Nice one Adri.... er Jara.

Seen Caro near the water cooler lately?

Tell er shes dreamin'.

Hey Jose - you're right - I am a regular reader, but rarely post - do a lot more over at Demonology - just wanted to get something in the press to restore some sense of balance to the outrageous reporting of this issue, and hopefully influence the AFL's considerations

One thing I should explain - (rather hastily) hastily wrote and submitted the article in a fit of pique over a month ago - had pretty well forgotten about it - didn't think they were going to publish it - credit to them for doing so, but I'd write something different now, having seen how pathetic the so-called evidence is. Fumbling the ball? Jeez...

Cheers

A

marvellous effort that.

It's been reported that the "investigators" (let's just call them Clouseau and Sigfried for the moment) interviewed dozens of people, some numerous times. I expect they must have asked Bailey about the Richmond game. And I further expect he gave reasons for the low interchanges, positional moves, selections etc. After giving his reasons, isn't it encumbent upon the investigators to follow up on those explanations? After all, even members of the general public have been able to research and view the game and access all the statistics and injuries. But apparently not...they want Bailey to do their work for them. They act like prosecution attorney's who aren't interested in any facts which may prove innocence and so failed to follow the explanations up. In my view, they are AFL employees and should be looking after the best interests of the clubs - which includes the MFC...

Perhaps it just seemed like too much hard work for them...

PS: I can just picture these bumbling buffoons recording over the coaches box tapes for their interviews...

"Know your enemy," my solicitor told me over and over - "how does he think?" and "what does he want?"

Demetriou always laughed off tanking, despite most everyone understanding what clubs did when they were vaguely near the catchment area of the priority pick system, or the chance of a home final, etc. Now, with his over-the-top interrogations and computer-seizures and so on producing only the flimsiest "evidence" against Melbourne, Demetriou just won't let go. What is he on about? What do we know of the guy?

Maybe tanking in itself has never disturbed Demetriou. He's an aggrandizer and a brusher-aside of nitty-gritties. Leaving aside the expansion sides that are not there in response to regional desires, but rather exist because of his own megalomania, what Demetriou wants at pretty much any cost, is good ratings for the competition. He's willing to carry the new sides, and skew everything to get them going, and he certainly is willing to fling money at other struggling clubs, and rig the draw, but he wants AFL to be irresistible - and for this reason he can't tolerate sustained failure. If tanking strengthens the competition, he'll deny it without a qualm. He did. But Melbourne have tanked, as he perhaps sees it, and stayed at the bottom. For that, in the end they must pay.

There is a recognisable mentality here. The out-of-date boss with an unprofessional and under-performing employee reaches breaking point and summarily sacks the employee, or moves their desk, or whatever, trumping up some charge if they have to to justify whatever action they have taken. I say out-of-date because today the boss would be expected to do it differently. "Due process" would require the boss to have carefully documented the deficiencies, and then have a non-threatening formal meeting with the employee, explaining exactly where their deficiencies are and what company standards are, setting up training and mentoring to help them overcome their deficiencies, and setting agreed specific targets and timeframes for doing so. The idea behind this approach is that we are all working together, even though with varying effectiveness, so we should work together to get it right if at all possible.

In relation to Demetriou and the Melbourne footy club, how this contemporary way of thinking would play out would have been for Demetriou to have called the Melbourne footy club in and told them that the AFL had some concerns about the club's professionalism and competitiveness. If the AFL ever chose to, it could easily establish advisory standards of best practice for training, list management, game day rotations, coaching methods, etc, as well as obligatory standards of player welfare, injury management, and so on. Structures could be established providing for appropriate channels of dialogue between the AFL and the clubs. Perhaps the debacle over accusations of racism at Melbourne early last year could have prompted the AFL to review the mechanisms they have for involving themselves in the internal operations of clubs. At any rate, if the AFL had developed some capacity to support the clubs in the ways I have suggested, it would then be possible for the AFL to actively contribute to a stronger competition, improved player welfare, etc, instead of being restricted to acting retrospectively on things that haver gone wrong. In such a scenario the AFL might well have looked at Bailey-era Melbourne, and for the good of the competition initiated supportive dialogue with the club. As it was, it was left for individuals at Melbourne to seek out coffee meetings with retired greats, to try and get some pointers - while the AFL product suffered...

The sort of positive and collegial approach I am describing of course has not been the mentality of the Demetriou-led AFL. The AFL leads the world in drug testing, it has zero tolerance policies related to racial vilification, sex innuendo and so forth - all punitive practices, not formative. And the present witch-hunt against Melbourne is clearly focused on finding grounds for punishment - apparently at this stage still determined to act on the accusation, regardless of the value of the "evidence" found.

The AFL is certainly not carrying out this investigation with a view to ensuring the competition improves. After all, since the alleged offences, Melbourne has totally revamped its on-field and off-field personnel, its training facilities and practices, brought its levels of fitness and physicality steadily closer to industry standards, and its expectations are no longer expressed in terms of "quarters won" and "competitive" being good enough. For its part the AFL has withdrawn the carrot that it accuses Melbourne of having improperly reached out for, so that there can be no question of making an example of Melbourne to deter other teams from trying what Melbourne is accused of having done. No, the intent of the exercise here is solely to punish the Melbourne footy club; the investigation is entirely focused on the past, and is a distraction from the present and the future; in its evidence-defying momentum it reeks of the bloody-mindedness and irrationality of a bully boss who has spat the dummy in frustration.

How can Melbourne extricate itself from such irrationality? Maybe rational answers to the "please explain", if delivered with enough legal weightiness to take the bully instinct out of Demetriou's sails, could bring about a truce. But the dissatisfaction would remain as long as Demetriou was there, and perhaps this has to go to court: Demetriou may refuse to let go of his intent, and go down with his vendetta if he has to.

But if what has really rankled with Demetriou is Melbourne's continuing poor contribution to the competition, and the drama drags on unresolved, Melbourne becoming seriously competitive as soon as possible may be the real key to having this all go away: it will give the whole saga a different end, and remove the need to punish the club. The public and the media will get completely off Demetriou's bandwagon quickly enough when the club's contribution to the competition becomes exciting - and Demetriou may too. AFL is after all entertainment.

"Know your enemy," my solicitor told me over and over - "how does he think?" and "what does he want?"

Demetriou always laughed off tanking, despite most everyone understanding what clubs did when they were vaguely near the catchment area of the priority pick system, or the chance of a home final, etc. Now, with his over-the-top interrogations and computer-seizures and so on producing only the flimsiest "evidence" against Melbourne, Demetriou just won't let go. What is he on about? What do we know of the guy?

Maybe tanking in itself has never disturbed Demetriou. He's an aggrandizer and a brusher-aside of nitty-gritties. Leaving aside the expansion sides that are not there in response to regional desires, but rather exist because of his own megalomania, what Demetriou wants at pretty much any cost, is good ratings for the competition. He's willing to carry the new sides, and skew everything to get them going, and he certainly is willing to fling money at other struggling clubs, and rig the draw, but he wants AFL to be irresistible - and for this reason he can't tolerate sustained failure. If tanking strengthens the competition, he'll deny it without a qualm. He did. But Melbourne have tanked, as he perhaps sees it, and stayed at the bottom. For that, in the end they must pay.

There is a recognisable mentality here. The out-of-date boss with an unprofessional and under-performing employee reaches breaking point and summarily sacks the employee, or moves their desk, or whatever, trumping up some charge if they have to to justify whatever action they have taken. I say out-of-date because today the boss would be expected to do it differently. "Due process" would require the boss to have carefully documented the deficiencies, and then have a non-threatening formal meeting with the employee, explaining exactly where their deficiencies are and what company standards are, setting up training and mentoring to help them overcome their deficiencies, and setting agreed specific targets and timeframes for doing so. The idea behind this approach is that we are all working together, even though with varying effectiveness, so we should work together to get it right if at all possible.

In relation to Demetriou and the Melbourne footy club, how this contemporary way of thinking would play out would have been for Demetriou to have called the Melbourne footy club in and told them that the AFL had some concerns about the club's professionalism and competitiveness. If the AFL ever chose to, it could easily establish advisory standards of best practice for training, list management, game day rotations, coaching methods, etc, as well as obligatory standards of player welfare, injury management, and so on. Structures could be established providing for appropriate channels of dialogue between the AFL and the clubs. Perhaps the debacle over accusations of racism at Melbourne early last year could have prompted the AFL to review the mechanisms they have for involving themselves in the internal operations of clubs. At any rate, if the AFL had developed some capacity to support the clubs in the ways I have suggested, it would then be possible for the AFL to actively contribute to a stronger competition, improved player welfare, etc, instead of being restricted to acting retrospectively on things that haver gone wrong. In such a scenario the AFL might well have looked at Bailey-era Melbourne, and for the good of the competition initiated supportive dialogue with the club. As it was, it was left for individuals at Melbourne to seek out coffee meetings with retired greats, to try and get some pointers - while the AFL product suffered...

The sort of positive and collegial approach I am describing of course has not been the mentality of the Demetriou-led AFL. The AFL leads the world in drug testing, it has zero tolerance policies related to racial vilification, sex innuendo and so forth - all punitive practices, not formative. And the present witch-hunt against Melbourne is clearly focused on finding grounds for punishment - apparently at this stage still determined to act on the accusation, regardless of the value of the "evidence" found.

The AFL is certainly not carrying out this investigation with a view to ensuring the competition improves. After all, since the alleged offences, Melbourne has totally revamped its on-field and off-field personnel, its training facilities and practices, brought its levels of fitness and physicality steadily closer to industry standards, and its expectations are no longer expressed in terms of "quarters won" and "competitive" being good enough. For its part the AFL has withdrawn the carrot that it accuses Melbourne of having improperly reached out for, so that there can be no question of making an example of Melbourne to deter other teams from trying what Melbourne is accused of having done. No, the intent of the exercise here is solely to punish the Melbourne footy club; the investigation is entirely focused on the past, and is a distraction from the present and the future; in its evidence-defying momentum it reeks of the bloody-mindedness and irrationality of a bully boss who has spat the dummy in frustration.

How can Melbourne extricate itself from such irrationality? Maybe rational answers to the "please explain", if delivered with enough legal weightiness to take the bully instinct out of Demetriou's sails, could bring about a truce. But the dissatisfaction would remain as long as Demetriou was there, and perhaps this has to go to court: Demetriou may refuse to let go of his intent, and go down with his vendetta if he has to.

But if what has really rankled with Demetriou is Melbourne's continuing poor contribution to the competition, and the drama drags on unresolved, Melbourne becoming seriously competitive as soon as possible may be the real key to having this all go away: it will give the whole saga a different end, and remove the need to punish the club. The public and the media will get completely off Demetriou's bandwagon quickly enough when the club's contribution to the competition becomes exciting - and Demetriou may too. AFL is after all entertainment.

From this I presume that you believe that Demetriou initiated this whole exercise. If so how do you explain AA's contribution?

"It was left to individuals at Melbourne to seek out coffee meetings with retired greats" - can you clarify what you mean here. G Lyon?

I can't see D going down with his "vendetta" if it is at all his. He would know that his quote "there is no tanking" would be thrown up again and again and I doubt that D could stomach the thought that he may have errored in making that observation. From my observation if he had have been in the country when McLean made his statement and the sh%t hit the fan that D would have handled it in a very different way and we would have had a very different outcome. It would have been handled differently soley to exorcise himself out of a difficult situation not to protect a failing Club.

Melbourne a victim of media lynch mob

I stole this from Demonology, easily the best summary I have read.

From this I presume that you believe that Demetriou initiated this whole exercise. If so how do you explain AA's contribution?

"It was left to individuals at Melbourne to seek out coffee meetings with retired greats" - can you clarify what you mean here. G Lyon?

I can't see D going down with his "vendetta" if it is at all his. He would know that his quote "there is no tanking" would be thrown up again and again and I doubt that D could stomach the thought that he may have errored in making that observation. From my observation if he had have been in the country when McLean made his statement and the sh%t hit the fan that D would have handled it in a very different way and we would have had a very different outcome. It would have been handled differently soley to exorcise himself out of a difficult situation not to protect a failing Club.

That seems likely. All the AFL had to do was say in the light of McLean's comments we have reviewed the earlier investigation and concluded it reached the right conclusion. CW et al may have backed off.

Melbourne a victim of media lynch mob

I stole this from Demonology, easily the best summary I have read.

clint, the author was on here a few days ago and asked for comments on what then was a draft of this article

seems the final article is very close to the draft version

good stuff and i hope we see more like this one and the one in the rage

clint, the author was on here a few days ago and asked for comments on what then was a draft of this article

seems the final article is very close to the draft version

good stuff and i hope we see more like this one and the one in the rage

I missed that, thanks.

Melbourne a victim of media lynch mob

I stole this from Demonology, easily the best summary I have read.

By far the most balanced account of all so far, I wonder if Fan would like to comment on the difference between this and Wilson's vile diatribe?

I missed the draft version as well.

By far the most balanced account of all so far, I wonder if Fan would like to comment on the difference between this and Wilson's vile diatribe?

I missed the draft version as well.

Melbourne a victim of media lynch mob

I stole this from Demonology, easily the best summary I have read.

Thanks for the positive feedback, team. Much appreciated and glad you liked it. Good to see it generating a bit of discussion, with some pro Melbourne tanking articles circulating today.

Cheers

wmth

Melbourne a victim of media lynch mob

I stole this from Demonology, easily the best summary I have read.

thanks for that , it would not open for me over at ology , great read , and its true

Melbourne a victim of media lynch mob

I stole this from Demonology, easily the best summary I have read.

Fantastic shut down of the HUN and The Age with their pathetic attempts at hanging us.

The rational sides to this saga are finally beginning to prevail.

This is so good. Now Jack Watts has become part of the issue. Haven't fully checked it out, but he becomes close to the 10th player named by The Age. I'm sure there are players at Casey that are part of the conspiracy.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/investigators-question-melbourne-over-watts-20130112-2cmrs.html

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/investigators-question-melbourne-over-watts-20130112-2cmrs.

This should add a few more pages to the thread

So its now team selection and player development . Inspector Clouseau and his mate and now questioning why we did not play , jack watts more in his debut year Let me count you the ways, still going school, not training full time , not physically mature to play senior football.....

Hahaha.

Questioning the non-selection of a first year player who had a boy's body and was so far away from being ready to play league footy has got to be a joke.

When I saw the headline I thought the article would be about how we selected a player who wasn't physically ready for league footy and that this was 'evidence' of tanking. But it is the other way around! If we played Watts more they'd probably argue that that was evidence of tanking!

Why doesn't Pierek comment on this being one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Can't wait for the next exclusive!

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tank-or-no-tank-dees-sunk-20130112-2cmru.html

The Age has invested so much into slamming the Demons that even if the Dees are cleared of tanking the Age will simply ignore the verdict.

Has Pierek ever watched a game of football sober?

This is so good. Now Jack Watts has become part of the issue. Haven't fully checked it out, but he becomes close to the 10th player named by The Age. I'm sure there are players at Casey that are part of the conspiracy.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/investigators-question-melbourne-over-watts-20130112-2cmrs.html

Another poor piece from Jon Pieric (with a typically large amount of embellishment) Obviously biased with the main aim of discrediting our club. This Pieric bloke should be ashamed of himself - he must know that Watts wasn't ready. Cleverly puts the onus on our club to explain why Watts didn't play more. Pieric could have easily discredited the latest accusation - but conveniently chose not to.

He's made more references to the 'Infamous Vault' in a typical sinister way. 'Selection changes' are highlighted by Pieric in a way where the reader is possibly fooled into thinking that these 'selection changes' were made in order to lose games. He writes rot and has little or no credibility.

So now it's about a schoolboy who was obviously not ready for League footy, more references to a game we actually won and even the African Zulu's have cracked a mention.

There are also claims he warned everyone, perhaps in a joking manner, ''the Zulus will come and get you''

Perhaps Jon? How perhaps? "The Zulus will come and get you" could never be a serious comment unless we've suddenly been transplanted back to 19th century Southern Africa. That's assuming that 'The Zulus will come and get you' bit was ever actually said. Who would know with so much bs flying around.

Something tells me CW is behind this latest run of garbage from Pierik. Wouldn't be surprised if she's still driving her agenda and using this poor bugger as her pawn.

Watt rubbish. I am surprised the investigators haven't questioned Demetriou and Anderson's own dismissals of tanking in 2009. I mean, what have the AFL got to hide?

Something tells me CW is behind this latest run of garbage from Pierik. Wouldn't be surprised if she's still driving her agenda and using this poor bugger as her pawn.

It seems that way. 6 of his 8 latest articles are about MFC

Thought this little bio about him on The Age's website was funnier than intended...

"Jon Pierik is a sports writer with The Age, focusing primarily on AFL football, cricket and basketball. He has won awards for his cricket and basketball writing."

Another poor piece from Jon Pieric (with a typically large amount of embellishment) Obviously biased with the sole aim of discrediting our club. This Pieric bloke should be ashamed of himself - he must know that Watts wasn't ready. Cleverly puts the onus on our club to explain why Watts didn't play more. Pieric could have easily discredited the latest accusation - but conveniently chose not to.

So now it's about a schoolboy who was obviously not ready for League footy, more references to a game we actually won and even the African Zulu's have cracked a mention.

Perhaps Jon? How perhaps? "The Zulus will come and get you" could never be a serious comment unless we've suddenly been transplanted back to 19th century Southern Africa.

Connolly is so well known for his sense of humour. Strange as it could be to some, he is a funny guy. He invented "the VAULT", from Volvo, our sponsor at the time, as a joke to the fine conditions Collingwood had at their Lexcen (sp) centre.

Haddad and Clothier know nothing about AFL football. They were employed by the AFL to oversee integrity issues. Clothier was a solicitor and Haddad was recruited from the UN to set up a database of Club employees and managers (phone numbers and bank accounts) in order to track down illicit betting activity. They are now running around like chooks with their heads cut off asking anyone and everyone associated with the MFC what their thoughts are regarding the tanking allegations. Not understanding the responses they received would explain the voluminous nature of their report. Instead of "investigating", they have merely reported and asked the various persons of interest to explain themselves.

They absolutely cannot be serious about the Jack Watts scenario.