This daily commentary in the media is really a [censored]. The standard of this journalism is utter B grade and if the stories are half true, then HADDAD and CLOTHIER are investigative minnows. This stuff has gone beyond a farce and the 2 clowns employed by the AFL should be sacked for being incompetent.

I just can't believe this Jon Pr**ck (I'm not good at spelling)

Can even get away with writing a 1/4 page of nothing.

He is obviously the Chief Football writers B**ch, whoever that is.

I think he will disappear off the planet when CW gets back from her sabbatical.

I wonder whether the AFL consulted her as to when her holidays ended, so that she was around when MFC had to please explain.

Talk about tail wagging the dog.

LOL!

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:13, jumbo returns said:

Maybe they're investigating why we took Watts instead of NikNat...

(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

We were all thinking it.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:12, maurie said:

How do we know it isn't the club selectively leaking information, maybe even in a Machiavellian manner, to highlight how ridiculous the evidence is?

Ideas about fumbling footballs and Jack Watts' non-selection can only help our argument and develop the Keystone Cops nature of the investigation.

The leaks can only come from the AFL, Melbourne or former employees (involved in the investigation) and I doubt that the AFL would want all the [censored] that's come out to come out so my gut tells me it's from the club or the former employees. Some of it is probably designed to show how ridiculous it is and some, probably by other sources in and outside the club, to hurt us; I have no doubt that some disgruntled ex board and employees are trying to discredit us.

A bit of Sunday levity.

Connolly talks of "Zulus coming to get you" and it's stated that he was "perhaps" joking.

If Watts had played every game the question would have been, "Why did you play Watts in every game when it looked like he wasn't physically ready ?".

It's getting funny now. But that's what happens when you open Pandora's box. It's a bit like when you're selling a house and there's a crack in the loungeroom wall. It may be the only crack in the house, but once a prospective buyer sees it they spend the next 15 minutes looking for other flaws and not concentrating on the property's virtues.

If you're selling, get the cracked fixed.

The journalists are trying to get what snippets of the report they can out onto the street, try to get 20 stories out of it instead of 1. They do not care about the right or wrong of it as long as they get a story out first. There is no investigative journalism at play here just rumour and inuendo. The plodders doing the investigation are making a farce of the whole thing, maybe thats why they were chosen. Anyone know if they did anything for Fairwork Australia or Treasury bribery investigations

No football player or coach is going to take the vast majority of their 'allegations' seriously as being anything but fumbling and bumbling far in excess of anything shown by Melbourne players in the Richmond game. That has to undermine the whole credibility of their arguements, that is if they actually found one that will stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

The 800 page report seems to propose a litany of pathetic arguments (without balance) to explain extensive tanking planned for and put into practice sometime shortly after the queens birthday match, in fact so cunning was our plan that the Dees brains trust decided to play crap football since then to cover out tracks.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:24, RobbieF said:

I have no doubt that some disgruntled ex board and employees are trying to discredit us.

What do you mean by "US"? The club or those that have ruined it. Who do you support, the club or the incompetents? Their noses are not far from hitting the wall. We will be rid of the rot and the real rebuild can then begin. And not long after, many supporters will finally realise how they have been conned.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:26, Ben-Hur said:

If you're selling, get the cracked fixed.

Exactly. So why would a professional body like the AFL not remove the cracks before releasing the report. Surely the AFL wouldn't want any report in their name to look so silly. If they want to bury tanking there would be other ways.

So is this rubbish really in their report? If not, what purpose does saying it is in there serve?:

MFC inventing stuff: in the long run it does us no good.

Journos inventing: they can't be that desperate to fill pages

So what is going on? Any suggestions?

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:42, america de cali said:

What do you mean by "US"? The club or those that have ruined it. Who do you support, the club or the incompetents? Their noses are not far from hitting the wall. We will be rid of the rot and the real rebuild can then begin. And not long after, many supporters will finally realise how they have been conned.

I was posting like that afew weeks ago myself, i cant stand CS or CC, but i hope they both get off now, i hope the they both walk out of the AFL house with there middle finger high in the air and pointed straight at that fat ass AD.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:42, america de cali said:

What do you mean by "US"? The club or those that have ruined it. Who do you support, the club or the incompetents? Their noses are not far from hitting the wall. We will be rid of the rot and the real rebuild can then begin. And not long after, many supporters will finally realise how they have been conned.

And, there was a shooter on the grassy knoll. And the shadows on those moon photos are unnatural. And did you know that the twin towers were made of a special metal that was designed to melt? And, they won't take away our guns!!!

In fairness to Jon Pierik, there are two articles by Jon in today's Age, and the first article seems to be a straight report of a part of the investigation that allegedly looks at Jack Watts' non selection. I don't think this is a major part of the report, but it's another example of how the investigators have focussed on actions taken (on and off the field). There seems little proof atm that officials and players were directed to tank certain games (apart from CC warning about zulus!!?).

So we were 'tanking' because we didn't select Jack Watts in 2009? Surely someone from the club is leaking these stories to discredit the investigation.

I also don't think Jon Pierik is responsible for the dreadful headline in the second article 'Tank or no tank, Dees sunk'. I'll blame a sub editor for this one. Jon's article is a little less emotional, and can be summed up here .."when this entire ugly episode is over, no one will be the winner". Amen to that.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:50, mjt said:

I was posting like that afew weeks ago myself, i cant stand CS or CC, but i hope they both get off now, i hope the they both walk out of the AFL house with there middle finger high in the air and pointed straight at that fat ass AD.

Don't confuse your support for the club with support for the idiots who have left us where we are.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:42, sue said:

Exactly. So why would a professional body like the AFL not remove the cracks before releasing the report. Surely the AFL wouldn't want any report in their name to look so silly. If they want to bury tanking there would be other ways.

So is this rubbish really in their report? If not, what purpose does saying it is in there serve?:

MFC inventing stuff: in the long run it does us no good.

Journos inventing: they can't be that desperate to fill pages

So what is going on? Any suggestions?

Maybe they had to leave such things as the ludicrous fumbling accusation, 'tanking win' and now the non playing of a schoolkid in the report.

Haddad and Clothier had possibly asked so many questions about these supposed indiscretions to so many different people that this stuff had to be included in the report.

The autonomy these 2 were given could end up being the AFL's achilles heal .

The good thing about the leaking of so called investigative material is that it is looking more likely that CS and DB are likely to get off. CC still not sure. Kero will be fuming that she has again missed her opportunity to get CS. She will however let no opportunity go missed.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:42, america de cali said:

What do you mean by "US"? The club or those that have ruined it. Who do you support, the club or the incompetents? Their noses are not far from hitting the wall. We will be rid of the rot and the real rebuild can then begin. And not long after, many supporters will finally realise how they have been conned.

gee

.. We missed you

  On 13/01/2013 at 00:05, Macca said:

Maybe they had to leave such things as the ludicrous fumbling accusation, 'tanking win' and now the non playing of a schoolkid in the report.

Haddad and Clothier had possibly asked so many questions about these supposed indiscretions to so many different people that this stuff had to be included in the report.

The autonomy these 2 were given could end up being the AFL's achilles heal .

I can't really see that just because the asked some dumb questions, they had to be left in the report. As I said earlier, if the AFL gets 2 footy-ignorant guys to investigate, surely they'd review the report for clangers before releasing it.

I wonder if CW and JP's work will effect our sponsors for this year, namely one of our "Gold Partners"? Hmmmm....

  On 13/01/2013 at 00:09, sue said:

I can't really see that just because the asked some dumb questions, they had to be left in the report. As I said earlier, if the AFL gets 2 footy-ignorant guys to investigate, surely they'd review the report for clangers before releasing it.

Not altogether sure Sue . Imagine if the investigators had gone hard on these things and then were satisfied that the answers they were given were not satisfactory. Finklestein or the club could argue that that stuff had to be left in the report . Remember, it's a report, not a charge. They may not be able to selectively 'leave stuff out' just because it weakens their own argument.

In other words, they are forced to leave everything about the report intact. Otherwise context and other things are effected.

That's my only logical explanation . Otherwise, you leave that stuff in knowing that it could weaken your own argument.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:42, america de cali said:

What do you mean by "US"? The club or those that have ruined it. Who do you support, the club or the incompetents? Their noses are not far from hitting the wall. We will be rid of the rot and the real rebuild can then begin. And not long after, many supporters will finally realise how they have been conned.

So their noses will soon hit the wall? Not from anything thats been reported so far. So if you actually know anything why don't you share with us, or are you only just hopefull?

  On 13/01/2013 at 00:21, Macca said:

Not altogether sure Sue . Imagine if the investigators had gone hard on these things and then were satisfied that the answers they were given were not satisfactory. Finklestein or the club could argue that that stuff had to be left in the report . Remember, it's a report, not a charge. They may not be able to selectively 'leave stuff out' just because it weakens their own argument.

In other words, they are forced to leave everything about the report intact. Otherwise context and other things are effected.

That's my only logical explanation . Otherwise, you leave that stuff in knowing that it could weaken your own argument.

Macca - maybe I'm missing something. Surely the AFL saw the report before it was given to Finkelstien or the club. So why would we even have a chance to argue they should leave things in which we hadn't seen. So I assume you are saying because we knew such silly questions had been asked in a serious manner, we could demand they be left in the report as accusations to help our case? I don't think investigations and reports work that way.

There must be a better explanation for the putative inclusion of such rubbish surely. I'm surprised that posters haven't addressed the issue much, but just fall about laughing at the absurdity of it.

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:42, sue said:

Exactly. So why would a professional body like the AFL not remove the cracks before releasing the report. Surely the AFL wouldn't want any report in their name to look so silly. If they want to bury tanking there would be other ways.

So is this rubbish really in their report? If not, what purpose does saying it is in there serve?:

MFC inventing stuff: in the long run it does us no good.

Journos inventing: they can't be that desperate to fill pages

So what is going on? Any suggestions?

See Maurie's post above.

  On 13/01/2013 at 00:04, america de cali said:

Don't confuse your support for the club with support for the idiots who have left us where we are.

jeez adc i'd hate to be stuck in a trench with you

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:42, sue said:

Exactly. So why would a professional body like the AFL not remove the cracks before releasing the report. Surely the AFL wouldn't want any report in their name to look so silly. If they want to bury tanking there would be other ways.

So is this rubbish really in their report? If not, what purpose does saying it is in there serve?:

MFC inventing stuff: in the long run it does us no good.

Journos inventing: they can't be that desperate to fill pages

So what is going on? Any suggestions?

They want it to be refuted.

The AFL want it to look like they are doing something, an 800 page report full of holes, makes it easy for us to make a defence case.

The ultimate conclusion, a win for both parties. The issue goes away. Insufficient evidence.

The AFL makes a statement something to the effect of "we will continue to invistigate any matters of draft tampering, match fixing or whatever issues come up in the future which may affect the integrity of the game."

  Carrot Top said:

He's chained to us. If he turns on us to save his skin his name will be Mudd in the coaching world. Ask Libber how being a rat is working out for him.

Being a rat?! He did the right thing, he stood up to be counted I hate when people are labelled a rat for being honest in dishonest situation. Give him his due not stamp on him especially when so many MFC fans are bleating baout Fev, Libba and Carlton's tanking being clear as day as they backed up.

  On 13/01/2013 at 00:41, Fifty-5 said:

See Maurie's post above.

Not convinced by that. I assume you are referring to the one where he says we are circulating this stuff to discredit the investigation. I'm making the case that the AFL wouldn't allow such embarrassing rubbish to be in the stuff provided to the MFC. So we'd have to be inventing the silly accusations. But as I said somewhere, in the long run that would do us no good, because when the report and our responses are made public, it would be clear that the fumbling/Watts stuff etc wasn't there. While we may get a bit of an immediate boost by discrediting the guff currently in the press, if the report really did nail us, the silly stuff would all be forgotten.

And in response to DeeZee, I can't believe the AFL would want to sully its name by having such rubbish in a report commissioned by themselves. There would be other ways of putting the whole thing to bed. For example, leaving holes in the more serious accusations.

Gosh, I almost typed' scully' for 'sully'