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.

They'll have reviewed it, for sure, and itemised everything they might want to rely on later on or pretend doesn't exist. But they'll have sent it as the investigators' findings since the AFL can't register any findings/issue a report of its own until the MFC has responded to the 'investigation'.

I would absolutely love some tainted silverware.

Thats what we've been trying to achieve, playing by their Rules. to get some of our own success..... it seems they don't like it. cc: CW/AD/MF/AFLCOMM/TL/EM'g/et al/

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.

'ah', 2 + 2 = 4.5? nonono cc, '16', silly boy go back & do it again, & we'll make the test better suited.

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).

Here's a scenario

Finklestein knows about all the lines of questioning (including the fumbling bit etc) . He therefore has a fair idea what should be on the report. He then demands/asks for the report to be left intact with nothing left out . The AFL abliged .

He doesn't necessarily need to see the report to demand that everything be left in the report.

Here's a scenario

Finklestein knows about all the lines of questioning (including the fumbling bit etc) . He therefore has a fair idea what should be on the report. He then demands/asks for the report to be left intact with nothing left out . The AFL abliged .

He doesn't necessarily need to see the report to demand that everything be left in the report.

Sorry, I was relying on Occam's Razor. There are all sorts of scenarios that can be thought up but I doubt most of them would be likely, including this one, particularly since it relies on an obliging AFL.

Sorry, I was relying on Occam's Razor. There are all sorts of scenarios that can be thought up but I doubt most of them would be likely, including this one, particularly since it relies on an obliging AFL.

Yes Doc, I was really just trying to offer up an explanation on why the report/draft contains so many 'wild and wacky' accusations.

But my scenario is a possibility. A QC can be quite intimidating and the 'Fink' is not a stranger to the AFL . He did re-write the AFL's rules back in the 90's (?)

It seems to me that the only explanations offered so far of why the rubbish is in the report (if it is indeed in it) are either that:

Fink/MFC demanded that it be included because they had heard on the grapevine that some stupid things were in a draft or knew from interviewees that they had been raised, and demanded they be included. And that outweighed the embarrassment to the AFL of being associated with such rubbish in the report handed to the MFC, so they agreed to include it.

or the AFL was prepared to look silly in order to bury tanking

or the investigators were so independent of the AFL that the AFL was not able to review/edit their report before it went to the MFC.

None are very convincing to me.

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.

This. In all of this, I don't think enough attention has been paid to how spot on the OP was. Kudos to deegirl and we'd be all ears if she has more info to share.

The bottom line is that we now seem to have a stronger case because of all the 'silly' stuff in the report. And there will probably be more silly stuff to surface. Whoever is feeding the media seems to be doing it on a drip feed.

We can only hope that any more information that is 'fed' to the media continues to strengthen our case. The tide is definitely turning.

It seems to me that the only explanations offered so far of why the rubbish is in the report (if it is indeed in it) are either that:

Fink/MFC demanded that it be included because they had heard on the grapevine that some stupid things were in a draft or knew from interviewees that they had been raised, and demanded they be included. And that outweighed the embarrassment to the AFL of being associated with such rubbish in the report handed to the MFC, so they agreed to include it.

or the AFL was prepared to look silly in order to bury tanking

or the investigators were so independent of the AFL that the AFL was not able to review/edit their report before it went to the MFC.

None are very convincing to me.

Sue and Macca: Here's a 5th possibility in addition to your 4 above:

The AFL is supposed to be conducting a fair, impartial "investigation" re. tanking, they're not supposed to be trying their hardest to convict us. So in the spirit of fair balance, and full disclosure they decided to include their investigators full results, warts and all.

Hopefully the AFL unilaterally decided to do this, if not the MFC/Fink reminded/persuaded them to.

Sue and Macca: Here's a 5th possibility in addition to your 4 above:

The AFL is supposed to be conducting a fair, impartial "investigation" re. tanking, they're not supposed to be trying their hardest to convict us. So in the spirit of fair balance, and full disclosure they decided to include their investigators full results, warts and all.

Hopefully the AFL unilaterally decided to do this, if not the MFC/Fink reminded/persuaded them to.

Yep, was nearly going to post the same but there's only so much left field stuff I will go with, Rob

We don't trust them at all do we? They are often self righteous and that sort of attitude can sometimes spill over to transparency!

Sue and Macca: Here's a 5th possibility in addition to your 4 above:

The AFL is supposed to be conducting a fair, impartial "investigation" re. tanking, they're not supposed to be trying their hardest to convict us. So in the spirit of fair balance, and full disclosure they decided to include their investigators full results, warts and all.

The AFL has made me so cynical that that never occurred to me. I guess that plus a desire to bury it may be the answer. Here's hoping.

It seems to me that the only explanations offered so far of why the rubbish is in the report (if it is indeed in it) are either that:

Fink/MFC demanded that it be included because they had heard on the grapevine that some stupid things were in a draft or knew from interviewees that they had been raised, and demanded they be included. And that outweighed the embarrassment to the AFL of being associated with such rubbish in the report handed to the MFC, so they agreed to include it.

or the AFL was prepared to look silly in order to bury tanking

or the investigators were so independent of the AFL that the AFL was not able to review/edit their report before it went to the MFC.

None are very convincing to me.

Sue, I think you might be pushing this a bit too hard in any sense in which it arose from what I said earlier. Clothier and Haddad aren't independent, they work for the AFL. And Demetriou or Anderson or anyone else higher up the food chain could easily have got on the phone to Clothier and said 'this stuff about Watts is just stupid, get rid of it' and Clothier no doubt would have done so.

But the report was always going to be issued as a report on the investigation and its findings. It's not the concluded position of the AFL and we won't know that until the MFC has done what it needs to do and the Commission weighs up the evidence. At that point the AFL can do whatever it wants to distance itself from particular findings or claims made by Clothier and Haddad, even disowning every finding the investigators have registered.

As for them asking stupid questions about Watts, I'm not convinced the AFL (and particularly Anderson) would necessarily see these as stupid, rather they could just as easily be taken as covering every possibility so that there's no comeback later on about a failed or inadequate investigation. Oh, and investigators do sometimes ask dumb questions with particular reasons in mind (though I can't actually find any sense of that in the case of the questions about JW).

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.

It would be comical if it wasn't so serious?

What about this Pierik moron? Clothesline and Saddam have an excuse - they have never been near the game before. But Pinprick is holding himself out to be an "AFL expert"

After all the flack Melbourne has taken for recruiting, promoting , playing and retaining Jack Watts , how can a journalist possibly writes a serious article suggesting that if Melbourne was committed to doing its best in 2009 , it would have arranged for the school bus to take Jack Watts to every senior game fully kitted out ready to play ?

Well Mr Pinprick the person who leaked that little gem to the media has effectively discredited the whole investigation - and you were too dumb to see it !

( Apologies if years of indoctrination from Wilson has destroyed your ability to think objectively about matters involving the MFC)

I am growing more and more disgusted with the media to the point I am just furious now. This latest Watts angle is so stupid I can't actually believe I just read it. Around the time of JW's debut everybody was slamming us for putting the kid in too EARLY, now they are looking back and saying we held him back because he would have had too much of an impact. Even when he came in they all couldn't write their garbage quick enough saying he was a dud and we wasted the pick and all that, now all of a sudden he is a born superstar. The other comment was that somebody said something like maybe Connelly didn't seem all that happy after a win one time, are you f--king me, maybe he had an intense curry the night before and his guts were playing up! Using this type of garbage as ammunition against our good name, I don't know how that can be called anything other than libel. I feel like punching every one of them. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I am growing more and more disgusted with the media to the point I am just furious now. This latest Watts angle is so stupid I can't actually believe I just read it. Around the time of JW's debut everybody was slamming us for putting the kid in too EARLY, now they are looking back and saying we held him back because he would have had too much of an impact. Even when he came in they all couldn't write their garbage quick enough saying he was a dud and we wasted the pick and all that, now all of a sudden he is a born superstar. The other comment was that somebody said something like maybe Connelly didn't seem all that happy after a win one time, are you f--king me, maybe he had an intense curry the night before and his guts were playing up! Using this type of garbage as ammunition against our good name, I don't know how that can be called anything other than libel. I feel like punching every one of them. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Oh please. They've just borrowed from the Demonland drafting and trading playbook: if crap player + crap player + crap player + crap player + crap player = top draft pick and / or champion player then naturally hairbrained circumstantial evidence + hairbrained circumstantial evidence + hairbrained circumstantial evidence + hairbrained circumstantial evidence = water tight case.

We've really only got ourselves to blame for giving them the idea.

Was CC in the box in the Richmond game? Maybe he had a few beers to add to his curry and the coaching group could not concerntrate from the stench he created. Maybe Bailey wants the tapes from the coaching box to show the investigation team the noises CC was making.

I believe this to be the real reason 47 moves were made that day. Everyone was high on CC's Tandoori aftermath

This whole saga has become a total bore.

Well, to me anyway.

After only 48 posts in the topic.

This whole saga has become a total bore.

Well, to me anyway.

I would agree BUT

I am disturbed that others in the pub or at social occasions never fail to bring up the latest revelation.

This is done deliberatley to stir me and usually has the desired effect.

Unfortunately no one is ever interested in a comprehensive well structured response and I am not one to provide a F#$@ U response.

I try to distil the commentary from Dland but do get the feeling that nonone really cares as long as we are in the firing line.

The only thing I see changing this situation will be some on field success, we can then say that the afl equalisation plan has worked and we are as successful at tanking as all other clubs.

In all fairness Jon Perik was just reporting what is in this report. That investigators have asked about Watts. Which I find amusing by the way because some would still say he isnt in our best 22.

But have the investigators got that desperate they have gone down this path. Bloody hell the poor kid was doing year 12 and playing school footy then get a thumb injury.

Also now they are asking if the players deliberately fumbled the ball so McMahon could kick the goal. I think they are now getting pretty desperate.

Thanks Brian

This whole saga has become a total bore.

Well, to me anyway.

Agreed. Everything about this saga is boring.

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

To clarify, it wasn't a criticism, just an observation.

I'm glad you did.

Yep, was nearly going to post the same but there's only so much left field stuff I will go with, Rob

We don't trust them at all do we? They are often self righteous and that sort of attitude can sometimes spill over to transparency!

Hahah, I hear you Macca! ..and agree. But taking the higher road, we should consider the AFL (somewhat) innocent until they've made unfair sanctions against us (if they ever do). In the mean time they're supposed to be acting in a fair, impartial way.

The AFL has made me so cynical that that never occurred to me. I guess that plus a desire to bury it may be the answer. Here's hoping.

Yes Sue, you and many others.

After Brocky boys genius interview and ensuing media storm, AA in Vlad's absence, decided an investigation was needed for integrity reasons. I understand Dee's being defensive, but perhaps the AFL aren't trying to destroy us, just trying to keep the competition, especially it's image and endorsers, running smoothly.

The only people gaining from this whole circus are the media and lawyers.