She was also unsure if they would be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. She seemed to agree with Damien Barrett that the charges would be very difficult to prove, esp if it goes before a court (as they think it will as Melbourne fight the charges).

Gillon Mclachlan was supposed to be making a big announcement today on SEN. Anyone hear what it was????

Saw the last half of footy classified. Charges against Bailey the MFC Connolly but not sure about Schwab according to kero.

Its gonna be a long year....

"will be charged... um I'm not sure of the nature of the charges yet" - glad to know we aren't the only ones who dont know what the charges will be like

The court case will go all year in the background. Like a computer program. In the background.

We still have a season to fight for.

The court case will go all year in the background. Like a computer program. In the background.

We still have a season to fight for.

you sound defeatist wyl

i still hope there will be no charges

keep the faith buddy

Gillon Mclachlan was supposed to be making a big announcement today on SEN. Anyone hear what it was????

Saw the last half of footy classified. Charges against Bailey the MFC Connolly but not sure about Schwab according to kero.

Its gonna be a long year....

It was nothing new, and caro said same regarding our charges on aw tues night. Authoritative and arrogant. If she's right there must have been leaks from afl, not happy...

She was also unsure if they would be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. She seemed to agree with Damien Barrett that the charges would be very difficult to prove, esp if it goes before a court (as they think it will as Melbourne fight the charges).

Hmmm her tone too me seemed that "if they can prove it" was a bit vindictive.

As in at the end of all this she will say "Melbourne did tank, the AFL just couldnt prove it"... for obvious reasons - we didnt do it.

Our favourite journo has just said on FC that the MFC, Connolly, and Bailey will be charged in the next few days. She's unsure as to whether CS will be charged.

A few things on what she said, if she's so confident on the others how can she be unclear on Schwab, her main target.

The other stupid comment she made was that she didn't know why McLardy defended the players, clearly she hasn't been in on the story of late as accusations were levelled at players fumbling in the last 3 minutes v Tigers.

Every time I see her she just makes me want to punch something.

I heard that too and Denham said the same thing this morning. What is it with these news 'hounds'? Do they all use the same light post on their morning walks?

If Schwab isn't charged I look forward to seeing Kero getting ripped limb from limb for her November article which had him getting sacked. Whatever anyone thinks of Schwab and how he has done his job it's all but confirmed now that Wilson's attack on him was below the belt, designed to antagonise and get a response so she would be the go-to and write further articles.

Best description of her rhymes with 'itch' (choose your own consonant).

I will also say this Barrett did not seem so convinced, in fact he seemed to almost seemed to question what Caro was saying. Maybe I was reading too much into it.

I heard that too and Denham said the same thing this morning. What is it with these news 'hounds'? Do they all use the same light post on their morning walks?

If Schwab isn't charged I look forward to seeing Kero getting ripped limb from limb for her November article which had him getting sacked. Whatever anyone thinks of Schwab and how he has done his job it's all but confirmed now that Wilson's attack on him was below the belt, designed to antagonise and get a response so she would be the go-to and write further articles.

Best description of her rhymes with 'itch' (choose your own consonant)

Sent him a text but of course they didn't read it out.

You wouldn't have to be too smart to work out that Don is following the legal party line that unless you can prove the players were told not to play their best then there is nothing to prove.

I will also say this Barrett did not seem so convinced, in fact he seemed to almost seemed to question what Caro was saying. Maybe I was reading too much into it.

I think she is taking a punt here, if she gets it right she looks good and in the know if not she can pass it off as the AFL not wanting to fight wars on too many fronts.

The barely concealed contempt that she projects was apparent for all to see. I must say that I'm dumbfounded that someone in her position could go on the public record and categorically state that we will be charged and then within nano seconds concede that she doesn't know with what. it makes a mockery of any credibility she once held. It beggars belief that a senior sports journalist would not have ascertained the nature of the proposed charges. Either Wilson is incompetent or not being honest in her assertions.

Hmmm her tone too me seemed that "if they can prove it" was a bit vindictive.

As in at the end of all this she will say "Melbourne did tank, the AFL just couldnt prove it"... for obvious reasons - we didnt do it.

Now here is one for you PJ

She will be right

you sound defeatist wyl

i still hope there will be no charges

keep the faith buddy

defeatist?

No i am just ready for a long fight if the AFL decide to push it.

I still believe the MFC will beat any charge.

I will also say this Barrett did not seem so convinced, in fact he seemed to almost seemed to question what Caro was saying. Maybe I was reading too much into it.

I got the same feeling Pates

Now I watched the show tonight and I enjoyed and had little to complain about.

As far as CW is concerned I thought she was measured and only stated what 75% of the community thinks i.e. we will be charged.

Half of Demonland thinks we will be charged.

Its a pity that no questions were asked of CW about why she is so certain charges will be laid against the dees in the next few days or indeed why she thinks its 'silly' of McLardy to make the comment that we reject any suggestion players did not try their best to win at all times. The obvious questions for me would have been:

• The decision to charge or not will be made by AD and GM alone. Have either told her the dees will definitely be charged and if not how can she be so certain that they will be
• She was absolutely unequivocal about the club, bailey and CC being charged, wasn't sure about CS - strange given if the board was being charged you'd assume its a governance issue, in which case why wouldn't the CEO be charged?

Finally, the club or CS, CC, or DB can really only be found guilty of the charges that have been laid if it can be established they 'tanked' (with the possible exception of encouraging a coach or coaches not to perform to their utmost - which makes me concerned for CC). Now, they haven't been charged with that as there is no relevant specific charge or indeed written definition of tanking. However the CEO of the AFL made a very public statement defining tanking as players not trying their utmost to win (or words to that effect). Given that, any reasonable view would be that that becomes the working definition of tanking (which i reckon is how a court would see it). Given all of that the question i'd put to CW is:

• why she thinks McLardy's comments are silly? I mean he is simply making it clear that by the definition of tanking given by the AFL CEO we are not guilty of tanking and therefore the other charges cannot be sustained

Now here is one for you PJ

She will be right

Unless the AFL turn around and say we dont have a case to answer too... its a long shot

Last night I got the opinion that the MFC will fight this to the bitter end.

DM started the night saying he had come from a 6 hour board meeting.

Then talked about fighting and supporting present and past employees.

IMO they are preparing us for a visit to the courts.

I may be wrong but that was my feeling

Unless the AFL turn around and say we dont have a case to answer too... its a long shot

Every night i say a small pray that it is the case

but in my heart I cannot see it happening PJ

Its a pity that no questions were asked of CW about why she is so certain charges will be laid against the dees in the next few days or indeed why she thinks its 'silly' of McLardy to make the comment that we reject any suggestion players did not try their best to win at all times. The obvious questions for me would have been:

• The decision to charge or not will be made by AD and GM alone. Have either told her the dees will definitely be charged and if not how can she be so certain that they will be
• She was absolutely unequivocal about the club, bailey and CC being charged, wasn't sure about CS - strange given if the board was being charged you'd assume its a governance issue, in which case why wouldn't the CEO be charged?

Finally, the club or CS, CC, or DB can really only be found guilty of the charges that have been laid if it can be established they 'tanked' (with the possible exception of encouraging a coach or coaches not to perform to their utmost - which makes me concerned for CC). Now, they haven't been charged with that as their is no relevant specific charge or indeed written definition of tanking. However the CEO of the AFL make a very public statement defining tanking as players not trying their utmost to win (or words to that effect). Given that any reasonable view would be that that becomes the working definition of tanking (which i reckon is how a court would see it). Given all of that the question i'd put to CW is:

• why she thinks McLardy's comments are silly? I mean he is simply making it clear that by the definition of tanking given by the AFL CEO we are not guilty of tanking and therefore the other charges cannot be sustained

I found her 'he is preaching to the converted' a bit hypocritical - that is what, the third public statement by the MFC on the issue over how long?

Two days ago we were being criticised for being too quiet - honestly no winning with her.

I found her 'he is preaching to the converted' a bit hypocritical - that is what, the third public statement by the MFC on the issue over how long?

Two days ago we were being criticised for being too quiet - honestly no winning with her.

I assume she meant that the clip was from the AGM. My take is that she has no clue if we will be charged but is trying to put pressure on the AD to charge us.

Our favourite journo has just said on FC that the MFC, Connolly, and Bailey will be charged in the next few days. She's unsure as to whether CS will be charged.

Fairly sure the process is that if we are charged, that goes to the commission, at which time the commission consider the case, and we get tp argue our position. So charges by themselves are not the end of the world.

Only then is guilty or not decided by the commission. Then penalties are applied.

Would imagine that MFC would get an injunction very easily and quickly based on what has been reported.

Then we wait till the hearing which could be along time.

If there is only 800 - 1000 pages then I don't imagine it would be a long case to hear.

Any legal types have a different view?

The last thing the AFL would want with all this drug malarkey going on is to spend the next few months having their collective backside tanned by Melbourne's legal department in court. Just give the all clear for goodness sake so we can move on with our lives.

The barely concealed contempt that she projects was apparent for all to see. I must say that I'm dumbfounded that someone in her position could go on the public record and categorically state that we will be charged and then within nano seconds concede that she doesn't know with what. it makes a mockery of any credibility she once held. It beggars belief that a senior sports journalist would not have ascertained the nature of the proposed charges. Either Wilson is incompetent or not being honest in her assertions.

I guess we all see what we want to a large degree Of.

I did not see it that way tonight.

Now you can call me naive but the last two times i.e Tuesday on 3AW and tonight I found little to complain about.

She make a comment DM was preaching to the converted.

Well I was there and guess what he was.

I lapped up what he said because it was what i wanted to hear.

However we are probably never going to agree it is just my opinion

I assume she meant that the clip was from the AGM. My take is that she has no clue if we will be charged but is trying to put pressure on the AD to charge us.

Like you binman I thought that this was an exercise in her trying to exert influence. If she had any sort of handle on this she would have known the nature of the charges. Either way we will know how credible she is in the next couple of days. From the AFL's perspective I can't believe that they would be stupid enough to open a second front of battle in which they cannot influence the outcome of proceedings once commenced and are subjected to an arbitrary judgement, i.e the courts.

McLardys' comments re the tanking saga. He mentions this ....

MELBOURNE is being damaged by the fallout from the AFL's protracted investigation into tanking allegations, according to president Don McLardy.

"This has been an incredibly high profile investigation and, for many involved, a difficult and trying time," McLardy said.

"The impact on our club has been massive. And in many ways, the damage is extremely hard to measure.

My reading of that is, if / when we end up in the court room, he is outling we will aslo seek compensation for damages caused to the club.

We could end up with overs to buy Buddy.