AFL investigation

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

You might as well block me because you're no longer of interest to me.

Sorry matey but you're just not worth my time = I've got nothing and I've been caught out.

lol

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hazyshadeofgrinter

[binman 42,618]

To me this thread is like an episode of Moonlighting. You just know that despite the apparent dislike of each other and oh so humourous back and forth the chemistry is undeniable and ADC and Hazy will get together with RF and WYL. Classic American comedy trope

[1858 285]

So... how's the AFL investigation going?

[old55 23,360]

Irrespective of positions held it's just not a fair fight - 100 against Hazy is unjust - far too much in Hazy's favour.

[H_T 3,043]

Speaking of the Mods, whats is happening lately? Low visibility from RR, Nasher and even H_T. Fan has demoted himself. And Dandeeman, wasn't he a moderator? Haven't seen many of his posts lately. Locked horns with all of them but well respected. The mob looks like its taking over.

We can't be in every thread 24/7 ADC. Like you, we have the odd 'holiday', and we have families, etc.

Mob? Skid marks? Good to see you've lifted your standards! HNY to you too.

As for standards, I will remind all posters to be mindful on what they post. It's a very large thread, but the investigation is ongoing and will remain open for discussion in case anyone was wondering otherwise.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Irrespective of positions held it's just not a fair fight - 100 against Hazy is unjust - far too much in Hazy's favour.

You could join us 55 and make it even more lop sided, it certainly wouldn't increase our combined IQ level.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I can confirm that RR is hovering in the background.

that in itself suggests that something is afoot.....

I guess we'll know around the AGM.

# what was going on in Hobart?

Edited January 16, 2013 by dee-luded

[Sir Why You Little 36,957]

So I had already answered your question and you wouldn't answer mine. Well, that's about it really.

I don't recall ever calling you an idiot but I have no doubt that others have formed their own opinions on you based on posts like the one I have just quoted.

your answer is not answer. You want the present board ousted we all know that.

Fair enough. It's your right.

But who would be the replacement?

That is all i am asking?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

In the interests of getting this thread back on track, here are my thoughts on the investigation.

I do not buy the argument that the interests of Schwab, McLardy, Connolly and Bailey coincide with those of the club.

If there is a way for the club and all persons involved to come out of this smelling of roses then great but I do not think that this is likely.

I believe that it is in the best interests of the club for the persons involved to be held individually accountable. They did the wrong thing - not tanking, but getting caught out and letting things get to where they stand now.

Obviously there is an added benefit for me in this scenario as I feel the club would be better off without the persons involved anyway but I acknowledge that not everyone feels the same way.

Is it fair that the MFC is being targeted like this when other clubs have been as bad or worse in tanking terms? Absolutely not. But so what?

Regardless of how you feel about Schwab etc., I think most people would prefer a result where the club doesn't enter a fight with an opponent against whom we can never hope to win (the AFL). It doesn't even matter what you think about the relative merits of the arguments re: tanking, the AFL will always hold the cards long term. I don't want the club to risk draft picks and millions of dollars of fines/costly legal action in order to defend the honour of a handful of people who have led us into this predicament and who we all know deep down are guilty anyway.

Over the last few years supporters have donated millions to the club. This money was not donated for the purposes of defending Schwab and Co's personal legacies.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Hazyshadeofgrinter

[beelzebub 23,313]

And yet strangely that's exactly what will happen MFC1 Afl 0

We entered the fight because it was not only just to do so but not to would have been reprehensible .

Not only but also, as a vehicle to oust the objects and targets of this ploy by conspiracy; its failed.

Some were hoping the AFL and certain media flogs would do their dirty work for them. They must be fuming !!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

In the interests of getting this thread back on track, here are my thoughts on the investigation.

I do not buy the argument that the interests of Schwab, McLardy, Connolly and Bailey coincide with those of the club.

If there is a way for the club and all persons involved to come out of this smelling of roses then great but I do not think that this is likely.

I believe that it is in the best interests of the club for the persons involved to be held individually accountable. They did the wrong thing - not tanking, but getting caught out and letting things get to where they stand now.

Obviously there is an added benefit for me in this scenario as I feel the club would be better off without the persons involved anyway but I acknowledge that not everyone feels the same way.

Is it fair that the MFC is being targeted like this when other clubs have been as bad or worse in tanking terms? Absolutely not. But so what?

Regardless of how you feel about Schwab etc., I think most people would prefer a result where the club doesn't enter a fight with an opponent against whom we can never hope to win (the AFL). It doesn't even matter what you think about the relative merits of the arguments re: tanking, the AFL will always hold the cards long term. I don't want the club to risk draft picks and millions of dollars of fines/costly legal action in order to defend the honour of a handful of people who have led us into this predicament and who we all know deep down are guilty anyway.

Over the last few years supporters have donated millions to the club. This money was not donated for the purposes of defending Schwab and Co's personal legacies.

I'd hate to have to rely on you in a scrap.

[biggestred 5,014]

This thread is a disgrace.

[Sir Why You Little 36,957]

You have already laid charges Hazy....Very early imo.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

You have already laid charges Hazy....Very early imo.

Wish list, that's all.

[Sir Why You Little 36,957]

Wish list, that's all.

yes. No doubt.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

And yet strangely that's exactly what will happen MFC1 Afl 0 We entered the fight because it was not only just to do so but not to would have been reprehensible . Not only but also, as a vehicle to oust the objects and targets of this ploy by conspiracy; its failed. Some were hoping the AFL and certain media flogs would do their dirty work for them. They must be fuming !!

Let's say you are a major shareholder in a company. The company's CEO and Board have been caught out engaging in dodgy corporate practices. Other companies have been involved in the same dodgy practices but they have not been implicated and are not being pursued by the regulator. This regulator has special powers by the way, even if your company is found to not have a case to answer, they can make the company insolvent anyway.

So the CEO and the Board say to the shareholders, "look, we all know we've been caught out here but instead of taking our medicine we will use all of the resources of the company to defend our professional reputations. I know you all have a lot invested in this company and this may ultimately drive the company to bankruptcy but I'm sure you'll all agree that it is the right thing to do".

Does it make you a disloyal shareholder to put the interests of the company ahead of the dodgy Board and CEO?

Schwab grew up a Richmond supporter. I have been supporting the Demons from well before he arrived on the scene. Why are people prepared to put Schwab's interests before those of the club? Would they be prepared to do this for Harris or McNamee?

[beelzebub 23,313]

Thats some box of straws you have Hazy.

I played for the Richmond little league, guess I'd better hand in my membership then !

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I'd hate to have to rely on you in a scrap.

You might as well block me because you're no longer of interest to me.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Thats some box of straws you have Hazy. I played for the Richmond little league, guess I'd better hand in my membership then !

The point is Schwab =/= MFC. Just as Harris =/= MFC.

Pretty obvious I would have thought?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Let's say you are a major shareholder in a company. The company's CEO and Board have been caught out engaging in dodgy corporate practices. Other companies have been involved in the same dodgy practices but they have not been implicated and are not being pursued by the regulator. This regulator has special powers by the way, even if your company is found to not have a case to answer, they can make the company insolvent anyway.

So the CEO and the Board say to the shareholders, "look, we all know we've been caught out here but instead of taking our medicine we will use all of the resources of the company to defend our professional reputations. I know you all have a lot invested in this company and this may ultimately drive the company to bankruptcy but I'm sure you'll all agree that it is the right thing to do".

Does it make you a disloyal shareholder to put the interests of the company ahead of the dodgy Board and CEO?

Schwab grew up a Richmond supporter. I have been supporting the Demons from well before he arrived on the scene. Why are people prepared to put Schwab's interests before those of the club? Would they be prepared to do this for Harris or McNamee?

Perhaps you should proof read befor posting.

If we can be found to have no case to answer how would they make us insolvent? If this is the case, according to you, we may as well fold as we have no future.

So what your saying is that if we fight it we will go bankrupt if we don't fight it we will go bankrupt.

One of my sons grew up supporting Carlton but now he never misses a Melbourne game so what's you point there?.

[diesel 420]

Let's say you are a major shareholder in a company. The company's CEO and Board have been caught out engaging in dodgy corporate practices. Other companies have been involved in the same dodgy practices but they have not been implicated and are not being pursued by the regulator. This regulator has special powers by the way, even if your company is found to not have a case to answer, they can make the company insolvent anyway.

So the CEO and the Board say to the shareholders, "look, we all know we've been caught out here but instead of taking our medicine we will use all of the resources of the company to defend our professional reputations. I know you all have a lot invested in this company and this may ultimately drive the company to bankruptcy but I'm sure you'll all agree that it is the right thing to do".

Does it make you a disloyal shareholder to put the interests of the company ahead of the dodgy Board and CEO?

Schwab grew up a Richmond supporter. I have been supporting the Demons from well before he arrived on the scene. Why are people prepared to put Schwab's interests before those of the club? Would they be prepared to do this for Harris or McNamee?

Why don't we wait to see the upshot of the MFC response? We all realise there is a lot of excitement from the "hang em" camp but it seems to have been exacerbated in the last couple of days by the Connolly leak that he believes he has been conspired against. No doubt his flagging his intention to fight has caused some angst from the disenfranchised but why the hell would we enter into punishment scenarios when so far all we have seen is a pi55 a weak and largely circumstantial and concocted case.

[binman 42,618]

In the interests of getting this thread back on track, here are my thoughts on the investigation.

I do not buy the argument that the interests of Schwab, McLardy, Connolly and Bailey coincide with those of the club.

If there is a way for the club and all persons involved to come out of this smelling of roses then great but I do not think that this is likely.

All in all a reasonable argument, particularly in regard to the AFL holding the cards. It isn't in our interest to go to war with the AFL. We've got 15 games at the G this year. How many will we get if this ends up in court and deal can't be sorted?

However i disagree with a couple of points. One the idea that that the people you have named are responsible for how this has played out. In my opinion this saga is a direct result of the poisonous politics that have wrecked the dees over the last 30 years and the inability to keep things in house. All clubs have politics at board and rich supporter levels but most are better at keeping things from getting out into the public.

The second is your premise that the club and others need to come out smelling of roses to have a win. In my opinion the AFL will be unable to prove we tanked and therefore the proposed charges cannot be laid. The goals of embarrassing the club will have been met, the suggestion will have been made we did something wrong but it will all go away and no one will be charged. We won't smell like roses but nor will we be forced to sack anyone.

Interestingly if that tramspires it will happen immediately before the AGM meaning Mclardy will go to it in a pretty strong position as will CS.

Edited January 16, 2013 by binman

[John Crow Batty 8,860]

I am off to China for urgent business. But I will be back.

My last thoughts on this topic.

I take genuine comfort that the Melbourne players did their best to resist tanking despite the machinations to debase this club from those above who have shamed this club. Their efforts will not be futile.

[Slartibartfast 17,187]

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?

Because that would have been seen as a whitewash by the footy public and the AFL would have taken a hammering. This process is to condition the footy public into accepting the verdict "no case to answer"

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.

If you read that post again you'll see that I go to lengths to say that I don't like what Caro is saying about our club. I went on to say that I liked her because of the provision of information. Unlike many here I just ignore her editorial component where I think it's wrong but in my view we knew much more about what was going on and gained much greater insight when she was reporting it.

[Slartibartfast 17,187]

In my opinion this saga is a direct result of the poisonous politics that have wrecked the dees over the last 30 years and the inability to keep things in house.

Would you care to expand on your views in relation to poisonous politics and tanking?

Thanks