It wasn't pretty was it

nah, disappointing, & immature. & envious I think.

& now possibly very destructive to themselves...

It wasn't pretty was it

Rock Bottom .

If it didn't happen we may have kept muddling along listening to the players feelings on how much they would like to train and what position they want to play.

Let's remember that under Bailey ,the players could ring in sick if they didn't wish to attend training .

That said , Bailey was the only coach we could afford .I dont believe he has implicated any of us and I hope none of our people have implicated him .

The other disgruntled ex players/staff dont count and their evidence would be virtually worthless.

Rock Bottom .

If it didn't happen we may have kept muddling along listening to the players feelings on how much they would like to train and what position they want to play.

Let's remember that under Bailey ,the players could ring in sick if they didn't wish to attend training .

That said , Bailey was the only coach we could afford .I dont believe he has implicated any of us and I hope none of our people have implicated him .

The other disgruntled ex players/staff dont count and their evidence would be virtually worthless.

I agree Biff, it was a benchmark for our rock bottom.. & a big catalyst to change.

Skimmed over sections of the thread, but didn't notice anyone comment on this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/former-melbourne-coach-dean-bailey-takes-legal-action-to-defend-tanking-claims/story-e6frf9jf-1226549823559

The article on Bailey's defence mentions MFC's legal counsel

Melbourne has threatened to take the matter to the Supreme Court, meaning Bailey could face a legal bill of tens of thousands of dollars.

The Demons have engaged partners Leon Zwier and Caroline Goulden from leading law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler.

Strangely no mention of the Fink.

Probably such a laydown misere that we don't deem it necessary to retain his services...

Rock Bottom .

If it didn't happen we may have kept muddling along listening to the players feelings on how much they would like to train and what position they want to play.

Let's remember that under Bailey ,the players could ring in sick if they didn't wish to attend training .

That said , Bailey was the only coach we could afford .I dont believe he has implicated any of us and I hope none of our people have implicated him .

The other disgruntled ex players/staff dont count and their evidence would be virtually worthless.

You are onto it Biff, up till the end of 2010 it was all cool, but then the opposition started to counter the Bailey strategies, and we had no plan B

(No Football Department insert here) Bailey was part of the problem but so was the club....Jimmy would have sorted it, But....

Although it still makes me feel numb to think of that afternoon the 31 Goal 186 was actually a huge positive for all.

There was no more hiding, not even for number 22..His little empire was gone.

There was no point Dean coaching the last 5 games....it was a different place.

There are picadores and there's matadors !!

Very true...

I think we like to indulge in the now infamous 186 as if it was Watergate style scandal, but i’m not sure if it was really like that at all.

I think we like to indulge in the now infamous 186 as if it was Watergate style scandal, but i’m not sure if it was really like that at all.

It's my opinion that the players tanked that day and did it to prove a point, one that cost a few of them their careers.

I imagine there has been some collusion between the 2 legal parties in some way.

Not being involved in the legal profession, I'm sure this sort of thing is probably against a code of ethics, but I'm sure it also happens in practice on the odd occasion.

You probably shouldn't make statements like this if you are going to accuse other posters of making posts that are 'riddled with errors'.

It's my opinion that the players tanked that day and did it to prove a point, one that cost a few of them their careers.

isnt it a tad ironic that an occurrence of blatant and advertised non-performing is all but ignored.

Fumbling is admonished, striking isn't.

Funny world !!

Skimmed over sections of the thread, but didn't notice anyone comment on this:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/former-melbourne-coach-dean-bailey-takes-legal-action-to-defend-tanking-claims/story-e6frf9jf-1226549823559

The article on Bailey's defence mentions MFC's legal counsel

Strangely no mention of the Fink.

Probably such a laydown misere that we don't deem it necessary to retain his services...

Two in one day, Jose.

Finkelstein is a barrister. They are the ones in the wigs who go to Court.

ABL are solicitors.

So when we win do we get our legal costs reimbursed or are us members going to have to dip our hands in our pockets? Because if we do I'll never buy anything at the footy again.

Also is 186 under investigation, because surely that is the most obvious tanking MFC ever done.

As I said, I'm not involved in the legal profession and I don't know.

Comprehension is obviously a problem for you.

I reckon if you read through this thread you'd find there are more posts attacking other posters than there are discussing and defending the club and I fully expect to get attacked for posting this.

The off season, it seems, is used to get all your paybacks in order.

Comprehension is obviously a problem for you.

This forum is losing its standards.

What we do is at our cost, such is the way.

Many are focussing on what our costs and losses are in all this.

I'm more than prepared to look at our gains ; we get self respect ( can't count on any others ) and we get a spine and I'm sure if we look we'll find we've grown some.

Well be part of that group that won't be f'd with. Lets face it we haven't been there for a long long time and what happens off-field often permeates to on field ! This is the domain of the filth, the squawkers etc even the Visy-vermin !

It's a mindset . You have to walk the walk to get there.

Yeah I get all that but we should still re-imbursed, we are a struggling club and the fees are going to cost more than our yearly profit.

What better way to put an exclamation point on our new found back-bone. Now pay our legals [censored]!

I reckon if you read through this thread you'd find there are more posts attacking other posters than there are discussing and defending the club and I fully expect to get attacked for posting this.

The off season, it seems, is used to get all your paybacks in order.

Who needs a whole off season when it is Jose attacking you. You generally only need to wait a couple of days.

This forum is losing its standards.

Too many new posters with inflated egos and arrogant attitudes devoid of charm.

This forum is losing its standards.

Back in the golden years of demonland..?

I reckon if you read through this thread you'd find there are more posts attacking other posters than there are discussing and defending the club and I fully expect to get attacked for posting this.

The off season, it seems, is used to get all your paybacks in order.

what the hell R U goin' off topic for Robbie!!!

What we do is at our cost, such is the way. Many are focussing on what our costs and losses are in all this. I'm more than prepared to look at our gains ; we get self respect ( can't count on any others ) and we get a spine and I'm sure if we look we'll find we've grown some. Well be part of that group that won't be f'd with. Lets face it we haven't been there for a long long time and what happens off-field often permeates to on field ! This is the domain of the filth, the squawkers etc even the Visy-vermin ! It's a mindset . You have to walk the walk to get there.

agreed, its like the bully in the school yeard. we finally learn to take them/person on, & win some respect & the line is well & truly drawn, hit us & we'll draw blood, & it won't be from a trip to the bloodbank. fitz...

cap & fitz seems to go hand in hand, like recycling brown bags & judd.

So when we win do we get our legal costs reimbursed or are us members going to have to dip our hands in our pockets? Because if we do I'll never buy anything at the footy again.

Putting aside any consideration of whether court costs are awarded one way or another, I wouldn't be surprised if the club and the AFL come to some sort of (secret) arrangement where the MFC is reimbursed a commensurate amount on what we have to fork out ( eg. financial penalties) through the league's annual handouts to the struggling clubs. So if we're $500,000 out-of-pocket we'll get an extra $500,000 through the special redistribution fund at the end of the year.

And the exorbitant cost of chips and a coke should be enough to dissuade you from ever buying anything at the footy anyway!

Edited January 9, 201313 yr by Grapeviney

MFC should kick in and assist DB with his legal defense and costs, he is only incurring these because he was our coach at the time, so is the only reason he requires a lawyer. The failure to protect employees (he was at the time) will make others wonder if MFC will look after them if they have problems.

As for the article, interesting there are leaks and of the 800 page report the best the can come up with is referring to secret (weekly) meetings in the VAULT!!!! and 3 minutes of a game we almost won. The number of rotations I find interesting in that the investigators must have asked about injuries etc so should have factored that into the number of rotations, leaking it means the press can have a bit of a field day on it until the MFC responds with the details on injuries etc. How many of these other 800 pages is devoted to the Richmond game. I love the bit where they could not get anyone to confirm that players deliberately fumbled... how can someone make such a stupid statement to believe in the heat of battle where you are just ahead on the scoreboard someone says to themselves that they better fumble so that we can loose. Does anyone really expect that highly competitive players would rollover for what, so MFC can get another pick, does anyone really think players playing for their spot on next years roster thinks that.

If the AFL is going to take the last 3 minutes of the Melbourne Richmond game as a benchmark then how would the Carlton/Melbourne game the year before stand scrutiny, surely there must be 30seconds or more of inappropriate activity there. The AFL only opens itself up to further scrutiny taking this approach. sadly melbourne cannot win this, sure we might beat the AFL and not loose draft picks, but other areas where we have received financial assistance will eventually suffer.

End of the day someone from the club needs to write up a credible defense and sit down the with AFL and do a deal to close this out before it goes to court, as neither of us wins if that is the case. And if the truth be told no one cares except Caro and a few journo's who have nothing better to do with their time.

Too many new posters with inflated egos and arrogant attitudes devoid of charm.

Come on Sloonatic. Since when has charm counted for anything?