On 01/02/2013 at 05:46, binman said:

A player to test positive for tanking

is it a three strike policy? mightn't find out if its not the third strike.

  On 01/02/2013 at 06:06, iv said:

The AFL mate, as reported in the Hun earlier this week.

So is it the AFL who said it will be done this week or the Herald Sun have reported that AFL will have it done this week. There is a big difference and a diffference that has been occuring all through this investigation. Two reporters tweeted yesterday that charges will be laid by the AFL today and that all charges will be dropped by today. I'm sure they didnt get this from AFL or maybe from two different AFL's.

  On 01/02/2013 at 06:21, DAVID DUNBAR said:

the papers might have it on good authority

I am taking this as a tongue in cheek comment but "good authorities" have been sadly lacking in reporting on this issue so far

  On 01/02/2013 at 06:25, daisycutter said:

is it a three strike policy? mightn't find out if its not the third strike.

If they test positive to tanking they don't have to tell their club - just their bookie!

  On 01/02/2013 at 06:26, nutbean said:

So is it the AFL who said it will be done this week or the Herald Sun have reported that AFL will have it done this week. There is a big difference and a diffference that has been occuring all through this investigation. Two reporters tweeted yesterday that charges will be laid by the AFL today and that all charges will be dropped by today. Im sure they didnt get this from AFL or maybe from two different AFL's.

Sorry NB. Surely the media could not possibly have mis-reported this? Could they??????

  On 01/02/2013 at 05:53, maurie said:

The name of the meeting or room are trivial. I'm not going to hang Caro over getting a meeting name or room name wrong.

They are certainly not trivial.

You act as if these were typos. They formed the narrative of her op-ed that reiterated Sheahan's view that as a club we are "pathetic and disgusting."

These 'facts' lend itself to motive, namely our determination to lose games by having a sinister 'code named' meeting to 'specifically discuss tanking,' and then we learn that it was a 2 minute aside featuring the word Zulus in a MC meeting that was certainly not code-named. But those 'facts' are out there in the court of public opinion and in that court we cannot get them stricken from the record.

The 'tanking meeting' was the smoking gun that led Wilson to write that devastating op-ed. Without this meeting of conspirators with a threat for mutiny it becomes exponentially harder to prove tanking amidst the myriad of on-field moves that can be interpreted in so many different ways.

It is the crux of her contempt and the desire of the general footy public to see us punished.

And it never happened.

  On 01/02/2013 at 05:53, maurie said:

The name of the meeting or room are trivial. I'm not going to hang Caro over getting a meeting name or room name wrong.

The substantive issues are what took place and whether there was pressure within the club not to perform, either at the meeting or over a longer period of time. Caro or any other journalist in some sort of 'loop' might well know that better than any of us who just read the papers. Neither I nor anyone else here knows that at present, yet many are readily prepared to make judgements because it suits them not to believe there has been a misdemeanour by the club.

I'm simply waiting for outcomes rather than prematurely speculating, and have been all along.

I feel for you Maurie.

Trying to present a view along these lines had one poster accuse me of being "the leak". The "agenda" word was used. Robbie wanted me out of the Club and most others got their nickers in a knot.

FWIW I think you are spot on but it's so far outside the groupthink of this forum a contrary view can't be tolerated. Hell, when this discussion started in August we tanked but we implemented it badly. Carlton were known as Carltank. Now tanking doesn't exist. Any reporter who mentions that we are under investigation for tanking without putting in a full defence of our position is a hack and there isn't and never was a case to answer.

Forget that Dean Bailey said he had no hesitation in placing the club in the best position possible to get draft picks and a former player said we weren't serious about winning.

If you take my advice just leave it, contrary views and sensible thinking is not welcome here.

  On 01/02/2013 at 07:38, Baghdad Bob said:

I feel for you Maurie.

Trying to present a view along these lines had one poster accuse me of being "the leak". The "agenda" word was used. Robbie wanted me out of the Club and most others got their nickers in a knot.

FWIW I think you are spot on but it's so far outside the groupthink of this forum a contrary view can't be tolerated. Hell, when this discussion started in August we tanked but we implemented it badly. Carlton were known as Carltank. Now tanking doesn't exist. Any reporter who mentions that we are under investigation for tanking without putting in a full defence of our position is a hack and there isn't and never was a case to answer.

Forget that Dean Bailey said he had no hesitation in placing the club in the best position possible to get draft picks and a former player said we weren't serious about winning.

If you take my advice just leave it, contrary views and sensible thinking is not welcome here.

Ummm, Maurie is saying he is not embracing any view until we are out of this mess (or deeper in it) - he is hardly traipsing a path to your antithetical corner of extolling the 'great job' that Caro is doing and then massaging when more facts are known to the point of saying that she has a 'vendetta' but her information is 'impeccable.'

In fact, forget trying to figure out where Maurie is on the issue - you should sit down and run through where you are at.

  On 01/02/2013 at 06:07, mjt said:

Wouldnt be the first time shes had egg on her face.

Yeah .... and her looks improve every time.

  On 01/02/2013 at 07:38, Baghdad Bob said:

I feel for you Maurie.

Trying to present a view along these lines had one poster accuse me of being "the leak". The "agenda" word was used. Robbie wanted me out of the Club and most others got their nickers in a knot.

FWIW I think you are spot on but it's so far outside the groupthink of this forum a contrary view can't be tolerated. Hell, when this discussion started in August we tanked but we implemented it badly. Carlton were known as Carltank. Now tanking doesn't exist. Any reporter who mentions that we are under investigation for tanking without putting in a full defence of our position is a hack and there isn't and never was a case to answer.

Forget that Dean Bailey said he had no hesitation in placing the club in the best position possible to get draft picks and a former player said we weren't serious about winning.

If you take my advice just leave it, contrary views and sensible thinking is not welcome here.

I can't recall anywhere on here where you've accepted views contrary to your own, so I guess you are giving advice that you could well consider taking.

Personally I don't mind any journalist criticising the club as long as it's truthful and accurate; that doesn't seem an issue with you.

  On 01/02/2013 at 07:38, Baghdad Bob said:

Forget that Dean Bailey said he had no hesitation in placing the club in the best position possible to get draft picks ...

If you take my advice just leave it, contrary views and sensible thinking is not welcome here.

And forget that Dean Bailey "vigourously denied tanking" and said that he will fight any allegations of wrong-doing.

You (continue to) cherry-pick information that supports your position while ignoring or dismissing information that doesn't.

Sensible thinking?

  On 01/02/2013 at 07:38, Baghdad Bob said:

I feel for you Maurie.

Trying to present a view along these lines had one poster accuse me of being "the leak". The "agenda" word was used. Robbie wanted me out of the Club and most others got their nickers in a knot.

FWIW I think you are spot on but it's so far outside the groupthink of this forum a contrary view can't be tolerated. Hell, when this discussion started in August we tanked but we implemented it badly. Carlton were known as Carltank. Now tanking doesn't exist. Any reporter who mentions that we are under investigation for tanking without putting in a full defence of our position is a hack and there isn't and never was a case to answer.

Forget that Dean Bailey said he had no hesitation in placing the club in the best position possible to get draft picks and a former player said we weren't serious about winning.

If you take my advice just leave it, contrary views and sensible thinking is not welcome here.

It's called debate, Bob.

I love the way you try to foreclose on debate with this 'groupthink' category, making anyone who might want to quibble with Maurie hesitate or not bother lest they be counted part of some gang. And this isn't the first time you've done so, even if it was by some other name.

If half a dozen or so people politely arguing with Maurie constitutes 'groupthink' I suspect I'd prefer that to your particular demagoguery, which makes of you a perpetual majority of one.

You can have any opinion you want on this forum, but the reality of the situation is that we are all passionate demon fans who, mostly, want our club to succed - to expect a people to agree with you if you arent sticking up for the club is delusional

  On 01/02/2013 at 07:38, Baghdad Bob said:

I feel for you Maurie.

Trying to present a view along these lines had one poster accuse me of being "the leak". The "agenda" word was used. Robbie wanted me out of the Club and most others got their nickers in a knot.

FWIW I think you are spot on but it's so far outside the groupthink of this forum a contrary view can't be tolerated. Hell, when this discussion started in August we tanked but we implemented it badly. Carlton were known as Carltank. Now tanking doesn't exist. Any reporter who mentions that we are under investigation for tanking without putting in a full defence of our position is a hack and there isn't and never was a case to answer.

Forget that Dean Bailey said he had no hesitation in placing the club in the best position possible to get draft picks and a former player said we weren't serious about winning.

If you take my advice just leave it, contrary views and sensible thinking is not welcome here.

Amazing conflating of the question 'Did we tank' with 'Was Caro's reporting fair'.

You seem so keen to paint yourself as oppressed by the majority here that you will tack the 'lack of tolerance' line onto a minor disagreement that popped up.

Many here, probably the majority of whom you complain, believe we tanked but don't deserve any special punishment and think Caro's reporting was the pits.

Many others say we didn't tank because tanking is not properly defined, and think Caro's reporting was the pits.

And other variants.

A small number think we tanked and deserve punishment regardless of what other clubs may have done or what Caro writes.

Some think Caro is generally a good reporter but her putting the boot into the MFC (and no other club) was disgraceful.

Some think she is a crap reporter and her putting the boot into the MFC (and no other club) was disgraceful.

A small number think she is great and MFC deserves all we get from her.

And other variants.

I see a divergence of views on this forum. Just because most posters take a certain position on something doesn't make it 'groupthink'. It could just happen to be the majority view. And that may even be correct on occasion.

(And the abuse the minority sometimes unfortunately suffer from some in the majority is no worse than the abuse some in the minority throw at others.)

Nobody is denying what happened In 2008-09 Baghdad.

Just the way Wilson wrote about it.

Big difference.

I propose that we somehow get behind the club once an outcome has been achieved - whether it be a mass turnout at the next training session or match (depending on when this thing goes away).

I'm sure the club and players would appreciate us all turning up and supporting them either way.

I know I'm going to have a stiff drink to either celebrate or try to forget the outcome of this whole fiasco.

  On 01/02/2013 at 08:52, why you little said:

Nobody is denying what happened In 2008-09 Baghdad.

Just the way Wilson wrote about it.

Big difference.

Sorry Disagree with the first part. Not one person has said the players were told to lose. Not one. There is huge speculation over what exactly happened. Thats why there is an 800 page report.

No-one can even agree on a definition of tanking.

  On 01/02/2013 at 12:56, jnrmac said:

Sorry Disagree with the first part. Not one person has said the players were told to lose. Not one. There is huge speculation over what exactly happened. Thats why there is an 800 page report.

No-one can even agree on a definition of tanking.

the only people who have said we tanked are the media.

In 2008-09 the club put itself in the position to win no more than 4 games a season.

That it did. We all knew it and discussed it regularly.

Just to change tack does anyone know the answers to the following.

If we need to take it to the courts then what type of civil case would we bring? Some new Tort or one that already exists.

If we bring a civil case then is it true that we have the Burden of Proof as the Plaintiff?

If so would the proof required be a Balance of Probabilities and not Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

and if so then we would only have to prove that the AFL are probably guilty of doing whatever we are suing them for? Correct?

Hoping there are some lawyers out there?

  On 01/02/2013 at 07:38, Baghdad Bob said:

I feel for you Maurie.

Trying to present a view along these lines had one poster accuse me of being "the leak". The "agenda" word was used. Robbie wanted me out of the Club and most others got their nickers in a knot.

FWIW I think you are spot on but it's so far outside the groupthink of this forum a contrary view can't be tolerated. Hell, when this discussion started in August we tanked but we implemented it badly. Carlton were known as Carltank. Now tanking doesn't exist. Any reporter who mentions that we are under investigation for tanking without putting in a full defence of our position is a hack and there isn't and never was a case to answer.

Forget that Dean Bailey said he had no hesitation in placing the club in the best position possible to get draft picks and a former player said we weren't serious about winning.

If you take my advice just leave it, contrary views and sensible thinking is not welcome here.

You might do well to ask yourself in how many ways is it possible to kill another human being and yet not be guilty of the crime of murder.

The answer might help you and many others, think a little more clearly on this subject.

When does "Footy Classified" start again? I'm looking forward to seeing how Gary acts towards the woman who has been trying to bring his beloved club down...

  On 01/02/2013 at 15:21, Felix da Dee said:

Just to change tack does anyone know the answers to the following.

If we need to take it to the courts then what type of civil case would we bring? Some new Tort or one that already exists.

If we bring a civil case then is it true that we have the Burden of Proof as the Plaintiff?

If so would the proof required be a Balance of Probabilities and not Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

and if so then we would only have to prove that the AFL are probably guilty of doing whatever we are suing them for? Correct?

Hoping there are some lawyers out there?

I would be confident this won't go to court, The AFL doesn't want it. The Dees don't want it. If the AFL don't have a smoking gun - ie an email saying don't win under any circumstances - then the AFL's case is word against word, hearsay, speculation and supposition. We would have heard about a smoking gun by now,

And then even if we were found guilty (of what I am not sure) the club would then say 'everyone has done what we have done'. We could subpoena Libba, Fev, Roos, Terry everybody and everyone that has discussed tanking. We could get the records of Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood etc. and dissect them forever. It would be ugly.

The AFL have condoned list management, Dimwit has condoned it etc. The penalty would be - nothing. The AFL would look stupid and seen to have lost control. They don't like losing control.

If there was a smoking gun Melb wouldn't be so Bolshy about fighting them.

I am not a lawyer but it seems any court case would be about the rules of the AFL (which are broad and ill defined in regards to all of this - Dean Bailey not trying his 'utmost'. WTF does that mean in a legal sense??). Our case would be that we haven't broken any rules of the AFL. Their 'investigation' was a sham, illegal, non-admissable etc

We are OK is my reading.

-4 (phase II)

end of week prediction blown

3aw rumour file blown

waiting....waiting

  On 01/02/2013 at 22:50, daisycutter said:

-4 (phase II)

end of week prediction blown

3aw rumour file blown

waiting....waiting

Beginning of the NAB Cup would be a great time to dismiss and hide it amongst the excitement of the new season. One can only hope.

  On 02/02/2013 at 01:18, Redleg said:

Beginning of the NAB Cup would be a great time to dismiss and hide it amongst the excitement of the new season. One can only hope.

Plus the media will have "Scully" Franklin to concentrate on now.