On 22/12/2012 at 00:19, mjt said:

Well we know how CS handles his business, are you for real, im seeing things for what they are, 1 club under investigation out of 18, whoever was in charge at Blues at the time of there indiscrections must be sitting back pissing there pants through laughter, the only thing loaded at the moment is a gun and its pointed at the MFC

and you're totally oblivious to those that have agendas and are the ones who goaded an imbecilic afl into the inquisition.

We didn't load a gun and aim it at ourselves !!!!

  On 21/12/2012 at 23:13, Redleg said:

Interesting that Robert Smerdon, racehorse trainer, who has been charged by the Stewards, with handing a bag of money to Damien Oliver, has threatened through his lawyer to sue for defamation. One of the things that his lawyer said is that while Smerdon has been charged, the person who handed him the bag has not. The lawyer is also furious that the case has been delayed by the xmas break immediately after the charges were laid.

All that shows is that the person handing the bag is smarter than Smerdon.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:03, mjt said:

there called Demonland opinions you turnip.

One should add that those are very much minority Demonland opinions at that.

I think the connection between the tanking investigation and Cameron Schwab is a spurious one and not warranted by any of the evidence I've seen presented.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:17, Ted Fidge said:

All that shows is that the person handing the bag is smarter than Smerdon.

And unlicensed.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:00, stuie said:

I'd like to know where exactly this "majority of the football world" has stated they don't rate Schwab? As far as I know, Caroline Wilson is not the majority, as much as she thinks she is.

All I've ever heard is people in the know in footy circles praise him as a football admin. The only time I've read that he's no good is from Demonland trolls.

Grass is always Greener Stuie.

You know that saying.

The "Energy Watch" saga was a worry from the moment i couldn't find a head office address!

But they did make payments...Christ knows where the $$$ came from!!

But i would not kill off CS for that one decision...If it happened again, well you were warned.

CS is a slick operator. His page 3 in the 2012 Yearbook is a strange read i must say....

  On 22/12/2012 at 03:36, Fan said:

Well that's one theory but I don't subscribe to it. I think we left a trail of evidence and managed the process so badly the AFL could hardly ignore it.

Very poor management and inappropriate involvement by certain parties from the WC game on in 2011 have put us in this position. Blind Freddie could see that.

I'd suspect that the Blues were investigated in the same manner we have been then similar things may have come out.

Brock's comments that sparked the investigation were no more incriminating than Libba or Fev and Vlads response at the time was that unless Libba had a specific allegation there will be no investigation. Only when Brock said what he said (without any specific allegation/instance) Vlad was out of town and AA it would seem made an error in being trigger happy. It may not help our defence but there is a distinction between how this has played out for us as opposed to others.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:23, why you little said:

Grass is always Greener Stuie.

You know that saying.

The "Energy Watch" saga was a worry from the moment i couldn't find a head office address!

But they did make payments...Christ knows where the $$$ came from!!

But i would not kill off CS for that one decision...If it happened again, well you were warned.

CS is a slick operator. His page 3 in the 2012 Yearbook is a strange read i must say....

So you never killed off CS once in that Energy Watch thread?

  On 22/12/2012 at 03:49, Whispering_Jack said:

However, it is absurd to suggest that Carlton is not being investigated because "nobody ever said anything". Libba said something. Fev said something.

I don't agree that our behaviour was any different to that of other clubs.

Fev said what McLean said and that would have had no traction if Bailey hadn't said something. It all started with Bailey and McLean gave it oxygen. And the Bailey situation was so avoidable.

I agree our behaviour was no different to other clubs but the implementation was clearly different. Too many people knew and we were amateur hour in the way we did it.

I don't hold to the "victim mentality" of media conspiracies, to me that's just a very soft option and just a way of ignoring errors we've made. The media and the AFL have "picked" on us because we were silly enough to leave a much stronger trail than other clubs and perhaps we haven't managed those relationships as well as we should.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:36, Fan said:

Fev said what McLean said and that would have had no traction if Bailey hadn't said something. It all started with Bailey and McLean gave it oxygen. And the Bailey situation was so avoidable.

I agree our behaviour was no different to other clubs but the implementation was clearly different. Too many people knew and we were amateur hour in the way we did it.

I don't hold to the "victim mentality" of media conspiracies, to me that's just a very soft option and just a way of ignoring errors we've made. The media and the AFL have "picked" on us because we were silly enough to leave a much stronger trail than other clubs and perhaps we haven't managed those relationships as well as we should.

Maybe the MFC should hold classes on how to terminate its employees.

  why you little said:

Grass is always Greener Stuie.

You know that saying.

The "Energy Watch" saga was a worry from the moment i couldn't find a head office address!

But they did make payments...Christ knows where the $$$ came from!!

I think you'll find they owed us a lot of money. We were preparing to go to court. Not sure whether/how it was resolved.

CS has a fair bit to answer for IMO in relation to sponsorship. Yes we have recently been very successful but if he treats the new sponsors the same way he treated old sponsors we will be looking for new ones soon enough,,,,

Anyway this is not a CS thread. Dean Bailey. Hmm fine man.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:36, Fan said:

Fev said what McLean said and that would have had no traction if Bailey hadn't said something. It all started with Bailey and McLean gave it oxygen. And the Bailey situation was so avoidable.

I agree our behaviour was no different to other clubs but the implementation was clearly different. Too many people knew and we were amateur hour in the way we did it.

I don't hold to the "victim mentality" of media conspiracies, to me that's just a very soft option and just a way of ignoring errors we've made. The media and the AFL have "picked" on us because we were silly enough to leave a much stronger trail than other clubs and perhaps we haven't managed those relationships as well as we should.

But the investigation into Bailey ended with no further action so it really started with McLean and the farcical way he was set up by On the Couch and my information is that it was exactly that - a set up.

The club f$%ked this up on several levels.

Laying the blame at the feet of any individual is futile. Be it McClean, Bailey, Scwab, Connolly or the media.

The AFL felt the need to investigate this because of the rumblings coming from various angles, if they did not Caro would have made sure that there would have been an outcry.

I still wonder how the AFL are going to make anything stick.

Be that as it may, I wonder if any of this would have been properly investigated had it not been for Connolly's quip.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:36, mjt said:

So you never killed off CS once in that Energy Watch thread?

No not completely. It was a great deal on paper and i and all here will never know the full story.

I was disappointed yes, but i was also very impressed with the termination.

I was always amazed CS survived 186. But he did, so there has to be a dam good reason why.

The Bailey years were crazy. We were only fed snippets i am sure. To be the CEO through all that would be an amazing ride. Not all good either.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:43, jnrmac said:

I think you'll find they owed us a lot of money. We were preparing to go to court. Not sure whether/how it was resolved.

CS has a fair bit to answer for IMO in relation to sponsorship. Yes we have recently been very successful but if he treats the new sponsors the same way he treated old sponsors we will be looking for new ones soon enough,,,,

Anyway this is not a CS thread. Dean Bailey. Hmm fine man.

yes Energy Watch owed us money, but the initial payments were made.

That was my point.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:31, s-t-i-n-g-a said:

I'd suspect that the Blues were investigated in the same manner we have been then similar things may have come out.

Brock's comments that sparked the investigation were no more incriminating than Libba or Fev and Vlads response at the time was that unless Libba had a specific allegation there will be no investigation. Only when Brock said what he said (without any specific allegation/instance) Vlad was out of town and AA it would seem made an error in being trigger happy. It may not help our defence but there is a distinction between how this has played out for us as opposed to others.

Agreed, I wonder how much a 5 and a half month interrogation at any AFL club would dig up. You can't blame the officials of the club if disgruntled formed employees and/or former board members have loose tongues or do mischievous things.

The worst example in all this were Paul Garner's comments when this first blew up.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:52, Whispering_Jack said:

But the investigation into Bailey ended with no further action so it really started with McLean and the farcical way he was set up by On the Couch and my information is that it was exactly that - a set up.

McLean's comments alone would have gone nowhere if Bailey hadn't said what he said. But we can differ on that.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:54, why you little said:

No not completely. It was a great deal on paper and i and all here will never know the full story.

I was disappointed yes, but i was also very impressed with the termination.

I was always amazed CS survived 186. But he did, so there has to be a dam good reason why.

The Bailey years were crazy. We were only fed snippets i am sure. To be the CEO through all that would be an amazing ride. Not all good either.

Why did 186 happen?

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:53, dandeeman said:

The club f$%ked this up on several levels.

Laying the blame at the feet of any individual is futile. Be it McClean, Bailey, Scwab, Connolly or the media.

The AFL felt the need to investigate this because of the rumblings coming from various angles, if they did not Caro would have made sure that there would have been an outcry.

I still wonder how the AFL are going to make anything stick.

Be that as it may, I wonder if any of this would have been properly investigated had it not been for Connolly's quip.

might be wrong dandeeman but didn't cuddles quip become public after the investigation was started by angry

  On 22/12/2012 at 05:06, Fan said:

McLean's comments alone would have gone nowhere if Bailey hadn't said what he said. But we can differ on that.

Neither Bailey nor McLean were members of the Melbourne Board or employed by the club when they made their comments. The argument you were supporting before was that we were being investigated because people from within said things they shouldn't have said. How does this support those who blame Schwab for everything under the sun including the end of the world which doesn't even look like happening now?

  On 22/12/2012 at 05:29, daisycutter said:

might be wrong dandeeman but didn't cuddles quip become public after the investigation was started by angry

Yes, but I still wonder if that is really the only piece of evidence that gave the investigation any momentum.

At this stage we don't know all of what is in the report but with the info we have at this point but the quip delivered in the vault is corroborated, contains a directive to lose and contains a threat if taken on face value.

Still at this stage we are speculating on a lot.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:03, mjt said:

there called Demonland opinions you turnip.

*they're*

  On 22/12/2012 at 05:06, Fan said:

McLean's comments alone would have gone nowhere if Bailey hadn't said what he said. But we can differ on that.

From memory Bailey was asked to clarify his comments and everyone moved on.

The Mclean comments got the ball rolling.

Without Connolly's remark we would have a vibe and a coach playing players out of position. That is in the absence of any other evidence that may have been uncovered that isn't public.

So far I've read a lot of "from what I've heard" on this site but no one wants to say where they've heard it from.

Some reckon they've heard we're ok, some reckon they've heard CS, CC and DB are in trouble, some say they've heard only CC is in strife.

My question is where have you heard it and if it's a credible source, reveal it, if it's just what you've read in the daily then don't even bother posting it as it has no real credibility.

The grapevine.

on the street