On 03/01/2013 at 14:05, why you little said:

The club has expected this fight from day one Stuie.

Mclardy's first statement said as much.

After 5 months the AFL are not going to back down.

I am most interested in the interview tapes that were stopped & started. That is open to a big fight.

Edited answers are not acceptable imo.

I know we've expected it and McLardy has said we'll fight, but I have heard that before.... Don't get me wrong, I really like Don and think he's a smart guy, I just desperately want us to fight hard for once.

  On 03/01/2013 at 14:09, stuie said:

I know we've expected it and McLardy has said we'll fight, but I have heard that before.... Don't get me wrong, I really like Don and think he's a smart guy, I just desperately want us to fight hard for once.

fight of our lives Mate.

I expect nothing less.

  On 03/01/2013 at 14:22, why you little said:

fight of our lives Mate.

I expect nothing less.

I'm hoping for a fight, I'm expecting less (sadly)....

Just can't but fell this will define our identity as a club just as much as the onfield will this year.

  On 03/01/2013 at 14:25, stuie said:

I'm hoping for a fight, I'm expecting less (sadly)....

Just can't but fell this will define our identity as a club just as much as the onfield will this year.

don't give up Stuie.

As a member demand a fight.

We must be united on this.

  On 03/01/2013 at 14:30, why you little said:

don't give up Stuie.

As a member demand a fight.

We must be united on this.

Unity and rage. That's my MFC slogan for this year.

  On 03/01/2013 at 14:31, stuie said:

Unity and rage. That's my MFC slogan for this year.

Now you're getting it.

If the supporters roll over the MFC will die.

The gloves are on mate.

  On 03/01/2013 at 14:39, why you little said:

Now you're getting it.

If the supporters roll over the MFC will die.

The gloves are on mate.

No gloves. Just fists.

I am feeling to cut somethin'!

  On 03/01/2013 at 14:25, stuie said:

I'm hoping for a fight, I'm expecting less (sadly)....

Just can't but fell this will define our identity as a club just as much as the onfield will this year.

You'd think if they were going to fight fiercely for something it would be this.

Filling in looking for work sections of Centrelink forms is tedious and demoralizing.

  bing181 said:

Tank probe: Dozen witness statements could cook careers in Melbourne investigation

"FIGURES connected to the Melbourne tanking investigation have been told up to a dozen people have "rolled over" about how the club has managed past lists. The statements potentially incriminate Demons administrators amid growing fears the club and individuals could face serious league sanctions."

This is one of the strongest media quote for some time - and it suggests the damaging evidence is stronger than many of us hoped..........(though it is no more serious than 5 a month investigation of other clubs would have revealed about them!)

Yes - we must stand up and fight. I certainly expect McLardy and the Board to roll out the Fink with all guns blazing.

For comedy value I'd like to see Vinny Gambini (my cousin Vinny) represent the MFC

Inspector Goren from "Law & Order" Criminal intent for mine.

Goren does not get done....

  On 03/01/2013 at 13:33, bing181 said:

Perhaps not ....

Tank probe: Dozen witness statements could cook careers in Melbourne investigation

"FIGURES connected to the Melbourne tanking investigation have been told up to a dozen people have "rolled over" about how the club has managed past lists. The statements potentially incriminate Demons administrators amid growing fears the club and individuals could face serious league sanctions."

Absolutely nothing new here since the investigation story broke in late October/early November or to be more precise - nothing new since 2009 when Demetriou gave the club the green light to list manage at the expense of necessarily winning games. In other words, to do what several others who have not been subjected to six months' scrutiny all did and were allowed to get away with.

The discussions and all of the supposedly sinister meetings that are alleged are nothing more and nothing less than what you might expect of clubs in circumstances like Melbourne's in 2009, Carlton's (2005 - 7) and a raft of others. This is not much of a case to answer because Demetriou answered it for us a long time ago.

Yes it is amazing how much rests on the AFL retrospecively trying to put a different interpretaion on the letter of their regulations. It is a bit like tax minimisation (legal where one works within the rules) and tax evasion (illegal where one works outside the rules). Surely whatever we did was within the letter of the rules as they are currently (badly?) written whatever our intent (whch was after all judged to be for the greater good of the Club at that point in time). Just as many people try to preserve their wealth in their tax management so I suspect everybody at Melbourne at the time (and other teams) were trying to do the best for the health and longevity of the Club. I don't think anybody at Melbourne actually broke any rules even if they worked within them. If anything comes out of this inquiry, it should not be penalties for Melbourne but the AFL doing an overhaul of their rules to avoid a repeat of whatever concerns them.

In an ideal world everybody would follow the intent of the law but in reality all we are obliged to do is follow the letter of the law!

  Quote

FIGURES connected to the Melbourne tanking investigation have been told up to a dozen people have "rolled over" about how the club has managed past lists. The statements potentially incriminate Demons administrators amid growing fears the club and individuals could face serious league sanctions."

The above quote is merely confirmation of the tactics used by the investigators, which has subsequently been leaked to the HS. It isn't evidence of any wrong doing. Naturally, when one reads between the lines it "sounds" like some are squealing. The club has already complained about these tactics weeks ago, so they're well aware of how the "interrogation" was handled and have subsequently confirmed they will fight the allegations. AS PF stated, there's nothing new here.

I'm still yet to hear any concrete evidence. That's not to say there isn't any, but no "smoking gun" has been leaked. There may have been associates of the club that have provided their gut feel and stated that in their view something "wasn't right", but the AFL will need more than those types of responses to hand down serious sanctions.

  On 03/01/2013 at 20:45, Ben-Hur said:

The above quote is merely confirmation of the tactics used by the investigators, which has subsequently been leaked to the HS. It isn't evidence of any wrong doing. Naturally, when one reads between the lines it "sounds" like some are squealing. The club has already complained about these tactics weeks ago, so they're well aware of how the "interrogation" was handled and have subsequently confirmed they will fight the allegations. AS PF stated, there's nothing new here.

I'm still yet to hear any concrete evidence. That's not to say there isn't any, but no "smoking gun" has been leaked. There may have been associates of the club that have provided their gut feel and stated that in their view something "wasn't right", but the AFL will need more than those types of responses to hand down serious sanctions.

your heads that far in the sand its not funny, there screwed, the whole coaching panel in 2009 has rolled over.

And that also includes our current Football Manager.

  On 03/01/2013 at 21:10, mjt said:

your heads that far in the sand its not funny, there screwed, the whole coaching panel in 2009 has rolled over.

It's not in the sand, I'm simply yet to read of any "concrete evidence".

But I'm all ears. Show me (in quotes) what I've missed. I eagerly await a reply.

  On 03/01/2013 at 21:10, mjt said:

your heads that far in the sand its not funny, there screwed, the whole coaching panel in 2009 has rolled over.

... putting an end to the coaching careers of a number of people including Dean Bailey who only a fortnight ago (through his manager) denied that he tanked. Has he now recanted on that and if so, can his evidence be relied upon? Do you have a source for this information?

for some strange reason these words come to mind .....

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Fight !!!!

I love the increasing use of the phase "up to" as in "up to a dozen people".

Can I add that up to 35,000 MFC supporters always take the most pessimistic view. Of course, I may mean the one or two who boldly state things like "the entire 2009 coaching team has rolled over". The other 34,998 supporters may prefer to wait for real evidence.

Yes there's a fair degree of 'inventiveness' about all of the reporting.

About the only facts about all this to date are the constant and arbitrary overuse of words like "up to" "might" "could " "possible" "if " "belief" "potentially incriminating"

The big question I would like answered is the legality of this investigation.

Will it stand up in court for individuals and the club?

What about the clubs that have taked the same action in different ways but got the same result?

I hope the club will stand behind the so called 12 individuals as well as defend itself.

The unfortunate thing about this "investigation" is how much it sings of McCarthyism - a disgraceful episode in US history, and one that I had hoped I wouldn't observe in any area in Australia in 2012/3.

Everything in this current "investigation" seems to be based on wholly unreliable innuendo. In my observation to date, the investigators and the commentators conducting this "show trial" are unsophisticated in the extreme and seem determined to achieve an outcome irrespective of whether the underlying evidence actually supports such a conclusion/outcome.

It's interesting to note the description of McCarthyism on Wikipedia to see the similarities to the way in which this "investigation" seems to have been conducted:

"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

I wouldn't mind going to court on this. I suspect it wouldn't be particularly pleasant for the likes of the "investigators" or Ms Wilson if we did take that step.

Have none of you realised that any Jay Clark article is simply bereft of substance and frequently just regurgitating already weak articles from previous weeks..?

Regular like clockwork.
If you find his name there, you know it can be ignored.