The last passage is flat wrong and has been revealed as such since Wilson brought it up. There was no 'secret meeting' nor was it code named, and the threat from CC is hardly substantiated. If this isn't a lazy subeditor adding some 'context' then Haddad has nothing.

Edited January 7, 201312 yr by rpfc

AFL commissioners, investigators and senior management held a meeting in what has been code-named 'the panic room'. Vlad heard to say that 'if this goes to court, more heads to roll'. Awaiting more reports.

From that i get the feeling our lawyers are pretty confident thus far.

Brock retreating makes it all cloudy.

800 pages is a lot of print. So who knows what the next turn will be.

That is a lot of talking.

Our legal boys will need to know it all verbatum.

800 pages is a lot of print. So who knows what the next turn will be.

That is a lot of talking.

Our legal boys will need to know it all verbatum.

I'm not so sure it is a lot of print. Roughly 6 pages of transcripts of interviews etc per day would produce that much. A civil case in the Supreme Court can easily have 800 pages of documents disclosed before things get started - and neither side keen to actually go the distance in a trial.

What does it suggest, that the AFL has put the matter to the MFC in this way, I wonder? If there was straightforward evidence of an actual transgression, you would presume that the matter could be stated in a lot less than 800 pages. There presumably has to be a huge amount of dross in the 800 pages, and I expect MFC's lawyers will be repeating a few points over and over in their responses to much of it. Perhaps there is learned argument about the laws of the game - which argument would prompt the obvious counter-attacks, I imagine, about precedents and public statements from Vlad that provided interpretations of the rules, intention and effect of the laws and the obvious inducement written into the rules, plus comment on the legitimacy of the AFL's investigating procedures, etc. All the things that have been canvassed in posts on this site will come into play and do their thing now that the AFL has committed itself to paper.

WYL, in the space of 12 minutes this morning you went from posting "From that i get the feeling our lawyers are pretty confident thus far" to "Our legal boys will need to know it all verbatum". I think you have let the loud-sounding process get at you a bit. Relax...

I find it interesting that the MFC has apparently not felt any need to connect with public sympathy for their victimisation in all this. Since they have been shown the AFL's hand, there have been opportunities to pick up on public comment about the process and feed the growing public disenchantment with the AFL's behaviour, but we remain entirely poker-faced. Very encouraging, I think.

And, I still think that bringing the game into disrepute falls over if the tanking charge cannot be proven. Nobody publicly [censored] on Vlad's statue.

Edited January 7, 201312 yr by robbiefrom13

800 pages, to me, says that they have submitted all and sundry as evidence because they are clutching at straws.

Surely if they had something substantial, something clearly incriminating, there wouldn't be any need for such fluff?

Instead we've been handed an encyclopaedia of fluff that could be perceived as tanking, if you choose to see it that way.

And the end of that article is terribly lazy on behalf of someone, be it Pierik or a sub-ed.
Just embarrassing for them.

more waffle and the charade continues... ho hum

Interesting listening to some of the radio sports commentary this morning. The consensus seem to be that if the proceed with the action against Melbourne then they have no option but to then proceed with similar action against Carlton for the 2007 Kreuzer Cup and similarly against West Coast in 2010, Richmond, Fremantle, et al.

Maybe Demetriou will have to take a salary cut to pay for the massive legal bills?

The "bringing the game into disrepute" one is interesting because remember Ben Cousins never actually tested positive for drugs. It seems to be the AFL's blanket punishment, the good part is that it looks as though individuals are being targeted over the club.

If you've been paying attention there's not a lot here that's new apart from the two potential charges against Connolly-Schwab (game into disrepute/draft tampering) and three possible charges against Bailey including not coaching to his ability.

rpfc's point is right. For me the most interesting thing is that Pierik picks up Caro's line about the meeting being called 'The Vault' which we all know is wrong.

Why persist with it when Caro herself has corrected the error? Because this is the gospel according to Haddad.

Until we know more detail such as Schwab's purported comments to some coaches this does not take it much further, but it confirms there's a lot of hot air in the case.

Also of note is that McLean has retracted. Which legally at least makes his OTC comments next to worthless.

It's funny that Liba retracted his comments when interviewed by the AFL and the investigation went no where. McLean retracts and the investigation still goes ahead.

The article seems to back up the belief that the AFL will be charging individuals and not the club.

Wreaks of the AFL's 'Integrity Department' desperately trying to justify its own existence - the cost of which is potentially bringing its own code into disrepute.

The other football codes must be roaring at the moment. Watching the AFL manufacture arguments with itself and its clubs must be hilarious to them.

How inaccurate is the last paragraph of the article?

McLean was never asked if Melbourne tanked?

In fact he specifically denied it was called tanking but rather he used the word "experimentation" which was the same word Andrew Demetriou used in a Wilson article in 2009 about the Jordan McMahon game and which was considered by the AFL to be an acceptable practice.

Pierik is a Wilson lackey doing her job whilst she's away.

You've got to hand it to those journos. Love the pic of Bailey confessing his sins. And they wonder why a lot of us hold them in contempt.

I'm not so sure it is a lot of print. Roughly 6 pages of transcripts of interviews etc per day would produce that much. A civil case in the Supreme Court can easily have 800 pages of documents disclosed before things get started - and neither side keen to actually go the distance in a trial.

What does it suggest, that the AFL has put the matter to the MFC in this way, I wonder? If there was straightforward evidence of an actual transgression, you would presume that the matter could be stated in a lot less than 800 pages. There presumably has to be a huge amount of dross in the 800 pages, and I expect MFC's lawyers will be repeating a few points over and over in their responses to much of it. Perhaps there is learned argument about the laws of the game - which argument would prompt the obvious counter-attacks, I imagine, about precedents and public statements from Vlad that provided interpretations of the rules, intention and effect of the laws and the obvious inducement written into the rules, plus comment on the legitimacy of the AFL's investigating procedures, etc. All the things that have been canvassed in posts on this site will come into play and do their thing now that the AFL has committed itself to paper.

WYL, in the space of 12 minutes this morning you went from posting "From that i get the feeling our lawyers are pretty confident thus far" to "Our legal boys will need to know it all verbatum". I think you have let the loud-sounding process get at you a bit. Relax...

I find it interesting that the MFC has apparently not felt any need to connect with public sympathy for their victimisation in all this. Since they have been shown the AFL's hand, there have been opportunities to pick up on public comment about the process and feed the growing public disenchantment with the AFL's behaviour, but we remain entirely poker-faced. Very encouraging, I think.

And, I still think that bringing the game into disrepute falls over if the tanking charge cannot be proven. Nobody publicly [censored] on Vlad's statue.

never said it wasn't full of dross 13 but still the best plan for our lawyers is to know the document right through. No exactly when and where to attack certain sections.

Not panicking at all.

Just had a read of the article. Rubbish write up IMO. Our lawyers will have a field day agains the AFL in court.

PS cant wait to play Carltank this year, Brock Mclean has a target on his back

Just had a read of the article. Rubbish write up IMO. Our lawyers will have a field day agains the AFL in court.

PS cant wait to play Carltank this year, Brock Mclean has a target on his back

If he has retracted I think we just have to assume he (and we) were a victim of his own naivety on OTC. Can't be too hard on him for that.

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.

Amen to that RB

Can't wait to see this in court.

Just had a read of the article. Rubbish write up IMO. Our lawyers will have a field day agains the AFL in court.

PS cant wait to play Carltank this year, Brock Mclean has a target on his back

The blues are next.

Can't wait to see this in court.

If we happen to lose in court who pays the legal fees.

There is one part of all this that is ringing very large alarm bells in my head and that is the Bailey part. If Bailey is found guilty I think there is a fair chance he will turn around and sue the club for not allowing him to coach on his merits. If that happens and Bailey starts talking about the pressure applied to him etc I think it could get very ugly. We need to keep Bailey on our side.

There is one part of all this that is ringing very large alarm bells in my head and that is the Bailey part. If Bailey is found guilty I think there is a fair chance he will turn around and sue the club for not allowing him to coach on his merits. If that happens and Bailey starts talking about the pressure applied to him etc I think it could get very ugly. We need to keep Bailey on our side.

The only way he can sue the club is if they threatened his employment if he didnt comply.

If we happen to lose in court who pays the legal fees.

A very good point raised by mjt! Are we able to have costs awarded against the AFL or individuals within it? Also are we able to mount an action against the AFL for slander or for tarnishing our reputation for adopting actions which were common practice amongst teams at the lower end of the ladder (i.e. experimentation)?

If we happen to lose in court who pays the legal fees.

If we lost in a court of law I'll eat my hat