Totally agree with most everyone's thoughts. When reading the article I thought I've read all this before.

It was by our brother D' Landers.

It's actually great to sit down and read it in 5 min. Rather than trawl through several thousand posts including all the sarcastic finger pointing personal arguments with other posters that don't even relate to the topic

Yes i think Adrian is amongst us..or at least a close reader in the shadows

Yes i think Adrian is amongst us..or at least a close reader in the shadows

Whoever you are well done to get at least a different perspective printed.

i cannpt believe the reaction to this rarticle....it is condescending for a start...it may appeal to the hair shirt wearers amongst the MFC supporters but Iam not anybody's POOR Melburne supporter...besides which it is nearly a straight copy of the thoughts and opinions expressed by Neil Craig in his presser........quality jjournalism AGAIN NOT

Well written article. I vowed not to read the Age again after CW's rubbish. Adrian makes so many valid points - it would be criminal if anything comes of these allegations.

Sure, but do you reckon they would have published it while Caroline Wilson was on the attack? Not in a million years.

The fact that they have published shows a complete U-turn, regardless of the perspective from which it was written. In fact, I think it comes across as very balanced and reasonable, given it was written by a supporter.

i agree.......................would love to see some of their reporters now take up some of those points

i cannpt believe the reaction to this rarticle....it is condescending for a start...it may appeal to the hair shirt wearers amongst the MFC supporters but Iam not anybody's POOR Melburne supporter...besides which it is nearly a straight copy of the thoughts and opinions expressed by Neil Craig in his presser........quality jjournalism AGAIN NOT

you would prefer to read more of Caroline Wilson's bias would you?

It's about time the Aged print an MFC pov don't you think.

All power to Adrian i say.

We all can understand where he is coming from. Well said and very accurate. Pity Adrian isnt a football commentator because he seems to have more balance assessment skills than some of the drongos who have given opinions on the issue already.

Melbourne supporters are already bitter. Penalise the club and you may as well give the club the arse - plain and simple. But penalise us and Sculldog will be forgotten and the AFL wont get a cent ever again from any of us most likely.

That article shows an ASTOUNDING about face by the Age.

Someone's had a word to them, but not the AFL, because this makes the AFL look silly.

I don't see that at all. This is an article by a supporter but it SHOULD be an article by a staff reporter to put up a contrary view rather than the 'conga line of suck holes'* we have ATM lining up to kick us.

*Copyright to PJK

I am Adrian and so is my wife.

Amazing, we finally get some good press and some are still arguing lol

We all can understand where he is coming from. Well said and very accurate. Pity Adrian isnt a football commentator because he seems to have more balance assessment skills than some of the drongos who have given opinions on the issue already.

Melbourne supporters are already bitter. Penalise the club and you may as well give the club the arse - plain and simple. But penalise us and Sculldog will be forgotten and the AFL wont get a cent ever again from any of us most likely.

I thought your sauce said were in the clear?

I don't see that at all. This is an article by a supporter but it SHOULD be an article by a staff reporter to put up a contrary view rather than the 'conga line of suck holes'* we have ATM lining up to kick us.

*Copyright to PJK

* Mark Latham actually

i cannpt believe the reaction to this rarticle....it is condescending for a start...it may appeal to the hair shirt wearers amongst the MFC supporters but Iam not anybody's POOR Melburne supporter...besides which it is nearly a straight copy of the thoughts and opinions expressed by Neil Craig in his presser........quality jjournalism AGAIN NOT

I can't believe how many spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors you have in this post. Thanks for keeping it short.

Oh and by the way, I disagree with your sentiments.

I though the article to be a transcript from WYL's book.

Fantastic article. It really is. Surprising enough that it even made it to print, but totally unsurprising that it was pushed down the back.

Too much common sense 'dog bites man' rather than emotive clap trap 'man bites dog' for it to be in a better position.

Adrian needs to learn to rant and make things up if he wants the prime real estate.

I though the article to be a transcript from WYL's book.

Always, no sometimes, think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream.

I think I know I mean a 'Yes' but it's all wrong, that is I think I disagree.

I don't see that at all. This is an article by a supporter but it SHOULD be an article by a staff reporter to put up a contrary view rather than the 'conga line of suck holes'* we have ATM lining up to kick us.

*Copyright to PJK

Well, yes, but in some senses it doesn't matter where the article comes from. What matters is the editorial direction the paper is taking, and no matter who wrote this, if they weren't looking to push this view, they wouldn't publish it.

I liked it, but I didn't like the last line about an "amnesty", as that implies that Melbourne did do something wrong when the rest of the article highlights that they didn't do anything wrong.

I took that to mean that the AFL would cease from any and all further investigation regarding any club.

Prior to saying that, the article had said that we had taken a lick of the same cream that every other tom cat had been at...so in effect, he did say that if what we had done was wrong, so had a number of other clubs done the wrong thing - but as there doesn't appear to be a universally accepted definition/understanding of what tanking is, then it would be an amnesty I suppose.

I took that to mean that the AFL would cease from any and all further investigation regarding any club.

Prior to saying that, the article had said that we had taken a lick of the same cream that every other tom cat had been at...so in effect, he did say that if what we had done was wrong, so had a number of other clubs done the wrong thing - but as there doesn't appear to be a universally accepted definition/understanding of what tanking is, then it would be an amnesty I suppose.

hardtack, saying the dees had a lick of the cream that the other tom cats had is not an admission of wrong

if the other tom cats did nothing wrong then ipso facto we did nothing wrong

* Mark Latham actually

Was never a huge fan of either but both came up with some classic lines.

hardtack, saying the dees had a lick of the cream that the other tom cats had is not an admission of wrong

if the other tom cats did nothing wrong then ipso facto we did nothing wrong

Correct...what I'm saying is that no one seems to be able to categorically prove that what we did is wrong and nor are they able to say it wasn't wrong...this is why I think he used the word "amnesty", because that means the AFL would just cease pursuing the matter without saying no-one did anything wrong; ie, they put it in the too hard basket.

Viva La Adrian!

There are some good points in this argument but...

We are not guilty of breaking the rules so there shouldn't be any amnesty.

Stop the MFCSS. We are in this mess because of a confluence of events. Quit the woe is us attitude.

This isn't The Age changing tack, this was just a slow news Sat paper filled in with a 'write-in' piece.

It won't have an effect on the media zombies. It won't until one of the zombies stops eating brains and uses one to write something similar...

Thanks to those who liked the article. As was obvious, a lot of the info came from my regular reading of Demonland and Ology.

To those who didn't like it, a lot of what you say, I agree with. I'm not sure where I stand on the amnesty business - 'no case to answer' and an apology for the harassment would be a fairer result, but I'll take anything. With the other articles published today, perhaps there is a change in the atmosphere which can only benefit us.

Carrot Top - yes - I agree - wish I had done more of a rant. As I said in another post, I wrote the article in a rush not long after Caro's piece, but the issue had kind of gone off the boil by then (I'm a slow writer - not a journalist's a-hole, alas), so the editor said they'd reconsider it if and when things hotted up.

After the latest idiotic revelations (as if we ever needed any inducement to fumble the ball!) , I had started to write a much stronger piece - opening line was: "I barrack for Melbourne and I'm as mad as hell." (Actually, I think my original article was a bit stronger - I had a choice paragraph about Brock and his connection to the Morans, but that seems to have got the chop - probably defamatory) Stopped when I saw they'd published the piece this morning.

Nutbeam - if you are in fact my wife, you should be at work. If you are me, then the situation is more critical than I could have imagined.

Cheers