It's not a huge issue to me if an article is critical of Melbourne. It's when you run a vendetta like Caro has is when I take exception.

and the AFL's persecution of us to aid its own Imagery.

fall guy, fall guy, is there a fall guy. or fall Gal.

I agree that wasn't particularly insightful but I simply found your post very boring.

I have been on the end of moderation I didn't agree with being banned by RR for suggesting CS may have turned Kero down for a date. I thought it was harmless and a ban without warning was way over the top and so I took it up with the site owner who was more than reasonable and reinstated me. They won't always get it right but for the most part I think they do a great job. There are of course other forums which are less moderated with a greater divergence of views that you might find meet your needs better.

As for being a life member, as an interstate follower I really appreciate the training reports etc. we get over the summer to see how things are progressing so I was more that happy to pay the small on off fee to contribute to the running of the site which in turn made me a life member rather than simply being complicit in any views expressed here. I am sure you would be listened to if you were able to summons up a little more substance to your posts.

Toast,

I wouldn't even think of censoring you for the above comments, boorish as they may be. This is a forum and if you want to make a monkey out of yourself, you're free to do so.

But if you try using the same coarse language as those who we have had to give a holiday to recently, you'll find that unlike the AFL we're pretty consistent in dealing with those who break our rules.

Now please get on with the matters at hand.

Now now Jack don't present yourself as the diplomat now mate. You personally locked then deleted a thread on this very topic I started a few months ago!

You also ignored information provided to you about a poster who was deleted for 6 months for calling someone a pissant. I imagine you find my post 'boorish' because you are sick of me and others finding flaws in the loosely applied protocols that apply to the mods and their mates and the rest of us.

I've said my bit and feel the better for doing so. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

Bring on Round 1.

what are your views on the "Tanking" issue Toast?

Thanks for asking WYL and maybe just what I need...

We tanked. Big time. The club officials that is, not the players, never the players.

I think, and it has been suggested to me by someone who has had access to the AFL, that the whole investigation proceeded without Vlad's approval. It was Adrian Anderson acting off his own bat. This is the simple reason why we have been singled out. The AFL know they are in a no-win situation. We can take this whole scenario to court and comprehensively not only win but reveal the absurdity of the whole investigation in the process.

I, like others, believe the 'investigation' has in fact, been for the majority, a negotiated stand-off, with both parties looking for a way out of a situation that should not have eventuated while saving as much 'face' and money in the process.

Now now Jack don't present yourself as the diplomat now mate. You personally locked then deleted a thread on this very topic I started a few months ago!

You also ignored information provided to you about a poster who was deleted for 6 months for calling someone a pissant. I imagine you find my post 'boorish' because you are sick of me and others finding flaws in the loosely applied protocols that apply to the mods and their mates and the rest of us.

I've said my bit and feel the better for doing so. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

Bring on Round 1.

Gee you've got a thin skin. I don't agree with the way the mods operate all the time, one in particular, but they own the site so they make the rules. You either accept them or move on.

Definition; Good Journalist - Someone who agrees with my opinion.

You're accusing me of being shallow. Your choice.

I don't make an assertion about a journalist on the back of one article. I'm a little biased, because he impressed me immensely over a beer about 15 years ago and I've taken a keen interest in his articles since then. I also listen to him speak occasionally on 3AW. His footy acumen is first class as are his articles.

I could listen to a biased supporter like PF, who burbles about Americanisms such as "baloney", or I can make an assessment about a non biased journalist who I rate such as Niall. An internet nuffie, or the accomplished journalist ? Hmm, tough choice.

An internet nuffie, or the accomplished journalist ? Hmm, tough choice.

You're getting good at this whole irony thing...

You're getting good at this whole irony thing...

I know you follow me closely Stu, really closely, so you'd agree that I've often referred to myself as an "internet nuffie". We all are.

I know you follow me closely Stu, really closely, so you'd agree that I've often referred to myself as an "internet nuffie". We all are.

May come across as mean spirited sometimes, but I'm generally just trying to get you to lighten up. We're all doing it tough with this thing, and you seem quite the serious chap.

May come across as mean spirited sometimes, but I'm generally just trying to get you to lighten up. We're all doing it tough with this thing, and you seem quite the serious chap.

I don't know how you come across, Stu. I just know that you're like some others that seem to have a fascination with my contributions. If I don't like a poster I usually don't interact with them, but it seems that's not the mudus operandi of many on here.

As for "lightening up" ? I don't tend to crack jokes or overly interact with strangers.

Now now Jack don't present yourself as the diplomat now mate. You personally locked then deleted a thread on this very topic I started a few months ago!

You also ignored information provided to you about a poster who was deleted for 6 months for calling someone a pissant. I imagine you find my post 'boorish' because you are sick of me and others finding flaws in the loosely applied protocols that apply to the mods and their mates and the rest of us.

I've said my bit and feel the better for doing so. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

Bring on Round 1.

If I did lock and allegedly close a thread on tanking that you started a few months ago, I don't remember it.

Over the time, some threads on tanking have been merged with others because they offended against our policy of having multiple threads.

If you have details about the thread you claim I closed or deleted, I'll investigate the circumstances if you PM them.If I find something out as a result, I'll let you know.

(On the odd occasion, I have been known to close threads but closed threads can be deleted by anyone in the moderating group and once deleted, it's difficult to determine who deleted them. How is it that you are so sure I deleted your thread?)

Otherwise, I ask for the second time that you stick to the subject of the thread. I won't ask a third time.

Thanks for asking WYL and maybe just what I need...

We tanked. Big time. The club officials that is, not the players, never the players.

I think, and it has been suggested to me by someone who has had access to the AFL, that the whole investigation proceeded without Vlad's approval. It was Adrian Anderson acting off his own bat. This is the simple reason why we have been singled out. The AFL know they are in a no-win situation. We can take this whole scenario to court and comprehensively not only win but reveal the absurdity of the whole investigation in the process.

I, like others, believe the 'investigation' has in fact, been for the majority, a negotiated stand-off, with both parties looking for a way out of a situation that should not have eventuated while saving as much 'face' and money in the process.

pretty much agree with that 100%

As long as this whole sham is finished off in court, otherwise it will hang over us.

That is of course if a no penalty handshake is agreed this week, but that is a dream i fear.

Just watched Offsiders on iView. CW will soon win a gold medal for reverse cycling.

At bottom she is now saying that others tanked but you won't find evidence that others had a 'vault'-like meeting (which seems to be the only evidence she knows of).

Maybe you won't find it, but if you don't look, with or without coercive powers, you certainly won't find it.

I know you follow me closely Stu, really closely, so you'd agree that I've often referred to myself as an "internet nuffie". We all are.

And some people (not you) think Caroline Wilson's an accomplished journalist so everything she writes must be true.

And some people (not you) think Caroline Wilson's an accomplished journalist so everything she writes must be true.

There are a couple on here and Demonology that jumped in and sang her praises but now must wish they had waited for a bit.

Just watched Offsiders on iView. CW will soon win a gold medal for reverse cycling.

At bottom she is now saying that others tanked but you won't find evidence that others had a 'vault'-like meeting (which seems to be the only evidence she knows of).

Maybe you won't find it, but if you don't look, with or without coercive powers, you certainly won't find it.

"others tanked but you won't find evidence that others had a 'vault'-like meeting"

Really?

I would suggest that an admission by Richmond's coach of 2007 that he did nothing to win a particular game that year which resulted in his club securing its current skipper in that year's draft would be far more compelling, direct and conclusive evidence that Richmond breached the AFL's rules.

Perhaps, Garry Lyon might see fit to ask her about that on Thursday night and Wilson could write a cheque to the AFL for $500k on national TV on behalf of her pathetic and disgusting club to save it months of trouble and help the Toigs get off the rap lightly.

And some people (not you) think Caroline Wilson's an accomplished journalist so everything she writes must be true.

"Once upon a Time", there was an accomplished fairy journo' who got in deep with the wrong crowd & caught fleas & other scourges.

...she lost her,,, integrity. to say the least.

"others tanked but you won't find evidence that others had a 'vault'-like meeting"

Really?

I would suggest that an admission by Richmond's coach of 2007 that he did nothing to win a particular game that year which resulted in his club securing its current skipper in that year's draft would be far more compelling, direct and conclusive evidence that Richmond breached the AFL's rules.

But isn't all of this just arguing around the periphery ? The club is negotiating an outcome that will protect us from major downsides, while attempting to allow the AFL to save some face.

This thread has gone for 111 pages of exactly the same postings page after page.

I wonder what we would have posted if there was no tanking probe.

All it has achieved for me is I now know who hates who on Demonland!

I wish Offsiders on the ABC was an hour long program because the articulate, intelligent and reasonable Gerard Whateley was taking it up to Caroline Wilson with reason and logic.

I will need to watch it again, but interestingly Wilson has again changed her tune since Friday saying the fine would likely be "watered down" and wasn't as assured as her article suggested on Friday.

EDIT: It will be on iView on the ABC website later, worth a watch.

I find Gerard Whately to be one of the better journalists going around, the guy calls it as he sees it, you have to respect that.

But isn't all of this just arguing around the periphery ? The club is negotiating an outcome that will protect us from major downsides, while attempting to allow the AFL to save some face.

We have to wait to hear the actual charges, but from the very spotty evidence we've been presented with, would the AFL not save face if they announced that there was insufficient evidence that Melbourne did anything in violation of league rules? Would it not also be better for the AFL's image to be able to say that they conducted an exhaustive examination into a tanking case and found that the club in question (and by default the AFL also) was clean?

But isn't all of this just arguing around the periphery ? The club is negotiating an outcome that will protect us from major downsides, while attempting to allow the AFL to save some face.

It's a different but connected issue BH.

I was addressing Wilson's comment that you would need 'vault-like' evidence (whatever that means) to find another club guilty of tanking and it's clear that other evidence already exists in the case of Richmond and would no doubt be found in the case of Carlton.

There is a body of law that applies to this case, called "administrative law" that Redleg mentioned earlier that should answer your query about whether its on the periphery or not.

But isn't all of this just arguing around the periphery ? The club is negotiating an outcome that will protect us from major downsides, while attempting to allow the AFL to save some face.

Very true. But since us Demonlanders are not involved in those negotiations, all we can do is argue around the periphery. Hopefully for only a few more days at most

It's a different but connected issue BH.

I was addressing Wilson's comment that you would need 'vault-like' evidence (whatever that means) to find another club guilty of tanking and it's clear that other evidence already exists in the case of Richmond and would no doubt be found in the case of Carlton.

There is a body of law that applies to this case, called "administrative law" that Redleg mentioned earlier that should answer your query about whether its on the periphery or not.

Just to be clear when I mentioned CW was talking about vault-like evidence I wasn't quoting her words, just the thrust of her remarks.

The possible charges have been released. There are three of them. Surely, there must be someone at the Age with enough brains to attempt an analysis of how the so-called facts as presented in the media over the past months fit in with those charges.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you just lambaste them if they did that ? Wouldn't you accuse them of turning unsubstantiated rumour and hearsay of past events and presenting them as fact ?

But isn't all of this just arguing around the periphery ? The club is negotiating an outcome that will protect us from major downsides, while attempting to allow the AFL to save some face.

The AFL jumped in to this investigation boots and all, did they consider the consequences of our being found innocent of all charges, i doubt it.

If the AFL have lost face and the only way they can restore it is to trump up a charge or two against us, stuff them, why should we help them? They should have had a wide ranging review of tanking, not just targeted what they considered the softest target.

We shouldn't have to bear the consequence of their stupidity.