I expect as the part of the report relating to "the 3 minute fumbles" had a Benny Hill type 3 min skit attached to it.

  On 09/01/2013 at 20:43, monoccular said:

I think the correct metaphor should be the patience of Job.

Jove I beleive was a funny guy, one with a sense of humor, which too many here seem to lack.

Good call.

  On 09/01/2013 at 20:51, monoccular said:

Geez. They are really getting desperate if they are picking up on 4 team changes in a week as "evidence if tanking".

How many did their precious GWS make before they risked a possible victory over GC ? Was it 8 or close to? But of course they can do no wrong, (even signing up contracted players mid season)."

This is an excellent point, and considering the number of games Cornes and Brogan were "rested" for, that Luke Power was being used as the Sub for, and the team changes and positional moves made before and during the GWS game vs Gold Coast, surely this would constitute "not trying their upmost to win a game".

The AFL wouldn't want to see the newest golden child brought into it...

This has settlement written all over it.

Both parties will formulate a token penalty.

The club simply can't afford a large penalty, and certainly can't afford both a penalty and legal costs, in the event of a loss.

I read in this mornings paper that they are also querying playing 3 ruckman !

Investigators " can you explain why you played 3 ruckman - jamar, Martin and spencer, all in the same side"

mfc defence " because it is our belief that 3 crap ruckman equals one good ruckman."

Who is John Pierik?

Why is he all of a sudden taking aim at our club? Stop trying to make a name for yourself you [censored]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stynes-role-in-alleged-tanking-a-delicate-issue-20130109-2cgrh.html

Not a great read, its just quotes from Craig yesterday and an unknown source.

  On 09/01/2013 at 22:41, Jonesbag said:

Who is John Pierik?

Why is he all of a sudden taking aim at our club? Stop trying to make a name for yourself you [censored]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stynes-role-in-alleged-tanking-a-delicate-issue-20130109-2cgrh.html

Not a great read, its just quotes from Craig yesterday and an unknown source.

This just gets more ridiculous by the day, an unknown source is required to make that observation. Pierik is a Hadley.

why would any "source close to the club" be leaking to a rag like the Age?

i hope they are not too close for much longer

Who is this unnamed sauce. Who is leaking selective information - the Club or the very leaky AFL?

I bet if it was still Caro writing these articles that have been in the age the past 3 days there would be more of a bagging but because a male wrote it there gender doesn't get attacked.

The thing that disappointed me about todays article in the age is the quote he took from Jim's book about wanting the pick but failed to put in the other quote where Jim wrote he never told Dean Bailey to lose games.

By the way they are still talking about the richmond game and Johnson on Brown. How did brown go that day?

Our Club must fight to protect its integrity in relation to these ridiculous accusations, but clearly the AFL have already lost theirs.

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:15, dees189227 said:

I bet if it was still Caro writing these articles that have been in the age the past 3 days there would be more of a bagging but because a male wrote it there gender doesn't get attacked.

Good call i reckon. There has been an uncomfortable degree of sexism and misogyny on DL in many of the (frequently quite personal) attacks on CW.

This is just evidence we can use to shoot this rubbish down.

Collect it all Demons.

The AFL has given a easy please explain to some positional changes and some games lost. Legally, we can argue this very easily.Perhaps the AFL want the investigation to end with no sanctions passed. They do however need to be perceived to have conducted a extensive investigation to save face. I believe they have deliberately bowled a half tracker and want us to hit it for six.

  On 09/01/2013 at 22:41, Jonesbag said:

Who is John Pierik?

Why is he all of a sudden taking aim at our club? Stop trying to make a name for yourself you [censored]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stynes-role-in-alleged-tanking-a-delicate-issue-20130109-2cgrh.html

Not a great read, its just quotes from Craig yesterday and an unknown source.

A terrible read. Is this fella the work experience kid? The gist of it seemed to be that we were evil for playing three rucks and although there is zero evidence it is possible Stynes was the mastermind behind it all.

To think that the Age was once such a fine newspaper.

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:10, daisycutter said:

why would any "source close to the club" be leaking to a rag like the Age?

It's a controlled leak from the club to make the AFL's case look silly. It's working strongly in our favour.

What it's not doing is telling us what the AFL's strong points are and until we know that we'll not know where we stand.

  On 09/01/2013 at 22:41, Jonesbag said:

Who is John Pierik?

Why is he all of a sudden taking aim at our club? Stop trying to make a name for yourself you [censored]

So it's the journalists fault for being asked to cover the story ?

He may be a poor journalist, so ridicule him for the quality of his reporting, or lack thereof, but not for filing a report.

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:35, Ben-Hur said:

So it's the journalists fault for being asked to cover the story ?

He may be a poor journalist, so ridicule him for the quality of his reporting, or lack thereof, but not for filing a report.

No its not his fault but the article was crap and im voicing my opinion about it and his motives.

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:35, Ben-Hur said:

So it's the journalists fault for being asked to cover the story ?

He may be a poor journalist, so ridicule him for the quality of his reporting, or lack thereof, but not for filing a report.

'Ben' of course it's not his fault, my issue with him is the unnamed source as a method to bring Jim Stynes into the story. I mean if there really was one I would be surprised, you don't need a source to tell you that Jim Stynes was the President in 2009 and if the board has a case to answer then it reflects on his leadership. It is a pretty weak effort from Pierik and if he wants to bring Stynes into the story then he should do it under his name not some mystery person.

...and 'Fan' the AFL case is looking pretty silly, let's hope that's all they have. At the moment I would think we are ahead in the PR war.

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:49, rjay said:

'Ben' of course it's not his fault, my issue with him is the unnamed source as a method to bring Jim Stynes into the story. I mean if there really was one I would be surprised, you don't need a source to tell you that Jim Stynes was the President in 2009 and if the board has a case to answer then it reflects on his leadership. It is a pretty weak effort from Pierik and if he wants to bring Stynes into the story then he should do it under his name not some mystery person.

...and 'Fan' the AFL case is looking pretty silly, let's hope that's all they have. At the moment I would think we are ahead in the PR war.

I'm guessing Jon Pierik has been reading BigFooty as there is several flogs on there saying that Jim was orchestrating the whole thing. It's funny also that the main attack dogs are from Richmond and West Coast who should also be in the crosshairs of AFL HQ.

On the rotations thing - if I was the coach of a team at the bottom of the ladder with more than a few players out of contract and not certain of a new one, I would give them every chance to prove themselves. If this means having less rotations to provide this opportunity, I would do it every time and would be more than upset if I was accused of 'tanking' by doing it.

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:20, binman said:

Good call i reckon. There has been an uncomfortable degree of sexism and misogyny on DL in many of the (frequently quite personal) attacks on CW.

I dont really agree with this - Because we are getting inundated with gargabe constantly I think we are running out of puff on being incensed regarding inaccurate, inflammatory and downright inane journalism. I also have stated elsewhere that I go harder on CW ( and would also do the same on Mike Sheahan) because I actually rate her as a journo but she has been horrible on a number fronts the last 12 months. I dont go off at Mark Robinson as he is a buffoon ( how does that old saying go " id rather you hate me than pity me")

This is a minor note (but lends itself to my belief that journalistic standards have nosedived) but when Pierik places an adjective before news to give the news 'flavour' and 'context' like he did with The 'Lumbering' Paul Johnson he moves away from an article and into an editorial.

Back on topic - DC is right. The fact that 'fumbling' is even mentioned is just disappointing and unsettling. Are these jokers actually saying that players tried to lose? I am certain the AFL doesn't want this to go there.

Jay Clark in the Hun is worse than Pieirk. Highlighting potential for negative impact on sponsorship etc of tanking issue.

Serious question: given , would Webjet and Opel be happy about the incredible amount of exposure their brands are getting at the moment.

It seems there have been photos in the papers almost non stop since the end of the season and one of the key reasons orgs sponsor sporting clubs is brand (ie their symbol) exposure via the media.

Yes perhaps there is a potential negative in terms of being associated with a club accused of tanking. However i really believe that's not such a big issue as most people think this is all a joke, the period being discussed is 2009 (and therefore somewhat disconnected from now) and the club is handling it all with a high degree of professionalism.

  On 09/01/2013 at 22:36, nutbean said:

I read in this mornings paper that they are also querying playing 3 ruckman !

Investigators " can you explain why you played 3 ruckman - jamar, Martin and spencer, all in the same side"

mfc defence " because it is our belief that 3 crap ruckman equals one good ruckman."

Getting very desperate if that "allegation" is Part of their case. Martin has been used as a KP defender and forward.

I honestly can't be bothered delving, but is this seriously the very first, and only time that any team has taken in three players, two of whom can really only ruck, and one who is a "tall utility"?

They are showing just what a pack of footy ignoramuses they have employed as "integrity officers".

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:43, Jonesbag said:

im voicing my opinion about his motives.

That makes sense. It's in keeping with most of the complexes displayed around here of late.