Hi all,

I have refrained from posting on this topic as I like 99% of people on here have no idea what was in the AFL report or the MFC's response and also have no idea when and what the AFL will do with regards to the end of this investigation. Like the vast majority of people on here all I have is the reporting of a sensationalist and untrustworthy football media and the arguably even more biased views of my fellow demonlanders, however four things have really peeved me about the reporting of this issue by Caro:

1. Belief: I thought it was truly disgusting and was dissappointed Gary didn't pick Caro up on it when she went around the table and asked Hutchy and Lloyd whether or not they believed Melbourne tried to lose games in 2009. The fact is anyone can believe whatever the hell they like, many on here believe we tanked and they are entitled to their opinion, but the fact some people believe it, or even the majority, means nothing with regard to charging the Melbourne football club. Not one person on that panel, or anywhere that I have seen, has offered definitive proof that Melbourne issued a directive to lose games. We have all heard about the "vibe" the "gist" the "Mabo" that because Melbourne stood to gain from a priority pick they would have thrown matches. But no proof. As for experimenting and playing players out of position the fact is clubs must be allowed to do this as sometimes they perform better in the new position and sometimes they don't, but without the right to experiment coaches of bottom placed teams are basically sealed to their fate. Also for the record, statistically Brad Miller did better in the middle than he had done in the forward line in the Richmond game, as did Johnson in the backline. The fact a majority of people believe something has more to do with the way it is presented to them by the media than any empirical proof, the fact is many people believed (and some astoundingly still believe) that Lance Armstrong never took drugs.

2. Credibility: For Caro to state that Gary had no credibility on the tanking issue as he is a friend of people involved and loves the club whilst simultaneously stating the the reason Melbourne should be charged for tanking is that 'there were splits within the club resulting in disinfranchised former employees coming forward' on Offsiders this morning is hypocrisy in the extreme. So those that support the current administration have no credibility whilst those who want to bring it down have credibility? As I have said in the past it is easy for former employees, particularly those with an axe to grind, to take pot shots at the club, in fact it makes them look better as it allows them to justify their removal from the club with very little scope for punishment. If anything there is equal credibility amongst both groups then to not hear from those that support the club is presenting the same biased, unproven and acidic commentary that we have received on this issue so far.

3. Facts: So far the only piece of evidence we the public have heard from Caro is about a comment at a single meeting. For a start to coordinate half a season's worth of thrown games would take far more than one meeting. But also all we have heard is that there was one comment, that may or may not have been a joke which has sparked this reporter into calling our club "pathetic and disgusting" and any number of other slurs. Also this is not on its own definitive proof as it would require the majority of the Melbourne FD taking it as a directive and putting it into action to make it tanking. If this is the only factual piece of evidence of our football club tanking that Caro has then her slander against the club is unjustified in the extreme.

4. Precedent: First off there is no such thing as an unofficial response from an organisation, there is the official response and a whole bunch of hearsay. However, to say that the argument that other clubs actions have no bearing on the Melbourne case is "childish" is ignorant in the extreme. If Dean Bailey is found guilty of not coaching to his utmost, in what will be a retrospective judgement then this precedent must be applied to all AFL coaches and other coaches guilty of the same action in a similar period must receive the same charge. Had the AFL brought in a new description this year of what not coaching to your utmost meant then other coaches from previous eras would be spared. But if this judgement is made against Bailey then Wallace and several other coaches must also be scrutinised. As a result the AFL could find that the practice was so widespread that a retrospective judgment would have to be made against number of clubs which may make the decision moot.

Also, since when is having a thorough, clever, well thought out official legal defence a bad thing?

Anyway, thats been my peeves, in the past I have had a large amount of time for Caro but her reporting on this issue and the Drugs fiasco has made me seriously doubt her credibility. Here's hoping theres no charges at all when it is announced.

I don't tend to crack jokes or overly interact with strangers.

Glad we cleared that up.

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!

Actually, I'd take the opposing view. Under the circumstances, and given the seriousness of the allegations, the discussions have been fairly restrained and even respectful IMHO. If you want to see some real hate, head out onto the Main Board on Bigfooty. But you'll need to wash your hands afterwards.

The journos are prepared to have a stab at our likely penalties - but none of got to the nub of the matter - what charges are behind the penalties?

Don has said that the clubs "official" don't include any of Caro's "unofficial defences". What do they include then? I'd like to bet that they directly to the charges themselves.

1. "bringing the game into disrepute" - no charge to answer because the concept of tanking in the AFL was well accepted prior to 2009 - and had been factored into the "reputation of the AFL" well before Melbourne lost a few late season games

2. " tampering with the draft" - no charges to answer because their is no condition on games won and lost in the draft rules - their is no provision for the AFL to review the nature of wins and losses - a win is a win and a loss is a loss ............ no tampering there!

Nothing Wilson has written - or presumably the investigators have researched - explains - let alone proves - that Melbourne's actions had one iota of an effect on the reputation of the AFL competition. I reckon a court would throw out that charge in less than 30 minutes. The tampering charge might take a little more time - but the AFL can't clearly prove we lost on purpose - much less how that constitutes tampering with a draft - the details of which had not been finalised at the time

Deejammin's post is a great summary of the mainstream situation - but I reckon the two points above - which Caro hasn't even thought about - kill the whole thing stone dead - regardless of any sympathy for a weak club

What absolutely stinks is the fact that Car's poison pen has done enormous damage to our brand - even though ( as I have explained) we have no case to answer!

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.

No 'Ben', I think to a greater of lesser degree it applies to all of us. We tend to follow those with opinions, views or style of writing we like.

I'm not a listener of AW at all these days, Mitchell I'm just way over (opinion) and I've always thought Ross was better with Dennis on RRR but it was Rex who did the job and turned me off and I've never really turned back on. Because of this I never really listened to or rated Rohan Connelly until he came to SEN and maybe I'm biased to his view (one of the few in the media who believe) that we recruited well this year.

I like Pat Smith, a good writer who is not afraid to express a contrary view and argue it well. I know most on here can't stand him but unlike too many of his colleagues he doesn't seem beholden to city hall.

I know you like to think about your football so I will take in what your man Jake has to say with interest, unfortunately I wouldn't give you 2 bob for most of the so called footy journo's who seem better equipped to handle gossip and ill informed opinion.

....

Also, since when is having a thorough, clever, well thought out official legal defence a bad thing?

It's presented as a bad thing when you want to cast a nasty slur on your opponent. After all, in many circles you can't say anything nastier about someone than say they are 'clever'. If anyone wanted proof of CW's malicious intent, that remark of hers would be the clincher. I expect this is obvious to all other commentators but for some reason they have held back from jumping on her.

Hoopla:

The journos are prepared to have a stab at our likely penalties - but none of got to the nub of the matter - what charges are behind the penalties?

Absolutely - it is amazing how much attention is given to penalties and not to the charges. Typical in-depth analysis by the media.

Just watched "Offsiders" from this morning. Gerard Whately had Caro on toast..she talked over him as usual.

Take it all the way Demons. Regardless of what others think clear your name of these lame excuses, and that is what they are.

Future Sponsorships & future player signings all hinge on this.

Nobody wants to be associated with a club that admitted Match Fixing.

If any of these charges do stick then 5-6 other clubs can stand outside and wait their turn.

Hi all,

I have refrained from posting on this topic as I like 99% of people on here have no idea what was in the AFL report or the MFC's response and also have no idea when and what the AFL will do with regards to the end of this investigation. Like the vast majority of people on here all I have is the reporting of a sensationalist and untrustworthy football media and the arguably even more biased views of my fellow demonlanders, however four things have really peeved me about the reporting of this issue by Caro:

1. Belief: I thought it was truly disgusting and was dissappointed Gary didn't pick Caro up on it when she went around the table and asked Hutchy and Lloyd whether or not they believed Melbourne tried to lose games in 2009. The fact is anyone can believe whatever the hell they like, many on here believe we tanked and they are entitled to their opinion, but the fact some people believe it, or even the majority, means nothing with regard to charging the Melbourne football club. Not one person on that panel, or anywhere that I have seen, has offered definitive proof that Melbourne issued a directive to lose games. We have all heard about the "vibe" the "gist" the "Mabo" that because Melbourne stood to gain from a priority pick they would have thrown matches. But no proof. As for experimenting and playing players out of position the fact is clubs must be allowed to do this as sometimes they perform better in the new position and sometimes they don't, but without the right to experiment coaches of bottom placed teams are basically sealed to their fate. Also for the record, statistically Brad Miller did better in the middle than he had done in the forward line in the Richmond game, as did Johnson in the backline. The fact a majority of people believe something has more to do with the way it is presented to them by the media than any empirical proof, the fact is many people believed (and some astoundingly still believe) that Lance Armstrong never took drugs.

2. Credibility: For Caro to state that Gary had no credibility on the tanking issue as he is a friend of people involved and loves the club whilst simultaneously stating the the reason Melbourne's should be charged for tanking is that 'there were splits within the club resulting in disinfranchised former employees coming forward' on Outsiders this morning is hypocrisy in the extreme. So those that support the current administration have no credibility whilst those who want to bring it down have credibility? As I have said in the past it is easy for former employees, particularly those with an axe to grind, to take pot shots at the club, in fact it makes them look better as it allows them to justify their removal from the club with very little scope for punishment. If anything there is equal credibility amongst both groups and to not hear from those that support the club is presenting the same biased, unproven and acidic commentary that we have received on this issue so far.

3. Facts: So far the only piece of evidence we the public have heard from Caro is about a comment at a single meeting. For a start to coordinate half a season's worth of thrown games would take far more than one meeting. But also all we have heard is that there was one comment, that may or may not have been a joke which has sparked this reporter into calling our club "pathetic and disgusting" and any number of other slurs. Also this is not on its own definitive proof as it would require the majority of the Melbourne FD taking it as a directive and putting it into action to make it tanking. If this is the only factual piece of evidence of our football club tanking that Caro has then her slander against the club is unjustified in the extreme.

4. Precedent: First off there is no such thing as an unofficial response from an organisation, there is the official response and a whole bunch of hearsay. However, to say that the argument that other clubs actions have no bearing on the Melbourne case, or is "childish" is ignorant in the extreme. If Dean Bailey is found guilty of not coaching to his utmost, in what will be a retrospective judgement then this precedent mus be applied to all AFL coaches and other coaches guilty of the same action in a similar period must receive the same charge. had the AFL brought in a new description this year of what not coaching to your utmost meant then other coaches from previous eras would be spared. But if this judgement is made against Bailey then Wallace and several other coaches must also be scrutinised. As a result the AFL could find that the practice was so widespread that a retrospective judgment would have to be made against number of clubs which may make the decision moot.

Also, since when is having a thorough, clever, well thought out official legal defence a bad thing?

Anyway, thats been my peeves, in the past I have had a large amount of time for Caro but her reporting on this issue and the Drugs fiasco has made me seriously doubt her credibility. Here's hoping theres no charges at all when it is announced.

Lots of this I would like to have said if I had taken the time to do so.

I will thus just add I thought Tim Lane's artical today (Sun 17) was

grappling with the broad context which made the entire issue complex. I

believe the AFL would have been far better off, drawing a line in the

sand once the priority pick was removed, held a moritorium and invited

clubs to come up with their opinions on what was acceptable team

management (eg Dockers leaving their best doz players home in their game

against hawks in Launceston the week before the finals) Vlad is a heavy

handed autocrate who does not see much value in the opinions of others -

it seems to me. Hence he missed a better opportunity than the root he

took

Bad rules set the sporting tone

Bad rules set the sporting tone

"Does the AFL really believe every team, coach, and player is performing to their limits? And if it's accepted they aren't, how is this different from the performance of a team at the [censored] end of a lost season?"

[censored]? lol

"Does the AFL really believe every team, coach, and player is performing to their limits? And if it's accepted they aren't, how is this different from the performance of a team at the [censored] end of a lost season?"

[censored]? lol

that would be an excellent opening question in a courtroom.

Start proceedings on our terms.........

One of my favourite periods as a Dee's supporter was the John Northey period. Northey was a straight shooter who ran with an "us against them" philosophy for motivation . If there is one good thing to possibly come out of this whole affair is we can rightfully claim the tag of the persocuted underdog. Which ever side of the fence you sit ( tank or no tank, court or acceptance), I think we can all agree that we have been treated unfairly to some degree. We can now stand tall as the underdogs and bad boys of this competition and if were smart enough use it to our advantage. This brain wave came to me this arvo as I valiantly defended the dees at a bbq , whilst might I say under the influence of a considerable amount of "Little creatures Pale Ale". BTW the consensus of the group after I brow beat them with "the facts",was that we have been treated as scapegoats for the AFL incompetence.

Just watched "Offsiders" from this morning. Gerard Whately had Caro on toast..she talked over him as usual.

Take it all the way Demons. Regardless of what others think clear your name of these lame excuses, and that is what they are.

Future Sponsorships & future player signings all hinge on this.

Nobody wants to be associated with a club that admitted Match Fixing.

If any of these charges do stick then 5-6 other clubs can stand outside and wait their turn.

Why do you think Eddie was calling on a nill all draw.

One of my favourite periods as a Dee's supporter was the John Northey period. Northey was a straight shooter who ran with an "us against them" philosophy for motivation . If there is one good thing to possibly come out of this whole affair is we can rightfully claim the tag of the persocuted underdog. Which ever side of the fence you sit ( tank or no tank, court or acceptance), I think we can all agree that we have been treated unfairly to some degree. We can now stand tall as the underdogs and bad boys of this competition and if were smart enough use it to our advantage. This brain wave came to me this arvo as I valiantly defended the dees at a bbq , whilst might I say under the influence of a considerable amount of "Little creatures Pale Ale". BTW the consensus of the group after I brow beat them with "the facts",was that we have been treated as scapegoats for the AFL incompetence.

Yes. We must get stronger and wiser from all this, wherever it finishes. I do not think the MFC have even started yet. Sure hope not anyway. The Club must let off some steam. We have been under attack since June 2012. Relentlessly.

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 ?

I'll correct you because you're wrong.

Neither one of us is clairvoyant and I have no idea how they would deal with the subject. It would probably be preferable for one of the Fairfax people who deals with legal issues to look into it - we'd probably get a balanced and informative article with which I would take no issue.

Memo to all. The media is best GUESSING on the basis of their "informants" which to date have substantiated sfa !!

I await the official Melbourne return of play.

Just watched "Offsiders" from this morning. Gerard Whately had Caro on toast..she talked over him as usual.

Take it all the way Demons. Regardless of what others think clear your name of these lame excuses, and that is what they are.

Future Sponsorships & future player signings all hinge on this.

Nobody wants to be associated with a club that admitted Match Fixing.

If any of these charges do stick then 5-6 other clubs can stand outside and wait their turn.

Agree re CW.

Actually, I think Roy Masters had her cooked. She stated that the NFL were the major targets in the drug inquiry; Masters coolly explained how she would have absolutely no idea (with no access to the information) how much either code was implicated. Cooked. Just shooting her mouth off.

And she bleated on about there being "lots of evidence" against Melbourne. Other than the single line quoted from CC, there is none.

Shouting it louder and louder will not make it so. Just making a self grandiosing goose of herself; talk about self-important.

Media outlets should be looking at their contracts with her.

Bad rules set the sporting tone

Good article from Tim Lane who makes a suitcase full of good sense and is far superior to his co-writers at the Age Wilson and Niall.

To my mind, the existing rule is bad law and it's lack of execution against a succession of others before Melbourne makes the current investigation a farce.

That quote comes from me - in the OP to this thread.

I'm not going to go on about great minds thinking alike but when bad rules are applied selectively by an administrative body like the AFL, it leaves a bad smell. We've already seen how the AFLCA wanted those rules changed after the Kreuzer Cup and the Paul Roos incident (2007/8) but Demetriou kept on sticking to his guns that the rules were adequate, tanking didn't exist and list management was permitted.

The AFL should follow Eddie's advice and call it a nil all draw and go after the real scourge of the game - the drug cheats and the lousy journos who think they know everything.

They'll be looking at her contracts all right - and probably giving her a raise.

Hate to say it, but controversy and hysteria are her tools in trade. She probably wanders on to this thread every so often and gives a little smile of satisfaction when she sees how many pages its got (bad luck for the poor sods who follow the team - she couldn't give a toss about them. Very distant person, I'd imagine - sometimes even the most knuckle-grazing neanderthal ex-players make me smile when you realize that they understand how much the people in the stands love the game )

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.

Agree. I have also just watched it and saw without any shadow of a doubt, a woman with a clear agenda, she even talked over Whately to stop him making valid points about other clubs.

The best way to rid ourselves of CW is to avoid anything that has her name to it. If all the supporters who she has pizzed off do that... I speak of Bomber-fans, Kanga-fans, Dee-fans and more... then her media outlets shrink considerably. Imagine the effect of us all avoiding The Age, Football Confidential etc for a season (ON PRINCIPLE). This is the most effective action supporters can take. A fall in ratings inevitably results in a change in programing. After tomorrow, I recommend this action to rid our game of the parasite!

Hi all,

I have refrained from posting on this topic as I like 99% of people on here have no idea what was in the AFL report or the MFC's response and also have no idea when and what the AFL will do with regards to the end of this investigation. Like the vast majority of people on here all I have is the reporting of a sensationalist and untrustworthy football media and the arguably even more biased views of my fellow demonlanders, however four things have really peeved me about the reporting of this issue by Caro:

1. Belief: I thought it was truly disgusting and was dissappointed Gary didn't pick Caro up on it when she went around the table and asked Hutchy and Lloyd whether or not they believed Melbourne tried to lose games in 2009. The fact is anyone can believe whatever the hell they like, many on here believe we tanked and they are entitled to their opinion, but the fact some people believe it, or even the majority, means nothing with regard to charging the Melbourne football club. Not one person on that panel, or anywhere that I have seen, has offered definitive proof that Melbourne issued a directive to lose games. We have all heard about the "vibe" the "gist" the "Mabo" that because Melbourne stood to gain from a priority pick they would have thrown matches. But no proof. As for experimenting and playing players out of position the fact is clubs must be allowed to do this as sometimes they perform better in the new position and sometimes they don't, but without the right to experiment coaches of bottom placed teams are basically sealed to their fate. Also for the record, statistically Brad Miller did better in the middle than he had done in the forward line in the Richmond game, as did Johnson in the backline. The fact a majority of people believe something has more to do with the way it is presented to them by the media than any empirical proof, the fact is many people believed (and some astoundingly still believe) that Lance Armstrong never took drugs.

2. Credibility: For Caro to state that Gary had no credibility on the tanking issue as he is a friend of people involved and loves the club whilst simultaneously stating the the reason Melbourne's should be charged for tanking is that 'there were splits within the club resulting in disinfranchised former employees coming forward' on Outsiders this morning is hypocrisy in the extreme. So those that support the current administration have no credibility whilst those who want to bring it down have credibility? As I have said in the past it is easy for former employees, particularly those with an axe to grind, to take pot shots at the club, in fact it makes them look better as it allows them to justify their removal from the club with very little scope for punishment. If anything there is equal credibility amongst both groups and to not hear from those that support the club is presenting the same biased, unproven and acidic commentary that we have received on this issue so far.

3. Facts: So far the only piece of evidence we the public have heard from Caro is about a comment at a single meeting. For a start to coordinate half a season's worth of thrown games would take far more than one meeting. But also all we have heard is that there was one comment, that may or may not have been a joke which has sparked this reporter into calling our club "pathetic and disgusting" and any number of other slurs. Also this is not on its own definitive proof as it would require the majority of the Melbourne FD taking it as a directive and putting it into action to make it tanking. If this is the only factual piece of evidence of our football club tanking that Caro has then her slander against the club is unjustified in the extreme.

4. Precedent: First off there is no such thing as an unofficial response from an organisation, there is the official response and a whole bunch of hearsay. However, to say that the argument that other clubs actions have no bearing on the Melbourne case, or is "childish" is ignorant in the extreme. If Dean Bailey is found guilty of not coaching to his utmost, in what will be a retrospective judgement then this precedent mus be applied to all AFL coaches and other coaches guilty of the same action in a similar period must receive the same charge. had the AFL brought in a new description this year of what not coaching to your utmost meant then other coaches from previous eras would be spared. But if this judgement is made against Bailey then Wallace and several other coaches must also be scrutinised. As a result the AFL could find that the practice was so widespread that a retrospective judgment would have to be made against number of clubs which may make the decision moot.

Also, since when is having a thorough, clever, well thought out official legal defence a bad thing?

Anyway, thats been my peeves, in the past I have had a large amount of time for Caro but her reporting on this issue and the Drugs fiasco has made me seriously doubt her credibility. Here's hoping theres no charges at all when it is announced.

Good post.

They'll be looking at her contracts all right - and probably giving her a raise.

Hate to say it, but controversy and hysteria are her tools in trade. She probably wanders on to this thread every so often and gives a little smile of satisfaction when she sees how many pages its got (bad luck for the poor sods who follow the team - she couldn't give a toss about them. Very distant person, I'd imagine - sometimes even the most knuckle-grazing neanderthal ex-players make me smile when you realize that they understand how much the people in the stands love the game )

Sad but probably true re CW. None the less she has been wrong consistently throughout the whole saga. In fact, its hard to work out how much of a saga this would have even been without her!

My take on her and this. AA probably on his last chance to make an impact and protect himself from the up and coming GM, goes hard at us looking for a moral victory and to secure his position. Gets CW onside with all the inside info providing that she directs all the anger and shame at us instead of the faulty system of rules or AD. As long as we were the target then they could never be.

AA failed....and GM comes in. Realising the Dees have their backs to the wall with nothing to lose in a court fight ( a fight the AFL would almost certainly lose) he FINALLY reaches for the long overdue middle ground. CW, having done the AFL's dirty work gets caught holding the wrong story but wriggles out of it somehow with an increased salary and readership. Albeit one that now loathes her and will rejoice in her downfall. Seems wrong she carries on as if nothing ever happened now....but as you said a media witch is very different to a footy follower.

Agree re CW.

Actually, I think Roy Masters had her cooked. She stated that the NFL were the major targets in the drug inquiry; Masters coolly explained how she would have absolutely no idea (with no access to the information) how much either code was implicated. Cooked. Just shooting her mouth off.

And she bleated on about there being "lots of evidence" against Melbourne. Other than the single line quoted from CC, there is none.

Shouting it louder and louder will not make it so. Just making a self grandiosing goose of herself; talk about self-important.

Media outlets should be looking at their contracts with her.

Thought the same. Roy Masters is always good listening, doesn't mind stirring the pot a bit but usually can back it up.

Among other things, Whateley said that there was another club (Carlton) whose tactics were very close to if not worse than Melbourne's.

He then asked where the AFL investigation into tanking concerns was at this time. Wilson replied 'their heads were in the sand'.

Since Wilson then acknowledges this, it's strange that her attack has been solely directed at Melbourne over the past three months.

Were Schwab at Carlton maybe the whole media ("The Age") run vendetta would have turned out very differently, though of course there wouldn't have been dimwit Brock as the catalyst.