On 13/01/2013 at 03:46, Carrot Top said:

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.

i agree, it's all rhino's fault obviously

  On 13/01/2013 at 01:31, rumpole said:

You have proof of what you're alleging? 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?

People who know how to manage footballers and a football clubs core business (playing fooball). Not bull artists who pass out the begging bowl to make up for zero productivity.

  On 13/01/2013 at 04:55, america de cali said:

People who know how to manage footballers and a football clubs core business(playing fooball). Not bull artists who pass out the begging bowl to make up for zero productivity.

guess we won't be seeing you at the next FH's dinner then?

  On 13/01/2013 at 04:18, Franky_31 said:

After only 48 posts in the topic.

The only thing more boring is you. Do you ever contribute anything worthwhile, or merely react ? Wake me up when you do.

I also said "has become". Get the inference ?

Btw, I'd have half the posts if I wasn't being asked a question.

  On 13/01/2013 at 05:02, daisycutter said:

guess we won't be seeing you at the next FH's dinner then?

Is this going to be a regular calendar event?

  On 13/01/2013 at 05:19, america de cali said:

Is this going to be a regular calendar event?

That's a funny way of saying you won't be there.

But don't worry you can voice your opinion at the agm, not long to wait either, that is assuming you are a financial member.

  On 13/01/2013 at 04:55, america de cali said:

People who know how to manage footballers and a football clubs core business (playing fooball). Not bull artists who pass out the begging bowl to make up for zero productivity.

Your 1518 posts have had zero productivity.

  On 13/01/2013 at 04:07, Ben-Hur said:

This whole saga has become a total bore.

Well, to me anyway.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to be bored by different things. Personally when new ridiculous accusations are raised daily in the media, I find it interesting to speculate on what may really be going on and see what other members think. Certainly more interesting than MFC supporters taking endless boring pot-shot at each other.

  On 13/01/2013 at 05:33, sue said:

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to be bored by different things. Personally when new ridiculous accusations are raised daily in the media, I find it interesting to speculate on what may really be going on and see what other members think. Certainly more interesting than MFC supporters taking endless boring pot-shot at each other. Each to his own.

I prefer to talk footy.

How would your post count be without this thread ? Footy doesn't interest you ?

  On 13/01/2013 at 05:34, Ben-Hur said:

I prefer to talk footy.

How would your post count be without this thread ? Footy doesn't interest you ?

it does, but you've probably noticed there is none on now.

But it's true I don't post much about things like will player x be better than y because I don't feel I have any special knowledge. I live interstate and can rarely get to a match. I don't feel I learn much watching games on TV. But like everyone else, I have opinions on human motivations etc.

  On 13/01/2013 at 05:41, sue said:

it does, but you've probably noticed there is none on now.

But it's true I don't post much about things like will player x be better than y because I don't feel I have any special knowledge. I live interstate and can rarely get to a match. I don't feel I learn much watching games on TV. But like everyone else, I have opinions on human motivations etc.

Agree. It's broad church and we're scattered everywhere. I fully appreciate the contributions (including BH's) on threads about training days, debates about players, game day threads and so on. They're not just informative but give those of us in the provinces a sense of belonging. But if footy was the only topic everyone, including those who prefer to talk it, would probably exhaust what they've got to say soon enough.

  On 13/01/2013 at 06:11, Dr John Dee said:

Agree. It's broad church and we're scattered everywhere. I fully appreciate the contributions (including BH's) on threads about training days, debates about players, game day threads and so on. They're not just informative but give those of us in the provinces a sense of belonging. But if footy was the only topic everyone, including those who prefer to talk it, would probably exhaust what they've got to say soon enough.

I appreciate it too including BH's (just in case anyone thinks I'm not interested in the actual footy).

  On 12/01/2013 at 23:20, Soidee said:

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.

The "Integrity Department" of the AFL are very obviously the ones who are tanking.

Maybe as these two clowns were obviously such poor draft choices for the "Integrity Inquisition Department" they are hoping for higher picks next time around. Do they get priority picks.

Seriously, if they want us to answer why Watts wasn't player more in his first season why not actually ask just about any impartial observer who has ever actually seen a footy game. The clowns seem not to have done so.

Maybe they are tanking for a replacement for Misfit as well - clearly he was a far worse pick than 426 was for us.

In fact, Misfit, Clothier and Haddad make our Bailey/ Cameron era drafting look actually first rate.

I just wish these idiot investigators could've pounced on us after these incidents happened, not 3 and a half years on when they are running around like headless chickens. I didn't hear any of the analysis of our 2009 games in 2009, so why can people only see these things now? I would just like to move on from this nonsense, I would've rather been punished in 2009 rather than it resurface in 2013 when I've tried to move on and trust the people running the club.

The idea that we lost games for draft picks is still as sickening as it was back then, and the allegations that people were threatened with job losses if they didn't agree to break the rules. For a head coach, board and even poor Jim to prioritise a pick over wins for the club and not pick the best 22, or push them as hard as they can to win is completely wrong and completely what I was and still am against as a Demons supporter but for it to come up now and have fallen through many empty heads who run the league at the time all this stuff happened (as well as the other tanking incidents in history) I think they should leave it be. Partly also because of the embarrassment of not using or developing our picks correctly and putting us in a deeper hole.

All I can hope for is this goes away and that every official, supporter and player can do their best to win for every game in the remainder of the club's history.

  On 13/01/2013 at 05:11, Ben-Hur said:

The only thing more boring is you. Do you ever contribute anything worthwhile, or merely react ? Wake me up when you do.

I also said "has become". Get the inference ?

Btw, I'd have half the posts if I wasn't being asked a question.

Fair cop. But if it werent the postings of Maurie, Fan and yourself i wouldnt be reading. The slings and arrows of nuffies, pensioners and outraged harridans against Fan in particular are more revealing than any "evidence".

I have no comment on something that hasnt happened other than to say that Im waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I believe The AFL wouldnt have created a show without having a big reveal in the 3rd act. I think that reveal wont happen until Caro is back in her chair.

I expect a confession or a written proof of collusion.

Are we guilty? Of course. Are others? Yep. Will we get pinged? Yes.

  On 13/01/2013 at 03:27, hoopla said:

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 had to put your full quote here - it is one of the funniest posts I have seen.

It also shows that any disrepute the game, or rather the AFL, is suffering at present is the work of these keystone cops - it is absolutely unbelievable if this is really what they have promulgated as "answerable evidence" of our Club's alleged misdeeds. Unbelievable.

1. A properly conducted investigation will produce a report which should include all material collated during the investigation. Whether the information helps or hinders the argument (from either perspective) is irrelevant. It should be included.

2. 800 to 1000 pages is not necessarily a long report if transcripts of each interview are included. 25 people by 30 pages per double spaced transcript equal 750 pages.

3. Any references to whether Jack Watts should or should not have been played may not have been raised by the investigators but by one of the individuals interviewed. As such, it should remain in the report whatever the investigators think.

4. Procedural fairness suggests that the investigators findings should be presented to the club before it is reviewed by the ultimate decision makers. In this way, there is less chance of bias (or perceived bias) in the final decision. I wouldn't want the AFL hierarchy reading anything that the investigators have collected until after the club has filed its response.

In short, it all looks like it's being conducted properly to me. And nothing can be assumed to be right or wrong (by the AFL, the media or by us supporters) until the process has been completed.

  On 13/01/2013 at 06:24, monoccular said:

The "Integrity Department" of the AFL are very obviously the ones who are tanking.

'ssshh', their trying to not be obvious, you may wake the media to they're sneaky ploy.

Jack Watts is now implicated is he?

How 'bout Skippy and Tuckerbag..get serious.

Watts was played to early anyway!!

  On 13/01/2013 at 06:34, Franky_31 said:

Fair cop. But if it werent the postings of Maurie, Fan and yourself i wouldnt be reading. The slings and arrows of nuffies, pensioners and outraged harridans against Fan in particular are more revealing than any "evidence".

I have no comment on something that hasnt happened other than to say that Im waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I believe The AFL wouldnt have created a show without having a big reveal in the 3rd act. I think that reveal wont happen until Caro is back in her chair.

I expect a confession or a written proof of collusion.

Are we guilty? Of course. Are others? Yep. Will we get pinged? Yes.

Its pretty obvious the orchestra has been busy Franky, you don't have to be a herald boy to work that one out, but your inner workings seem to be giving you direction on this charade.

no doubt with some inside winks & nods from the proximity of your group.

who are the factions in our club, & what exactly is it they want to achieve, other than collaring CS, & CC's necks?

More proof that the investigators don't know footy and the AFL lost control of be direction of the investigation.

We are obviously leakin this stuff to set the scene for a embarrassed AFL pulling the plug due to the ridiculousness of proceedings but I don't know whether they will pull it.

Hopefully this will be over soon.

Like everyone else, I know nothing about it. But the thunder is roaring and I expect rain. I just think there is something yet to be revealed. When that happens(if it does) I will still think its unfair to MFC, but fairness is not the issue. The one thing I would bet on, is that what is so far revealed is just overture.

  On 13/01/2013 at 06:45, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

1. A properly conducted investigation will produce a report which should include all material collated during the investigation. Whether the information helps or hinders the argument (from either perspective) is irrelevant. It should be included.

2. 800 to 1000 pages is not necessarily a long report if transcripts of each interview are included. 25 people by 30 pages per double spaced transcript equal 750 pages.

3. Any references to whether Jack Watts should or should not have been played may not have been raised by the investigators but by one of the individuals interviewed. As such, it should remain in the report whatever the investigators think.

4. Procedural fairness suggests that the investigators findings should be presented to the club before it is reviewed by the ultimate decision makers. In this way, there is less chance of bias (or perceived bias) in the final decision. I wouldn't want the AFL hierarchy reading anything that the investigators have collected until after the club has filed its response.

In short, it all looks like it's being conducted properly to me. And nothing can be assumed to be right or wrong (by the AFL, the media or by us supporters) until the process has been completed.

Well reasoned. But I find it hard to believe that anyone who was interviewed would have raised the issue of Watts not playing enough. Anyone who did would be totally ignorant of footy (so no reason to interview them) or were digging a hole for the investigators or they were being malicious (but stupid). None of these seem very plausible.

  On 13/01/2013 at 07:03, Franky_31 said:

Like everyone else, I know nothing about it. But the thunder is roaring and I expect rain. I just think there is something yet to be revealed. When that happens(if it does) I will still think its unfair to MFC, but fairness is not the issue. The one thing I would bet on, is that what is so far revealed is just overture.

i can't see it Franky. If there were big damming revelations they would have been out by now.

Unless there is a bag to dump during the Australian Open.

If the next 2 weeks are quiet then i believe the AFL have nothing to share but hot air.

  On 13/01/2013 at 07:03, Franky_31 said:

Like everyone else, I know nothing about it. But the thunder is roaring and I expect rain. I just think there is something yet to be revealed. When that happens(if it does) I will still think its unfair to MFC, but fairness is not the issue. The one thing I would bet on, is that what is so far revealed is just overture.

I agree but I think they, the AFL, have learned their lessons after Car'ton & WCE's penalties harmed those clubs.

The AFL know very well the hypocrisy they tread, & the pitfalls.

I don't expect much penalising of the MFC itself, but I'm concerned for the careers of Schwab, Connolly & Bailey. This concerns me a lot.

But somehow I see Mclean as a protected species.