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....

thanks mate. I am on the iphone. Much easier on a laptop.

And yes AD is losing it

Can we get over the slip by AD on when we responded, it is irrelevant to the real issue.

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..

No doubt. But it lends weight to those proposing that the AFL are reverse engineering the outcome.

The process is facade to deliver the outcome the AFL wants. The AFL would already have its outcome....hopefully "after an exhaustive investigation the AFL is satisfied the Club has no case to answer etc...."

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.

Not at all.

Easy answer. "I was not at Carlton in 2007 and I dont what had gone on during that period". End of story

Can we get over the slip by AD on when we responded, it is irrelevant to the real issue.

yes and no.

I would think it goes to how much care and attention is really being given.

This isnt the weekly shopping list its one of two major dilemmas for the dark empire.

The afl is just stuff up after another. AD is supposedly running this circus.

Not giving him any lattitude. Its his job to be ontop of it not fanning fires.

yes and no.

I would think it goes to how much care and attention is really being given.

This isnt the weekly shopping list its one of two major dilemmas for the dark empire.

The afl is just stuff up after another. AD is supposedly running this circus.

Not giving him any lattitude. Its his job to be ontop of it not fanning fires.

Didn't he say that he was keeping at arms length during this part of the process? Perhaps he really is, to the point that he is not getting involved in it...yet.

Not sure what that means. Just sayin'!

It's interesting if there is a single response from all parties facing possible charges - Bailey, Connolly, Schwab and the Board. IMO that's highly desirable from the everyone's pov but may not have been easy to achieve. I can imagine some discussion and negotiation right down to wire including "well we'll submit our own response then".

Of course hes keeping distance less he be smeared himself but you might summise hes is that far away now he isnt au fait with what is happening therefore maybe he ought not comment .

yes and no.

I would think it goes to how much care and attention is really being given.

This isnt the weekly shopping list its one of two major dilemmas for the dark empire.

The afl is just stuff up after another. AD is supposedly running this circus.

Not giving him any lattitude. Its his job to be ontop of it not fanning fires.

yes and no.

I would think it goes to how much care and attention is really being given.

This isnt the weekly shopping list its one of two major dilemmas for the dark empire.

The afl is just stuff up after another. AD is supposedly running this circus.

Not giving him any lattitude. Its his job to be ontop of it not fanning fires.

bb you are concentrating on the personalities and not the process.

The AFL know the MFC will go to court, we have to as our very existance is at stake.

They therefore have to make sure this in run properly.

Any attempt to use the AFL as a Kangaroo court will lead to them losing big time.

They cannot go outside the laws of the land here.

It will IMO not be a AD led get rid of this problem .

There is IMO a long way to go before this resolved.

Didn't the AFL article state that the AD's comment that the MFC were yet to respond was on a pre-recorded 3AW interview?

This is a perfectly logical explanation so settle down!

No doubt. But it lends weight to those proposing that the AFL are reverse engineering the outcome.

The process is facade to deliver the outcome the AFL wants. The AFL would already have its outcome....hopefully "after an exhaustive investigation the AFL is satisfied the Club has no case to answer etc...."

Not at all.

Easy answer. "I was not at Carlton in 2007 and I dont what had gone on during that period". End of story

You don't refrain from asking a question because of what the interviewee might say in response.

You ask the question and let the interviewee answer it themselves.

Didn't the AFL article state that the AD's comment that the MFC were yet to respond was on a pre-recorded 3AW interview?

This is a perfectly logical explanation so settle down!

where is the logic, let alone sense in making such a definitive statement before the expiry. Smacks of dumb.

Now is not the time for the AFL to bugger up this charade

Can we get over the slip by AD on when we responded, it is irrelevant to the real issue.

It was an issue 'Redleg' earlier in the day when what he said could have mean't a number of things but now we know it was a slip well it is as you say irrelevant.

where is the logic, let alone sense in making such a definitive statement before the expiry. Smacks of dumb.

Now is not the time for the AFL to bugger up this charade

Perhaps 3AW rang AD right on the true COB time of 5pm, and at that stage, the AFL had not received it?

Will we ever learn the truth at the end of this saga? Doubtful, but the "I told you so's" on here after it's all finished will be quite entertaining, considering none of of, that's right, absolutely NONE of us know any facts.

Perhaps 3AW rang AD right on the true COB time of 5pm, and at that stage, the AFL had not received it?

Will we ever learn the truth at the end of this saga? Doubtful, but the "I told you so's" on here after it's all finished will be quite entertaining, considering none of of, that's right, absolutely NONE of us know any facts.

it was apparently pre-recorded early this morning...................lets move on

I actually like Healy's has finally said what we all wanted someone in the media to acknowledge

Demetriou has also got to understand he has played a significant role in creating the environment for which four or five clubs have tanked. They have taken away the incentive, but his reluctance to accept what the whole world was telling him, his complete denial that tanking existed, allowed clubs to think they could get away with it. It was almost tacit approval.

I actually like Healy's has finally said what we all wanted someone in the media to acknowledge

Demetriou has also got to understand he has played a significant role in creating the environment for which four or five clubs have tanked. They have taken away the incentive, but his reluctance to accept what the whole world was telling him, his complete denial that tanking existed, allowed clubs to think they could get away with it. It was almost tacit approval.

Agree. Whatever people think of Healy's original motives and his standard of journalism at the Brock interview, and his club loyalty or otherwise, the statement above is something many of us have been desperately waiting to see in the media. And he has put it very bluntly. This sort of press should make the AFL think twice before deciding to clobber the Demons.

Not at all.

Easy answer. "I was not at Carlton in 2007 and I dont what had gone on during that period". End of story

So Brock didn't play against them in their 11 loss run or if not, see, hear or read anything about them in that period. Therefore unlike any other AFL football follower, let alone player, he would not have known what Carlton was doing during that 3 months.

Even "blind Freddie " knew what they were doing and it was discussed in the media as well. Wasn't their something called the "Kreuzer Cup"?

No doubt. But it lends weight to those proposing that the AFL are

So Brock didn't play against them in their 11 loss run or if not, see, hear or read anything about them in that period. Therefore unlike any other AFL football follower, let alone player, he would not have known what Carlton was doing during that 3 months.

Even "blind Freddie " knew what they were doing and it was discussed in the media as well. Wasn't their something called the "Kreuzer Cup"?

There is a difference between an easy answer and the real answer

Easy answer

" i went to a club that wanted me to take the pressure off Juddy and promised me lots of time in the middle. Carlton were going places and wanted me to be part of the success - I cant really comment on what happened before i got there because i wasnt there"

Now the real answer

" Carlton unexpectedly offered me more money and Melbourne didnt really want me. I would have joined Lance Armstrongs team if he would have offered"

Journos are after the "Gotcha" moment.

They had it when McLean fingered Melbourne for tanking.

It far outweighed the "Gotcha" moment they might have had by exposing Brock's double standards.

Journos are after the "Gotacha" moment.

They had it when McLean fingered Melbourne for tanking.

It far outweighed the "Gotcha" moment they might have had by exposing Brock's double standards.

on the night i agree

but what about subsequently either on otc or elsewhere? could have turned a big story into a bigger story

you have to ask yourself why the media backed off expanding the story

were they just banking it for future use or were there other reasons

Journos are after the "Gotacha" moment.

They had it when McLean fingered Melbourne for tanking.

It far outweighed the "Gotcha" moment they might have had by exposing Brock's double standards.

It only far outweighed the "Gotcha" moment but only because the media wanted it to happen that way. They did this by deliberately ignoring the fact that Brock denied on the programme that the word "tanking" applied to the situation but rather, chose to refer to the practice as "experimenting" which was exactly the terminology Vlad used when describing what Melbourne and other clubs were doing.

We all know or think we know what tanking is/was but by deliberately extending and widening the terminology of tanking, it took on legs of its own and became unstoppable. Vlad's absence overseas didn't help.

on the night i agree

but what about subsequently either on otc or elsewhere? could have turned a big story into a bigger story

you have to ask yourself why the media backed off expanding the story

were they just banking it for future use or were there other reasons

I actually think dc that they got taken by surprise on the night.

Then when the full impact started to unfold the only way out was silence.

Well the way they took perhaps.

Media commentators IMO operate on if we shut up now our part will get lost in the overall story.

only MFC people will remember our part and they are less than 1/20 of the general public.

So Brock didn't play against them in their 11 loss run or if not, see, hear or read anything about them in that period. Therefore unlike any other AFL football follower, let alone player, he would not have known what Carlton was doing during that 3 months.

Even "blind Freddie " knew what they were doing and it was discussed in the media as well. Wasn't their something called the "Kreuzer Cup"?

So he's a hypocrite. So what ?

So he's a hypocrite. So what ?

Being a hypocrite is one thing and being a liar is another.

Imagine if he was a both a hypocrite and a liar and this investigation was triggered by such a person and those who set him up?

Being a hypocrite is one thing and being a liar is another.

If I accept your premise that he's a liar (which I don't) so what ?

EDIT: he may have been lying about why he left, but he wasn't lying in that he thought Melbourne tanked. Either way, so what ? It is what it is and we deal with it.

Edited January 30, 201312 yr by Ben-Hur