True, formally no. But it will all look like we will be charged with tanking in the eyes of the public & the AFL - reporters like CW will make sure of that.

Same [censored] different smell

not so sure about that.

not so sure about that.

We will be charged with the closest thing to tanking, and the media will interpret and portray it as tanking.

We saw their headlines with Jarred Rivers. Instead of 'Geelong player ejected from the MCG' it was 'ex-Melbourne player'.

What do you reckon the headlines will be for our charges?

1) Dean Bailey charged with not performing on his merits (or however they will word it)

2) The Melbourne Football Club charged with tanking

With the current state or churnalism and shock-jock reporting i doubt it will be the former.

We will be charged with the closest thing to tanking, and the media will interpret and portray it as tanking.

We saw their headlines with Jarred Rivers. Instead of 'Geelong player ejected from the MCG' it was 'ex-Melbourne player'.

What do you reckon the headlines will be for our charges?

1) Dean Bailey charged with not performing on his merits (or however they will word it)

2) The Melbourne Football Club charged with tanking

With the current state or churnalism and shock-jock reporting i doubt it will be the former.

How have you come to this conclusion? have you got an inside source? or are you just going with a gut feel?

We will be charged with the closest thing to tanking, and the media will interpret and portray it as tanking.

We saw their headlines with Jarred Rivers. Instead of 'Geelong player ejected from the MCG' it was 'ex-Melbourne player'.

What do you reckon the headlines will be for our charges?

1) Dean Bailey charged with not performing on his merits (or however they will word it)

2) The Melbourne Football Club charged with tanking

With the current state or churnalism and shock-jock reporting i doubt it will be the former.

can't see any charges being laid myself.

How have you come to this conclusion? have you got an inside source? or are you just going with a gut feel?

can't see any charges being laid myself.

Just what I've read in the media. We know they are likely to charge us, they have come too far and could have dropped the investigation at any point (particularly considering they are bothering to wait for our reply on the evidence).

Being charged is just a formality. We will take them to the cleaners any day of the week when this issue goes to an independent tribunal (i.e. the Supreme court) - which the MFC have said they would fight it to and showed this by hiring the fink.

RE my view on how the media will treat us... in 5 days caro wrote 7 anti-MFC articles, and to date I only managed to find 1 pro-MFC article during that month when there were rumors - imagine when we are charged with something.

We are the team everyone likes to kick when we are down, just take a look at the Jarred Rivers articles. They deliberately chose to print 'ex-Melbourne' rather than 'Geelong'.

WYL - if by some miracle we are not charged with some bullsh1t offense Ill buy you a pint of beer and shot of tequila at the first game (Melb v. Port)

Just what I've read in the media. We know they are likely to charge us, they have come too far and could have dropped the investigation at any point (particularly considering they are bothering to wait for our reply on the evidence).

Being charged is just a formality. We will take them to the cleaners any day of the week when this issue goes to an independent tribunal (i.e. the Supreme court) - which the MFC have said they would fight it to and showed this by hiring the fink.

RE my view on how the media will treat us... in 5 days caro wrote 7 anti-MFC articles, and to date I only managed to find 1 pro-MFC article during that month when there were rumors - imagine when we are charged with something.

We are the team everyone likes to kick when we are down, just take a look at the Jarred Rivers articles. They deliberately chose to print 'ex-Melbourne' rather than 'Geelong'.

WYL - if by some miracle we are not charged with some bullsh1t offense Ill buy you a pint of beer and shot of tequila at the first game (Melb v. Port)

i kinda agree, yet i think it will be individual charges. I reckon one of the three will be the fall guy. i reckon Connolly will go

WYL - if by some miracle we are not charged with some bullsh1t offense Ill buy you a pint of beer and shot of tequila at the first game (Melb v. Port)

What about a pint of tequila and a shot of beer

i kinda agree, yet i think it will be individual charges. I reckon one of the three will be the fall guy. i reckon Connolly will go

Your right - media has indicated that the AFL will target individuals, not the club, with specific focus on Connolly, Schwab and Bailey. (but the media has been wrong bout alot of things)

I still reckon these charges are bs and will have no problems defending them.

But the media will still turn individual charges as a club charge

Just what I've read in the media. We know they are likely to charge us, they have come too far and could have dropped the investigation at any point (particularly considering they are bothering to wait for our reply on the evidence).

Being charged is just a formality. We will take them to the cleaners any day of the week when this issue goes to an independent tribunal (i.e. the Supreme court) - which the MFC have said they would fight it to and showed this by hiring the fink.

RE my view on how the media will treat us... in 5 days caro wrote 7 anti-MFC articles, and to date I only managed to find 1 pro-MFC article during that month when there were rumors - imagine when we are charged with something.

We are the team everyone likes to kick when we are down, just take a look at the Jarred Rivers articles. They deliberately chose to print 'ex-Melbourne' rather than 'Geelong'.

WYL - if by some miracle we are not charged with some bullsh1t offense Ill buy you a pint of beer and shot of tequila at the first game (Melb v. Port)

you're on!!

What about a pint of tequila and a shot of beer

Bahahaha that will cost me $141 for the tequila and $0.75 for the beer - one expensive round!

I would think if the decision is not known by then it will be heading in the wrong direction for us anyway 'old dee'. Lets hope it's all wrapped up.

Actually, I think the longer it drags on, the better it is for us. Once the footy starts, it will be easy for the AFL to quietly announce that nothing more will be done. There may be one slightly awkward press conference, and then media attention will move onto Buddy's contract, whether Buckley has lost his players, can the Swans back up, will Geelong slide, etc.

I can understand this coming from someone who obviously took no notice of the comedic way in which Carlton played out the last half a dozen games of 2007 but exactly what is it that we did that makes us guilty of breaching any AFL rule and how did we do it?

So you're in the camp, "they did it and nothing happened, so why can't we ?"

That doesn't cut it when you're being investigated, Brother.

well it is hardly the club's fault that this has dragged on for an excruciating 7 months old dee

7 months is an absolute disgrace regardless

Spot on.

At a time when the AFL is supposedly fundamentally concerned about the gap between the rich and poor , it is appalling that one of the weaker clubs has been subjected to this extraordinary witch-hunt. Priority picks have gone - our FD has been completely restructured - and we've had to endure 7 months pouring back over the events of 2009!!

The day they gave us an 800 page report- they effectively penalised us $500k (in legal costs) ............. and then there is the damage to our brand! How much effective community relations activity has Chris Connolly been able to mange over the past 7 months? In a sense they have to find us guilty to justify the hefty direct and indirect penalty they have already meted out.

How stupid will the AFL look if they turnaround now and say "no case to answer" Won't the Coaches Association say " Fine - give us our money back then!" ?

The AFL will do something to justify themselves - I reckon Connolly will charged - and Bailey Schwab and the Club will be told that they have been given the benefit of the doubt. "Don't say a word about the cost and disruption you have suffered - just count your lucky stars that it wasn't worse"

I don't think either club turned up that day and wanted their team to win. If Richmond had lost they would have had an extra pick in the teens. They had come off a stirring win against a finals aspirant in the Bombers after drawing against NM and then they throw up the sh!te they did against us in that fateful game.

Yes & perhaps the Tigs may have faced some scrutiny had they lost. I'm not arguing that both teams were any more than shite in 2009.

However, we were always going to cop more stick (tanking wise) if we lost. The perception of the incentive to lose for a pick in the late teens fails in comparison to a team looking so eager to "win" it's 2nd consecutive wooden spoon, number 1 draft pick & a number 2 pick to boot.

It's why the perception of West Coast's "experimentation" in 2010 is nowhere near as strong as of us throwing games in 2009. I'm not saying that it's fair or right but it is what it is.

It wasn't easy to lose against that team and make it look like we wanted to win.

Perhaps not but I guess this is where we get into the long philosophical discussion of what constitutes deliberately throwing a game vs winning not being the no.1 priority.

And if the best people can come up with is Warnock playing forward then I think we experimented well enough...

But it's not. It's Warnock playing forward, Frawley playing forward, PJ down back, Miller in the ruck, low rotations, massive changes in team selections - all in just one game! If it was over the course of 4 or 5 weeks, you could argue list mgmt & experimentation but the fact it happened on one day against the next worst team in the comp forms the perception that Melbourne deliberately trying to lose ergo losing was their no.1 priority.

I am certain the AFL will rule that experimentation is legal, and that CC's remarks were glib, unfortunate, but harmless and unpunishable and that we will be absolved.

I hope so, but given our history of ineptitude in managing this - I wouldn't bet an outright against there being a paper trail.

And that is the full measure of whether we handled this well enough.

No the full measure is that we still suck. That period caused massive damage & opened up great divisions in the club. In 2009, I didn't think it was possible for our on-field leadership to get any worse, yet 2 & a half years later the leadership vacuum was so bad we appointed the world's youngest co-captains. The culture at the club was so corrosive that we lost our "prize" for winn-sorry losing the Richmond game. Our tanki-sorry "experimentation" was handled so well that 3 & a half years later people are still talking about it & the AFL felt compelled to investigate something that they didn't really want to.

The whole thing has been a complete [censored]-up from start to finish. Anybody who thinks it has been anything but is deluded.

Carlton had an Assistant Coach and Full Forward admit they tanked. How subtle is that? They should be the yard stick on how a club should not manage 'extensive experimentation' and yet the MFC is to blame for this investigation because Warnock played forward, and Johnson played back?

(This is not a 'woe is us, what about them?' argument - I don't care for that argument really. It is an argument against how we managed our 'excessive experimentation' as compared to others and the different results - the MFC has a disgruntled ex-player NOT admit we were tanking but say we were not taking winning as a highest priority VS the CFC having a disgruntled former assistant coach explicitly say they were tanking and have a former FF admit to being taken off to avoid winning games)

I note that you didn't actually name Fevola & Liberatore. In my op on this topic I stated that people of credibility at the coal face were still knocking Melbourne.

Fev & Libba hardly reek of credibility. Fev was the AFL's answer to Amy Winehouse & Libba has a reputation for shooting his mouth off (yes, I'm aware McLean is similar) However, they have been just about the only two at Carlton during 2007 to go on the record & not much was of substance it pretty much extended to nudge, wink & "tanksalot" jokes.

This is different to DB stating at his final press conference in direct response to a question about tanking that he had "no hesitation in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks..."

It is also different to a former player (albeit a boofhead), with a reputation for honesty, who had donated money to the club in 2008 claiming on national television that he walked out because he felt uncomfortable with the club's "experimentation" & then went on to imply that during a heart to heart with Dean Bailey that he felt the same.

Carlton's "whistleblowers" can easily be dismissed as a couple of boofheads speculating about motives. Bailey & McLean inferred direct corruption.

Other factors than our own 'subtlety' led to this 2 years after-the-fact investigation kicking off.

I'm mystified as to how some still feel as though the MFC is a victim of a complete media/AFL/anti-Stynes/anti-MFC conspiracy.

This investigation doesn't suit anyone's agenda & is damaging to both the AFL & the MFC. The AFL is to blame because they set up rules that could be exploited & kept their head in the sand on the issue when it was clear that tanking was becoming a definite tactic. The MFC is to blame for botching their strategy & people management so epically, that there are now a cabal of whiteants that are so [censored] off that they wouldn't mind seeing the club eviscerated.

Yes there are other factors, some may have been a bit of bad luck (re. McLean filling in as a guest on OTC that night, although who's to say he wouldn't have made similar kinds of claims the next time he was on media St?).

However, I can't help but feel, if we'd've treated our own a little bit better - that they wouldn't be lining up with the baseball bats now.

In my view Carlton & Collingwood got away with what they did because the admin rallied together, the way they "managed" their teams was subtle enough not to ring alarm bells with the players & finally the timeframe was not after years of tanking controversy unlike the MFC in 2009.

Again I'm not saying that what the MFC did was morally wrong in comparison to Carlton & Collingwood. But almost certainly their strategy and execution was inferior.

However, I can't help but feel, if we'd've treated our own a little bit better - that they wouldn't be lining up with the baseball bats now.

How do you know who's lining up with baseball bats ... or if there's even a line at all?

Lots of speculation, followed by conclusions based on speculation. In reality, none of us know who's actually said what.

SHE'S BACK............................

So you're in the camp, "they did it and nothing happened, so why can't we ?"

That doesn't cut it when you're being investigated, Brother.

I didn't say that.

I asked you what it is that you think we did that makes us guilty of breaching any AFL rule and how did we do it?

You really have no idea.

SHE'S BACK............................

But seriously off her game ... she missed any number of opportunities to insert references to Melbourne/tanking/The Vault ... in a piece on the CEO's and drugs.

Is it disloyal to agree that heads should roll for the incredible record of incompetence that preceded MN's arrival? The more I think about it, the more I think that individuals should be held accountable for the grief they've put supporters through. If Connoly, Schwab and Bailey don't have the sense to keep their mouths shut then they deserve to be pilloried. Further, if they (and others)have been found to have mismanaged the club & the playing group to such an extent that we were where we were, they don't deserve our support.

It's not the club's fault, it's the individual's and they are the ones who, if they've done the wrong thing, should carry the can. We might have turned the corner now but the sooner we clear out the deadwood in the administration (as has been done in the playing group) the better.

By the way, I'm not saying that MN has proven himself yet, just that he seems to be a man of integrity with sufficient guts to see a tough job through to the end. Good on him for that at least.

You and others are deluded on this issue.

I don't care that others did it, I'll leave the "list management" defence for our lawyers.

If you think Redleg and others are "deluded on this issue, don't hold your breath expecting our lawyers to deliver on the "list management" defence or anything else for that matter, because by your reckoning we're guilty anyway and any legal defence to any charge that might be laid is the product of delusional minds.

In fact, why not just do away with the concept of justice and fairness and dump the rule of law and presumption of innocence? Let those in power run the place as they desire and heap contempt on everyone else's non-existent rights. Let the "tanking truthers" prevail.

SHE'S BACK............................

If you look at her little photo beside her fluff piece it looks like shes sitting on the Throne.

If you look at her little photo beside her fluff piece it looks like shes sitting on the Throne.

Is there an article?

Is there an article?

Chiefs break ranks on drugs

Chiefs break ranks on drugs

Clearly ghost written, as there was no reference to CS needing to be sacked.

"this is different to DB stating at his final press conference in direct response to a question about tanking that he had "no hesitation in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks..."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Bailey ever used the words "draft picks" , I recall him saying he "did the right thing by the club"