On 07/01/2013 at 05:29, nutbean said:

That other clubs havent been included in the investigation is why I think this is a sham and will end up with a "nothing to see here move on". The AFL didnt want this in the first place and in my opinion are working to a game plan to show the world at large that this is being taken seriously.

If the AFL were really serious and wanted to charge a club with tanking then my belief is that they would widen this investigation to include all clubs. The AFL know we are going to go down kicking and screaming and will go legal. If we go legal and are found guilty there will be clarity around what constitutes tanking. Every reporter will then apply this to other clubs ( Carlton first and foremost) - that is not what the AFL wants.

However I think the AFL are minimising the width of the investigation to us only with a certain amount of insight as to the outcome.

1/ investigate

2/ Find flimsy, non specific and UNPROVEABLE evidence

3/ ask MFC to explain

4/ MFC says - meh - tongue in cheek humor, ex players with axes to grind and list management

5/ AFL says - on the basis of the evidence and responses there is not sufficient hard evidence to charge

6/ AFL institutes a lottery system

7/ tanking is dead

Why would you widen an investigation to include other clubs when the club that has been the most transparent in its activity ( and yes you could argue Carlton as well - but six to one half a dozen of the other) is going to wind up with no charge to answer - yes we are copping the pain and media attention but it will be yesterdays news shortly.

If I am wrong and charges are laid then bring on the fink and let it get ugly.

At the end of the day they will never say move along. They have too much vested interest in this, and at the point where the media has blown it up so much they have to be seen to do something.

It's like the whole GWS and $kully issue, they said they would get him and after so many other players rejected them they made a point about recruiting him - no matter what the cost.

The AFL will try and charge the MFC with anything, real or conspiracy, from credible witnesses to disgruntled employees.

  On 07/01/2013 at 05:29, nutbean said:

That other clubs havent been included in the investigation is why I think this is a sham and will end up with a "nothing to see here move on". The AFL didnt want this in the first place and in my opinion are working to a game plan to show the world at large that this is being taken seriously.

If the AFL were really serious and wanted to charge a club with tanking then my belief is that they would widen this investigation to include all clubs. The AFL know we are going to go down kicking and screaming and will go legal. If we go legal and are found guilty there will be clarity around what constitutes tanking. Every reporter will then apply this to other clubs ( Carlton first and foremost) - that is not what the AFL wants.

However I think the AFL are minimising the width of the investigation to us only with a certain amount of insight as to the outcome.

1/ investigate

2/ Find flimsy, non specific and UNPROVEABLE evidence

3/ ask MFC to explain

4/ MFC says - meh - tongue in cheek humor, ex players with axes to grind and list management

5/ AFL says - on the basis of the evidence and responses there is not sufficient hard evidence to charge

6/ AFL institutes a lottery system

7/ tanking is dead

Why would you widen an investigation to include other clubs when the club that has been the most transparent in its activity ( and yes you could argue Carlton as well - but six to one half a dozen of the other) is going to wind up with no charge to answer - yes we are copping the pain and media attention but it will be yesterdays news shortly.

If I am wrong and charges are laid then bring on the fink and let it get ugly.

I agree with you nut except for one point.

i do not buy the "AFL do not want this investigation to be happening"

Why...Because it has been going on for 6 months.

But yes they do not want any other "Power" clubs involved...That would tarnish the Brand.

If this club is to become strong again..WE are going to have to work bloody hard at it.

The legal approach shown so far has given me some heart..i hope it is last man standing.

Some on here have said certain people are expendable in preference to the Club..

Nice, but it depends on what charges are laid...anything flimsy is worth a fight..Otherwise who would want to work for the MFC in future.

If Wilson had come up with solid damming information in her first articles my position on this would be a lot different...(i have always feared a Tanking enquiry from 2009 onwards)

But she came out with personal fluff that was all smoke and fire but really nothing..

and very little since...

The most interesting part in all this is that the MFC have remained completely silent...not one word.

Yet.

  On 07/01/2013 at 05:57, RobbieF said:

You still haven't said what you would like to happen to CS and CC so can I assume you'd be happy to see them both cleared of any wrong doing and the status quo remain?

You can try to be as clever as you like.

Robbie you're being a bit silly here. I want the club to be cleared of any wrong doing, that's not a hard concept to get your head around. It would be for the good of the club for this to happen.

I'm on record of saying that I think we can do better than Schwab and McLardy but to conclude from that that I'd be happy for the tanking investigation to succeed to achieve that result is just dumb as the possible penalties and the damage to our image, sponsorship, finances, drafting and perhaps membership would put us back a long way.

I know you can't get past my "agenda" but what you don't realise is that my agenda, if that is the right word, is based around us becoming successful. That you and I disagree on the methodology does not make one person right and the other wrong, or in my case "evil". Schwab is no more or less to me than a person within the club doing a role. He's like a very important, perhaps the most important, person in a football team. If he isn't the best we can do we should look to improve. I think we can do better and you don't. We differ but it doesn't mean I'm out to get him, I just have a view.

Hope this helps but I doubt it will.

BTW, when did CC come into this?

  On 07/01/2013 at 06:14, Fan said:

Robbie you're being a bit silly here. I want the club to be cleared of any wrong doing, that's not a hard concept to get your head around. It would be for the good of the club for this to happen.

I'm on record of saying that I think we can do better than Schwab and McLardy but to conclude from that that I'd be happy for the tanking investigation to succeed to achieve that result is just dumb as the possible penalties and the damage to our image, sponsorship, finances, drafting and perhaps membership would put us back a long way.

I know you can't get past my "agenda" but what you don't realise is that my agenda, if that is the right word, is based around us becoming successful. That you and I disagree on the methodology does not make one person right and the other wrong, or in my case "evil". Schwab is no more or less to me than a person within the club doing a role. He's like a very important, perhaps the most important, person in a football team. If he isn't the best we can do we should look to improve. I think we can do better and you don't. We differ but it doesn't mean I'm out to get him, I just have a view.

Hope this helps but I doubt it will.

BTW, when did CC come into this?

It's quite possible we could but we certainly didn't in the previous years before Jim came on board; some of the previous Presidents and CEO's were just incompetent or didn't really have their heart in it.

If you can suggest someone that's better than either of the incumbents then let's hear it?

I'm on record as saying that I think Cam's a bit slick, but he seems to be doing the job, the club's turning a profit and the balance sheet is improving. As you know it's a different thing, running a Footy Club, as opposed to a normal business, and you need to have specific skills to do the job properly; as someone once said you give a football club $10m and they'll spend $11m. McLardy was there by default and seems to be growing in to the job, he may prove to be an excellent President or may fall by the wayside but at the moment he's handling a difficult job with little fuss and his telling moment will come when he responds to the allegations made against us.

There are those that are [censored] because the current board seem to have grabbed the limelight and have taken the credit for initiatives commenced by the previous boards but that always happens in this type of situation; how many Liberal projects did the incoming Labor Government open and take credit for and vice versa?

I have no doubt that there have been toes trod on and egos bruised but at the end of the day it's the club that we all care about and petty arguments between parties about who did this and who did that are irrelevant to the vast majority of the members.

We all want the club to be successful, you're no orphan there, it's just your posting in the Wilson thread was at least inflammatory and at worst baiting and vindictive. I'm sure you're better than that and it was a lapse.

  On 07/01/2013 at 06:50, RobbieF said:

It's quite possible we could but we certainly didn't in the previous years before Jim came on board; some of the previous Presidents and CEO's were just incompetent or didn't really have their heart in it.

If you can suggest someone that's better than either of the incumbents then let's hear it?

I'm on record as saying that I think Cam's a bit slick, but he seems to be doing the job, the club's turning a profit and the balance sheet is improving. As you know it's a different thing, running a Footy Club, as opposed to a normal business, and you need to have specific skills to do the job properly; as someone once said you give a football club $10m and they'll spend $11m. McLardy was there by default and seems to be growing in to the job, he may prove to be an excellent President or may fall by the wayside but at the moment he's handling a difficult job with little fuss and his telling moment will come when he responds to the allegations made against us.

There are those that are [censored] because the current board seem to have grabbed the limelight and have taken the credit for initiatives commenced by the previous boards but that always happens in this type of situation; how many Liberal projects did the incoming Labor Government open and take credit for and vice versa?

I have no doubt that there have been toes trod on and egos bruised but at the end of the day it's the club that we all care about and petty arguments between parties about who did this and who did that are irrelevant to the vast majority of the members.

We all want the club to be successful, you're no orphan there, it's just your posting in the Wilson thread was at least inflammatory and at worst baiting and vindictive. I'm sure you're better than that and it was a lapse.

well said RobbieF

I think most of us feel very similar to this.

We just live in different streets so the slant changes a little.

Excellent summation Robbie.

Can we please get this bloody enquiry finished.

  On 07/01/2013 at 06:02, PJ_12345 said:

At the end of the day they will never say move along. They have too much vested interest in this, and at the point where the media has blown it up so much they have to be seen to do something.

It's like the whole GWS and $kully issue, they said they would get him and after so many other players rejected them they made a point about recruiting him - no matter what the cost.

The AFL will try and charge the MFC with anything, real or conspiracy, from credible witnesses to disgruntled employees.

And I believe the exact opposite. The AFL knows that there is too much at stake to actually do something other than stand up say that they did a thorough investigation and don't have enough evidence to lay charges.

  On 07/01/2013 at 08:49, nutbean said:

And I believe the exact opposite. The AFL knows that there is too much at stake to actually do something other than stand up say that they did a thorough investigation and don't have enough evidence to lay charges.

that would be the sensible road.

Some crazy drivers out there though !! Lol

  On 07/01/2013 at 03:31, Fan said:

You are so stupid it's mindboggling.

Dead set, this is an ordinary post.

  On 07/01/2013 at 10:23, Ron Burgundy said:

Dead set, this is an ordinary post.

The recipient of Fan's (and mine) post seems to get away with saying things that are just as bad, if not more inflammatory, without any utterances from you, or anybody else. I can only put it down to the possibility that you, and others, agree with Fan's observations, yet feel obliged to defend said dolt out of some kind of misplaced chivalry, or nobleness. Naturally I understand such nobility, but consider it misguided considering the subject's repeated failings and particular numbness to all things that make sense.

  On 07/01/2013 at 11:08, Ben-Hur said:

The recipient of Fan's (and mine) post seems to get away with saying things that are just as bad, if not more inflammatory, without any utterances from you, or anybody else. I can only put it down to the possibility that you, and others, agree with Fan's observations, yet feel obliged to defend said dolt out of some kind of misplaced chivalry, or nobleness. Naturally I understand such nobility, but consider it misguided considering the subject's repeated failings and particular numbness to all things that make sense.

Rather Cryptic Mr. Hur.

  On 07/01/2013 at 10:23, Ron Burgundy said:

Dead set, this is an ordinary post.

I agree but it surprises me that so many have taken offence at this comment. What I find completely insulting and far more offensive is to be told you're running an agenda, not a worthy supporter and wanting the club to fail. One bloke, who I think is a mod, accused me of being Caro's leak. FM, why would a supporter provide her with information? WYL continually insinuates I'm being interrogated by the AFL in the tanking affair with not one shred of evidence to support his assertion. Ordinary? Yes, in the extreme. And when the dolt said BH wanted to see the club fail I thought it was about time to call time. As most would know BH and I clash at times but I've not one shred of doubt about him being a fanatical supporter who wants nothing more than see this club succeed. You don't think it was an ordinary comment?

Sorry but I'll now give a bit when people make stupid statement, it's one of the main reasons I'm no longer a mod because as has been clearly pointed out it wouldn't be appropriate if I was and it was about time an alternative view was put even if it did upset the cheerleaders.

EDIT: Hadn't seen your post when I posted this BH. We disagree on much but agree on more.

  On 07/01/2013 at 11:08, Ben-Hur said:

The recipient of Fan's (and mine) post seems to get away with saying things that are just as bad, if not more inflammatory, without any utterances from you, or anybody else. I can only put it down to the possibility that you, and others, agree with Fan's observations, yet feel obliged to defend said dolt out of some kind of misplaced chivalry, or nobleness. Naturally I understand such nobility, but consider it misguided considering the subject's repeated failings and particular numbness to all things that make sense.

Can you be my life coach? You are so wise and posses a level of humility I can only aspire to.

  On 07/01/2013 at 11:16, Fan said:

I agree but it surprises me that so many have taken offence at this comment. What I find completely insulting and far more offensive is to be told you're running an agenda, not a worthy supporter and wanting the club to fail. One bloke, who I think is a mod, accused me of being Caro's leak. FM, why would a supporter provide her with information? WYL continually insinuates I'm being interrogated by the AFL in the tanking affair with not one shred of evidence to support his assertion. Ordinary? Yes, in the extreme. And when the dolt said BH wanted to see the club fail I thought it was about time to call time. As most would know BH and I clash at times but I've not one shred of doubt about him being a fanatical supporter who wants nothing more than see this club succeed. You don't think it was an ordinary comment?

Sorry but I'll now give a bit when people make stupid statement, it's one of the main reasons I'm no longer a mod because as has been clearly pointed out it wouldn't be appropriate if I was and it was about time an alternative view was put even if it did upset the cheerleaders.

EDIT: Hadn't seen your post when I posted this BH. We disagree on much but agree on more.

And why is it not appropriate for you to be a Mod anymore Fan?

What has changed?

If it has been clearly pointed out i wouldn't mind reading it.

  On 07/01/2013 at 06:50, RobbieF said:

It's quite possible we could but we certainly didn't in the previous years before Jim came on board; some of the previous Presidents and CEO's were just incompetent or didn't really have their heart in it.

If you can suggest someone that's better than either of the incumbents then let's hear it?

I'm on record as saying that I think Cam's a bit slick, but he seems to be doing the job, the club's turning a profit and the balance sheet is improving. As you know it's a different thing, running a Footy Club, as opposed to a normal business, and you need to have specific skills to do the job properly; as someone once said you give a football club $10m and they'll spend $11m. McLardy was there by default and seems to be growing in to the job, he may prove to be an excellent President or may fall by the wayside but at the moment he's handling a difficult job with little fuss and his telling moment will come when he responds to the allegations made against us.

There are those that are [censored] because the current board seem to have grabbed the limelight and have taken the credit for initiatives commenced by the previous boards but that always happens in this type of situation; how many Liberal projects did the incoming Labor Government open and take credit for and vice versa?

I have no doubt that there have been toes trod on and egos bruised but at the end of the day it's the club that we all care about and petty arguments between parties about who did this and who did that are irrelevant to the vast majority of the members.

We all want the club to be successful, you're no orphan there, it's just your posting in the Wilson thread was at least inflammatory and at worst baiting and vindictive. I'm sure you're better than that and it was a lapse.

Robbie your post invites a discussion on why I think CS and DMcL are not "best practice" but I'll not go there albeit that it would suit the "agenda" you think I've been so busy running. I point out again that it is you who raised this issue, not me.

Suffice to say that an organization is tested in difficult times and it's necessary to manage those times well. I think there are numerous examples where we have been very poor when things are tough and it has cost us dearly. This is not to deny some very good work by both and I respect particularly the work of Don who is unpaid and has committed significant time to his post.

  On 07/01/2013 at 11:26, why you little said:

And why is it not appropriate for you to be a Mod anymore Fan?

What has changed?

If it has been clearly pointed out i wouldn't mind reading it.

Because I couldn't call you stupid if I was. You'd be pretty stupid not to understand that.

  On 07/01/2013 at 11:16, Fan said:

I agree but it surprises me that so many have taken offence at this comment. What I find completely insulting and far more offensive is to be told you're running an agenda, not a worthy supporter and wanting the club to fail. One bloke, who I think is a mod, accused me of being Caro's leak. FM, why would a supporter provide her with information? WYL continually insinuates I'm being interrogated by the AFL in the tanking affair with not one shred of evidence to support his assertion. Ordinary? Yes, in the extreme. And when the dolt said BH wanted to see the club fail I thought it was about time to call time. As most would know BH and I clash at times but I've not one shred of doubt about him being a fanatical supporter who wants nothing more than see this club succeed. You don't think it was an ordinary comment?

Sorry but I'll now give a bit when people make stupid statement, it's one of the main reasons I'm no longer a mod because as has been clearly pointed out it wouldn't be appropriate if I was and it was about time an alternative view was put even if it did upset the cheerleaders.

EDIT: Hadn't seen your post when I posted this BH. We disagree on much but agree on more.

So two wrongs make a right does it now? Lol I hope for societies sake you are sterile.

Keep on referring to WYL- a fellow poster and committed dee as a "dolt" and see how many enemies you can make here!

  On 07/01/2013 at 11:28, SloonieMcFloonieloone said:

So two wrongs make a right does it now? Lol I hope for societies sake you are sterile.

Keep on referring to WYL- a fellow poster and committed dee as a "dolt" and see how many enemies you can make here!

Yep, I'm standing up for myself and others, just like many believe the MFC should do in the tanking issue.

You could be forgiven for thinking that Demonland had morphed in to Demonology. Let the insults fly.

This thread and the Wilson one no longer serve any purpose other than to settle some old scores.

  On 07/01/2013 at 11:27, Fan said:

Because I couldn't call you stupid if I was. You'd be pretty stupid not to understand that.

I see. Starting to sound a little desperate Fan if that is your best answer,

I am sure there is far more to it than that one line, but it's a start.

If you respect Wilson as a reporter, that's your view but when you skim over the fact that she put her own personal vendettas into that original story, which got the whole scenario rolling.

That got peoples backs up, and there is little teamwork in here we are all posting individually.

This investigation was always going to happen, but i refuse to sit back and watch Jim Stynes name get rolled in the dirt.

I am not aligned to anyone. In fact, I do not actually know another person who posts on this site.

I just get sick of reading the personal attacks. They are basic in the extreme. And boring.

  Fan said:

Because I couldn't call you stupid if I was. You'd be pretty stupid not to understand that.

no offence here to WYL

but this post did make me laugh

after spending the last 30 mins or so reading this thread ( post from the last 2 days ), this is the post that sticks in my head

its funny also to think we all here support the same team ( you would never guess sometimes ). we all wont agree all the time but personal insults should be removed

how many days till we play again ..

  On 07/01/2013 at 12:14, markc said:

no offence here to WYL

but this post did make me laugh

after spending the last 30 mins or so reading this thread ( post from the last 2 days ), this is the post that sticks in my head

its funny also to think we all here support the same team ( you would never guess sometimes ). we all wont agree all the time but personal insults should be removed

how many days till we play again ..

No offense taken Markc....You'll keep

Something that has been on my mind...

If MFC took the AFL to court, I presume that Vlad could be called over his repeated comments that he did not believe that tanking occured.

Given that the the charges laid by the AFL would be to do with the MFC not winning, then it would make sense if a line of questioning could be opened up about the eveness of the competition and wether or not the AFL was even handed in ensuring all teams had an even chance. For example, does the draw represent every team with an equal chance of making the finals? Does the AFL randomly select which teams will play each other twice?

Not sure this is a line of public scrutiny that Vlad would enjoy.

Age story: http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-charges-revealed-20130107-2ccw7.html

Dees charges revealed

Etc.