Bailey hasnt , but the rest have, including our Football Manager, thats what i was told, if its true or not who would know.

Yes and that is why Josh Mahoney is still with us!

I'd hazard a guess that the AFL decided it might need to target individuals the moment the Club mentioned we were getting The Fink on board. But I also assume that the Club's unlikely to step out of the way and let any individual fight whatever findings/punishment might end up being announced.

Yep, I think the introduction of the Fink probably led the AFL to conclude that we'd be focusing on the actual definition of "tanking" and whether there was actually a rule broken, by the club or any individual.

Whether they can prove that any "experimentation" or "list management" was conducted is secondary, and largely irrelevant until the above matters are sorted out.

"The Herald Sun can reveal some of the interviewees were subsequently told as many as 12 people had provided the AFL's investigators with potentially incriminating details about the club's intent throughout the second half of the 2009 campaign."

So the interviewees were told this, rather than gave details themselves.

It is hard to read where this is at but it sounds like the figures who matter have held their position as most of us suspect. If the extent of the details is heresay and scuttlebutt then it doesn't matter how many people have provided "information". Perhaps the club mascots had something to say, this figure of 12 is potentially meaningless.

The way the investigators have gone about things is the more meaningful to date.

hopefully they have been asked to be untidy in their investigations.

I'd hazard a guess that the AFL decided it might need to target individuals the moment the Club mentioned we were getting The Fink on board. But I also assume that the Club's unlikely to step out of the way and let any individual fight whatever findings/punishment might end up being announced.

this it seems to me lets the club keep its name somewhat intact, & the individuals could sue? so the charges could end up being defeated/thrown out in court???

hopefully they have been asked to be untidy in their investigations.

this it seems to me lets the club keep its name somewhat intact, & the individuals could sue? so the charges could end up being defeated/thrown out in court???

Yeah, and possibly in the hope that the Club also decides to cut any 'guilty' individuals free. But this is where we've got to say 'b#%%#r off' and stick together.

It comes down to...Did any coach or official tell Bailey to Tank?

As Bailey has stated via his legal team that he is going to fight then i am thinking NO

So unless the AFL can introduce a set of New Rules into this, which they are good at

Then i still think it will be shredded in court..

Unless of course our CEO has confessed about his sullen looks and his "List Management meetings" with the senior coach

which i am sure no other club has had.

Demetriou has clearly given the green light to list management & experimenting. It's on the record.

Can they then prove our intent was otherwise. Very difficult I would have thought.

Matters not at all what former officials & players opinions might be.

Was anyone told to go out & lose? This is the crux of it.

Without that smoking gun, it is all open to an individual's interpretation of events.

Bailey hasnt , but the rest have, including our Football Manager, thats what i was told, if its true or not who would know.

Haha this is gold! Translation: "I've been told things, so take it from me this is truth... although I don't know if it's true or not"

Yeah, and possibly in the hope that the Club also decides to cut any 'guilty' individuals free. But this is where we've got to say 'b#%%#r off' and stick together.

even if someone did do the "incorrect thing" in trying to rebuild Us,,,, we must not cut them loose like a shag on Alcatraz Rock.

that is NOT the way to build a culture of team & loyalty.

if someone murders a person, or sets the town hall on fire, maybe we take care of the situation.

But when they're doing our bidding with our encouragement, we must look after them.

This is what Loyalty is about.

we've made some mistakes, or our people I assume have, & some have come back to bite us. but innocent mistakes aren't Arson.

the ashen face will doubtless be scwhabby's downfall

pure gold

the ashen face will doubtless be scwhabby's downfall

pure gold

that's the vision i have.

That Sullen Face....No that one!

The investigation was surely into whether the Melbourne Football Club actually committed any breaches of the AFL's rules and not about the philosphy of its football department insofar as list management was concerned.

In any event, all of the evidence to date indicates that MFC's list management was consistent with Demetriou's directives and what had been done before by other AFL clubs which had met the AFL's approval.

The only guilty party here is the instigator who told the On the Couch panellists that he left because of the experimentation when he left because the club he went to offered him more money. I trust that the MFC makes this abundantly clear when it makes its submission to the AFL.

Is it too much for the following question to be asked of the AFL by the MFC?

"Why after clearing us at the time, have you launched another investigation purely on the say so of a former disgruntled player, who never said we tanked, but rather that the club was experimenting and not making winning the be all and end all, yet not investigated other clubs whose coach, assistant coach and players have said their clubs tanked to get draft picks and certain players"?

Next question, "why have you singled out the MFC alone, for this lengthy, costly, disruptive, heavy handed investigation"?

Is it too much for the following question to be asked of the AFL by the MFC?

"Why after clearing us at the time, have you launched another investigation purely on the say so of a former disgruntled player, who never said we tanked, but rather that the club was experimenting and not making winning the be all and end all, yet not investigated other clubs whose coach, assistant coach and players have said their clubs tanked to get draft picks and certain players"?

Next question, "why have you singled out the MFC alone, for this lengthy, costly, disruptive, heavy handed investigation"?

"Because we are arbitrary and vindictive, not to mention inconsistent, and have shown on all issues that we make it up as we go along."

"We are just as likely to find you guilty as not guilty -- we're finding our special coin right now -- and, if guilty, will invent a punishment that has no regard for precedent."

"Although we can be scared off by big words and big statements and that stuff you came out about a former QC gave us pause for thought."

Is it too much for the following question to be asked of the AFL by the MFC?

"Why after clearing us at the time, have you launched another investigation purely on the say so of a former disgruntled player, who never said we tanked, but rather that the club was experimenting and not making winning the be all and end all, yet not investigated other clubs whose coach, assistant coach and players have said their clubs tanked to get draft picks and certain players"?

Next question, "why have you singled out the MFC alone, for this lengthy, costly, disruptive, heavy handed investigation"?

Because we don't have a Demon representative on the commission. no Red n Blue at all, just blue... if pats cap fits the Rick

Now the New Year had commenced I can't help but get involved in this discussion yet again. My main concern about all of this relates to 2 main points.

1. The integrity of the AFL investigation including the apparent questionable tactics employed by their incompetent investigators. This area must be exploited by MFC legal team.

2. The so-called rollover by ex- and current employees of the MFC. This star chamber stuff must be made public to identify WHO has accused the MFC. Identify those who are wanting to bring down this club..and do it so we all know who these nasty people are. If they were threatened by AFL investigators to dob in others...THIS must be made public. Otherwise name these people who are doing the damage to the club.

The AFL ought to have a look at the Demons win / loss ratio over the last 5 years and see what sort of consistency there is there. We have had crap weak sides for a number of years our form in 2009 is pretty consistent with our form in 2012 when there were no priority draft picks were on the table. Not sure you can same the same level of consistency applied to other teams that after they received their priority picks made the top 4 and 8 in the next couple of years.

Is it too much for the following question to be asked of the AFL by the MFC?

"Why after clearing us at the time, have you launched another investigation purely on the say so of a former disgruntled player, who never said we tanked, but rather that the club was experimenting and not making winning the be all and end all, yet not investigated other clubs whose coach, assistant coach and players have said their clubs tanked to get draft picks and certain players"?

Next question, "why have you singled out the MFC alone, for this lengthy, costly, disruptive, heavy handed investigation"?

Because the boss was away and the coffee boy wanted to show that he should be next in line to be the boss.

2. The so-called rollover by ex- and current employees of the MFC. This star chamber stuff must be made public to identify WHO has accused the MFC. Identify those who are wanting to bring down this club..and do it so we all know who these nasty people are. If they were threatened by AFL investigators to dob in others...THIS must be made public. Otherwise name these people who are doing the damage to the club.

This raises the issue of loyalty versus honesty. I'm presuming that if people did "roll over" then the MFC did make list management decisions to significantly reduce the chances of winning in order to gain a priority pick.

Firstly I'd not criticise anyone who chose honesty in this situation if it was a genuine choice and not a decision based on vindictiveness. Secondly the investigation is not a public investigation but one by an organization about the integrity of it's employees and members. I don't think we have any rights to know who said what and IMO it would be quite wrong for that information to be available.

Not quite so Fan . They are employees of the MFC not the AFL . Again you play loose with fact.

This raises the issue of loyalty versus honesty. I'm presuming that if people did "roll over" then the MFC did make list management decisions to significantly reduce the chances of winning in order to gain a priority pick.

I'd not criticise anyone who chose honesty in this situation if it was a genuine choice and not a decision based on vindictiveness.

So they can be "honest" now, but seemingly willing participants at the time ? And you'd not begrudge them for that ? Well, we clearly differ there.

If they had any concerns at the time with what they were asked to do they should have voiced any displeasure then. I can only assume that they were quite comfortable with the club's list management in 2009 and were not asked to do anything that compromised their integrity.

Your view is the classic soft cork Melbourne supporter response. It doesn't surprise me to be honest.

"And members".

This raises the issue of loyalty versus honesty. I'm presuming that if people did "roll over" then the MFC did make list management decisions to significantly reduce the chances of winning in order to gain a priority pick.

Firstly I'd not criticise anyone who chose honesty in this situation if it was a genuine choice and not a decision based on vindictiveness. Secondly the investigation is not a public investigation but one by an organization about the integrity of it's employees and members. I don't think we have any rights to know who said what and IMO it would be quite wrong for that information to be available.

We as members have a financial stake in this organisation.

The legal system in this country is based around an accused having the opportunity to test the accuser & the evidence.

Why should an AFL investigation be any different?

If anyone chose honesty, as you say, then why hide from it?

Who gives two hoots if someone 'rolled over' ? I wish they were all just open and honest and admit what everyone knows we did.. as it simply didn't contravene any rules. . Sadly this won't happen due to the immaturity of the AFL to handle the truth and deal with the underlying cause. As an industry it's sad to see.

This raises the issue of loyalty versus honesty. I'm presuming that if people did "roll over" then the MFC did make list management decisions to significantly reduce the chances of winning in order to gain a priority pick.

Firstly I'd not criticise anyone who chose honesty in this situation if it was a genuine choice and not a decision based on vindictiveness. Secondly the investigation is not a public investigation but one by an organization about the integrity of it's employees and members. I don't think we have any rights to know who said what and IMO it would be quite wrong for that information to be available.

Smelling a bit of an anti CS and/or CC agenda in this post....

Lets revisit this in 3 months time when CS has been banished by the AFL and the club has to pay out 6 months of his new 3 year contract, see how your feeling then princess.

I doubt very much the MFC will be obliged to pay out Schwab's contract, or any part of it, if the MFC is forced to terminate his contract due to an adverse finding by the AFL of impropriety by Schwab.