"Tanking"

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

An erroneuous view is just that, whether it's in the pages of the Age, or here.

Maybe, but it can be a s#!@load more damaging published as fact in a supposedly authoritative newspaper than as chatter on a supporters' thread.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I'm gonna side with Don on this one. Sorry Ben.

You can side all you like with whom you like. It means nothing to me.

I believe we tanked, as does every supporter I know. You don't. Bully for you.

[Sir Why You Little 36,989]

At least get it right ... she said one of the 'lame duck excuses' was that Melbourne was too weak to punish.

In other words, she's saying that's a poor excuse, not that Melbourne is weak.

Get it right!! I am reading the article right now.

New Paragraph...."And that Melbourne is too weak to punish..." Whether it is used as an excuse example or another sly dig is not really my issue. The fact she wrote it at all gives me the trots.

And as i said earlier...May we never forget it. That whole article is just putting the boot in....Well guess what. The Demon has just stood up....Time to return some fire.

[P-man 13,366]

You can side all you like with whom you like. It means nothing to me.

I believe we tanked, as does every supporter I know. You don't. Bully for you.

haha..no retraction of your ludicrous comment then?

Caro would be proud mate. Done well.

[mauriesy 7,261]

I think the title of "Head Football Columnist" on your business card might behoove you to fact check more than an Internet forum alias does.

If the natural corollary is that an internet forum can be 'looser' with checking facts, then I certainly wouldn't rely on what I read here.

[Hannibal 5,814]

haha..no retraction of your ludicrous comment then?

Caro would be proud mate. Done well.

Retract what comments ? That it was an accurate depiction of how this sorry saga has unfolded ? Of course it's accurate.

The club tanked as ineptly as any club possibly could and has brought the heat on itself.

This club has made some pathetic decisions over the last 6 years. And I don't mean tanking, as I supported it. But they even do that in a keystone cops fashion.

[Guest José Mourinho]

I think the greatest indictment upon the AFL is that they changed the priority pick rule.

It is, in effect, them conceding that they had created a situation where teams had an incentive to lose.

And that teams would manipulate the rules to their own advantage.

I think it's interesting to compare to the NBA, where despite having a lottery, teams quite openly shut up shop late in the season, content with only a good chance of receiving a high pick.

They rarely outright say it, but no efforts are made to hide it, and the cognoscenti understand that it really is just an attempt at making the best of a bad situation.

There's no artificial moral outrage from the media, but then again, Caro isn't an NBA beat writer...

[waynewussell 5,379]

Ben Hur... I visualise you from your avatar... A bottle blonde!

[Hannibal 5,814]

Ben Hur... I visualise you from your avatar... A bottle blonde!

PM me and we'll catch up at the next training session.

[Outside fifty 967]

Ben Hur... I visualise you from your avatar... A bottle blonde!

You say that likes it's a bad think. By all means have a go at Ben, but leave his Avatar alone.

[jumbo returns 6,740]

Time to cleanse.

Time to heal.

Punish and move on.

May the last 6 years never be spoken about again.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Retract what comments ? That it was an accurate depiction of how this sorry saga has unfolded ? Of course it's accurate.

The club tanked as ineptly as any club possibly could and has brought the heat on itself.

This club has made some pathetic decisions over the last 6 years. And I don't mean tanking, as I supported it. But they even do that in a keystone cops fashion.

Yes...and that argument can be separated from the one that desires us to get out of this incurring as little damage as possible, potentially improving the professionalism of the footy club in the process.

Edited February 13, 2013 by dandeeman

[bing181 9,196]

Retract what comments ? That it was an accurate depiction of how this sorry saga has unfolded ? Of course it's accurate.

It's obvious you enjoy this, but difficult to see how you can offer that when Don - who presumably has a detailed knowledge of the contents of the 800 pages together with our response - has indicated that the key points of Caro's article are in fact entirely INaccurate. Or, as he put it, just plain wrong.

As are you in this case. Though I accept, you don't do wrong.

[P-man 13,366]

Retract what comments ? That it was an accurate depiction of how this sorry saga has unfolded ? Of course it's accurate.

Have you read the article properly? What it depicts is the flimsy nature of the club's "stated excuses" for tanking.

Do you refute McLardy's statement? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from because I'm not sure how you can possibly call it an accurate article and expect anyone to take you seriously on this.

Edited February 13, 2013 by P_Man

[sue 9,099]

It was pleasing to read Don M's 'letter' to CW. It has been wise to say little until now, but when he was able to point out that she had MFC's response which is now in writing all wrong, it was time to go for the jugular. It will be interesting to see how much prominence this is given in tomorrows waste of newsprint.

So it looks like the 'unofficial' response was gleaned from Demonland as some cynics speculated. I hope the Bombers tear her to bits too. She epitomizes what is wrong with journalism today.

[Hannibal 5,814]

It's obvious you enjoy this, but difficult to see how you can offer that when Don - who presumably has a detailed knowledge of the contents of the 800 pages together with our response - has indicated that the key points of Caro's article are in fact entirely INaccurate. Or, as he put it, just plain wrong.

As are you in this case. Though I accept, you don't do wrong.

The article summed up what has been reported for months. So why hasn't Don refuted those insinuations earlier ?

But let's say that you and Don are right and that the article is inaccurate. Whoopeee. Does it mean we won't be charged ?

While some of you are childishly enjoying some point scoring it doesn't change what's transpiring. And no, I'm not enjoying the prospects of penalties. We can't afford the loss of any draft picks. I don't want the club penalised in any way. A FLAG is all that interests me.

I'm just not as excited and drawn to the low brow concerns about Wilson. She's not the key issue. The key issue is any decision the AFL makes and I still don't believe we should be found guilty. Wilson is a minor aside in all this, but the bulk of you wet yourselves over her views. Including a barrister, who I would have thought would be far less "emotional" and intrigued by her offerings. Each to their own.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Ben-Hur

[Hannibal 5,814]

Oh, and btw, I bet the MFC doesn't sue Fairfax, or Ms Wilson. Anyone disagree ?

[Guest José Mourinho]

I agree, but are you not concerned by the damage she does to the club's brand singlehandedly?

I guess, no point in being concerned about things that are out of your control... but then we may as well close this site downS

[Guest José Mourinho]

To clarify, the club wont.

Individuals might, but unlikely.

[sue 9,099]

The article summed up what has been reported for months. So why hasn't Don refuted those insinuations earlier ?

But let's say that you and Don are right and that the her article is inaccurate. Whoopeee. Does it mean we won't be charged ?

While some of you are childishly enjoying some point scoring it doesn't change what's transpiring. And no, I'm not enjoying the prospects of penalties. We can't afford the loss of any draft picks. I don't want the club penalised in any way. A FLAG is all that interests me.

I'm just not as excited and drawn to the low brow concerns of Wilson. She's not the key issue. The key issue is any decision the AFL makes and I still don't believe we should be found guilty. Wilson is a minor aside in all this, but the bulk of you wet yourselves over her views. Even a barrister, who I would have thought would be far less "emotional" and intrigued by her offerings. Each to their own.

You continue to amaze. Yes of course what the AFL decides is the only thing that matters. But as many have posted, the atmosphere she has created has made it harder for the AFL to clear us without looking weak. If you think CW's relentless attacks are not affecting the AFL you really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. It certainly is affecting the public and sponsor's perception of our club.

And now that Don shows clearly that her article today was purely invented spiteful rubbish, you still sort of defend her. How on earth can you say the article summed up what has been reported for months? I don't recall MFC's 'excuses' being reported before. Do you?

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Oh, and btw, I bet the MFC doesn't sue Fairfax, or Ms Wilson. Anyone disagree ?

Been discussed before. The opinion of those in the know was that the MFC can't sue, only individuals can. So it's a bit difficult to disagree.

[pitmaster 3,513]

You can side all you like with whom you like. It means nothing to me.

I believe we tanked, as does every supporter I know. You don't. Bully for you.

Get off your high horse BH.

What you think doesn't matter, just like what I think doesn't matter.

What McLardy's letter shows is that Caro based her comments on the MFC's defence on what she's read here...not on what the club really said.

[RickyJ45 407]

WJ - plz change thread title to tanking allegations ffs who are these sadomasochists leaking info with some agenda??? This is a public forum and Caro loves to dig here,

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

You continue to amaze. Yes of course what the AFL decides is the only thing that matters. But as many have posted, the atmosphere she has created has made it harder for the AFL to clear us without looking weak. If you think CW's relentless attacks are not affecting the AFL you really do believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. It certainly is affecting the public and sponsor's perception of our club.

And now that Don shows clearly that her article today was purely invented spiteful rubbish, you still sort of defend her. How on earth can you say the article summed up what has been reported for months? I don't recall MFC's 'excuses' being reported before. Do you?

The gospel according to BH:

“1. I’m right, you’re wrong.

“2. Even if I’m wrong, I’m right.

“3. Even if you’re right … hang on, that’s impossible, so I’ll

just refer to something else about which I’m right (even if I’m wrong).

“4. You still here? Go away.”

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

Oh, and btw, I bet the MFC doesn't sue Fairfax, or Ms Wilson. Anyone disagree ?

CS might.