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.

I'd be fine with any of those outcomes as long as the club wasn't punished. I have no issue with cheats being run out of the game.

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

No doubt we have stuffed that up in a few cases.

on the street

Which street?

Don't bring Jim Stynes into this Rhino....Just don't.

You just did. I never mentioned him.

That stupid comment sums up in many ways why the club is in its current predicament.

The sacking of Bailey was carried out by the Board and not by the CEO and therefore the question as to whether Brian Cook could have handled it better is moot.

However, there have always been snipers around the club who take every opportunity to take aim at Cameron Schwab in an effort to bring him down. Many people have pointed to McLean's appearance on Foxtel that night as having been set up by those who wanted to prevent the club from extending his contract. Indeed, that programme was barely over when snide comments about him were posted on this site.*

Those with vendettas against individuals involved at the club would be well advised to shut their traps.

You, mjt are just stupid.

No vendetta, but you would be naive to believe that the CEO was not involved in Bailey's sacking.

Which street?

the High Street of course

P.S. Don't believe what you hear on Main Street

You just did. I never mentioned him.

No vendetta, but you would be naive to believe that the CEO was not involved in Bailey's sacking.

If he was, supposedly, the one that was going to be sacked in the first place I hardly see how he would have had any say in it. If he was, then what power would he have been able to wield?

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?

If you read the rest of the thread, particularly the comment on our (in)ability to exit people, I think you should be able to join the dots

If he was, supposedly, the one that was going to be sacked in the first place I hardly see how he would have had any say in it. If he was, then what power would he have been able to wield?

Well he obviously has a lot of power, we are under investigation for throwing matches, we struggle with sponsors, we lost a game that players obviously threw by 31 goals, we have a lot of dissatisfied players and former employees, who is the CEO, why do the media despise this man so much? thats the million dollar question.

Why wait and see? We've already seen the job he's done in overseeing new facilities, sponsors, and initiatives... Are you telling us you know secret information that even the AFL itself couldn't find out in 6 months of investigating? Sick of these "I know something but can't tell" trolls that go about slagging off our footy club and spreading baseless rumours.

A troll Stuie, does not equate to someone who disagrees with you. You accuse too many as being a troll

If you read the rest of the thread, particularly the comment on our (in)ability to exit people, I think you should be able to join the dots

Sometimes it's not enough to just join dots.

What I can see is a thread about Dean Bailey's comments on the tanking inquiry being hijacked into a hate Cameron Schwab thread.

Fact of the matter is that comments were made by non board and non staff which got the investigation going. The dots connect to a point where the anti Schwab people set up a situation to unseat him and prevent him from being reappointed which has resulted in the MFC coming under investigation for tanking - that does not make him responsible for the tanking farce. It makes the fools who set McLean up as the responsible parties.

Whatever Schwab did or didn't do is a matter for a different discussion but if, after the WC game in 2011, he formed the view that DB's position at the club was untenable because he couldn't coach, then I can tell you he wasn't an orphan for holding such a position.

I suspect the AFL have areas of concern regarding the behaviours of Bailey, Connolly, and Schwab. It would appear that they've asked certain questions to the aforementioned and are seeking clarification.

I still hold the view that if all participants deny any impropriety that it will be very hard to prove that there's a case to answer. This, of course, is on the proviso that there's still no "smoking gun". With the way the AFL and clubs leak these days I'd be very surprised if there's significant evidence that has yet to be released.

It's possible that there will be sanctions due to circumstantial evidence, but my gut feel is that there isn't the type of proof required to bring down particularly harsh penalties.

I suspect the AFL have areas of concern regarding the behaviours of Bailey, Connolly, and Schwab. It would appear that they've asked certain questions to the aforementioned and are seeking clarification.

I still hold the view that if all participants deny any impropriety that it will be very hard to prove that there's a case to answer. This, of course, is on the proviso that there's still no "smoking gun". With the way the AFL and clubs leak these days I'd be very surprised if there's significant evidence that has yet to be released.

It's possible that there will be sanctions due to circumstantial evidence, but my gut feel is that there isn't the type of proof required to bring down particularly harsh penalties.

I agree although I don't think they can charge based on circumstantial evidence.

That's why I also have to agree with the previous poster that the CC blame game is tending to hijack the thread. There will be time for that later if warranted but for now ...

Let's stay on topic as BH has done please folks.

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

That would be ... "pissing THEIR pants WITH laughter".

(No need to thank me.)

If you read the rest of the thread, particularly the comment on our (in)ability to exit people, I think you should be able to join the dots

Wondered how long it would be before you'd pop in.

Whatever Schwab did or didn't do is a matter for a different discussion but if, after the WC game in 2011, he formed the view that DB's position at the club was untenable because he couldn't coach, then I can tell you he wasn't an orphan for holding such a position.

You're very defensive. I've mentioned Schwab's name once in this and it wasn't to criticize but to say I've heard his name is one the AFL is interested in.

I agree with you entirely that it was Schwab (and Connolly's) call as to whether Bailey should continue to coach, that is not at issue. It was also their position to manage that process in the best possible way for the MFC which sadly they didn't but to be fair that probably wasn't their fault - but if we go there the word "agenda" will populate this forum and so I'll try and avoid that.

I'm glad you're able to divorce Schwab from the tanking issue and lay the blame on a couple of ex employees. Unfortunately to do so is probably more damning than saying he knew what was going on.

Anyway I look to causation and wonder why, you're obviously happier not doing that.

Why don't we leave it there.

Wondered how long it would be before you'd pop in.

Interesting, I've never given you a thought.

We're all entitled to a "view" here but I think you'll find that people jumped on him for attacking the CEO who wasn't the person who was responsible for the way in which Dean Bailey's sacking occurred.

I take your point that some at the club might have said something at some stage about tanking. I don't know.

However, it is absurd to suggest that Carlton is not being investigated because "nobody ever said anything". Libba said something. Fev said something. Those things have been well documented in the past. A then Carlton Football Club member told me in late 2007 that Carlton was sending Fev off to surgery early because they had no interest in winning any of the remaining games because the Blues were after a big fish and also wanted Kreuzer.

If the AFL was honest, it would have would widened the inquisition to involve several other clubs that were in the same position as us and that really didn't try hard to win matches with priority picks seemingly the aim.

I don't agree that our behaviour was any different to that of other clubs. The matter was brought to a head because of consistent efforts from some within the media to highlight Melbourne and Melbourne alone. The fact that the three supposedly experienced wise heads who questioned McLean that night didn't question why he went to a club that picked up three #1 draft picks in a row when he was so principled about leaving a team that "experimented" says everything to me.

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.

This whole thing has always had a smell about it.....a set up. WJ has summarised nicely why

IMO, On the Couch would only have run the McLean interview if they knew that McLean's comments would have a flow on effect.

The only way they would have known this was if they had the thumbs up from someone at the AFL who had the power to start an investigation; in effect, looking for an excuse.

The whole story has a lot more to run.

At the end of the day, no-one should be charged over this investigation (although I fear that there will be some fallout)

Casting aspersions on a person's character is a biggie in court and the AFL will lose heavily.

Time for all to bite the bullet and introduce a raffle system for the draft, to ascertain selection order for the bottom six.

You're very defensive. I've mentioned Schwab's name once in this and it wasn't to criticize but to say I've heard his name is one the AFL is interested in.

I agree with you entirely that it was Schwab (and Connolly's) call as to whether Bailey should continue to coach, that is not at issue. It was also their position to manage that process in the best possible way for the MFC which sadly they didn't but to be fair that probably wasn't their fault - but if we go there the word "agenda" will populate this forum and so I'll try and avoid that.

I'm glad you're able to divorce Schwab from the tanking issue and lay the blame on a couple of ex employees. Unfortunately to do so is probably more damning than saying he knew what was going on.

Anyway I look to causation and wonder why, you're obviously happier not doing that.

Why don't we leave it there.

Happy to leave that part here in view of the directives from above but please don't misconstrue my views and I'll not do the same with you. CS was the subject not because you mentioned him once but because this was about mjt's accusations. And don't misinterpret me as meaning that I'm not interested in causation. I am and I believe there's a different aspect of cause and effect operating here than you obviously do so let's leave it just there.

Why did 186 happen?

the million $$$ question.

I hope you do not blame all that on CS.

186 has many layers i am sure.

the million $$$ question.

I hope you do not blame all that on CS.

186 has many layers i am sure.

So many layers and a subject that's been discussed a million times here so please keep on topic.

Thanks.

You just did. I never mentioned him.

.

don't get cute Rhino. You know exactly what i mean.

I have no problem with Jim speaking to Dean about his finished coaching via the phone considering his condition, still don't.

And i don't think Dean would have given it a thought.

But i know you would have preferred Jim to get out of bed and put a suit on, drive to Dean's house to give him the news.

You have such protocol. But little compassion.

Sad really.

the million $$$ question.

I hope you do not blame all that on CS.

186 has many layers i am sure.

only 31 layers, but i suppose that qualifies as many

if there are 1.613 shades on average to each layer, we could say there were 50 shades of something wrong

only 31 layers, but i suppose that qualifies as many

if there are 1.613 shades on average to each layer, we could say there were 50 shades of something wrong

you bet, but why wake the blind.

At the end of the day, no-one should be charged over this investigation (although I fear that there will be some fallout)

Casting aspersions on a person's character is a biggie in court and the AFL will lose heavily.

Time for all to bite the bullet and introduce a raffle system for the draft, to ascertain selection order for the bottom six.

For years I've advocated teams needing to win to get a better placed draft pick - it's not a perfect system but it all but eliminates 'tanking' . Give the no.1 pick to the team that finishes 9th and no.2 to the 10th team and so on and so forth . Teams that are genuine 'basket cases' can be helped out arbitrarily by the Commission .

A team could (in theory) give up a chance to play finals in order to finish 9th but that's the only flaw . It rewards teams who are just short of finals capabilities but so what ? Any sort of system where losing becomes a reward is fraught with danger (as we can well attest) . There has been a lottery system in the NBA since the 80's and it doesn't stop teams from tanking . Now, people may not like the system I've suggested but that's not the point - it's whatever works best .

As an aside, the Commission have arbitrarily helped out Port Adelaide in a financial way (9 million over 3 years?) and that has been generally accepted by all and sundry .