Whispering Jack said

I don't think you can dismiss out of hand the possibility that some (not all) of the controversial events surrounding the club over the past 1½ years have been fueled by either former board members or officials with axes to grind against the incumbents and against officials of the club.

Where is his proof? Not one shred. And guess what. Those that agree don't call for proof. The excitable RobbieF "likes" it. BB59 "likes" it. What a surprise. WJ assertion makes it easier to blame the troubles we face on evil past doers and not the current incumbents who people like Robbie support without question.

This is an opinion forum where the majority of issues can't be proved.

Under the circumstances he doesn't have to provide proof; if you read what he said he merely statde that you can't dismiss it out of hand.

He didn't state it as fact, that's why the excitable Robbie likes it.

My issue with you, and I guess its the same with a lot of other posters on here, stems mainly from this post.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/32184-the-wilson-file/page-12

Wilson had just denigrated the club and you come out and say Keep up the good work Caro'; what an extraordinary thing to say when someone has just [censored] caned the club you support.

R13

We can't know AD hasnt read it. There is IMHO a path being followed by the Empire. Having been goaded into the inquisition Vlad I think wants to bury the subject. To do so hastily or seemingly out of hand will not satisfy the hounds. I do believe however that the whole charade has grown more legs than expected.

I also think the inquiry has been deliberately flawed. This enables he league to claim he righteous high ground whilst providing cover for the escaping prey.

It's going on still because that's its schedule. It will be over by Mid next week in my estimation. It had to go sufficiently long enough to trip over itself and allow other parties to show or play their hands.

The end result has always been known ( for mine) just the theatrics had to be played out.

Edited January 16, 201312 yr by belzebub59

Under the circumstances he doesn't have to provide proof; if you read what he said he merely statde that you can't dismiss it out of hand.

He didn't state it as fact, that's why the excitable Robbie likes it.

My issue with you, and I guess its the same with a lot of other posters on here, stems mainly from this post.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/32184-the-wilson-file/page-12

Wilson had just denigrated the club and you come out and say Keep up the good work Caro'; what an extraordinary thing to say when someone has just [censored] caned the club you support.

Yes, this is where it starts and ends for me ( as my flippant post a few pages back would suggest).

When that was said it was a red flag.

The rest of it has been shouts across the bar - pretty boring to be honest.

Much more interested in MFC related news than Fan related news.

This is their modus operandi and the same procedure was followed in the Tippet case even though that was cut and dried - the AFL gets the club to explain/clarify/defend or enlighten them with a response to evidence or concerns put to them.

IMO the AFL research by reading peoples posted thoughts & have the papers like the small one run a story & add a poll to it to see how popular or not a raffled draft may be & if the public could stomach it, or not.

IMO, this media beatup on us, is the AFL Commissions penance on us for being the last without a seat as the music stops; & the media backlash is our penalty, & a Warning to other clubs & officials to not do it again.

The AFL will stop this 'List Management', from being the 'norm its become'... IMO this is a warning to all clubs & officials.

Yes, this is where it starts and ends for me ( as my flippant post a few pages back would suggest).

When that was said it was a red flag.

The rest of it has been shouts across the bar - pretty boring to be honest.

Much more interested in MFC related news than Fan related news.

Correct rpfc, I'm sick of hearing and talking about him so I think I'll just concentrate on the Football and the result of the witch hunt from now. It will be interesting to see if the head witch gets back on her broom any time soon.

R13

We can't know AD hasnt read it. There is IMHO a path being followed by the Empire. Having been goaded into the inquisition Vlad I think wants to bury the subject. To do so hastily or seemingly out of hand will not satisfy the hounds. I do believe however that the whole charade has grown more legs than expected.

I also think the inquiry has been deliberately flawed. This enables he league to claim he righteous high ground whilst providing cover for the escaping prey.

It's going on still because that's its schedule. It will be over by Mid next week in my estimation. It had to go sufficiently long enough to trip over itself and allow other parties to show or play their hands.

The end result has always been known ( for mine) just the theatrics had to be played out.

and who's script the last act is written by.... positively Shakespearean.

The irony surely is it won't/can't stop list management. All it does is remove the added bonus of a high draft pick. If said team wants to experiment or send players to rehab early or whatever then it still will. In fact now its free to without innuendo of tanking attached.

If a team wants to start looking early at season X+1 whilst still in season X and make adjustments ' for such what's to stop it? It won't after all be doing so for the 'prize' pick !

All that will result is a going back to pre draft days. I predict that in order to facilitate such and remove any carrots or idea you're still trying to finish low/last to get an early pick the AFL will adopt ,what many already suggest, is a form or raffle.

Tanking 0 List Management 1

IMO the AFL research by reading peoples posted thoughts & have the papers like the small one run a story & add a poll to it to see how popular or not a raffled draft may be & if the public could stomach it, or not.

IMO, this media beatup on us, is the AFL Commissions penance on us for being the last without a seat as the music stops; & the media backlash is our penalty, & a Warning to other clubs & officials to not do it again.

The AFL will stop this 'List Management', from being the 'norm its become'... IMO this is a warning to all clubs & officials.

except (of course) for AFL love-children like GWS and GCS

I reckon Carlton which has the biggest investment of all AFL clubs in pokie machines might be quivering in its boots.

1. I won't discuss why I think McLardy and Schwab are less that best practice because I agree with BH that the last thing supporters and contributors to this forum need or want is a discussion of the mistakes of the past. This club is under pressure and I'll leave my reasons for another day if anyone is interested. And my reasons have been stated in other threads at other times.

2. I didn't "run away" yesterday as you put it. Believe it or not I had a previous commitment that I needed to attend and didn't have time, or the inclination, to continue the debate.

3. There is nothing sinister in stepping down as a mod. I did it because I wanted to enter this and other debates to offer alternative views that some might be interested in and knew that if I was a moderator the hurly burly of those debates would likely prompt me to respond in a way I didn't want to as a moderator. I stepped down to obtain the freedom to debate and I think you'll agree I been much more vocal since.

Edit: I don't want the Board replaced, I don't even want McLardy off it, I want a better Chairman and I think there may well be existing Board members who could fill the bill.

thanks for your reply, but i must disagree on your first point.

You have wanted Mclardy & Schwab out for a long time, and that is fair enough. It's your democratic right. But as we are coming up to an election soon, Now IS the time to discuss these matters. Why wait till later? Let's clean all this rubbish up at the same time.

If you think we can do better for President & CEO then put up your candidates.

If you do not wish to then cease belittling people who do not trust your motives.

The choice is yours as is telling the Demonland members why you chose to demote yourself from a moderating position....

Edited January 16, 201312 yr by why you little

And I know how it is written in the article and you are right but let's get this straight: it was written by a journalist who was quoting a lawyer for the AFL investgations unit who is quoting the report that is quoting CC. If even one of those 'quotes' is a 'paraphrase' it might change the intended meaning of CC or anyone in that chain.

Added to that is who knows the context for the alleged (as that is what it is) quote. We know people were interviewed multiple times and as a key player CC was probably re-interviewed more than most. Perhaps his alleged quote about not recalling a meeting came from his first interview. Perhaps in later interviews he does recall the meeting after having his memory jogged by investigators.

As for the alleged comments about being white anted perhaps he was simply joking:

BC: Chris 10 other people have said you specifically told them the Zulus would get them if we won more games

CC: C'mon Brett i know you read Demonland and therefore must know that people within the club are always out to get me - look at my current job ha, ha, ha

Edited January 16, 201312 yr by binman

Like it or not WY L has a valid point.

In the old days we just said put up or shut up.

If there's better, enlighten. no ones likely to berate you for that.

Like it or not WY L has a valid point.In the old days we just said put up or shut up.If there's better, enlighten. no ones likely to berate you for that.

i will back anyone who puts up. I may not agree with them, but i will respect them.

But when people make a Big Call on our board and do no offer an alternative, and simply berate on a personal level that will not do.

Particularly somebody who once had the ability to ban and delete post on here.

Not on.

Why didn't Demetriou read Clothier and Haddad's report, and announce that "the investigators' exhaustive inquiry has failed to produce anything like a plausible case for action against MFC - end of story, thankyou all for your patience and cooperation"? Why keep it going?

To punish Melbourne and in particular key individuals (DB, CC, CS) with the only tool available - public embarrassment.

At the same time provide a deterrent to any coaches, boards, FD staffers, admin staffers etc who might consider list management etc as a way of maximising their draft position.

As an example one wonders if GWS might have taken a different approach to their final game against GC last season if this investigation had all come to a head before that game. At the least they did not maximise their chances of a winning that game by resting so many key players. In isolation that would be strange given the importance of winning games to build a culture of success and get support in Sydney, especially given it was a very winnable game for them (and they had precious few of them). However, like many people i never gave them any chance of winning that game.

Their 'reward' for not winning? The prized number 1 pick and the chance to select the player every pundit had marked down as the best young player in Whitfield.

Who knows what conversation proceeded that game but I suspect that all involved would have been more focused on what and how things were discussed and any public statements. IIRC Sheedy was pretty flippant about that game in the lead up to it. If in a similar scenario this year i wonder if he would cracking jokes.

Jack, I think you are being generous to the majority. The majority railed because they did not like what they heard. They generally ignored the content - or just did not think about it beyond 'not liking' it. Few actually questioned it. PaulRB did and I PM'd him to tell him what a good post I thought he'd made and how weak it was that Hazy did not respond. Paul was an exception.

Fan gets dismissed not because of what he says but what people feel about what he says. Same with Hazy. What they are saying needs questioning but most don't even get that far. CC (or comments attributed to him) has questioned the club...and the board (who else would move him - not CS!). He therefore should be dealt with the same way as Fan and Hazy - belittled because of saying something the mob didn't like. Hell he displayed internal rifts to an outsider - BETRAYAL!!! BETRAYAL!!!

To then argue that Hazy's posts were "agenda based... without..proof" is flimsy. Having an agenda does nothing to undermine the point they make. You need to understand it to understand the point, but it does not invalidate it like you imply. Fan can be cheeky (and it strikes me as annoying but then I am an intolerant prick at times) but does that mean that his insights should be summarily dismissed? Fan argues for integrity and process. Yet he can be provocative and inconsistent. When do I dismiss? He's not backing up his insights because of an ethical decision. When do I discount and just take pot shots at him? Where is his proof?

As for ad hominem attacks...I'll raise you Ben Hur. Ben Hur regularly posts in an aggressive or demeaning way. Does that mean that his insights into footy are lessened? You are arguing that for Hazy but I bet you won't about B-H.

The mob reacts without logic or reason. They rationalise their spite and vitriol. You don't. Don't make the mistake of extending your grace to them. They have not earned, nor do they deserve, it.

Tim. I didn't mention Fan in my post.

I did refer to Hazy. Here's a quote from one of his posts of last year when he was railing against Cameron Schwab and the Board:-

Don McLardy doesn't know his arse from his elbow

He chose not to expand on the above comment beyond that.

If this is a quality poster you can have him.

Scoop, I'd be quite happy to read that CC thinks that disgruntled former MFC employees have attempted to set him up in this investigation because I reckon that's probably true and would discredit their "evidence" and the investigation.

But that doesn't sound like who he's talking about in this quote. "...who lined me up to move sideways from football manager" ???

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/connolly-claims-conspiracy-20130114-2cpwu.html#ixzz2I6CNlBDW

The quote is:

"He goes to quite an extent to say that, 'I have been lined up by certain people at the club, these are the same people who lined me up to move sideways from football manager', to what he is doing now.

I still don't see how this is inconsistent with these people being former employees.

The people that 'lined him up to move sideways' obviously were at the club in 2011 and they may have had issues with CC. But just because CC was moved on from footy manager at the end of 2011 doesn't mean that the people that 'lined him up' had to still be at the club in 2012 (or are still there currently). It's entirely possible that certain people who left at the end of 2011 were the ones who 'lined him up' and are the same people being interviewed as part of the current investigation.

This is all assuming the quote has been accurately reported. Given it comes from someone who read the report (rather than CC himself), has been passed on and re-written by a journalist at a paper that has had no problem getting certain facts wrong and sensationalising other aspects in their coverage of this story, I'm not 100% confident that that quote is even accurate.

I must confess that when I first read it I assumed he was referring to those no longer at the club but then reread it and thought not because it says "he is the victim of a conspiracy within the Melbourne Football Club".

Fan the comment you refer to is written by the journalist. It's not a quote from the report. Are you 100% confident that the CC quote in the report refers to people currently within the MFC? I'm not...in fact, I have no confidence in The Age to accurately report the facts of this investigation, given Wilson and Pierek's sensationalist coverage, their apparent bias against MFC in this affair and the fact that they have already made glaring errors in a number of their articles.

Edited January 16, 201312 yr by Scoop Junior

Interesting response Tim, fancy calling me cheeky!!

I can cop cheeky, I can cop provocative (I try to be) and I can cop inconsistent (we all are because our views can change over time and this medium limits our ability to fully outline our views and reasons) and to an extent I can cop "agenda" albeit that I think everyone here has the same agenda - to see the MFC do well.

But what I can't cop is "proof". This is an opinion Board. I get attacked because I want some changes in the club I think will benefit it. How do I prove that? Hazy thinks the previous Board is unfairly treated and supports them, but that is not a "proof" issue. BH thinks Jack Viney will have an immediate impact at AFL level. Proof? Proof is just a silly defence for those who what to dismiss the argument.

Whispering Jack said ...

Where is his proof? Not one shred. And guess what. Those that agree don't call for proof. The excitable RobbieF "likes" it. BB59 "likes" it. What a surprise. WJ assertion makes it easier to blame the troubles we face on evil past doers and not the current incumbents who people like Robbie support without question.

This is an opinion forum where the majority of issues can't be proved.

Correct and I expressed my opinion that you couldn't rule out the possibility that certain people who dislike the board and some officials of the club may have provided information to the media that was unhelpful to the club. Can anyone disprove this proposition?

On the other hand, there are times when it helps to have some evidence to back up what you have to say. Nothing wrong with the search for proof.

Has it never happened before that a member of the previous board has dumped on the club publicly over this tanking issue?

Has any member of the former board ever gone to the media on issues involving the current board?

This is their modus operandi and the same procedure was followed in the Tippet case even though that was cut and dried - the AFL gets the club to explain/clarify/defend or enlighten them with a response to evidence or concerns put to them.

thanks for that. But it's consistency of procedure at a pretty high price, surely?

This case is, apparently, anything but cut and dried. If what we are hearing about the report is accurate and representative, the AFL can hardly be saying that they are "concerned" about the stuff C&H came up with.

AND meantime, disrepute hangs like a miasma over everybody involved, and the press vultures circle... wouldn't you expect the AFL would be thinking a different modus operandi applied in this instance? You're suggesting that normal operating procedure is the whole story here?

Is it the end of the month yet? I am very, very tired now.

thanks for that. But it's consistency of procedure at a pretty high price, surely?

This case is, apparently, anything but cut and dried. If what we are hearing about the report is accurate and representative, the AFL can hardly be saying that they are "concerned" about the stuff C&H came up with.

AND meantime, disrepute hangs like a miasma over everybody involved, and the press vultures circle... wouldn't you expect the AFL would be thinking a different modus operandi applied in this instance? You're suggesting that normal operating procedure is the whole story here?

In my opinion, because the AFL want this go away it is imperative that they ask us to respond to the evidence so the AFL can say - "we asked, they explained - no further action" - they do not want to lay any charges - it will be too ugly for everyone - especially the AFL if charges are laid. They want this investigation to look 100% kosher ( thats a laugh - fumbling pffft, Jack Watts pfft) so they are going to extraordinary lengths on this charade before signing off on "nothing to see here - move on"

I will state outright that the way we have been singled out for investigation in the first place is selectiveness of the highest order but I believe this was a rather large Adrian Anderson boo boo and had Vlad been on deck Brocks comments would have been contained.

Now this run away train is hurtling towards the station the AFL will be able to stand up and say "the investigators brought up certain evidence to the MFC and after their explanations we find there is insufficient/inconclusive grounds for any charges to be laid" . I would dearly love the AFL to come out and unambiguously exonerate of us of any wrongdoing - " .....we find that there has been no wrongdoing on the MFC or its employee's part" but that aint gonna happen.

In my opinion, because the AFL want this go away it is imperative that they ask us to respond to the evidence so the AFL can say - "we asked, they explained - no further action" - they do not want to lay any charges - it will be too ugly for everyone - especially the AFL if charges are laid. They want this investigation to look 100% kosher ( thats a laugh - fumbling pffft, Jack Watts pfft) so they are going to extraordinary lengths on this charade before signing off on "nothing to see here - move on"

I will state outright that the way we have been singled out for investigation in the first place is selectiveness of the highest order but I believe this was a rather large Adrian Anderson boo boo and had Vlad been on deck Brocks comments would have been contained.

Now this run away train is hurtling towards the station the AFL will be able to stand up and say "the investigators brought up certain evidence to the MFC and after their explanations we find there is insufficient/inconclusive grounds for any charges to be laid" . I would dearly love the AFL to come out and unambiguously exonerate of us of any wrongdoing - " .....we find that there has been no wrongdoing on the MFC or its employee's part" but that aint gonna happen.

How many opinions have you had in this thread, must be similar to T the dog S.

How many opinions have you had in this thread, must be similar to T the dog S.

just for the record, my dog strongly objects to any association in any form with TS. Please edit your post.

Hmm.. On the tanking inquiry i reckon Nuts had...let me count....

Oh yeah 1 opinion. A number of posts , but just the one view.

How many opinions have you had in this thread, must be similar to T the dog S.

Robbie13 asked a question and I answered it.

I had one opinion on T the dog S thread and got that well and truly wrong and I've one opinion here - here's hoping for a change in fortune.

Correct and I expressed my opinion that you couldn't rule out the possibility that certain people who dislike the board and some officials of the club may have provided information to the media that was unhelpful to the club. Can anyone disprove this proposition?

On the other hand, there are times when it helps to have some evidence to back up what you have to say. Nothing wrong with the search for proof.

Has it never happened before that a member of the previous board has dumped on the club publicly over this tanking issue?

Has any member of the former board ever gone to the media on issues involving the current board?

Sure has, ex-president Gardner took a pretty big dump on us. A person who has held that position and is prepared to act in such a manner publicly could be capable of delivering some epic harm privately?