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

Only if your reading of CCs comments in the now infamous so called Vault meeting is that they were serious not jokes. Even then none of the comments attributed him indicate him detailing any 'plan' (ie how to go about getting a priority draft pick). Even the most critical reading of his comments only suggest he was making it clear the club hoped to gain a priority pick and there would be fall out if they didn't. Yes this could be perceived as a threat (but it also could have been a joke as apparently claimed by Bat least CC and Bailey) but it certainly isn't detailing any plan.

Perhaps also CC foolishly never considered that some people in the room (his colleagues) might repeat his comments or perhaps even use them aginst him (eg BC Do you think he was joking Friend: yes of course as opposed to BC Do you think he was joking Foe/disgruntled ex employee who in the Melbourne tradition wants to have a parting shot as opposed to working out issues in house and for the good of the club: No he was deadly serious, you could see it in his eyes, i woz really scared)

What other examples are there of the club telling too many people the plan to tank?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-officials-guilty-of-tanking-will-escape-criminal-charges-under-new-laws-designed-to-combat-corruption/story-e6frf33l-1226556434364#.UPikKCc3tt0

Check out the caption of the picture.

Surely thats defamation of character?

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.

Even more we are all shareholders of the organismation of Life...

.... & as such should enjoy the rights we allow ourselves as humans, the human right of honesty & fairness from our societies.

IMO this is where this fashionable word of business integrity has taken these rights & trashed them as it pleases, for the business communities own advantages. ... at the expence of all of us, individually.

.... belong to a collective, and fight for a fistful of their integrity.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-officials-guilty-of-tanking-will-escape-criminal-charges-under-new-laws-designed-to-combat-corruption/story-e6frf33l-1226556434364#.UPikKCc3tt0

Check out the caption of the picture.

Surely thats defamation of character?

the club surely ought to issue a remove or else !! Thats deplorable .

Only if your reading of CCs comments in the now infamous so called Vault meeting is that they were serious not jokes. Even then none of the comments attributed him indicate him detailing any 'plan' (ie how to go about getting a priority draft pick). Even the most critical reading of his comments only suggest he was making it clear the club hoped to gain a priority pick and there would be fall out if they didn't. Yes this could be perceived as a threat (but it also could have been a joke as apparently claimed by Bat least CC and Bailey) but it certainly isn't detailing any plan.

Perhaps also CC foolishly never considered that some people in the room (his colleagues) might repeat his comments or perhaps even use them aginst him (eg BC Do you think he was joking Friend: yes of course as opposed to BC Do you think he was joking Foe/disgruntled ex employee who in the Melbourne tradition wants to have a parting shot as opposed to working out issues in house and for the good of the club: No he was deadly serious, you could see it in his eyes, i woz really scared)

What other examples are there of the club telling too many people the plan to tank?

Who were Baileys assistant coaches at that time, who are no longer with Us @ Melbourne?

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 think the best real example I can think of was when Szondy challenged Gutnick in 2001. The overwhelming majority on Demonland and Demonology wanted the return of Joseph and the few that supported Szondy were marginalized in the same way minorities are marginalized today.

If you'd read the forums in that era Joseph was a sure thing but the actual vote was a landslide for Szondy with not one person from the Gutnick ticket being elected.

These forums border on the "non representative" IMO as they are frequented by the genuinely fanatical supporter. The average supporter is much less involved and takes a more dispassionate view of the MFC".

Note: I'm not going to respond to any comparison of Gutnick v Szondy, those days are long gone. I've only mentioned it to show that forums are not a good place to judge supporter feeling.

These forums border on the "non representative" IMO as they are frequented by the genuinely fanatical supporter. The average supporter is much less involved and takes a more dispassionate view of the MFC".

Note: I'm not going to respond to any comparison of Gutnick v Szondy, those days are long gone. I've only mentioned it to show that forums are not a good place to judge supporter feeling.

I tend to agree Fan. It would be folly to talk up the significance of these forums. However in social media terms 2001 is an eon ago and very hard to compare now and then. Can't imagine many back then would have foreseen how ubiquitous social media would become in terms of being a legitimate source of information dissemination

Note: I'm not going to respond to any comparison of Gutnick v Szondy, those days are long gone. I've only mentioned it to show that forums are not a good place to judge supporter feeling.

Interesting example. I agree. But I expect both sides were reading what was posted even if one side may have been foolish enough to not analyse it correctly. (Though I doubt if Gutnick and co were amateur enough to rely on the apparent support.) And that was in early days of forums etc.

BTW, minorities are often marginalized - it's almost the definition of being in a minority. As long as they are 'howled down' without abuse and abuse is not returned, I don't see a problem. People in the minority often feel overly defensive and need to be careful not to feel too readily that they are being 'howled down'. Otherwise a flame war results, as I think we have seen here.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-officials-guilty-of-tanking-will-escape-criminal-charges-under-new-laws-designed-to-combat-corruption/story-e6frf33l-1226556434364#.UPikKCc3tt0

Check out the caption of the picture.

Surely thats defamation of character?

Early call there from FOX typical trash from Murdoch enterprises.

If i was Mark Neeld i would be most unimpressed with that choice of Photo.

Shoddy reporting.

And people knock the ABC...well this is a good example of the alternative.

Edited January 18, 201312 yr by why you little

I think the best real example I can think of was when Szondy challenged Gutnick in 2001. The overwhelming majority on Demonland and Demonology wanted the return of Joseph and the few that supported Szondy were marginalized in the same way minorities are marginalized today.

If you'd read the forums in that era Joseph was a sure thing but the actual vote was a landslide for Szondy with not one person from the Gutnick ticket being elected.

These forums border on the "non representative" IMO as they are frequented by the genuinely fanatical supporter. The average supporter is much less involved and takes a more dispassionate view of the MFC".

Note: I'm not going to respond to any comparison of Gutnick v Szondy, those days are long gone. I've only mentioned it to show that forums are not a good place to judge supporter feeling.

was Demonland up & running in 2001?

Early call there from FOX typical trash from Murdoch enterprises.

If i was Mark Neeld i would be most unimpressed with that choice of Photo.

Shoddy reporting.

And people knock the ABC...well this is a good example of the alternative.

Not just the photo, but the caption. Perhaps MN is talking to his lawyer already, but I'd hope the club strides into this one with size 14 Doc Martens.

But I expect both sides were reading what was posted even if one side may have been foolish enough to not analyse it correctly. (Though I doubt if Gutnick and co were amateur enough to rely on the apparent support.) And that was in early days of forums etc.

BTW, minorities are often marginalized - it's almost the definition of being in a minority. As long as they are 'howled down' without abuse and abuse is not returned, I don't see a problem. People in the minority often feel overly defensive and need to be careful not to feel too readily that they are being 'howled down'. Otherwise a flame war results, as I think we have seen here.

Gutnick's proposed Board had representatives who posted as did Szondy's from memory and they were known to be standing It was quite a time and pretty robust. Other Board members have posted regularly in the past but this current Board doesn't to my knowledge and I'm not sure that Gardner's Board in the last years if its time.

Interesting that with the developments in social media how our Boards has become more and more removed. I actually support it, Boards should be in Governance and it's the CEO's job to communicate which CS has done on occasions.

I agree about the marginalizing of minorities. It's very hard not to respond with abuse when it's being thrown at you. Hazy has done remarkably well under the circumstances and whilst I've tried I admit to transgressing on occasions. If the worst people can throw at Hazy is that he's used arse and elbow in one sentence he's beaten them hands down.

was Demonland up & running in 2001?

Yes, imagine how many posts you'd have if you were a member then! (I know Nash and Andy, I know B) )

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-officials-guilty-of-tanking-will-escape-criminal-charges-under-new-laws-designed-to-combat-corruption/story-e6frf33l-1226556434364#.UPikKCc3tt0

Check out the caption of the picture.

Surely thats defamation of character?

Disgraceful!

Yes, imagine how many posts you'd have if you were a member then! (I know Nash and Andy, I know B) )

the counters restarted.

lol

An internet site in 2001?

Only 6.6m people in the country (of 19m used it) in 2000. http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/10/22/incredible-growth-of-the-internet-since-2000/

All 22m have it now.

And the Demons on here are not representative of the 200k supporters - but we are a very good representative of engaged members and supporters. Even if people don't post but simply read - they are getting their Demon news right here.

I don't want to inflate the importance of the site but if you are going to dismiss the views of the 'loudest from Land' by citing some unsubstantiated 'silent majority' you are kidding yourself. Even if there were a majority that didn't post - it is not the right of anyone to 'imagine' what they would think.

Edited January 18, 201312 yr by rpfc

If the worst people can throw at Hazy is that he's used arse and elbow in one sentence he's beaten them hands down.

There is no limit to the amount of times one can use the words "arse" and "elbow" in a single sentence but that's not what was thrown at Hazy was it?

By using the two words to describe an individual board member, he was engaging in personal abuse which I understand is sanctioned in the code of conduct. You were being disingenuous when you tried to make your very poor little joke above but given that you've been a long time campaigner to stamp out personal abuse of our players (and rightly so), you should be embarrassed.

I tend to agree Fan. It would be folly to talk up the significance of these forums. However in social media terms 2001 is an eon ago and very hard to compare now and then. Can't imagine many back then would have foreseen how ubiquitous social media would become in terms of being a legitimate source of information dissemination

But also a source of mis-information. It's the mixture of gold and the dross that makes social media both exhilirating and exasperating.

CAC was a sort of infrequent regular here..

Schwabby , a couple of times.

But they are the ones we KNOW

I remember CS when he posted about the sponsorship debacle, that was when the supporters were wanting to by guernseys for themselves and there kids, he belittled everyone from what i recall.

I remember CS when he posted about the sponsorship debacle, that was when the supporters were wanting to by guernseys for themselves and there kids, he belittled everyone from what i recall.

Geez. Anyone wanting to belittle someone has no place on an internet forum.

hah, oh the irony

Geez. Anyone wanting to belittle someone has no place on an internet forum.

hah, oh the irony

The truth hurts.

I remember CS when he posted about the sponsorship debacle, that was when the supporters were wanting to by guernseys for themselves and there kids, he belittled everyone from what i recall.

tell you what

use earch and link thay post.

Otherwise many just wont give that credence

I remember CS when he posted about the sponsorship debacle, that was when the supporters were wanting to by guernseys for themselves and there kids, he belittled everyone from what i recall.

Can you recall how he "belittled everyone"?

i think mjt sees a point of disagreement with some as "belittlement"

each to their own dictionary/thesaurus

Can you recall how he "belittled everyone"?

If i recall WJ, wasnt it along the lines of im glad none of you are handling the negotiations.