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 found her tone and language in reference to the MFC tonight derogatory. Her sniping of D.M was typically unwarranted. But having said that I don't read or listen to her that often and perhaps you know her nuances better than I.

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.

There are a range of possibilities about who he was talking to. The board has some smart cookies on it. Perhaps he was "speaking to the converted", perhaps the general footbal public, perhaps the AFL executive, perhaps the commission? He ceratinly wasn't talking to CW.

I would be very confident that DM is clever enough to know who his audience is when he speaks on important issues.

I doubt a sports jounalist, even a Chief Football Writer, would understand this, and even if she did, would not let it get in the way of adhering to management's directives in regard to ensuring articles written are able to compete with the oppositions.

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

Also Garry's comment at the end when he said something like it will be in the courts for a long time. Yes this is going to the courts unless a very good offer is put on the table to the Club.

She also made a somewhat faux pas when Barrett questioned her about the charges and she said she wasnt sure and then at the last minute and quietly said - "yet". What her sauces are too busy with other matters.

Would you want your son playing AFL footy?

What about if your son was playing at Richmond in 2007 under a coach, who in clear contravention of an AFL rule downed tools and didn't coach the team on its merits because he was so desperate for his club to secure Trent Cotchin? Or would you want your son to be playing more recently for the Toigs sleeping in with a mate and missing a training session? (BTW don't expect any of this to be covered by The Shrew in commentary)

Pure GOLD!

I found her tone and language in reference to the MFC tonight derogatory. Her sniping of D.M was typically unwarranted. But having said that I don't read or listen to her that often and perhaps you know her nuances better than I.

Not sure that is true Of

Please don't take this personally but quite a few on here see her as the the wicked witch of the north and a couple of her articles early in the piece were way over the top.

But I find now that if she said it was night time at present they would scream "what are you a meteorologist now.

I know it is very difficult but we all have to take a breath .

Not everything she says is rubbish

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 Commission would also have to take into account the possibility of court action should it proceed with penalties against the MFC. At this juncture I assume they would consult their own legal team with regard to probability of a successful outcome of a legal challenge from the MFC. This could also go some way to determining whether charges are upheld or dismissed on the probability of a successful legal challenge. A long way to go in this saga I'm afraid folks.

I found her tone and language in reference to the MFC tonight derogatory. Her sniping of D.M was typically unwarranted. But having said that I don't read or listen to her that often and perhaps you know her nuances better than I.

She was completely condescending AND of course incorrect. She said "DM was preaching to the converted. No-one was saying the Melbourne players didn't try"

Oh really?? The last 3 minutes of the Richmond game where the melbourne payers fumbled??? This has received the most scrutiny aside from CC's lame joke. FFS she can't even read her own paper.

Not sure that is true Of

Please don't take this personally but quite a few on here see her as the the wicked witch of the north and a couple of her articles early in the piece were way over the top.

But I find now that if she said it was night time at present they would scream "what are you a meteorologist now.

I know it is very difficult but we all have to take a breath .

Not everything she says is rubbish

I agree Old but it is the sanctimonious "I know more than you" way she conducts herself that I find so grating (apart from other things)

Vlad went out of his way today to mention that there aren't any AFL games in question with regards to 'Match fixing'.So, where does that leave us? Throwing games or fixing matches = manipulating results.

Bringing the game into disrepute, draft tampering and not coaching to your utmost in many ways amounts to match fixing or manipulating results. And Vlad has just said today that no match fixing has happened or is under investigation.

If this whole saga ends up in court then Vlad's 'No match fixing' comment could easily be used in our defence. This is apart from his oft-quoted phrase "There is no such thing as tanking"

Not sure that is true Of

Please don't take this personally but quite a few on here see her as the the wicked witch of the north and a couple of her articles early in the piece were way over the top.

But I find now that if she said it was night time at present they would scream "what are you a meteorologist now.

I know it is very difficult but we all have to take a breath .

Not everything she says is rubbish

I take your point OD in regards to the perception some have of her on this forum. Personally I have no axe to grind with her other than I dislike the form of Journalism she practices. It's based on subjective viewpoint that I believe skews stories to suit agendas. I'm old school and simply want objective reporting that will allow me to form an opinion based on facts. I know i'm a dinosaur.

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

That's just what this club needs...

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.

Your a fighter WYL, you've had to be. good onya.

thats what we need around the club, people who are prepared to put up the dukes for the club & its people.

not those who want to turn away & bury their heads in the hay.

Give us your best shot AFL, & we'll either fight you all the way, or we'll walk from the ga,me altogether.

I already know of a couple who are ready to turn away from the AFL. because of the inequity.

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

It's like, the court of CW conducted in The Rage newspaper has adjudicated and found MFC guilty of "tanking" (which should be an indictable offence in CW's biased world where Tige's are blameless even when their coach sits back and refuses to coach because draft picks are on the line).

And if at the end of the day, either the AFL or the legal courts decide there's no charges upon which to find us guilty, she of all wisdom and justice wil smugly declare "but they were guilty, if only those AFL investigators had found the proof" !

No way we can win in the world of CW.

Vlad went out of his way today to mention that there aren't any AFL games in question with regards to 'Match fixing'.

That's a nice little piece of evidence to use in court.

The line of questioning on this statement when Vlad is put on the stand will be most entertaing...

No way we can win in the world of CW.

Sure you can. Don't read any of her crap. Her and her cruddy rag of a paper don't get any hits off me. I'm happier for not seeing her rubbish, and the her figures don't look as good. If more people did the same she'd be out of a job.

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.

*Presses Ctrl+Alt+Del then End Task

on MMM now, Demons at AFL house yesterday under the cover of darkness, eddies statement, doesnt sound good.

I take your point OD in regards to the perception some have of her on this forum. Personally I have no axe to grind with her other than I dislike the form of Journalism she practices. It's based on subjective viewpoint that I believe skews stories to suit agendas. I'm old school and simply want objective reporting that will allow me to form an opinion based on facts. I know i'm a dinosaur.

I am one too Of ( dinosaur0

I gave up on expecting objective report some years back.

With the competition in the media now it has to be instant story and result.

In that atmosphere objective reporting is something we have lost.

Not many of those reporters left unfortunately

on MMM now, Demons at AFL house yesterday under the cover of darkness, eddies statement, doesnt sound good.

If true, perhaps not a bad thing.

AFL: "We've read your response and here are our findings. Where do we go from here to avoid court?"

If true, perhaps not a bad thing.

AFL: "We've read your response and here are our findings. Where do we go from here to avoid court?"

Hopefully there trying to work something out, courts the last thing supporters need.

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.

What is your version of her comment 'DM was preaching to the converted. No-one was saying the Melbourne players didn't try' considering the report concentrated on whether Melbourne fumbled in the last 3 minutes of the Richmond game.

Oh really?? The last 3 minutes of the Richmond game where the melbourne payers fumbled??? This has received the most scrutiny aside from CC's lame joke. FFS she can't even read her own paper.

Perhaps she doesn't believe everything that is printed in her own paper.

If true, perhaps not a bad thing.

AFL: "We've read your response and here are our findings. Where do we go from here to avoid court?"

Very very doubtful - they hold the Aces here, not us.

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.

The president has the right to put it on the record at the AGM. In 50 years when supporters area reading about this time they'll want to get an understanding of the type of investigation and how allegations were made. She is just masking her disappointment that she hasn't been able to generate an all in at the MFC through her pathetic provocation. She would have been shattered by the sense of support for the admin at the AGM.

Very very doubtful - they hold the Aces here, not us.

You think they want to risk spending months and months in court fighting a case that the majority of legal eagles have predicted there is no way they can win?