On 30/01/2013 at 00:30, old dee said:

Now you are letting your emotions get in the way of your judgement.

No, Gerard's judgements are getting in the way of my emotions, old dee.

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:19, hardtack said:

The irony being that he is commenting on a situation that he in no small part helped to create.

It's not ironic. All journos / media outlets want to set the agenda with their stories, and Healy and co. struck gold with this baby.

Interesting to note that the online headline on the Hun's website states that the Dees "wait to face the music'. As if there is any to face. More likely the tune will be "whistlin' Dixie".

Also interesting to read that according to the Hun, the AFL will make its decision, as to whether to lay charges, this week. I would suggest that if the timeline is correct, that is a hell of a quick turnaround, given the brief presented to us was in excess of 800 pages and I would have hoped our response would have been commensurately comprehensive..

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:33, McQueen said:

No, Gerard's judgements are getting in the way of my emotions, old dee.

That is another way of looking at it.

I just think we expect too much from "media People"

We know the beast just use it for the value it gives.

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:15, daisycutter said:

mfc submitted their response at approx 7pm last night

close of business?

Source DC?

If true you'd have to say that's pretty poor. Last minute revisions?

Looking forward now to some DL regulars to come out now and say that the board deserved to be sacked for getting it in late! - and conveniently not worrying about the fact that no charges will be laid.

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:39, binman said:

Source DC?

If true you'd have to say that's pretty poor. Last minute revisions?

Looking forward now to some DL regulars to come out now and say that the board to be sacked for getting it in late! - and conveniently not worrying about the fact that no charges will be laid.

Just heard on the Radio the AFL has acknowledged the MFC delivered their response at 7. PM last night.

I wonder why at 7, they have had weeks.

Tactic perhaps?

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:41, old dee said:

Just heard on the Radio the AFL has acknowledged the MFC delivered their response at 7. PM last night.

I wonder why at 7, they have had weeks.

Tactic perhaps?

I don't know if stupidity is a tactic.

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:33, Grapeviney said:

It's not ironic. All journos / media outlets want to set the agenda with their stories, and Healy and co. struck gold with this baby.

So essentially, Healy managed to strike a double blow? First the MFC by setting McLean up in that OTC interview, and now starting to put the boot into the AFL for what will happen to the MFC if found guilty... well, I do see some irony there.

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:43, rpfc said:

I don't know if stupidity is a tactic.

It looks poor but surely they are not that stupid.

What if there was a very late change of response?

Seems like the boss doesn't put in the long hours. Is he doing the old 9 to 5?

Wouldn't have thought an organisation like the AFL would shut up shop too early, the boss just got caught out.

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:41, old dee said:

Just heard on the Radio the AFL has acknowledged the MFC delivered their response at 7. PM last night.

I wonder why at 7, they have had weeks.

Tactic perhaps?

Grasping at straws but perhaps if Dean Baileys Laywer is Adelaide based and they were submitting a response jointly for all parties involved. Timezone difference and then the time required to collate the submission?

Either way, whilst it doesn't look good, I doubt that the AFL was left 'uninformed' of the timing of the response by the MFC.

OOOh.... or perhaps they faxed their submission back to the AFL, given it was 1000 pages originally, thats a big fax, would have taken a long time!

(I like that second excuse best!!)

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:47, rjay said:

Seems like the boss doesn't put in the long hours. Is he doing the old 9 to 5?

Wouldn't have thought an organisation like the AFL would shut up shop too early, the boss just got caught out.

Again

"Our club has today – in accordance with the agreed timeframe - provided its response to the AFL investigation," McLardy said.

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:48, Oucher said:

Grasping at straws but perhaps if Dean Baileys Laywer is Adelaide based and they were submitting a response jointly for all parties involved. Timezone difference and then the time required to collate the submission?

Either way, whilst it doesn't look good, I doubt that the AFL was left 'uninformed' of the timing of the response by the MFC.

OOOh.... or perhaps they faxed their submission back to the AFL, given it was 1000 pages originally, thats a big fax, would have taken a long time!

(I like that second excuse best!!)

The dog ate it!

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:48, Oucher said:

OOOh.... or perhaps they faxed their submission back to the AFL, given it was 1000 pages originally, thats a big fax, would have taken a long time!

A 9500 page Fink detailed response to the 800 page documentation lodged a few days before Christmas would be a more than adequate reply. Hopefully titled...'happy new year.' That will keep Gil busy. Poor Gil...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-01-30/demons-respond-to-tanking-allegations?utm_medium=RSS

An innocent mistake...

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:36, old dee said:

That is another way of looking at it.

I just think we expect too much from "media People"

We know the beast just use it for the value it gives.

you know you just might be right OD. There was a time when journalistic endeavors were recognised for their adherence to an ideal. The seeking and airing of truths .

Now any sportsperson with a claim assumes such mantel but without the aforementioned observances .

We ought not expect any real abilities and shouldn't be shocked by poor and coloured offerings.

Editing used to mean clarifying and refining for accuracy and understanding. Now its not so much editing as montage ! A little of this with a little of something else and we have "news" !!

Yes we se probably foolish to believe or expect otherwise .

  On 30/01/2013 at 01:00, McQueen said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-01-30/demons-respond-to-tanking-allegations?utm_medium=RSS

An innocent mistake...

MELBOURNE has described as "an innocent mistake" a comment from AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou suggesting the club had failed to respond to tanking allegations by Tuesday's deadline.

thats a terrible sentence!

  On 29/01/2013 at 23:58, Ben-Hur said:

And his initial "role" was nothing more than doing a job.

What a great job he did too, failing to ask THE most obvious question after Brock said the reason he left the MFC was because he didn't like what went on in 2009.

That question being "then why did you decide to go to Carlton after what happened there in 2007?'

The fact that three knowledgeable football journos did not ask that question seems odd to me.

So if they were just doing their job, then it'd be fair to say they were performing abysmally (which again is rather odd given I rate Gerard's commentary).

  On 30/01/2013 at 00:39, binman said:

Source DC?

If true you'd have to say that's pretty poor. Last minute revisions?

Looking forward now to some DL regulars to come out now and say that the board deserved to be sacked for getting it in late! - and conveniently not worrying about the fact that no charges will be laid.

3AW, they corrected an earlier statement from vlad after checking with the afl

Maybe Vlad ought to have engaged brain before mouth ?

  On 30/01/2013 at 01:22, Scoop Junior said:

What a great job he did too, failing to ask THE most obvious question after Brock said the reason he left the MFC was because he didn't like what went on in 2009.

That question being "then why did you decide to go to Carlton after what happened there in 2007?'

The fact that three knowledgeable football journos did not ask that question seems odd to me.

So if they were just doing their job, then it'd be fair to say they were performing abysmally (which again is rather odd given I rate Gerard's commentary).

The most obvious follow-up to Brock's answer was to keep pressing on about Melbourne.

Already had a bird in hand, why go for two in the bush?

What was Brock really going to say about Carlton?

'Melbourne tanked' is a much bigger story than 'Brock's a hypocrite'.

  On 29/01/2013 at 12:51, The Third Eye said:

Melbourne Demons respond to tanking allegations

i have no problems with what Healy is saying here.

Basically he says this problem is the fault of the AFL and that the MFC will go to court if charged.

I agree.

  On 30/01/2013 at 01:00, McQueen said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-01-30/demons-respond-to-tanking-allegations?utm_medium=RSS.

The Fat Controller is losing it if "he had no idea" that the MFC had lodged their reply on tuesday night.

It's your f$&@ing job to know such things Andrew.

I doubt very much whether you will be remembered as a good CEO.

HQ is a mess right now

  On 30/01/2013 at 01:48, why you little said:

i have no problems with what Healy is saying here.

Basically he says this problem is the fault of the AFL and that the MFC will go to court if charged.

I agree.

That's not the Healy article WYL, this one is: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/demons-financial-viability-at-risk-warns-healy-20130129-2djaz.html

And you think AD is losing it....