You insinuate that we haven't handled our 'tanking' well enough - what about Carlton? They had a former assistant coach and a former full forward come out and admit they were tanking. Richmond's coach said that he did nothing to stop a loss as if that is any different to anything we did or did not do.

Yet why are we investigated? Because of a disgruntled former player saying we didn't have winning as the No.1 priority?

And why has the investigation lasted so long? Because of a joke at a match committee meeting and Paul Johnson playing at FB?

There is no conspiracy, but we are in the cross-hairs of a few journalists for subjective and unfair reasons relating to their issues with a few people working at the club.

I am not about to blame the club for the pettiness and vindictiveness of a few journalists who got their way because of the unfortunate instance of Adrian Andersen being in charge when Healy and Sheahan showed their intent.

Once again, we are the owners of outrageous misfortune and while that seems to be our 'lot' it certainly is not our fault.

Were always owners of outrageous misfortune, and by the way if Carlton handled there dealings like we do they would be the only club in the AFL under serious investigation, MFC is a job for the boys and always has been, weres G lyon been in all this mess?

Were always owners of outrageous misfortune, and by the way if Carlton handled there dealings like we do they would be the only club in the AFL under serious investigation, MFC is a job for the boys and always has been, weres G lyon been in all this mess?

And well may you ask that question about G Lyon.

Also where have George bush and the wiggles been?

And well may you ask that question about G Lyon. Also where have George bush and the wiggles been?

G Lyon was instrumental after 186, i thought that was a fair point.

Edited January 20, 201312 yr by mjt

G Lyon was instrumental after 186, i thought that was a fair point.

He was asked by Jimmy to help pick out a new coach which he did.

He said he could not devote tthe time needed to stay on as football director, president or a board member, so what else did you want him to do?

G Lyon was instrumental after 186, i thought that was a fair point.

This thread is about the "Tanking Issue" which predates 186 by two years.

He was asked by Jimmy to help pick out a new coach which he did.

He said he could not devote tthe time needed to stay on as football director, president or a board member, so what else did you want him to do?

He was instrumental in CS keeping his job and you know it, anyway im tired of bringing up or CEO name, time or the AFL will take care of that.

He was instrumental in CS keeping his job and you know it, anyway im tired of bringing up or CEO name, time or the AFL will take care of that.

That's a relief we all are.

Anyone ever taken what they call a "reflex" catch?

I have twice in my less than illustrious cricket career. I've always written them off as complete flukes because I have no idea how I took them. On one of those occasions, all I remember is the ball being bowled and the next second it was in my hands. Probably looked like a good catch but I'm certain it had absolutely nothing to do with any skill I possessed for catching the ball. Anyway, the next ball was faced by a different batsman.

At least Mark Taylor was known as a decent slips fieldsman and regularly took spectacular catches.

Clive Lloyd would often juggle catches. The 'Supercat' almost turned his way of catching into an artform. Taylors catch was no fluke - he maintained focus when many others would have given up on the catch (or panicked) Like Lloyd, he rarely grassed a catch. Keeping your eye on the ball in the slips is easier said than done. Fielding at 1st slip to a bowler like Bevan would be a tough ask. Quite a few batsmen couldn't pick his wrong 'un.

The delivery was a wrong 'un. Hooper (who could bat a bit) didn't pick it. Taylor wouldn't have seen the ball until the last moment as Hooper was in some ways shielding the edged ball. Sensational catch and Benaud was spot on once again.

Edited January 20, 201312 yr by Macca

I wondered though if perhaps a clip of Bradbury's Olympic gold medal might have more effectively illustrated your point (though perhaps not illustrating as well how the dees being cleared might divide opinion)?

Not necessarily disagreeing with you 'bm' but it also could also be a case of 'Every dog has its day' ... Steve Bradbury Wiki page

From Wiki ...keeping in mind that Bradbury 'won' his gold medal at the 2002 Olympics ...the moral is that we could very well have our day soon enough.

1994 Olympics

Bradbury was also entered in the 500 m and 1,000 m individual events and was the favourite going into the latter . In the first event, Bradbury came second in his heat in a time of 45.43 s and then won his quarterfinal in a time of 44.18 s to qualify for the semifinal. However in the semifinal, Bradbury was knocked over by a rival and he limped home fourth, in a time of 1 m 03.51 s and he was eliminated. He came fourth in the B final and was classified eighth overall out of 31 competitors.^[7] In the 1,000 m event, Bradbury fell in his heat after being illegally pushed by a competitor who was later disqualified. He came home in 23 m 01.89 s, more than 30 s off the leaders' pace and was eliminated. Nevertheless, because of the high rate of accidents, Bradbury came 24th out of 31 competitors.

Edited January 21, 201312 yr by Macca

For the sake of the club, I hope you are right about the MFC not being charged or being charged and found "not guilty".

I do not agree that this means we should ignore the circumstances that led to our being charged (or asked to explain why we should not be charged) and the way the club has managed the tanking and associated fallout from the start.

Regardless of who is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in currently, the club would do well to at least try and learn from this debacle. As supporters, we have a duty to keep informed and to hold the club's leadership to account.

This stands in stark contrast to recent events whereby Connolly has publicly claimed the existence of an internal club conspiracy and we are the only club being investigated for tanking by the AFL.

You think this makes be a bad supporter, I think this makes me a better supporter. Once again, different camps.

An excellent and well considered post.

A few points in response.

First i totally agree that we should learn from this whole mess and that the club leader should be held to account. I definitely don't think we should ignore the circumstances that lead us to being charged. What i meant was that someone like CW who just wants to see that back of CS is likely just to trot out the line that we've been really luck - which implies of course that we should have been found guilty of charges - and provide no other useful analysis. This will suit the AFL's agenda. The same goes for any demon fan who likewise bangs on about us being lucky in a way designed to further damage the standing of CS.

To be clear Hazy i'm not putting you in that category - your position is clear and transparently argued. But less say there is someone who shares your view that CS and MClardy should be replaced and decides to drip feed CW more gossip highlighting a position that we have been in lucky and that they are incompetent. This would not be helpful to the club.

So i'm not so sure we are different camps. To be honest i'm not in a pro CS or anti CS camp - just the dees one. What i do know is that no charges or a not guilty finding will strengthen the board and CS's position. As i understand it has bee re - contracted for 3 years so in the normal course of events he will remain at the dees - unless, perhaps there is a change at board level. So yes by all means lest question and hold board and CEO to account but they're in place for the foreseeable future so i don't think it is helpful for the club for anyone to be agitating for a dismissal.

The other thing is that CC hasn't publicly claimed the existence of a conspiracy. The comments attributed to him were from a presumably private conversation he had with the investigators. And besides who knows if they are even accurate.

To be clear Hazy i'm not putting you in that category - your position is clear and transparently argued. But less say there is someone who shares your view that CS and MClardy should be replaced and decides to drip feed CW more gossip highlighting a position that we have been in lucky and that they are incompetent. This would not be helpful to the club.

Who would in the first instance do this and who would have the information. Whilst I know many will reject this Caro checks her sources and will only print if she believes she is right. For example, she had all the information on the Misfud story but rejected it when she checked it out and couldn't verify it.

What always stumps me is why people think that when you believe someone should be replaced they'd go about implementing that to the detriment of the Club. That would be totally counter productive.

So many misinterpret opinions of doubt. For all the opinions presented on this forum I don't think any would be offered by genuine MFC supporters with the intention of hurting the Club.

Who would in the first instance do this and who would have the information. Whilst I know many will reject this Caro checks her sources and will only print if she believes she is right. For example, she had all the information on the Misfud story but rejected it when she checked it out and couldn't verify it.

In saying this, are you suggesting that Mifsud didn't lie after all when he said Aaron Davey told him Mark Neeld treated the club's indigenous players differently to the other players?

I ask because when that news broke, Wilson insisted on 3AW that Mifsud would not have fabricated those allegations. She pushed the Mifsud line from the very beginning - http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mifsud-deeply-offended-20120320-1vi0y.html'>Mifsud deeply offended and has since shilled for him claiming in one article http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/symbolism-v-substance-20120525-1zaab.html'>Symbolism v Substance that "Mifsud sacrificed his reputation in the short-term to protect Davey".

Extraordinary, if its true that the AFL would be implicated in such deception.

My understanding was that Caro had the story but checked with MFC and found it to be baseless.

At the time if Stynes had been against tanking, i.e.he wanted that one "futile" extra win, I would have thought him a fool.

It never crossed my mind that he was a fool.

At the time if Stynes had been against tanking, i.e.he wanted that one "futile" extra win, I would have thought him a fool.

It never crossed my mind that he was a fool.

It follows that you think the previous board were fools because Paul Gardner says we didn't tank when he was around.

It follows that you think the previous board were fools because Paul Gardner says we didn't tank when he was around.

I never liked Gardner. But I suspect he won't lose any sleep.

I remember he went on some walk years ago for a noble cause (I think Fan was on it too - it may have been Oxfam) and his comments annoyed me. It wasn't so much that he was on the walk, but that there are far more important things in life than games of footy. And that's true, btw, but it wasn't what I wanted to hear from the Chairman of my club.

Fool ? In a footy sense I think he was. He never struck me as a "footy" person.

Gardner wanted to make the Demons "The Melbourne Inc. "

there was some merit in his vision, but it also made it less of a club.

Jimmy as a champion of the game and through his work with REACH realized that without the club there is no business.

The renovations continue...

Jimmy summed it up pretty well about the Gardner board (in the end, I must say they did provide over some finals series). By 2008, they were just serving time. I'm not sure Paul was as uniting a figure head as Jimmy but for a while there, the club was performing on the field. They also made some major mistakes (the bloody minded obsession with China, the turnover of CEO's, the hiring of Dean Bailey).

I remember he went on some walk years ago for a noble cause (I think Fan was on it too - it may have been Oxfam)

It was. The walk started on Friday at 8.00am from Wheelers Hill and finished on top of Donna Buang, it was 100km. People walked in teams of 4 and there were a number of checkpoints along the way. The team couldn't continue if more than one person dropped out.

I saw Paul that day and said "I'll see you at the footy tomorrow". I made it because my team finished by about 9.00am Saturday but Paul's didn't finish until 8.00pm that night.

I doubt Paul's absence influenced the result but he received plenty of praise from the community and plenty of angst from the supporters and I reckon our sponsors loved it.

Edited January 20, 201312 yr by Fan

It was. The walk started on Friday at 8.00am from Wheelers Hill and finished on top of Donna Buang, it was 100km. People walked in teams of 4 and there were a number of checkpoints along the way. The team couldn't continue if more than one person dropped out.

I saw Paul that day and said "I'll see you at the footy tomorrow". I made it because my team finished by about 9.00am Saturday but Paul's didn't finish until 8.00pm that night.

I doubt Paul's absence influenced the result but he received plenty of praise from the community and plenty of angst from the supporters and I reckon our sponsors loved it.

If I recall corectly we received a lot of flack from the media as a result of his absence.

At the time I didnt think much of it but coupled with his, "there are more important things than football", it started to worry me and I guess a lot of our supporters.

It was. The walk started on Friday at 8.00am from Wheelers Hill and finished on top of Donna Buang, it was 100km. People walked in teams of 4 and there were a number of checkpoints along the way. The team couldn't continue if more than one person dropped out.

I saw Paul that day and said "I'll see you at the footy tomorrow". I made it because my team finished by about 9.00am Saturday but Paul's didn't finish until 8.00pm that night.

I doubt Paul's absence influenced the result but he received plenty of praise from the community and plenty of angst from the supporters and I reckon our sponsors loved it.

I did the Trailwalker a couple of years prior to that, and you're right, you have a team of 4 and its not possible to continue without all 4 members.

I guess it's a "safety in numbers" thing, and it's monitored at checkpoints.

And although he could have powered through and finished with plenty of time to attend the match, you are at the mercy of your fellow team members' pace.

He could have actually just had someone else join his team in his place, but I don't mind that he did it.

I agree with BH that it was his attitude that annoyed me.

I would've accepted "unfortunately I have a prior commitment," but to downplay the importance of the first match with him as president just really got to me.

It was like he was saying that being president was just one of many hats that he wears on different occasions.

I want someone fully committed and devoted to the role.

Mind you, I'd probably have said something similar off the cuff.

It just required some forethought and preparation, and once again, I think that was indicative of how seriously he took the role.

If I recall corectly we received a lot of flack from the media as a result of his absence.

At the time I didnt think much of it but coupled with his, "there are more important things than football", it started to worry me and I guess a lot of our supporters.

The sad part robbieF is that it was right at the start of his first year that I remember.

The statement is correct but not one for the Chairman of an AFL team IMO.

I did the Trailwalker a couple of years prior to that, and you're right, you have a team of 4 and its not possible to continue without all 4 members.

I guess it's a "safety in numbers" thing, and it's monitored at checkpoints.

And although he could have powered through and finished with plenty of time to attend the match, you are at the mercy of your fellow team members' pace.

He could have actually just had someone else join his team in his place, but I don't mind that he did it.

I agree with BH that it was his attitude that annoyed me.

I would've accepted "unfortunately I have a prior commitment," but to downplay the importance of the first match with him as president just really got to me.

It was like he was saying that being president was just one of many hats that he wears on different occasions.

I want someone fully committed and devoted to the role.

Mind you, I'd probably have said something similar off the cuff.

It just required some forethought and preparation, and once again, I think that was indicative of how seriously he took the role.

Sad but true Jose

It was like he was saying that being president was just one of many hats that he wears on different occasions.

I want someone fully committed and devoted to the role.

That is exactly what PG was saying.

The MFC was another activity he was involved in, one of many.

AFL needs more committment than that.

That said the PG Board had some good ideas, but they never finished anything...Plans were drawn up...

Edited January 21, 201312 yr by why you little

Stynes was involved with a charity. Gardner was involved in a charity.

Both were committed to the cause of MFC.