On 06/01/2013 at 08:56, RobbieF said:

Not sure old dee, but I reckon AD is a very commercial person and I doubt he will take kindly to anyone interfering with his paycheque.

I don't believe for one minute that Fitzpatrick won't do everything in his power to stop the investigation extending to Carlton and he will have a willing ally in AD who will want to close this issue as soon as he can. If this goes on and other clubs are involved the Government may get involved and it won't be suspensions it may include jail terms for fraud against betting agencies etc.

There's a lot of money bet on football and if it can be shown that betting agencies accepted wagers on fixed matches and they and punters lost because of it who knows where this will go.

If you get into bed with dogs there is a very good chance you will get up with fleas.

by the way just a small joke about handling the truth!

Our ally in all this is fear. The AFL have fumbled through this trying to scare us. I reckon McLardy , the club and the Fink have it worked out. The ones fearing the most need not be us, it's the AFL itself and this is their Achillies heel and we ought to play it for all its worth.

We can go to court and Vlad and his buffoons wouldn't be able to stop us if that was our only recourse. Only a fool would allow that and whilst he's a tad slippery he's no fool.

Call it what you ill, a game of chicken or a Mexican standoff, or what ever we need to stare the bastards down and call their bluff.

Only then will something masquerading as common sense will occur.

  On 06/01/2013 at 04:03, Fifty-5 said:

Try this for starters - we tanked and Jimmy Stynes ordered it.

you forgot some things. it was condoned by the AFL.... not frowned upon like you seem to be doing

Car'ton did

hawt'orn did

tiges did & then were out done at they're own game

HiHo

the Pied pipers whistled as they floundered, follow us Gippy boys

WC made it an artform, not to mention they're tampering dirty tricks

the sainters dredged the pool to

& the afl ass isted clubs didn't have to as they had theirs dished up, Lions, Suns, Giants,,,

so nearly all that I can tell have helped themselves at the trough.

  On 06/01/2013 at 05:18, why you little said:

Carlton will not get done whilst Fitzpatrick is leading the commission.

It won't happen.

every body has his use buy date....

  On 06/01/2013 at 09:10, belzebub59 said:

Our ally in all this is fear. The AFL have fumbled through this trying to scare us. I reckon McLardy , the club and the Fink have it worked out. The ones fearing the most need not be us, it's the AFL itself and this is their Achillies heel and we ought to play it for all its worth. We can go to court and Vlad and his buffoons wouldn't be able to stop us if that was our only recourse. Only a fool would allow that and whilst he's a tad slippery he's no fool. Call it what you ill, a game of chicken or a Mexican standoff, or what ever we need to stare the bastards down and call their bluff. Only then will something masquerading as common sense will occur.

No wonder the pie boys have done so well... they threaten them all the time..

we need a Galbally or 2 of our own, to help our arguments along over the next 10 Yrs.

  On 06/01/2013 at 09:23, dee-luded said:

No wonder the pie boys have done so well... they threaten them all the time..

we need a Galbally or 2 of our own, to help our arguments along over the next 10 Yrs.

We are learning, and we now have The Fink.

Funny how the ball game changed after we got him.

This is how the games played. You only play it for keeps. The filth do and so should we.

  On 06/01/2013 at 09:32, belzebub59 said:

We are learning, and we now have The Fink. Funny how the ball game changed after we got him. This is how the games played. You only play it for keeps. The filth do and so should we.

If we don't bb I will lose a large amount of faith in the MFC.

  On 06/01/2013 at 09:20, dee-luded said:

every body has his use buy date....

of course. But the longer he stays the further 2007 goes away.

Use ..... Buy ...

Pretty funny if you think about it lol

  On 06/01/2013 at 04:03, Fifty-5 said:

Try this for starters - we tanked and Jimmy Stynes ordered it.

Whilst this is quite possible (and, I think, highly likely), one thing I've not considered til now is... would the AFL be willing to sully the image of a much-loved and dearly-missed figure that transcended football?

Jim was bigger than the game, and if he is in some way implicated, I just can't see them wanting it to come out.

Best to instead just drag it out until every single person loses any interest...

  Demonsterative said:

What I find so offensive with some posts, is that some back CW and her informants/people before they back the club. Its a simple as that really. Some may have had a close liking or affilliation to previous administrations and they may have a bad taste in his mouth for the way they were treated, but whatever axe these ppl have to grind is not important. Time to get back to why you support the club. Its about a passion and love for the game and club. I see this as akin to a family member. You love them first, flaws and all. The rest is not as important!!!

Yes, I have read many bias posts supporting the club. They hang on to information in support of the club because they love the club, worts and all.

Some posters also has a history of attacking the club. This issue, this current administration and Mark Neeld are other topics that I have read Fan talk about and he has spoken about these areas in a negative light. Even when backing Neelds change of the list recently, Fan said he will come back at Neeld if the changes fail.

I say, back the club because you love it. If the club is guilty, so are others and it would be completely unfair for the MFC to be hung out to dry. CW may be good at her job (compared to others), but she is attcking something I love and therefore I will not back her. simple

Having said this, I think the club has not broken any AFL policy/rules. I would be more than happy for the club to ask the AFL for compensation for the club being taken through the ringers. Mud Sticks!

Hear, hear. My club, right or wrong!

  On 06/01/2013 at 09:32, belzebub59 said:

We are learning, and we now have The Fink. Funny how the ball game changed after we got him. This is how the games played. You only play it for keeps. The filth do and so should we.

we've spent 45 Yrs being nice polite, on & off field, alike choir boys. MCC style

Its time we learn't to not feign, but to wallop. we need a line in the sand, so they'll stop smirking when we are hurting. It's hear if we want it.

  On 06/01/2013 at 07:04, why you little said:

You have an answer for many things don't you.

And a strange slant on how you view this orb we call earth.

Why DO YOU believe Carlton have escaped any scrutiny on this issue?

I am interested to know as i am sure many 'landers are

Are you thick ? Because no allegations have been made and the AFL weren't keen on this investigation to start with. The AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne, let alone Carlton, or anyone else, but circumstances dictated that they had to qualify public comments and subsequent interest. They had to be seen to act and the events as we know them have followed.

You, Sue and others can think that we're the scapegoat and that Carlton have been protected, but it's self-serving shallow thinking.

Ben Hur you are so enlightened your burning my eyes from here arghhhhh

  On 06/01/2013 at 11:58, Ben-Hur said:

Are you thick ? Because no allegations have been made and the AFL weren't keen on this investigation to start with. The AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne, let alone Carlton, or anyone else, but circumstances dictated that they had to qualify public comments and subsequent interest. They had to be seen to act and the events as we know them have followed.

You, Sue and others can think that we're the scapegoat and that Carlton have been protected, but it's self-serving shallow thinking.

no i am not thick.

The fact that the Kruezer Cup is not the worst example of "Tanking" that exists make this whole enquiry a complete Sham.

What do you mean the AFL didn't want to investigate us Carlton or anyone?

They're doing it right now.

The AFL could have refuted Mclean if they had wished to.

They didn't. They went in with a S.W.A.T. team.

But NOTHING at all about Round 22 2007.

What is shallow about that?

Not me...

McClean says we were tanking; full scale investigation.

Fevola says Carlton were tanking; nothing.

Pretty f'n clear to me what's happening. At the very least we're being singled out and discriminated against.

  On 06/01/2013 at 13:09, why you little said:

no i am not thick.

The fact that the Kruezer Cup is not the worst example of "Tanking" that exists make this whole enquiry a complete Sham.

What do you mean the AFL didn't want to investigate us Carlton or anyone?

They're doing it right now.

The AFL could have refuted Mclean if they had wished to.

They didn't. They went in with a S.W.A.T. team.

But NOTHING at all about Round 22 2007.

What is shallow about that?

Not me...

You need to be spoonfed constantly.

It wasn't up to the AFL to refute McLean's comments. It was so public and unambiguous that it had to be investigated. Everyone knew we didn't want to win in 2009, except Demetriou and Bartlett. It was patently obvious that the AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne, Carlton, or anyone, but their arm was twisted by the events that unfolded on ONC.

There's no discrimination, or conspiracy, it's the accusations against our club that has led to this.

I won't respond further to you as I'll not spend my life educating dolts.

  On 06/01/2013 at 13:33, Ben-Hur said:

You need to be spoonfed constantly.

It wasn't up to the AFL to refute McLean's comments. It was so public and unambiguous that it had to be investigated. Everyone knew we didn't want to win in 2009, except Demetriou and Bartlett. It was patently obvious that the AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne, Carlton, or anyone, but their arm was twisted by the events that unfolded on ONC.

There's no discrimination, or conspiracy, it's the accusations against our club that has led to this.

I won't respond further to you as I'll not spend my life educating dolts.

you really are a clown.

Vlad knew what was going on.

If you don't believe that then all of what you say is transparent.

Everyone also knew Carlton didn't want to win after Round 10 in 2007 as well. They made it most obvious.

There is discrimination here.

It's not so much discrimination, but the landscape has gradually changed, and we were the last to do it, so we come under scrutiny.

It's like there's an unwritten statute of limitations that says 2009 is recent enough, but 2007 is too long ago.

But you'd have to ask Adrian Anderson - he instigated this second investigation, and he subsequently no longer has a job at the AFL...

That may give a clue as to how eager Demetriou et al were to go headfirst into another investigation that could cause so much damage for so little benefit.

I think it easily could have been dismissed, but AA let it get out of hand.

BH is correct. There are a lot more issues at play in this and from the AFL's point of view they clearly override concerns about them discriminating against one club. I view this as a definite plus in the long run for us because ultimately a heavy sanction against us would make the next big story not merely one of discrimination (which it clearly has been from the get go) to one of corruption and the AFL certainly don't want that.

  On 06/01/2013 at 09:17, dee-luded said:

you forgot some things. it was condoned by the AFL.... not frowned upon like you seem to be doing

I didn't say that - 99.9% of posters here, including me, were in favour of this strategy - I'll only be sorry if we get caught.

  On 06/01/2013 at 20:51, Whispering_Jack said:

BH is correct. There are a lot more issues at play in this and from the AFL's point of view they clearly override concerns about them discriminating against one club. I view this as a definite plus in the long run for us because ultimately a heavy sanction against us would make the next big story not merely one of discrimination (which it clearly has been from the get go) to one of corruption and the AFL certainly don't want that.

but that doesn't add up WJ

Carlton get stronger by far more blatant tanking than anything the MFC have done, but are completely bypassed but we will take a punishment that is percieved lower and be thankful.

That is a very serious blow in terms of the competition in relation to us.

Meanwhile Carlton prosper.

Can't agree with that.

  On 06/01/2013 at 06:59, Ben-Hur said:

I too doubt that Fitzpatrick would let his former affiliation with Carlton affect any decision by the AFL Commision, or AFL employees.

People that constantly look at conspiracy theories, or others' motives have always amused me. I can only assume they're basing their conclusions on what they'd do under similar circumstances.

Then please explain just why the inventors and refiners of tanking, who have themselves admitted to it, are not the subject of this inquisition?

  On 06/01/2013 at 22:12, monoccular said:

Then please explain just why the inventors and refiners of tanking, who have themselves admitted to it, are not the subject of this inquisition?

Because no-one has come forward with a complaint. And the AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne in the first place, but were pushed into a corner where they had to be seen to be doing something. If someone involved at Carlton at the time goes to the AFL with new information and strident allegations of tanking they'll be forced to conduct an inquiry that they don't really want to.

It's not really that hard to work out, but plenty seem to struggle with a terribly basic concept. We're being investigated because the AFL had to, not because they wanted to.

  On 06/01/2013 at 11:58, Ben-Hur said:

Are you thick ? Because no allegations have been made and the AFL weren't keen on this investigation to start with. The AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne, let alone Carlton, or anyone else, but circumstances dictated that they had to qualify public comments and subsequent interest. They had to be seen to act and the events as we know them have followed.

You, Sue and others can think that we're the scapegoat and that Carlton have been protected, but it's self-serving shallow thinking.

You misunderstand me at least. I never said we are a scapegoat. Yes, the AFL would have not wanted to open this can of worms. The AFL could have ignored McClean's comments. He didn't even use the 'tanking' word. But for some reason (theories about AA sound plausible) they did decide to investigate. Stupid decision. But at that point it is perfectly reasonable to ask why the investigation wasn't widened to other clubs about whom similar allegations had been made. The AFL could have announced that since a large number of similar allegations had arisen over recent years, they would start a wide-ranging 'royal commission' to put this to bed for once and for all. Maybe that would have been an even stupider decision. But it would have been fairer.

I can see that the AFL may have dug themselves into a hole, but that does not change the position that it is unfair to only investigate MFC. Do you think it is fair? OK, so life's not fair.... But I expect if you were personally singled out for something nasty, you'd be inclined to rely on the concept of 'fairness' in your defense and in mitigating penalties etc.

I've been arguing that the MFC can threaten to raise the lack of AFL action about tanking by our competitors in mitigation. I may be wrong but I actually feel pretty thin, not thick, nor shallow. No need to be rude BH, just make your arguments please.