Those on here that are giving their qualified support to Neeld but seem to want him to fail so it suits their purpose.

That do?

No, it's as weak as pizz.

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone wanting Neeld to fail, or any evidence that anyone wants anything other than a decent year with as many wins as possible.

My concern about the article this morning is that you start treading on dangerous ground and run the possibility of losing credibility when you add 'conspiracy theories' into any debate.

I think that all the gallant posters that railed against hazy and america et al for showing dissent should now line up to pot CC for the same thing. He should simply accept the status quo and shut up. It it time for solidarity REGARDLESS of circumstance.

These aren't quotes from a press release - these are supposed excerpts from CC's defense.

I think you're being a bit pious and obtuse with your criticism.

sorry - removed wrong quote

You are assuming CC or his legal rep has something to do with the report in the paper. If you read it carefully you will see that it is

"a legal representative with knowledge of the report said". That could be somebody with no connection to CC.

Note to AdC et al, I'm not defending CC. I'm pointing out you can't trust these journos. Especially one who has 60 witnesses at a meeting attended by 12.

Like... yourself.

With that mind-boggling whiteboard Wednesday quote.

Bizarre

Read the whole thing, it was made initially in answer to another post.

...forget about it.

No, it's as weak as pizz.

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone wanting Neeld to fail, or any evidence that anyone wants anything other than a decent year with as many wins as possible.

Well I guess it's a good thing I couldn't give a [censored] what you think, isn't it?

No Robbie - I know where it is but I'm not doing your work for you. I'll give you a hint - try looking at how Fan has described both processes to get some sense of his opinion. Then remember what emphasis Fan puts on good process. Then join the dots.

In other words you don't know but want me to waste my time looking.

I'm not talking about process I'm talking about the appointment itself and I'm beginning to wonder if I should direct all my questions to you in future, you seem to be his press secretary.

I think that all the gallant posters that railed against hazy and america et al for showing dissent should now line up to pot CC for the same thing. He should simply accept the status quo and shut up. It it time for solidarity REGARDLESS of circumstance.

Not so sure. Connect the dots back to the start of this sorry saga.

Two (supposedly Melbourne connected) people interview an ex - Melbourne player (supposedly a short notice replacement guest).

CW is suddenly being fed little morsels to fuel the fire & an investigation is starts.

How can there be any other conclusion than that this is being driven by elements in some way connected to the club.

If this is the same group of self important fools who were involved in a couple of previous destabalising events, then it is time they were outed publicly & moved on.

You don't have to look far to see the underlying hatred for certain individuals. Hard to see any motive other than a personal one.

But the article doesn't state any facts; it makes allegations regarding what CC has allegedly said. If this is proven to be the case, then yes, I'd support your call for CC to fall into line.

Exactly we know what Hazy and his band of buddies have said, all we have on CC is an allegation in the paper, which backs up the thoughts of a few on here that there are elements within the club trying to destabilise it.

Exactly we know what Hazy and his band of buddies have said, all we have on CC is an allegation in the paper, which backs up the thoughts of a few on here that there are elements within the club trying to destabilise it.

What I don't get, an yes maybe I am naive, is why people are trying to detstabilise the club they ostensibly support.

If its elements from the previous board, are they trying to salvage their pride/reputations by taking us backwards off the field? Is their pride really more important to them than a positive balance sheet, growing asset base, a strong minded football department who have withstood extraordinary pressures in their first year and who have 2 years to run on their contracts?

I am not saying that any aspect of the club should not be transparent and subject to criticism. I am just wondering why people put their ego ahead of the organisation's well being.

Depends.

Not sure I can agree that we "tanked."

Since there is no single unanimous definition of "tanking", it's subjective, isn't it?

I'll give you a few:

Match fixing

Throwing games

Sandbagging

Dumping

Intentionally trying to manipulate a result in order to gain a better draft pick

You seem to notionally agree that we tried to lose, but because there's no formal definition of the word "tank" you've conveniently come to the conclusion that we didn't tank, because supposedly tanking doesn't even exist. So how could we have done it ? Which, of course, is why the word "tanking" won't be used by the AFL if any charges happen to be laid.

We tanked.

Well I guess it's a good thing I couldn't give a [censored] what you think, isn't it?

Well considered response. Given an opportunity to back up your claims with examples you turned your toes up.

It's called getting your pants pulled down, Chump.

But no premierships. Near enough good enough?

In any case, much of what we've had to put up with of late is as a result of Danihers' "short term gain" policy. Play in a few finals, but leave the club in a sorry state as a consequence? No thanks.

I'd take Neeld over both. Yes, already. Long-term culture-changer.

That sounds like Tiger fans who still blame Frawley for there woes, ND would have done a lot better job withe likes of Watts and Trengove, DB was a complete and utter flop, we will be feeling the Bailey years a lot lot longer than N Danihers.

I think that all the gallant posters that railed against hazy and america et al for showing dissent should now line up to pot CC for the same thing. He should simply accept the status quo and shut up. It it time for solidarity REGARDLESS of circumstance.

your sincerity is palpable tim

The more and more i read the articles from the age and the HUN, the more i believe that the AFL want ascalp, i believe either CC or CS or both will be made the scape goats. I believe it will be CC that is asked to pack his bat and ball and go home. I think the AFL need something to blame and also the MFC does. He seems to be on the outer anyway.

In other words you don't know but want me to waste my time looking.

I'm not talking about process I'm talking about the appointment itself and I'm beginning to wonder if I should direct all my questions to you in future, you seem to be his press secretary.

Robbie settle down. I purposely didn't respond to your question because in the first instance it was off topic but secondly it would only have led to some discussion of people at the club and their competence. Of course that is where you wanted me to go so you could accuse me of continuing my agenda so I ignored it.

On another matter are you talking about me wanting the club to fail so that Neeld fails? Can you show me where I said this? Can you show me where I insinuated this? Are you able to back that up with evidence or is it just another hollow accusation?

You are assuming CC or his legal rep has something to do with the report in the paper. If you read it carefully you will see that it is

"a legal representative with knowledge of the report said". That could be somebody with no connection to CC.

Note to AdC et al, I'm not defending CC. I'm pointing out you can't trust these journos. Especially one who has 60 witnesses at a meeting attended by 12.

This is rather ironic really. Sue suggesting the article be read carefully and then talking about 60 witnesses at a meeting attended by 12.

If you read it carefully it says "60 witness statements". A witness can of course make more than one statement.

This is rather ironic really. Sue suggesting the article be read carefully and then talking about 60 witnesses at a meeting attended by 12.

If you read it carefully it says "60 witness statements". A witness can of course make more than one statement.

If a witness makes multiple statements what one do you believe.

What I don't get, an yes maybe I am naive, is why people are trying to detstabilise the club they ostensibly support.

If its elements from the previous board, are they trying to salvage their pride/reputations by taking us backwards off the field? Is their pride really more important to them than a positive balance sheet, growing asset base, a strong minded football department who have withstood extraordinary pressures in their first year and who have 2 years to run on their contracts?

I am not saying that any aspect of the club should not be transparent and subject to criticism. I am just wondering why people put their ego ahead of the organisation's well being.

Lefty if it is indeed the previous Board who are leaking to the press can you tell me how they would be in receipt of the information? The AFL brief, as far as we know, was given to those with cases to answer who now appear to be the current Board as well as CC, CS and DB. Which one of them leaked the info to the previous Board, or was it the AFL. But if the AFL wanted the info leaked why wouldn't they just do it themselves.

No, IMO it's nothing to do with the previous Board which will disappoint Robbie and his band. But what would seem to be true is the terrible divisions that split the club in 2011 have not been resolved. That the Board and CS should have allowed this to fester for so long is not encouraging.

If a witness makes multiple statements what one do you believe.

It just might be possible that he said the same thing in multiple statement. That's just a guess but I'll go with it for now.

Well considered response. Given an opportunity to back up your claims with examples you turned your toes up.

It's called getting your pants pulled down, Chump.

Well I'm glad I've made your day and it seems as if your whole life lately revolves your version of "winning".

There are a few on here that want the current administration and by default the coach and club to fail; if you can't see that then you are not as astute as you think you are. If you indeed are, then you will already know who they are.

Robbie settle down. I purposely didn't respond to your question because in the first instance it was off topic but secondly it would only have led to some discussion of people at the club and their competence. Of course that is where you wanted me to go so you could accuse me of continuing my agenda so I ignored it.

On another matter are you talking about me wanting the club to fail so that Neeld fails? Can you show me where I said this? Can you show me where I insinuated this? Are you able to back that up with evidence or is it just another hollow accusation?

Read your own posts and if you can't see the veiled inference then you're kidding yourself.

How often have you said I support Neeld, but...

If you truly support him 100% I'm happy and won't accuse you of not doing so again; not that I did anyway I merely inferred it was some posters and you naturally thought of yourself.

not that I did anyway I merely inferred it was some posters and you naturally thought of yourself.

Was it? Your answer seems to indicate it was. Robbie have the balls to back up your statements and if not stop making accusations you can't back up. They are very offensive.

Read your own posts and if you can't see the veiled inference then you're kidding yourself.

How often have you said I support Neeld, but...

If you truly support him 100% I'm happy and won't accuse you of not doing so again; not that I did anyway I merely inferred it was some posters and you naturally thought of yourself.

Fan wants nothing more than success for MFC - that's his "agenda". He requires best practice from the people responsible - he doesn't see that in some areas and it's hard to argue with. He wants Neeld to succeed but has reserved his judgement until he sees evidence - that's fair enough. I don't always agree with him but I respect him as a very good thinker and I know he's red and blue to the core. You're mistaken in your interpretation of him and his motives.

This is rather ironic really. Sue suggesting the article be read carefully and then talking about 60 witnesses at a meeting attended by 12.

If you read it carefully it says "60 witness statements". A witness can of course make more than one statement.

LOL- each "witness" makes an average of 5 statements - yeah sure. that's a heck of a lot of waterboarding

you're struggling there fan