I understand the sentiment but I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say it should not have been pursued. Are you referring to their allegiances or the issue of tanking?

And I never said I thought they were good journalists .. actually I think "short-sighted opportunists" is a pretty fair description of most journos.

I'm referring to the tanking issue - they set McLean up and flogged it for all it's worth.

Paul Gardner loves the Melbourne Footy Club, that is his motivation. From this point on, I am not going to debate with you or anybody else, about what "motivates" Paul Gardner. However, you did say and I quote, "Paul Gardner was only interested in making sure that Paul Gardner was distanced from any smell of wrongdoing".

Put simply, you may offer your opinion, but you have no way of knowing what you proffer to be fact. I shall move on to my repast now.

Cheerio.

"Paul Gardner love the Melbourne Footy club and that is his motivation" - well his actions and comments of last year according to most on here speak otherwise. If that was his idea of love he had a strange way of showing it and you are 100% correct I have no way of knowing what is inside one mans mind so it is my opinion and I would never be as arrogant to read into someones motivation and label it as fact the same way that you suggest he loves the club and thats his motivation can only be your opinion.

If Paul Gardner loves the club as you think then I would have much preferred your answer to be "he really loves the club but could have done better on this one or given his time again he may have spoken differently". I am not sure you find a single supporter on here that will support the notion that Paul Gardners comments last year were motivated by love for the club. Again - Please note that I have limited my criticism of Paul Gardner to his press statements regarding tanking

Believing that we could have a better President or CEO does not automatically lead to running for that position. Many here believe we could have a better Prime Minister but are very unlikely to be standing at the next Federal election.

It seems to me that the point Hazy is making is not that the Board and the CEO should held responsible by us for tanking - because that's what the vast majority of us wanted them to do - but that they should be held responsible by us for tanking badly - being indiscreet and not managing the people involved well. It's very hard to argue against that.

Really?

Cos it seems to me that we tanked sufficiently well, until very recently when Adrian Anderson moved the goalposts and decided on a second investigation.

I'd also say that Carlton also did a worse job, yet were lucky in their timing and didn't face the same scrutiny.

In fact, all other teams that similarly indulged were lucky - we were simply the unlucky ones to do it immediately preceding the era of it being put under the microscope and retroactively considered unacceptable.

I don't know why people are looking for big conspiracies when all you need is a few mischief makers who hold grudges against certain individuals to spread some malicious gossip or misinformation to the right people or, in the case of media interviews, simply point them in the right direction as far as asking questions to the interviewee is concerned.

I don't believe that anyone who supports the club ever intended that it end up in a tanking enquiry of the nature of the one that's evolved to the present day. If there was a motive it was simply to destabilise and embarrass the current board as we saw happen through 2012 and perhaps to prevent the renewal of someone's contract. Who knows with these things?

Yeah, I don't think it is anything more than a few people with contacts pushing a desire to see the end of Schwab and CC.

But as 55 alluded to - it's a pretty stupid thing to do if you want to see the end of these two because all it seems to be doing is forcing the club to embrace them even more.

I guess we will see in the next few weeks.

By the way, what IS the conspiracy and what are they trying to achieve?

I'll leave others who are confident there is one to answer that.

I never said it was necessarily a grandiose conspiracy. I actually have said its more like a small band of disenchanted's , but that they have influenced others and/or shown others where opportunities lay to further whatever cause they had.

One person acting alone is just that..2 or more in cahoots..done covertly, wel then that qualifies as a conspiracy for they are co-conspiring.

The point being it all didnt happen accidently. There has been motive, intent and action.

Sometimes forrests burn because someone wanted to toast.

No I don't think that - but they took cheap advantage of a klutz and look where it's ended up. There's plenty of lines of investigation that good journalists don't pursue for the right reasons - this should have been one of them IMO.

There's clearly a spectrum of views about Healy and Sheahan - Bub thinks they're part of a conspiracy to bring officers of the club down, you think they're good journalists pursuing a legitimate story, I think they're short-sighted opportunists ...

I've never called talk-back radio but if this all plays out to the good for us you'll hear me when Healy and Russell host Wilson later this year.

why no mention of Roos.

Why is the theme to turn this whole thread into within the club,,, & its supporters & past players,,,, & ex players?

Why aren't the Mods splitting this thread into 2 seperate threads,

1 thread about the original AFL Commissions inquisition????

&

2 another thread about the clubs internal politics & the coming AGM????

I don't know why people are looking for big conspiracies when all you need is a few mischief makers who hold grudges against certain individuals to spread some malicious gossip or misinformation to the right people or, in the case of media interviews, simply point them in the right direction as far as asking questions to the interviewee is concerned.

I don't believe that anyone who supports the club ever intended that it end up in a tanking enquiry of the nature of the one that's evolved to the present day. If there was a motive it was simply to destabilise and embarrass the current board as we saw happen through 2012 and perhaps to prevent the renewal of someone's contract. Who knows with these things?

The timing of that interview was interesting.

When was McLean interviewed?

When was CS's contract due to be renewed?

All this talk of Board spills and opposing tickets to run for the board....I would have thought that anyone opposing the board would have had to nominate well before the AGM...which is on the 6th Feb........I understand that people are not happy the way the current board is running the club,but I (as a member) would have been informed as to who has challenged and what their qualifications were...Would I not?????

Is that right?

Are they're any challenges?

I'd like to understand what is going on in all this?

Really?

Cos it seems to me that we tanked sufficiently well, until very recently when Adrian Anderson moved the goalposts and decided on a second investigation.

I'd also say that Carlton also did a worse job, yet were lucky in their timing and didn't face the same scrutiny.

In fact, all other teams that similarly indulged were lucky - we were simply the unlucky ones to do it immediately preceding the era of it being put under the microscope and retroactively considered unacceptable.

Only the board, Schwab, Connolly, Bailey and the 3 assistants Wellmann, Mahoney and Royal(?) needed to know and nothing in writing.

so after reading the last few pages and getting my daily hit .... is there anymore news on the Tanking ??

is it over yet ?

I'll leave others who are confident there is one to answer that.

I can only assume from that, that like me, you don't know what it is or what they are trying to achieve.

The timing of that interview was interesting. When was McLean interviewed? When was CS's contract due to be renewed?

Why would Gerard Healy try to undermine Schwab by raising tanking when he could ring up his brother and have a chat. Doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know why people are looking for big conspiracies when all you need is a few mischief makers who hold grudges against certain individuals to spread some malicious gossip or misinformation to the right people or, in the case of media interviews, simply point them in the right direction as far as asking questions to the interviewee is concerned.

I don't believe that anyone who supports the club ever intended that it end up in a tanking enquiry of the nature of the one that's evolved to the present day. If there was a motive it was simply to destabilise and embarrass the current board as we saw happen through 2012 and perhaps to prevent the renewal of someone's contract. Who knows with these things?

This is actually a very god place to spread malicious gossip and misinformation, what better place to test the mood of the meeting. I would imagine that almost all the posters on here are members so if you want to spread poison or garner support this is a microcosm of the membership; you will almost certainly get an idea of where you stand.

Only the board, Schwab, Connolly, Bailey and the 3 assistants Wellmann, Mahoney and Royal(?) needed to know and nothing in writing.

Not even that many. The Chairman, Schwab and Bailey must know and I suppose CC. Nobody else.

If anything is in writing it's keystone cops stuff.

This is actually a very god place to spread malicious gossip and misinformation, what better place to test the mood of the meeting. I would imagine that almost all the posters on here are members so if you want to spread poison or garner support this is a microcosm of the membership; you will almost certainly get an idea of where you stand.

But our opinions count for nothing really. What are we going to do, stage a sit in and demand an election.

You place far too much importance on a fan forum. Demonland is like Big Footy - it gives us a kick but the outside world see it as a joke and a pretty unpleasant one at that.

But our opinions count for nothing really. What are we going to do, stage a sit in and demand an election.

You place far too much importance on a fan forum. Demonland is like Big Footy - it gives us a kick but the outside world see it as a joke and a pretty unpleasant one at that.

Oh! you're wrong, if you dip your toe in the water you can gauge the temperature; if you run it past here you can see how people react. That's how ground swell starts, where else would you get a bigger audience, free and always available?

You put forward an idea here (Schwab/McLardy/Board must go) and if it takes off you can then get up and running, if it doesn't, it's back to the drawing board.

We are a focus group, all with one common interest, the MFC.

But our opinions count for nothing really. What are we going to do, stage a sit in and demand an election.

You place far too much importance on a fan forum. Demonland is like Big Footy - it gives us a kick but the outside world see it as a joke and a pretty unpleasant one at that.

Would you not concede though that its as good a place as any to sow a seed ??

Demonland is a very good place to gauge opinions & emotions from a club perspective.

We are all paid up members who contribute 12 months per year.

If i was on the MFC board i would be a reader for sure.

Similar to ratings on TV. A sample Audience will be expanded to gauge the mass appeal or dislike of certain shows.

If i was on the MFC board i would be a reader for sure.

I just hope the players and coach dont read this site !

Id be very surprised if someone form the club isnt tasked with keeping an eye on these boards, for any number of reasons.

Hi !!!

I just hope the players and coach dont read this site !

sure. But i hope people on the Board & the front offices do.

It is a live connection to the real supporter.

Very Important i would say.

I can only assume from that, that like me, you don't know what it is or what they are trying to achieve.

Why would Gerard Healy try to undermine Schwab by raising tanking when he could ring up his brother and have a chat. Doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think it was ever suggested that Gerrard Healy was the one who wanted to undermine Schwab was it?

sure. But i hope people on the Board & the front offices do.

It is a live connection to the real supporter.

Very Important i would say.

Was it here or 'ology that Craig Cameron used to visit at draft time and if my very dodgy memory serves me right I think Cam Schwab came on here as well .

sue, on 17 Jan 2013 - 13:57, said:

I'll leave others who are confident there is one to answer that.

I can only assume from that, that like me, you don't know what it is or what they are trying to achieve.