The person I'd like to hear more from is Deegirl, she pretty much nailed it with her original post, more solid info would be great.

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? I don't think investigations and reports work that way.

Well who knows, really. It's a total farce anyway.

It could also be that the AFL are so tunnel visioned that they genuinely believe everything about the report is spot on . We are talking about the AFL here

If that stuff wasn't in the report we could argue that the report isn't fair. That certain information was excluded to deliberately strengthen the AFL's argument. We know that often the AFL are a law unto themselves but I believe the presence of Finklestein is the reason the report is probably intact.

Don't worry, a few days ago I was almost convinced that the AFL had left this 'weird' stuff in the report to deliberately throw in a red herring . Not so sure now.

You and I are on the same page, sue - I'm just offering up a possible explanation

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

Supports all i have left.

The person I'd like to hear more from is Deegirl, she pretty much nailed it with her original post, more solid info would be great.

Hell Gates

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!

I was the same. I thought they'd have asked why we even gave him a game at all, when he clearly wasn't ready.

What an absolute farce.

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.

Indeed. What a fool.

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.....

not good enough to get a game would be an original.

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.

....they're successfully trying to keep this saga aimed directly at MFC, instead of broadening to other clubs wrongs. this is there game, to give us a perennial black eye.

But what about the brown paper bags being handed about in Lygon St from the 60's all the way thru to the 90's? and still 1 or 2 going around recently?

All the players who were tempted to cross clubs from they're original club to go for the fresh fruit down Lygon St? Plenty crossed over, & plenty came down from Sydney.

Tainted Silverware of ill gotten gains!

Well who knows, really. It's a total farce anyway.

It could also be that the AFL are so tunnel visioned that they genuinely believe everything about the report is spot on . We are talking about the AFL here

If that stuff wasn't in the report we could argue that the report isn't fair. That certain information was excluded to deliberately strengthen the AFL's argument. We know that often the AFL are a law unto themselves but I believe the presence of Finklestein is the reason the report is probably intact.

Don't worry, a few days ago I was almost convinced that the AFL had left this 'weird' stuff in the report to deliberately throw in a red herring . Not so sure now.

You and I are on the same page, sue - I'm just offering up a possible explanation

Yes we are on the same page. I'm just bewildered as to what a better explanations could be.

But I don't think the MFC can argue a report is not fair because it omitted total rubbish which we knew had been raised in interviews. If it omitted favourable facts and statements which we knew they had gathered, then yes we could call foul. But not laughable rubbish. No one is obliged to include rubbish in a report.

After seeing all the evidence that's been leaked to the media so far I'm not surprised that AA lost his job, The Age are now doing us a favour and the AFL's reputation is now taking a battering everytime an article is published. Watts not playing and threatening to be attached by the Zulu'z is just comedy relief stuff.

For the AFL's sake I hope they have more than what we've seen.

They're playing us back on Our back foot,, pinned us against our stumps.

...time to take the attack to them, by broadening the argument. other clubs misdemeanors over they're successful periods.

Get on the front foot & drive they're crap back past them!

After seeing all the evidence that's been leaked to the media so far I'm not surprised that AA lost his job, The Age are now doing us a favour and the AFL's reputation is now taking a battering everytime an article is published. Watts not playing and threatening to be attached by the Zulu'z is just comedy relief stuff.

For the AFL's sake I hope they have more than what we've seen.

Lets hope they don't

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'

If you want to find out where the leaks are coming from the best way to do it is to tell different people different things and the stories that surface will show who the leaker is. That will achieve two things, it will throw some red herrings in to the mix and it will discredit the leaker and the journalist.

Lets hope they don't

The AFL are starting to stink like oysters left in the sun all day, if there was any 'smoking gun' it would have reached the media by now, in fact I remember one journalist (sic) starting on SEN that there was no smoking gun, can't remember his name though.

If we're charged I hope we take it to court

Yes we are on the same page. I'm just bewildered as to what a better explanations could be.

But I don't think the MFC can argue a report is not fair because it omitted total rubbish which we knew had been raised in interviews. If it omitted favourable facts and statements which we knew they had gathered, then yes we could call foul. But not laughable rubbish. No one is obliged to include rubbish in a report.

I reckon Finklestein demanded that everything be left in the report. He may have argued context. Just a gut feeling.

Anyway, the good news is that the 'weird' and 'obtuse' stuff is in the report. The how or why is now somewhat irrelevant. Thank goodness it wasn't left out !

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.

Don't forget the processes involved here. The report has presumably been packaged (and should have been) as a report on the investigators' findings. The AFL can walk (or run) away from it as far and as fast as they want. But the MFC has a right to respond (as do any individuals accused of anything) before the AFL comes to any conclusions, issues charges, raises fines, dismisses the whole thing or whatever. Editing what Clothier and Haddad might have said serves no real purpose, in fact it would change their findings, no matter what those findings are.

The only report that will matter is the one that issues from the Commission meeting at some stage or other.

Clothier and Haddad have obviously tried to turn over every rock, pebble, and seemingly every grain of sand from 2009. That this makes them look ridiculous in terms of particular questions probably won't have occurred to them and won't affect the AFL's view of its responsibilities and position. What worries me is, with 800 or maybe 1000 pages peppered with all sorts of irrelevant issues and misreadings of on-field behaviours, when the press get hold of the report they can go on recycling little idiocies like the Watts question for years, trying to sustain a 'case' against the MFC.

The AFL is really going to have to whack this potential on the head with its own findings after the MFC response ... and of course if investigators' report has nothing more substantial than the sorts of stupidities being circulated now it'll be Clothier and Haddad who become the main victims of Andrew's silver hammer.

What do you mean by "US"? The club or those that have ruined it. Who do you support, the club or the incompetents?

You have proof of what you're alleging?

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.

You mean we should get rid of the blokes who turned the club that stood for nothing and was $5m in debt into a club that now has an excess of assets over liabilities to the tune of $7m?

Who would you replace them with? Any ideas?

....they're successfully trying to keep this saga aimed directly at MFC, instead of broadening to other clubs wrongs. this is there game, to give us a perennial black eye.

But what about the brown paper bags being handed about in Lygon St from the 60's all the way thru to the 90's? and still 1 or 2 going around recently?

All the players who were tempted to cross clubs from they're original club to go for the fresh fruit down Lygon St? Plenty crossed over, & plenty came down from Sydney.

Tainted Silverware of ill gotten gains!

I would absolutely love some tainted silverware.

I'm a little confused.

I would of thought If we played Watts more then 3 games that would of intended we were tanking not the other way around.

I thought one of the rules of tanking was "playing youth before available senior players"?

Its starting to sound like there just looking miner details to justify there actions.

I reckon Finklestein demanded that everything be left in the report. He may have argued context. Just a gut feeling.

Anyway, the good news is that the 'weird' and 'obtuse' stuff is in the report. The how or why is now somewhat irrelevant. Thank goodness it wasn't left out !

I doubt whether RF or anyone associated with the club would have seen the report until it was a report. There's never been any suggestion that we've been given a right to comment on a report in draft form. In effect, what's been sent to the MFC is a draft ... whatever of it that's left standing later with AFL endorsement will be the final version.

This has got to the stage where Haddad and Clothier are actually damaging the AFL.

The allegations against us are bordering on comical.

I can't believe the AFL actually hired these bozos. AFL HQ is generally more professional than this.

Anyway, the good news is that the 'weird' and 'obtuse' stuff is in the report. The how or why is now somewhat irrelevant. Thank goodness it wasn't left out !

You're assuming it is in there. RobbieF raised the interesting idea that maybe MFC is putting out things to unearth leakers.

Dr John Dee's has an interesting angle on it, though I'd be surprised if the AFL and Clothier/Haddad are so independent of each other that the AFL couldn't review their report before it went to he MFC. Here's hoping he is right.

I doubt whether RF or anyone associated with the club would have seen the report until it was a report. There's never been any suggestion that we've been given a right to comment on a report in draft form. In effect, what's been sent to the MFC is a draft ... whatever of it that's left standing later with AFL endorsement will be the final version.

I didn't say that Finklestein or anyone at the club had seen the report/draft beforehand . I was suggesting that we wanted to see the report/draft in it's entirety .

The person I'd like to hear more from is Deegirl, she pretty much nailed it with her original post, more solid info would be great.

yes and no.

We were to be charged. We havent been and we wont.

This has got to the stage where Haddad and Clothier are actually damaging the AFL.

The allegations against us are bordering on comical.

I can't believe the AFL actually hired these bozos. AFL HQ is generally more professional than this.

When was the last time the AFL admitted it was wrong on any subject?

I didn't say that Finklestein or anyone at the club had seen the report beforehand .

You said Finkelstein demanded that things be left in the report. He could only do that if he'd seen the report before it was a report (i.e. in some draft form).