This thread is still a disgrace

This thread is still a disgrace

107 pages and counting.....

A circular railway track with a train that keeps stopping at the same stations.

edit:grammar

This thread is still a disgrace

Not nearly as much of a disgrace as the Clothesline- Saddam Report !

Posters are reminded to check out the code of conduct and stay on topic please.

Thanks.

CAC was a sort of infrequent regular here..

Schwabby , a couple of times.

But they are the ones we KNOW

David Neitz has posted on Ology.

107 pages and counting.....

Thank you Brock McLean.

I've got nothing to say so I am going to say nothing at all - except for this which is something but really nothing.

I've got nothing to say so I am going to say nothing at all - except for this which is something but really nothing.

You've been reading your John Cage again.

This thread is still a disgrace

What did you expect? The whole saga around the topic has been a joke and the debate has been misinformed and polluted by agendas.

I didn't say MFC should do nothing other than read this forum.

But have you ever filled out a MFC survey? In my memory they mainly ask questions like 'Would you like yet another scarf' -- not 'do you think CS should be sacked'.

Do you think political parties don't take note of what's being twittered or on talk-back radio as well as doing their own polls etc.? You think Gillard is more concerned with what Abbot (for example) says on Jones program than with the public reaction to it? You think they turn off their recording as soon as Abbot leaves the studio and ignore what the callers say? (I wish they would personally.) Do you think they don't weigh the fact that the callers may not reflect the majority views? They do both and so I expect does the MFC.

Yes I do actually. Their private polling is what matters most to them. Organisations of all descriptions are doomed if they plan strategy on the basis of populist claptrap. By the way, hopefully, we can reach 40K members in 2013. As such, I do not consider this forum to be a respresentative cross-section of the supporter base. Again, like talk back radio, forums generally have the same names popping up all the time.

Yes I do actually. Their private polling is what matters most to them. Organisations of all descriptions are doomed if they plan strategy on the basis of populist claptrap. By the way, hopefully, we can reach 40K members in 2013. As such, I do not consider this forum to be a respresentative cross-section of the supporter base. Again, like talk back radio, forums generally have the same names popping up all the time.

I agree - they would be mad to take more notice of a forum than well-conducted private research. And as you say, a forum, like talk-back radio is unrepresentative

But we are arguing in circles - all I claim is that the MFC would take note of what its most footy-tragic members say on a forum, just like pollies take notice of the political-tragics who call talk-back radio, as well as doing their own private research. You say MFC wouldn't bother. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree - they would be mad to take more notice of a forum than well-conducted private research. And as you say, a forum, like talk-back radio is unrepresentative

But we are arguing in circles - all I claim is that the MFC would take note of what its most footy-tragic members say on a forum, just like pollies take notice of the political-tragics who call talk-back radio, as well as doing their own private research. You say MFC wouldn't bother. We'll have to agree to disagree.

its an interesting question sue

especially these days with so many competing social media alternatives like FaceBook, Twitter, FootyFan Forums (DL, DO, BF), BlogSites etc etc

there is a lot (too much?) here to monitor

I wonder if any of these are "monitored" and if so in which priority

of course even if so, whether it has any influence is another issue

its an interesting question sue

especially these days with so many competing social media alternatives like FaceBook, Twitter, FootyFan Forums (DL, DO, BF), BlogSites etc etc

there is a lot (too much?) here to monitor

I wonder if any of these are "monitored" and if so in which priority

of course even if so, whether it has any influence is another issue

Not only monitored DC,,, but IMO they are or will try to control & manipulate them. So they have some semblance of control like the pull they have on the media.

Ask Rendell & Grant Thomas. And others who have mysteriously been sent walking from media careers.

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

I agree, but how in the hell can you say "it's very hard to argue against" the pov that we "tanked badly", based your own assessment above of what is a supposed adequate level of tanking?

No one has provided anything in writing as evidence, and if they did, it would be irrefutable proof, removing any need for the current charade.

Nor is there any proof that a tanking strategy was discussed with anyone beyond the names listed above by yourself, or even those names at all.

Surely you're not basing this on the reported sarcastic remark by CC at a regular football committee meeting..?

Surely you're not basing this on the reported sarcastic remark by CC at a regular football committee meeting..?

No I'm basing it on a 6 month investigation occuring - where there's fire there's fuel.

We 'tanked' great until AD went to the Olympics and left Andersen in charge...

Where is he again?

No I'm basing it on a 6 month investigation occuring - where there's fire there's fuel.

fuel & no spot fires!

the Commission & they're powers that be within the media are keeping the magnifying glass over us, & many here are helping them contain the outbreak.

I await the outcome with interest.

We 'tanked' great until AD went to the Olympics and left Andersen in charge...

Where is he again?

IMO Vlad was sent on a LSLeave, jaunt to have him away.

the chalice was thrust into AA's hand by those who acted in Vlads convenient absence... part of the near handover? has gill got a new desk yet?

No I'm basing it on a 6 month investigation occuring - where there's fire there's fuel.

And yet strangely, many inquisitions over time haven't been about actual crimes or transgressions, not about proof but merely one entity imposing its will on another.

I haven't seen he club budge, nor do I hope they do.

A flame thrower will work because its provides its own fuel. Doesn't need to be anything at he target !!

The accusers and conspirators have all attempted to throw combustible mud at us in he hope we capitulate.

F*#k them !! For all the reasons we've gone over.

If you want to make this about us, we'll make it about you.

There is only one, thats ONE acceptable outcome. Nothing for anyone to answer for.

Want something to burn ? Lets create. Pyre and chuck the likes of lazy and lying media hacks as well as treacherous self serving turncoats on it.

I'll light it !!!

And yet strangely, many inquisitions over time haven't been about actual crimes or transgressions, not about proof but merely one entity imposing its will on another. I haven't seen he club budge, nor do I hope they do. A flame thrower will work because its provides its own fuel. Doesn't need to be anything at he target !! The accusers and conspirators have all attempted to throw combustible mud at us in he hope we capitulate. F*#k them !! For all the reasons we've gone over. If you want to make this about us, we'll make it about you. There is only one, thats ONE acceptable outcome. Nothing for anyone to answer for. Want something to burn ? Lets create. Pyre and chuck the likes of lazy and lying media hacks as well as treacherous self serving turncoats on it. I'll light it !!!

What also must be remembered is that we are a shareholder in the AFL not some sort of paid employee and as such we are entitled to be treated no better or worse than the other shareholders, if there are rules then they must be equally applied.

No I'm basing it on a 6 month investigation occuring - where there's fire there's fuel.

This is what i find a bit strange. One assumes the AFL has handed over all relevant info from the investigation to the various parties. Therefore there is nothing up their sleeves so to speak. If there was something more damaging than the CC comments, a meeting at DB's house and some curious positional moves it would have come out. Where's the fuel, or indeed fire. How does this evidence suggest we were indiscreet or handled the list management poorly?

Perhaps CC's comments were a bit silly but by the same token he and Bailey have both said they were a joke and there is no suggestion he (or anyone else) directly instructed a coach or player to not perform to their potential.

One assumes we won't be exonerated but there is a real chance we will end up having no case to answer, which is really exoneration with an asterix. Whilst i can't see the CWs of this world acknowledging that perhaps the board, CC and CS id not handle the list management poorly tin reality this is what a no case to answer means. If that's how it pans out the board and CS's will be rock solid and to a lesser extent CC's (i say that because he was clearly moved sideways and i wonder ho long he will remain at the club - either because he wants out or he is asked to go. Nb i have no view on how well or otherwise he has performed in the past)

This is what i find a bit strange. One assumes the AFL has handed over all relevant info from the investigation to the various parties. Therefore there is nothing up their sleeves so to speak. If there was something more damaging than the CC comments, a meeting at DB's house and some curious positional moves it would have come out. Where's the fuel, or indeed fire. How does this evidence suggest we were indiscreet or handled the list management poorly?

It depends who is doing the leaking. But I am hopeful you're right, that there is nothing concrete in the report that hasn't been revealed. If there isn't IMO we're home free, if there is neither the AFL or MFC would leak it.

Nevertheless the club brought scrutiny on itself by telling too many people the plan.

Nevertheless the club brought scrutiny on itself by telling too many people the plan.

That may be the case, but I'm not convinced. If the AFL had decided to put other clubs under the same microscope (eg after Fev or Libba's comments) maybe we'd be saying that too many people knew the plan in those clubs too.

IMHO we will now see a number of related announcements and articles that will pave the way for the publics psyche to accept a "nothing" verdict. It will be dressed up as something, but it will be nothing !