I hope the lawyers who have to learn their briefs "verbatum" are across all the detales.

  On 07/01/2013 at 22:45, Chippy said:

I heard Jon Pierik on SEN this morning.he believes that if things go smoothly it will end about mid year.If there is a court challenge, then more likely end of 2014.So now it's time to just enjoy footballGO DEES

Chippy , I don't think this Pierik chappy knows his nose from another orifice. Plainly by his article he's incapable of getting too much in context or right.

He's guessing as to anything else just to seem like he's relevant.

This will be over before round 1. Why ? Because its damaging the AFL brand now....not ours.

AD has let the goon squad have their 15 mins (plus) but he knows this has to be not so much put to bed, but put to death.

I still maintain all of this is really an elaborate charade. It was condoned in order to damage control what the idiot Anderson started ( without express permission )

The AFL has to look like it is actually doing something. A couple of Tomes of fish wrapping have been tabled and now the MFC will counter. ..... Then the AFL will reappraise and consider...... Then they'll announce that no actual rule has been broken but admonishes the parties and will express a stern warning for any future instances ,which of course can't occur now they've changed the priority rewards.

The AFL looks ( in its mind) like the masters of the game; ( in our views ) masters of baiting !!!

Everyone goes home. Finis.

Any other avenue ,especially any road looking towards Willians and Lonsdale and Demetriou is on a loser. He won't go there.

The likes of Wilson ,Ralph ,Stevens and such will end up with substance on their face; what that is I couldn't care.

Vlad will be at pains to wrest back control of things footy in this town and in doing so will remind the media it (afl) runs footy and not them.

Would months of legal fees end up outweighing the financial penalties imposed by the AFL on the club?

  On 08/01/2013 at 00:58, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Would months of legal fees end up outweighing the financial penalties imposed by the AFL on the club?

there won't be MONTHS of fees. Finks and co will peruse the waffle and determine their brief. From this the club will ( ought to ) stare down the Empire and call them. Well punks, do you really ,REALLY want to do this ?

Thought not !

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/tanking-charges-against-the-melbourne-football-club-out-in-the-open/story-e6frf7jo-1226549291328
Update to the herald sun article, courtesy of Grant Thomas tweeting...

... always liked him

  On 08/01/2013 at 01:08, Oucher said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/tanking-charges-against-the-melbourne-football-club-out-in-the-open/story-e6frf7jo-1226549291328

Update to the herald sun article, courtesy of Grant Thomas tweeting...

... always liked him

Such a shame Thomas & Wilson will not stare down each other next year...Grant would rip her apart on this one.

  On 08/01/2013 at 00:58, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Would months of legal fees end up outweighing the financial penalties imposed by the AFL on the club?

Maybe, maybe not, but rolling over and saying "take me" is not an option, presuming that "the evidence" (obtained by questionable means - was anyone water-boarded by the way?) fails to prove any wrongdoing.

That's all we need,Grant Thomas sticking his bib in, just to rile up the AFL.........It's like a bank robber saying it's not his fault.... it's the banks for keeping the money there

Still...one good thing ; right now the club WILL know exactly who the bastard scoundrels are and who the enemy within and without is.

Also...ought not Brock - I'm a dimwitted numnut- Mclean be brought to answer for bringing the game into disrespute ? After all wasn't it he who supposedly triggered this only to recant ??

  On 08/01/2013 at 00:19, Ben-Hur said:

As I said, no player has been asked to perform beneath their capability. The evidence doesn't get much stronger than that.

And yes, then testimony, etc. will be dissected. A given I would have thought.

That's a very definitative perspective on one aspect of the evidence which honestly you or anyone else apart from the board/legal team would have know the extent of.

Be careful of blanket statements... Particularly implying that they have no evidence when you have merely talked about evidence regarding a direct link between coaching/staff saying to players to tank.

  On 08/01/2013 at 01:35, belzebub59 said:

Also...ought not Brock - I'm a dimwitted numnut- Mclean be brought to answer for bringing the game into disrespute ? After all wasn't it he who supposedly triggered this only to recant ??

I'd lay off McLean who appears to be just a bit naive. You don't want him to recant his recantation.

  On 08/01/2013 at 01:50, sue said:

I'd lay off McLean who appears to be just a bit naive. You don't want him to recant his recantation.

you are much too nice sue

  On 07/01/2013 at 22:45, Chippy said:

I heard Jon Pierik on SEN this morning.

he believes that if things go smoothly it will end about mid year.

If there is a court challenge, then more likely end of 2014.

So now it's time to just enjoy football

GO DEES

I like 2014, as long as it's after the end of November...

take it to court & stretch it out, let it die down to barely a simmer.

Thought out all of this farce it still occurs to me that had then been any real proof, any damning evidence of , not only tanking but the 'intruction to do so ' then it would have been outed by now, if fact ages ago. There would have been an announcement by teh league to the effect that it had uncovered " this that ot something Z' and that this official , and the club as a co conspirator , will be charge under section ##.

It would be out there, the gun , the smoke and the GSR for all to see ( and understand )

It wouldnt need A Three Stooges led Inquisition over half a year to result in a ream and a half of "something that might be, but we're not too sure, but hoping it is " rubbish.

This is trial by mud. There is possibly the hope that the club will panic and confess to a wrongdoing that the AFL has yet been unable to actually quantify or qualify.. It hopes somethig will stick even if it doesnt have a clue itself.

Yes this is Stooging and the AFL want us to come up with the laugh lines .

As Thomas suggests , the joke is really on them.

  On 08/01/2013 at 01:50, sue said:

I'd lay off McLean who appears to be just a bit naive. You don't want him to recant his recantation.

lay off ?? lol Hes a fool.. A comtemptuous self serving one at that.

  On 07/01/2013 at 23:42, nutbean said:

Referring to my earlier posts - this is still being played by the numbers. I still believe this is all nicely set up for an AFL presser at some stage - "after presenting 800 pages of research to the MFC and receiving back information and clarity around this information there is insufficient evidence for any charges to be laid"

I partially agree with this. However i don't reckon they will be saying there is insufficient evidence for charges to be laid, more something like:

'we are very concerned by what the evidence suggest and believe it it indicates there were some very concerning practices by the MFC - and in particular by key personnel - in that period. Despite this we will not be sanctioning the MFC or individuals as there are grey areas and some contradictory evidence that make doing so problematical. We will tightening up our rules and drafting new ones to ensure it is crystal clear these sort of actions are not acceptable'.

The approach the AFL have taken of giving the club some 800 pages of palaver and 5 weeks to digest and respond fits with the predictions i made last year of how this might proceed. I firmly believe the approach is to embarrass CC, CS and Bailey as a form of punishment and as a warning to others who might contemplate similar actions in the future.

They will also being have discussions behind closed door with the dees putting pressure on them to acknowledge some wrong doing (they have plenty of levers - the redistribution fund and the draw being 2 obvious examples). At the least they will work something out that allows them (the AFL) to save some face and get out of it without having their authority challenged. That's because the AFL will, in my view, not allow this to go to court - way too much to lose and there seems to be sufficient procedural issues to make it hard for them to be successful at court. I reckon these procedural issues are behind Angry suddenly and quite abruptly leaving the AFL (and without another gig to go to as noted by Nutbean?).

When its all said and done we won't want to go to court either so i reckon they will find a way out where we can also keep our honor intact, not specifically admit to tanking and not be forced to sack CC or CS (or cut Bailey loose - which would be a travesty if we went down that path). Perhaps something like a statement agreeing we pushed the boundaries of list management and will never do so again.

A couple of other interesting points . One is that charges of draft tampering have been flagged. Lets hope any deal done to get Viney at pick 27 is all kosher.

The other is the charge of bringing the game into disrepute. To me this makes no sense as all the so called suspect discussions we were held behind closed doors and only brought to light by an investigation that appears to leak like a sieve and has been carried out poorly. Perhaps it is about the the games we put on in this period somehow bringing the game into disrepute because of the suspicions that surrounded them?

Again funny logic as there are at least two obvious examples where games were widely discussed as being funky. One is the so called Kruezer cup - i mean it was such a joke of a game that it has its own title. The other is the Freo Hawks game in Tassie a few seasons back where Freo rested up to half of their side (and of course were completely non competitive) to give them an advantage in the finals the following week (which they won - at home!). That game was a complete joke also. By compariosn the much discussed Melbourne - Richmond game was a thriller that was decide after the siren.

Like so many other aspects of this issues we can point to heaps of other examples of dodgy stuff and contradictions in the AFL's position - and will if it ever goes to court

MFC to hold a press conf...0930 tomorrow......

I do believe you inadvertently ommitted the highlighted word As Nut and others ( self included ) suggest...This is really all an act.

  On 08/01/2013 at 02:20, binman said:

'we are very concerned by what the evidence suggest and believe it it indicates there was some very concerning practices by the MFC - and in particular by key personnel - in that period. Despite this we will NOT sanctioning the MFC or individuals as there are grey areas and some contradictory evidence that make doing so problematical. We will tightening up our rules and drafting new ones to ensure it is crystal clear these sort of actions are not acceptable'.

Interesting to see the Board mentioned as being one of the four parties with a "please explain". That raises the stakes significantly and changes the dynamics.

Of course it might not be right. Can't imagine the AFL wanting to pizz on a statue.

  On 08/01/2013 at 02:26, belzebub59 said:

I do believe you inadvertently ommitted the highlighted word As Nut and others ( self included ) suggest...This is really all an act.

Somewhat changes the nature of the statement doesn't it! Have edited now

  On 08/01/2013 at 01:35, Bossdog said:

That's all we need,Grant Thomas sticking his bib in, just to rile up the AFL.........It's like a bank robber saying it's not his fault.... it's the banks for keeping the money there

This is not a good analogy at all.

...it's more like the banks lending money to all and sundry when credit policy is relaxed and then complaining about being unable to recover funds when things get tight and they change their rules.

Our club and many others have taken advantage of the AFL's relaxed credit policy and now the AFL with a dose of hindsight after being forced to take their heads out of their........ don't like the results.

The choreography of all this reminds me of WCW on a sat arvo !! lol

  On 08/01/2013 at 02:27, Fan said:

Interesting to see the Board mentioned as being one of the four parties with a "please explain". That raises the stakes significantly and changes the dynamics.

Of course it might not be right. Can't imagine the AFL wanting to pizz on a statue.

I would have thought that the as the governing body it would be right and proper the board be given a please explain. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions the buck stops with them.

  On 08/01/2013 at 02:32, rjay said:

This is not a good analogy at all.

...it's more like the banks lending money to all and sundry when credit policy is relaxed and then complaining about being unable to recover funds when things get tight and they change their rules.

Our club and many others have taken advantage of the AFL's relaxed credit policy and now the AFL with a dose of hindsight after being forced to take their heads out of their........ don't like the results.

not a bad take on it really

  On 08/01/2013 at 02:27, Fan said:

Interesting to see the Board mentioned as being one of the four parties with a "please explain". That raises the stakes significantly and changes the dynamics.

Of course it might not be right. Can't imagine the AFL wanting to pizz on a statue.

Doesnt change one thing. The 'club" was always going to be party to any charges. Its normal. Why are you surprised ?

just fanning perhaps ?