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?

i hope they are not too close for much longer

DC . I honestly reckon they just make a lot of it up and tie it in with that which anyone with half a brain could extract from this fiasco

I knew quite a few journos columnists back in the day of working for pacpubs and i can tell you some are not adverse to a little bit of creativity when nothing else presents !!

Anonymous sources=close to "x" =bullsh!t dept !!

  On 10/01/2013 at 00:36, binman said:

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.

How would you feel about having photos of yourself plastered all through the papers and on the web in relation to someting potentially bad? Imagine if the MFC was performing well and winning games? If I was a sponsor, I know where I'd want to be. Thinking that Webjet and Opel would be enjoying this exposure is fantasy.

Webjet and Opel will be laughing all the way to the bank.

its product recognition and brand reinforcement to the nth power !! People see the logos and thats subliminal in many instances. They wont stop to evaluate whether the jumper was a worthy vehicle (npi ) etc , they'll just remember Webjet or Opel

tis all good

Nothing to see here....keep moving lol

  On 09/01/2013 at 10:05, Deecisive said:

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.

THIS!

  Choke said:

Since this investigation prompted all this to come to light, if we are found not guilty, can we charge the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute?

One could argue that even the investigation itself has done more harm than those it has been targeting.

(clearly sarcasm, just wanted to indicate that the whole 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge is extremely subjective and could be more damaging in of itself)

Sarcasm it may be ............. but true it is nonetheless.

The investigation has pointed to the inconsistency of the AFL and drawn attention to the fact that it has used a former "terrorist interrogator" to obtain football information!!Now ( through the work of media) the investigation is calling into question the integrity of one of the game's greatest ambassadors Jim Stynes

  Grapeviney said:

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'm not sure they will be quite as understanding as that. Down the track -indirectly with strings attached -we may get our money back - but they are not going to encourage us to push them into court by saying " don't worry , we'll pay at the end of the season"

Directly and indirectly this investigation has hit us financially - and it is that which really hurts ( even if at the end of the day we are exonerated)

  On 10/01/2013 at 00:41, monoccular said:

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".

Its in the Age in the article written by Jon Pierik.

Seriously..three ruckman...Hille, Bellchambers and Ryder all in the same team. Jamar has been tried as a forward, Martin as a back and forward.

I have maintained all along that the AFL is orchestrating this investigation to come to the conclusion that they did a thorough investigation and there is "insufficient or inconclusive evidence" to bring charges. Some of the evidence that journo's have put forward as being forwarded to the club is highly subjective and also well intrenched past practice ( list management and experimentation). There is a modicum of sense in them asking questions relating to Connolly's words and what Schwab may or may not have said and i can even stretch to low rotations or keeping players on the bench too long - but when the investigation is questioning 3 ruckmen being selected and players fumbling then the attempt to dress up this charade as thorough investigation has become a farce of the highest order.

  On 09/01/2013 at 22:34, Bring-Back-Powell said:

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 think & sense just that is only around a nearing corner.

maybe after 1 or 2 people stand down???

imo this is whats its all been about, the afl looking for a decent broom to ride off on, into the night sky... someone elses retro 2 wheeler broom.

kero is just a tool implement from the workshop, used to pry the hole thing open.

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:23, cowboy_from_hell said:

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.

tempting warmup delivery, before the bouncer at the ready.

imo they want a couple of early wickets before end of play.

  On 10/01/2013 at 00:54, belzebub59 said:

Webjet and Opel will be laughing all the way to the bank.

its product recognition and brand reinforcement to the nth power !! People see the logos and thats subliminal in many instances. They wont stop to evaluate whether the jumper was a worthy vehicle (npi ) etc , they'll just remember Webjet or Opel

tis all good

Nothing to see here....keep moving lol

If it's all good now there's lots of room for improvement.!

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:35, Fan said:

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.

now thats better, but what will the end result be? the fallout? I'll be OK as long as we look out for our own with they're futures?

So I picked up the paper today, read Jon Pierik's latest piece of drivel, and I actually stopped and re-read one sentence again. And again. And again. And even now, I'm lost for words:

"As revealed by Fairfax Media on Tuesday, the round-21 loss to Carlton has also emerged as a focus of investigators, plus losses against Richmond, Sydney and St Kilda and a win over Port Adelaide.

It's understood questions have been asked over why they fielded three ruckmen, with Mark Jamar, Paul Johnson and Jake Spencer all playing. Jamar and Spencer were two of four inclusions."

Yes, that's right. The AFL is now questioning us for winning.

What are they going to say? Why did you make 4 changes to this side? Maybe because we thought it would help us win. Which it did!

Seriously. This is a joke.

  On 09/01/2013 at 22:34, Bring-Back-Powell said:

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.

Disagree entirely. We're innocent. We have nothing to settle, and we do not want to settle.

  On 10/01/2013 at 00:50, McQueen said:

How would you feel about having photos of yourself plastered all through the papers and on the web in relation to someting potentially bad? Imagine if the MFC was performing well and winning games? If I was a sponsor, I know where I'd want to be. Thinking that Webjet and Opel would be enjoying this exposure is fantasy.

shouldn't bother Opel mac, they used to make tank parts during the 1940s - LOL

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:05, McQueen said:

If it's all good now there's lots of room for improvement.!

My point is simply that there isnt really a down side to it. Theres as much upside potential as anything in the world but often what people take as negativity the Ad-world sees as only exposure.

It would cost hundreds of thousands to get the page spreads and air time those companies have had as a result of the medias obsession with all of this.

Both companies re-signed only last year. I really dont see a worry in this regard.

  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.

things must be getting close to finalised, it we're starting to help cleanup the dirt thrown at our attackers from early in the piece?

the attack dogs stepped back once they got the afl ball dancing, & now junior hacks are being sacrificed.

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:08, titan_uranus said:

So I picked up the paper today, read Jon Pierik's latest piece of drivel, and I actually stopped and re-read one sentence again. And again. And again. And even now, I'm lost for words:

"As revealed by Fairfax Media on Tuesday, the round-21 loss to Carlton has also emerged as a focus of investigators, plus losses against Richmond, Sydney and St Kilda and a win over Port Adelaide.

It's understood questions have been asked over why they fielded three ruckmen, with Mark Jamar, Paul Johnson and Jake Spencer all playing. Jamar and Spencer were two of four inclusions."

Yes, that's right. The AFL is now questioning us for winning.

Maybe their evidence on the Port win, which might covers 62 pages, was that Schwab appeared "ashen faced"....

Christ, he appears ashen faced after 2 weeks in Hawaii let alone after a Melbourne winter!

  Quote

Seriously. This is a joke.

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:15, dee-luded said:

things must be getting close to finalised, it we're starting to help cleanup the dirt thrown at our attackers from early in the piece?

the attack dogs stepped back once they got the afl ball dancing, & now junior hacks are being sacrificed.

Whether the intention or otherwise it certainly is panning out that way. lol

Can anyone with greater technological savvy than I please post those "disgraceful three minutes" of the Richmond game.

I would love to make a fumble count, and see again just who kicked that 50+ meter after siren goal. My recollection was that is was a Tiger player, not one of ours, but apparently I could be wrong.

On the terrible fumbling issue. I just watched highlights of the 2012 GF: I ask when will the AFL integrity guys start investigating poor Young's critical game changing fumble towards the end of the game? Imagine tanking in a GF. Disreputable stuff that. The bookies must have cringed if they had their $$ on the Hawks.

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:08, titan_uranus said:

So I picked up the paper today, read Jon Pierik's latest piece of drivel, and I actually stopped and re-read one sentence again. And again. And again. And even now, I'm lost for words:

"As revealed by Fairfax Media on Tuesday, the round-21 loss to Carlton has also emerged as a focus of investigators, plus losses against Richmond, Sydney and St Kilda and a win over Port Adelaide.

Yes, that's right. The AFL is now questioning us for winning.

they want blood let

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:27, monoccular said:

Can anyone with greater technological savvy than I please post those "disgraceful three minutes" of the Richmond game.

I would love to make a fumble count, and see again just who kicked that 50+ meter after siren goal. My recollection was that is was a Tiger player, not one of ours, but apparently I could be wrong.

On the terrible fumbling issue. I just watched highlights of the 2012 GF: I ask when will the AFL integrity guys start investigating poor Young's critical game changing fumble towards the end of the game? Imagine tanking in a GF. Disreputable stuff that. The bookies must have cringed if they had their $$ on the Hawks.

That was Jordon McMahon (Richmond)

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:37, Samsara said:

That was Jordon McMahon (Richmond)

My question was very much tongue in cheek :-))))

  On 09/01/2013 at 22:34, Bring-Back-Powell said:

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.

Accepting a token penalty means admitting guilt.

Are they then going to pursue the other tanking clubs? Unlikely in that scenario.

So their integrity remains intact while ours is in tatters.

I have real trouble accepting that as an outcome.

I think the shot across the bow ( of the AFL ) has already taken place. We've said we will fight ANY charges or sanctions resulting from implied guilt.

I read this as essentially a stance of no compromise. Not tokens accepted etc. We cant be a little bit guilty here, as you cant be a little bit pregnant or dead. You either are or you're not and I cant see the club , having gone all through this, now rescinding on its pledge.

The AFL can make up its mind how it eventuates to a decision of no foul, no penalty , but that's the only one I think will be acceptable to the club

  On 10/01/2013 at 00:41, monoccular said:

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".

I reckon North has done it for the last 5 or so years. Carlton tried it for a bit after their tanking years (I remember a Carlton supporting mate pulling his hair out after 3 talls were named again one Thurs).

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:15, belzebub59 said:

My point is simply that there isnt really a down side to it. Theres as much upside potential as anything in the world but often what people take as negativity the Ad-world sees as only exposure.

It would cost hundreds of thousands to get the page spreads and air time those companies have had as a result of the medias obsession with all of this.

Both companies re-signed only last year. I really dont see a worry in this regard.

Didnt both companies only sign for the 2013 season?

tanking just can't be as simple as "not doing everything possible to win"

take Mike Hussey as an example.

he retires from the Test scene but not the one day series to be played this summer.

he is clearly in the best 11 for the one dayers and is avalable to play

CA drop him because they want to blood new players for the next world cup

Isn't this tanking? Isn't this similar to mfc trying to get games into the younger and future players when there is no chance of making the finals

Of course it's not tanking but it just goes to demonstrate how impossible it is to clearly define what actions constitute tanking