this straight: it was written by a journalist who was quoting a lawyer for the AFL investgations unit who is quoting the report that is quoting CC. If even one of those 'quotes' is a 'paraphrase' it might change the intended meaning of CC or anyone in that chain.

Edited January 16, 2013 by rpfc

[sue 9,107]

Well said Nutbean. A lot of the aggro on this forum starts with someone stating an opinion without an "I think" qualification. Maybe we should take that as read unless someone makes a very bold claim of fact.

Also it is a fact, universally acknowledged, that people with minority opinions always feel hard done by. Apologies to J Austin.

Re the CC quotes to add to rpfc's last post: Even if this unnamed person is quoting from the report, we shouldn't forget our journo may be doing some selective quoting. For example, I've seen people putting the boot into CC for saying his recollections were hazy rather than just saying, 'yes I said it, but was joking'. He could well have said both without contradicting himself, but only one part is published.

(Once again for any CC-haters out there, I have no opinion of him either way, just a low opinion of some journos and whatever is going on in all this. As interesting as speculating on all this may be, we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist over every report that comes out.)

edit to add last sentence.

Edited January 16, 2013 by sue

[robbiefrom13 887]

Thoroughly enjoying this, thankyou all. Almost as good as footy, with all the fascinating information and opinions being offered, plus the overheating posters and their digressions. An engrossing read all round.

(But thank goodness we have had Neeld's assurance that it is not impacting the players - you would hope that this proves to be the case.)

What I would like to hear some thoughts on, is:

Why didn't Demetriou read Clothier and Haddad's report, and announce that "the investigators' exhaustive inquiry has failed to produce anything like a plausible case for action against MFC - end of story, thankyou all for your patience and cooperation"? Why keep it going?

Edited January 16, 2013 by robbiefrom13

[daisycutter 29,619]

Thoroughly enjoying this, thankyou all. Almost as good as footy, with all the fascinating information and opinions being offered, plus the overheating posters and their digressions. An engrossing read all round.

(But thank goodness we have had Neeld's assurance that it is not impacting the players - you would hope that this proves to be the case.)

What I would like to hear some thoughts on, is:

Why didn't Demetriou read Clothier and Haddad's report, and announce that "the investigators' exhaustive inquiry has failed to produce anything like a plausible case for action against MFC - end of story, thankyou all for your patience and cooperation"? Why keep it going?

keep footy publicity alive during the cricket/tennis period?

you guess is a good as mine but we are talking about devious, political manipulators here

still, they (AFL) do seem a bit masochistic over this, maybe they miscalculated or failed to properly control?

Maybe Kero got knocked back by Vlad once too?

[nutbean 8,838]

Why didn't Demetriou read the investigators' report, and announce that their exhaustive inquiry had failed to produce anything like a plausible case for action against MFC?

This is their modus operandi and the same procedure was followed in the Tippet case even though that was cut and dried - the AFL gets the club to explain/clarify/defend or enlighten them with a response to evidence or concerns put to them.