I must confess I am always confounded with the idea that you can be expected to remember what you said, or indeed if you ever said, as per a particular conversation or meeting that's happened 3-4 years ago. I'd be going to recall 3-4 months and even then I'd be pushing it. So much that we do is done in a say and forget fashion!!

This looks like a leak from the investigators side - the fact that Pierik can so boldly claim what is in the witness statements backs that up.

They are trying to get the focus back on this meeting as it is their best chance of finding motive to "forfeit" games.

Again, the we have since learned - from Wilson's first erroneous report - that the building that housed the meeting in which CC referred to the PP situation was called 'the vault' and that it was a Match Committee meeting. His words also, from reports, to have contained the sentence 'the Zulus will come if we win too many more games.'

Use your better judgement if that was tongue-in-cheek...

It really is trial by media at the minute and I wonder if these leaks is not purely for the benefit of PR but directed at those in the AFL Commission - who after all, do not live in a vacuum.

  On 14/01/2013 at 23:23, Fifty-5 said:

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.

He's not making his motives clear 55.

Thats what the problem is, Fan, & all his supporters playing games here, without spelling out what they're game is. They want people to trust them without being transparent.

So the reason can only be that its not an honest game they play. one that would be unanimously accepted.

they are in concert with one another driving this approach of theirs pointed directly at CS & CC.... and the afl's desires, I'd suggest??? but when did they hear what the AFL want?

was it immediately after we received the 800 page document,,,, or was it even before that display?

Jeez, it means something completely different when I say I'm going to the vault.

  On 15/01/2013 at 00:31, Dr John Dee said:

The reinterview scenario seems a bit fanciful (or should that be Fan-ciful?) in this case because all the article offers is 60 supposed statements opposing Connolly's purported claim that no vault meeting took place ... a claim which then slides into a much vaguer one of Connolly's having only a hazy recollection of FD meetings. The usual shonky journalism.

I reckon CS & CC need there own independent Lawyers working on their behalfs... before its too late.

Bailey may well turnout the lucky one, & that would make the AFL coaches association very happy indeeed.

  On 14/01/2013 at 23:02, Fan said:

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.

So that would imply that the journo has an agenda by stating it in that way, when he could just have easily said "statements from the 12 witnesses who attended the meeting".

  On 15/01/2013 at 00:37, nutbean said:

this is my problem - take the article at face value and I am worried and not happy.

The article on "face value" is hearsay.

  On 14/01/2013 at 22:36, Ben-Hur said:

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.

I'm of the opinion that "tanking" specifically means telling the players to purposely lose and for them to actually do that.

And I don't agree that happened.

The rest of your post I agree with.

  On 15/01/2013 at 01:25, José Mourinho said:

I'm of the opinion that "tanking" specifically means telling the players to purposely lose and for them to actually do that.

I'm not.

  On 15/01/2013 at 00:57, dee-luded said:

they are in concert with one another driving this approach of theirs pointed directly at CS & CC.... and the afl's desires, I'd suggest???

You've asserted that I, in concert with others, are driving an approach pointed directly at CS and CC.

Can you give a couple of examples where I've taken aim at CC?

Again I'll state that I think CS and McLardy fall short of best practice and I want better for the club. You may disagree but can you tell me what is wrong with holding that opinion?

But I'm particularly interested in where I've taken aim at CC. Put up or leave it alone.

  Fan said:

You've asserted that I, in concert with others, are driving an approach pointed directly at CS and CC.

Can you give a couple of examples where I've taken aim at CC?

Again I'll state that I think CS and McLardy fall short of best practice and I want better for the club. You may disagree but can you tell me what is wrong with holding that opinion?

But I'm particularly interested in where I've taken aim at CC. Put up or leave it alone.

Can you be a little clearer as to why McLardy "fall(s) short of best practice" and who would you have in mind would be a better President.

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:03, longsuffering said:

Can you be a little clearer as to why McLardy "fall(s) short of best practice" and who would you have in mind would be a better President.

It's well documented elsewhere if you care to look. It serves no purpose here to start that discussion.

Fair Dinkim....I am just so sick of the political bullsh1t on these threads.....Not having a political bone in my body....I don't care who runs the club as long as we don't go broke and I have a team that I can love, support, for the rest of my life and my kids and grandkids ...

All this crap about previous boards, agendas, who has their nose out of joint,what mistakes were made and who's fault it was, is immaterial

The club is under seige from without,at this time we are under threat from all quarters and all you people want to do is squbble and whinge about who's fault and who SHOULD have done this and WHO should have done that.

Some people even want to offer the heads of our football club as a peace offering......

If we don't fight now as a united club then all you people will have no club to support..and you can then argue who's fault it was......

  On 14/01/2013 at 23:02, Fan said:

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.

But by reporting 60 if they gave 5(!) statements each (or whatever) the journo is clearly trying to put the boot in rather than report. Just like you in initial response trying to mock me for omitting the word 'statements'.

I conclude that you couldn't help taking a cheap shot at me because I've dared to disagree with you in the past. What a lovely chap you must be.

edit:spelling

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:00, Fan said:

You've asserted that I, in concert with others, are driving an approach pointed directly at CS and CC.

Can you give a couple of examples where I've taken aim at CC?

Again I'll state that I think CS and McLardy fall short of best practice and I want better for the club. You may disagree but can you tell me what is wrong with holding that opinion?

But I'm particularly interested in where I've taken aim at CC. Put up or leave it alone.

Nothing wrong with opinions Fan, as we've all got that least one.

but if you want to drive up support amongst the readers then you & your freinds on this should come clean woith exactly what it is your after.

Is it to get a board seat?

Or is it gamesmanship re the released story today?

Do you want CC to be charged over this, or to walk away from the club? And the same questions re Cam Schwab?

Do you want a spill of the board or for some to step down from they're board positions?

Have you or any of your contacts had contact from any AFL official over these matters. are you in contact with the MFC defence team over the AFL's 800 page report?

these are some of the questions the supporters would imo like you & your freinds to answer. In the interest of the clubs stability.

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:08, Fan said:

It's well documented elsewhere if you care to look. It serves no purpose here to start that discussion.

still no answer, yet again. what is it you hide Fan when you have a platform, but no answers.

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:14, sue said:

But by reporting 60 if they gave 5(!) statements each (or whatever) the journo is clearly trying to put the boot in rather than report. Just like you in initial response trying to mock me for omitting the word 'statements'.

I conclude that you couldn't help taking a cheap shot at me because I've dared to disagree with you in the past. What a lovely chap yo must be.

No Sue, you took a cheap shot at someone for misreading the article and in the same breath did the same thing yourself. That's why I posted. The fact it was 60 statements is irrelevant to the point I was making.

A simple "I got it wrong" would surfice but you're hatred of me for the position I hold led you to a baseless personal attack.

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:17, dee-luded said:

still no answer, yet again. what is it you hide Fan when you have a platform, but no answers.

Where have I commented that I want Connolly gone? No answer?

  On 15/01/2013 at 00:21, RobbieF said:

Interestingly I got a PM yesterday telling me that they will come after me, which they are starting to do. It doesn't bother me but it does confirm my suspicions that there is a group who want their old jobs and perks back, as you say.

how interesting.

This site has certainly ramped up in the last few weeks. Any idea who "they" are.

Just imagine if this site had been around in '96...

Keep up the good work, Fan...

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:18, longsuffering said:

Fan, I have not stooped to name calling in the past but I consider you to be very rude, sanctimonious, self opinionated pill. This topic is 87 pages long and I did not ask for a dissertation but just some comments as to why you felt this way and then possibly I would understand where you are coming from. Unlike yourself I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt first and foremost and not just ride roughshod over anyone who thinks differently to you.

Mods I apologise for gutter crawling.

I can't help how you see me. I don't want to get into a discussion of why I think McLardy and Schwab are less than best practice. Surely I have that right.

It ought be noted that what happens behind closed doors at our footy club is no different to what happens at all footy clubs - our own workplaces for that matter. The difference here is our so-called dirty linen is being aired in public, by dint of erroneous and spurious media reports."Politics" will always rear its ugly head, when people in the same institution have differing views. Such is life, but I fear, rightly or wrongly, sacrificial lambs will be offered so that this goes away forever. The AFL want it to be so. However, I would like to put it on the record that I do not blame CC for anything, except for maybe a mis-guided sense of humour. I am sure his heart is in the right place. I can only repeat IF, and only IF, the comments attributed to him by a third party are indeed correct, then his position is untenable, regardless of what the outcome of the current investigation may be.

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:19, Fan said:

No Sue, you took a cheap shot at someone for misreading the article and in the same breath did the same thing yourself. That's why I posted. The fact it was 60 statements is irrelevant to the point I was making.

A simple "I got it wrong" would surfice but you're hatred of me for the position I hold led you to a baseless personal attack.

yep, and '60 statements' was irrelevant to the point I was making.

Unlike you I wasn't rudely telling the earlier poster that he was an idiot for not reading the article carefully. I was merely pointing out that it was worded to look like CC or his lawyer were saying those things, but in fact it was just some unspecified person being quoted. I read it the wrong way myself first time.

You have noticed that I'm not the only person who thinks you are rude?

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:23, Fan said:

I can't help how you see me. I don't want to get into a discussion of why I think McLardy and Schwab are less than best practice. Surely I have that right.

If you make the decision to make public your opinion (of which is a fairly serious accusation) then you should be expected to be asked the question - why! You must have reasons for forming that opinion.

You mentioned that you have already stated reasons why yet now you believe that you have the right not to reveal them. Which is it.

  On 15/01/2013 at 02:23, Fan said:

I can't help how you see me. I don't want to get into a discussion of why I think McLardy and Schwab are less than best practice. Surely I have that right.

why don't you do it right here. Get it all out. You have never stated clearly who you would prefer.

We only know you want the current board out.

Here is a perfect place to sort everything out Fan.