AFL investigation

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

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!

I won't be holding my breath for the AFL to voluntarily reimburse us. Lol they kept this investigation going for so long out of stubborn pride it would go against their face to just pay us out like that.

Maybe we get more home games against big boys, some friday night games and a new traditional blockbuster in next years fixture- Melbourne V Richmond- "tank round"- most fumbles wins/loses.?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

We are fighting for the integrity of the club and that should include the integrity and defence of someone that was acting on behalf of the club at the time; I would be disappointed if they cut him lose.

Well done Robbie....

Here is what i wrote at 2 o'clock today in post #1198.....

"We should do everything to protect the position of MFC in the process. We will incur fees in respect of Bailey as an officer of the MFC. If Bailey chooses to appoint in addition his own counsel, he should pay for that counsel.

....... We should do all we can such that MFC and its officers are protected. Where appropriate that will include Bailey. But you can skip the buy off charity for his counsel which he chose to appoint himself.

Bailey is smart enough to realise that its no good for him to bury MFC on this matter as it is no good for MFC to do likewise to him at this time."

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

I'm pretty sure there have been more than a few repeat posts in more than 53 pages of literature.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

On the basis of what I have read to date, the evidence in support of these charges is so ludicrously weak that it may ultimately end up doing us a favour.

Thus far, it's bordering on comically pathetic - and, despite all efforts, they've not seemingly uncovered any genuinely 'new' evidence.

Hopefully neutral observers will begin to see this, and actually also get behind the club in relation to this witch-hunt - sorry "investigation".

[Bitter but optimistic 22,239]

Well done Robbie....

Here is what i wrote at 2 o'clock today in post #1198.....

You're only 5 hours behind....keep going.

There are many posters who have moments of being reactive and/or negative. I am one of the most guilty. But you RR stand alone for being ridiculously obtuse. You arrive out of the ether with multiple quotes that you apparently think "cleverly" attack other posters. I wouldn't mind this, but you are supposed to be a moderator. You are in fact a flamer. The very opposite of your supossed role. You are a pathetic disgrace. A hypocrite.

[Mega_Watts 70]

This suggestion of intentional 'fumbles' is really quite embarrassing for the AFL . The 3 minutes that mattered ... The players association could step in here and it casts a huge slur on any player involved in the now infamous 'Fumbling fiasco' or 'Fumble-gate'.

The accusation is so ludicrous that it's quite amusing . Is there a fumble count ? Is the opposition team allowed to fumble in the same 'said' 3 minutes . Can we pluck other 3 minute periods of games where there were more fumbles? It's so stupid it laughable . Who were the chief perpetrators of these 'fumbles' ? Did the Tigers have a bigger fumble 'count' in other '3 minute periods' ?

So based on this definition of tanking the Tigers tanked against Gold Coast this year.

The last 3 minutes of that was described by the commentators as the worst 3 minutes of football they'd seen - the fumble count was off the charts! Tanking?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Well done Robbie....

Here is what i wrote at 2 o'clock today in post #1198.....

You're only 5 hours behind....keep going.

I stated my opinion if you'd already backtracked on yours good on you.

It's hard work keeping up with the crud you post.

In case you forgot this is what you originally posted.

We can't afford our expensive legal fees let alone anyone elses

Edited January 9, 2013 by RobbieF

[Guest José Mourinho]

Well done Robbie....

Here is what i wrote at 2 o'clock today in post #1198.....

You're only 5 hours behind....keep going.

Maybe he's learnt to skips over your posts, like many others do..?

In all seriousness, I don't think in a thread of this length it is an indictment to post something that's already been said.

I've noticed that I've done it a couple of times myself.

Edited January 9, 2013 by José Mourinho

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

I am prepared to cop some costs as long as the MFC grows its bells a little larger and decides to join the pointy end of the competition.

There are no more excuses.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

There are many posters who have moments of being reactive and/or negative. I am one of the most guilty. But you RR stand alone for being ridiculously obtuse. You arrive out of the ether with multiple quotes that you apparently think "cleverly" attack other posters. I wouldn't mind this, but you are supposed to be a moderator. You are in fact a flamer. The very opposite of your supossed role. You are a pathetic disgrace. A hypocrite.

Yes it's a shame that we have a current and a former moderator flaming and trolling the site.

The worst part about it is RR goes about it without any consideration for the code of conduct and with seeming impunity, if anyone else did the same they'd be warned or banned; probably by him.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,239]

Yes it's a shame that we have a current and a former moderator flaming and trolling the site.

The worst part about it is RR goes about it without any consideration for the code of conduct and with seeming impunity, if anyone else did the same they'd be warned or banned; probably by him.

Thankfully It's getting to the point where no one takes him seriously.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Maybe he's learnt to skips over your posts, like many others do..?

In all seriousness, I don't think in a thread of this length it is an indictment to post something that's already been said.

I've noticed that I've done it a couple of times myself.

Actually I read his posts to see just who he's abusing at the time, he seems to have his favourites and uses language that would have any other poster banned.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Thankfully It's getting to the point where no one takes him seriously.

I doubt many ever did. His contribution to discussion is usually limited and I reckon he'll probably spend the next 5 minutes deleting any post he disagrees with.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Actually I read his posts to see just who he's abusing at the time, he seems to have his favourites and uses language that would have any other poster banned.

Every now and then I read one, but in the main I find them repetitive antagonistic and just such a damn bore.

90% I skip over now. There's nothing I can take out of it.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Every now and then I read one, but in the main I find them repetitive antagonistic and just such a damn bore.

90% I skip over now. There's nothing I can take out of it.

Once he starts on someone you can read one and skip the next 10, they generally just say the same thing using different levels of abuse; Moderator, yeah right.

Watch these disappear.

[Guest José Mourinho]

If they do, they do.
It's not like they added much to the thread.

[BarnDee 287]

sorry but in need a q answered , why is the wilson thread locked ??

[Grapeviney 9,718]

I won't be holding my breath for the AFL to voluntarily reimburse us. Lol they kept this investigation going for so long out of stubborn pride it would go against their face to just pay us out like that.

The reason the investigation has gone for so long and has been so "thorough" is that the AFL needs to be able to draw a line in the sand after this, so that regardless of what comes up in the future - another Brock-like brain fade for example - they don't ever have to revisit it again. The AFL didn't want this saga, but previous investigations were cursory at best, and didn't provide the league with sufficient cover when the OTC allegations were made.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,239]

sorry but in need a q answered , why is the wilson thread locked ??

Well if there was a moderator around you'd probably get an answer. Unfortunately there's only Rhino.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I am prepared to cop some costs as long as the MFC grows its bells a little larger and decides to join the pointy end of the competition.

There are no more excuses.

maybe we can get our logo on these?

ring-a-dingding

[rjay 24,919]

sorry but in need a q answered , why is the wilson thread locked ??

Nothing new to be added and most stuff covered now on this thread, I'm pretty sure it will be re opened when she is back from holidays and starts having pot shots at us and the AFL when this all wraps up.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

It's so nice that Rhino is back from his Christmas sleep.

[BarnDee 287]

ts all good i went to the last page , and found out , cheers , and bugger as i had a really funny thing to add , ah well , ya get that

[Hannibal 5,814]

You are in fact a flamer. The very opposite of your supossed role. You are a pathetic disgrace. A hypocrite.

If this doesn't earn a ban then nothing does. If you can talk to a moderator like that you undermine the entire forum.

Especially when it's from a poster that has no footy acumen or interest.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,239]

If this doesn't earn a ban then nothing does. If you can talk to a moderator like that you undermine the entire forum.

Especially when it's from a poster that has no footy acumen or interest.

Rather a moderator who talks like he does is more likely to undermine the entire forum.

As to your second point- perhaps we can discuss it on Friday.