On 09/02/2013 at 06:37, mjt said:

And one more thing, theres 35,000 members of this club, and about 12 die hards on this forum saying save the big mouth at all costs ,risk the club so that stupid mans off the cuff remarks get proven not guilty in court,take a vote and 34900 people would say fall o)n your sword were done with this crap,its bad enough not winning for 6 years, how much do you want people to suffer, so far we have lost Drake international, Metro Solar, and Bet Ezy, how much more are you willing to risk.

Leaving out all the sponsors we have lost - which has nothing to do with CC - why do you think that we will have the opportunity to throw CC to the wolves and be absolved as a club.

I am willing to do a great many things to save this club from a meandering and expensive sojourn in the courts but I very much doubt that CC will be damned by those comments at a Match Committee meeting.

If you want to damn me for not being sucked into this hypothetical then by all means...

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:38, rpfc said:

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:22, mjt said:

It appears that way, you will find out next week.

Put up a stupid picture when you have now comeback,thats your style, you could lose your club as you know it, lets back that mans off the cuff comments and lose 160 years of history, we have lost3 important sponsors in the last 6 weeks, everytime your stumped for words you put up a stupid picture.

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:41, daisycutter said:

Extinct? I didn't know that

Demonland is definitely better than Wikipedia LOL

Maybe not...

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:47, mjt said:

Put up a stupid picture when you have now comeback,thats your style, you could lose your club as you know it, lets back that mans off the cuff comments and lose 160 years of history, we have lost3 important sponsors in the last 6 weeks, everytime your stumped for words you put up a stupid picture.

So when I fill a screen with text you have issues, and when I put up a picture in jest you have issues.

Do you ever stop to think that your frustrations have little to do with me?

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:37, mjt said:

And one more thing, theres 35,000 members of this club, and about 12 die hards on this forum saying save the big mouth at all costs ,risk the club so that stupid mans off the cuff remarks get proven not guilty in court,take a vote and 34900 people would say fall o)n your sword were done with this crap,its bad enough not winning for 6 years, how much do you want people to suffer, so far we have lost Drake international, Metro Solar, and Bet Ezy, how much more are you willing to risk.

I, and I expect many others posting here, don't know CC from the proverbial bar of soap. I have no opinion if he is doing a good job or not, whether he is worth peanuts or $400K or if he should be paying us instead. Just like the other 35,000 supporters you mention. There may be many reasons for wanting him gone, but from what is publicly known to hang this whole thing around his neck is just ridiculous. It sounds like you have a long history of wanting him gone and can't resist the temptation to use the tanking joke to push your line. You may be right in wanting him gone, I've no idea. But what you wrote just looks a bit silly.

I dare say if you put it to the vote of the 35,000 members that saving the club required all posters to Demonland to be banned from all matches, they'd go for it too.

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:45, rpfc said:

Leaving out all the sponsors we have lost - which has nothing to do with CC - why do you think that we will have the opportunity to throw CC to the wolves and be absolved as a club.

I am willing to do a great many things to save this club from a meandering and expensive sojourn in the courts but I very much doubt that CC will be damned by those comments at a Match Committee meeting.

If you want to damn me for not being sucked into this hypothetical then by all means...

What hapened to

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:45, rpfc said:

Leaving out all the sponsors we have lost - which has nothing to do with CC - why do you think that we will have the opportunity to throw CC to the wolves and be absolved as a club.

I am willing to do a great many things to save this club from a meandering and expensive sojourn in the courts but I very much doubt that CC will be damned by those comments at a Match Committee meeting.

If you want to damn me for not being sucked into this hypothetical then by all means...

Lets see whos correct next week, wheres Drake, Metro Solar and Betezy, you people are going to cry next week, its a boys club down there, and there going to cost you your colors.

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:51, sue said:

I, and I expect many others posting here, don't know CC from the proverbial bar of soap. I have no opinion if he is doing a good job or not, whether he is worth peanuts or $400K or if he should be paying us instead. Just like the other 35,000 supporters you mention. There may be many reasons for wanting him gone, but from what is publicly known to hang this whole thing around his neck is just ridiculous. It sounds like you have a long history of wanting him gone and can't resist the temptation to use the tanking joke to push your line. You may be right in wanting him gone, I've no idea. But what you wrote just looks a bit silly.

I dare say if you put it to the vote of the 35,000 members that saving the club required all posters to Demonland to be banned from all matches, they'd go for it too.

would you lose the club over his dumb remarks?

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:53, mjt said:

would you lose the club over his dumb remarks?

they were an off the cuff joke. Dumb is to give any weight to it.

How mank kilos shall I put you down for .?

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:00, belzebub59 said:

they were an off the cuff joke. Dumb is to give any weight to it.

How mank kilos shall I put you down for .?

just wait to next week, there gone.

This is merely a guess, but I'd say the cessation of BetEzy's sponsorship was a club decision based on social responsibility.

I find it very difficult to believe a betting agency would have ceased their sponsorship of the club based it being detrimental to their image by association.

Or do you think that GAMBLING has a wholesome image to protect?

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:01, mjt said:

just wait to next week, there gone.

I honestly thought you would be the last person to place any weight on words...

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:53, mjt said:

would you lose the club over his dumb remarks?

No. If the AFL wants to clobber MFC just on the basis of those remarks (as we know them) I'd say fight it in court. If they exonerate MFC and want to rap him over the knuckles for 'inappropriate comments' I'd say that he should put his knuckles out for rapping and we can all have a good laugh about political correctness gone mad. If they want to seriously penalise him for the jokes then I expect he might want to take it to court and I think the club should support him.

Your position of saying the MFC will sink because of him is so over the top. If the AFL clobbers the MFC it will be for something more substantial than his jokes. But your posts and question above assumes what CC said will be sufficient to sink the club. That is not credible.

  On 09/02/2013 at 04:58, sue said:

Virtually impossible? I'm not so sure about that. A firm statement saying what Brock said wasn't anything new (compared to what Bailey had said post 186) and it had been investigated ad cleared at the time might have defused the press. Of course the media might have kept going with the issue, but we'll never know because the AFL didn't say 'done & dusted and in any case we've dropped the PP rule, so move along'.

And I am affronted that once tanking was again investigated, the investigation wasn't widened.

So am I. Once the media storm hit as Ben Hur pointed out and other clubs were again identified and their personnel made damaging statements, still the AFL refused to look at other clubs or the issue generally and continued with the Inquisition against the MFC.

The unanswered question is why?

Maybe the answer is that we are not a major club and we were an easy target.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:02, José Mourinho said:

This is merely a guess, but I'd say the cessation of BetEzy's sponsorship was a club decision based on social responsibility.

I find it very difficult to believe a betting agency would have ceased their sponsorship of the club based it being detrimental to their image by association.

Or do you think that GAMBLING has a wholesome image to protect?

CC and DB are gone CS is SAFE, as for betting companys do the math.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:05, mjt said:

CC and DB are gone CS is SAFE, as for betting companys do the math.

Believe what you read in the papers, do you?

I did the math:

Betting agency perception + tanking investigation association = Betting agency perception

No more, no less.

It's more likely that they were not asked to renew by the club, or they decided that the sponsorship was not worth the money, i.e. it wasn't being converted into customers at the desired rate.

I think a combination of the 2.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:09, José Mourinho said:

Believe what you read in the papers, do you?

I did the math:

Betting agency perception + tanking investigation association = Betting agency perception

No more, no less.

It's more likely that they were not asked to renew by the club, or they decided that the sponsorship was not worth the money, i.e. it wasn't being converted into customers at the desired rate.

I think a combination of the 2.

i think a combination of 0, really, Betezy was worth 160,000 a season, if you knew what the other 2 were worth you would understand the strife there in.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:12, mjt said:

i think a combination of 0, really, Betezy was worth 160,000 a season, if you knew what the other 2 were worth you would understand the strife there in.

Do you know if they have gone to other football clubs? If not maybe they did not consider football sponsorship a priority this year. Were they lost as a result of the tanking inquiry? If so we have a claim against the AFL if we beat tanking charges.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:17, Redleg said:

Do you know if they have gone to other football clubs? If not maybe they did not consider football sponsorship a priority this year. Were they lost as a result of the tanking inquiry? If so we have a claim against the AFL if we beat tanking charges.

if they do the AFL owe us 800,000 before the balls bounced.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:04, Redleg said:

So am I. Once the media storm hit as Ben Hur pointed out and other clubs were again identified and their personnel made damaging statements, still the AFL refused to look at other clubs or the issue generally and continued with the Inquisition against the MFC.

The unanswered question is why?

Maybe the answer is that we are not a major club and we were an easy target.

it's the old low hanging fruit analogy redleg

time we climbed higher up the tree

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:05, mjt said:

CC and DB are gone CS is SAFE, as for betting companys do the math.

so mjt, what odds are the wonderful betting companies offering on your prediction?

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:36, GM11 said:

Genuine question Bob, is it your opinion that list management to lose for draft picks is cheating, whereas list management to lose & gain a finals advantage is not?

List management to gain draft picks is "wrong" in the generally accepted sense IMO. List management to freshen players up for finals, resting players during the year as Geelong has regularly done is fine if it is to maximize the chances of success in that year.

List management to lose a game to have you better placed for finals (ie "selecting opponents") is really tricky but in essence I think is ok but TBH I'm not sure. Players doing anything but their best (in contrast to list management) is unacceptable in any circumstances.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:38, Baghdad Bob said:

List management to gain draft picks is "wrong" in the generally accepted sense IMO. List management to freshen players up for finals, resting players during the year as Geelong has regularly done is fine if it is to maximize the chances of success in that year.

List management to lose a game to have you better placed for finals (ie "selecting opponents") is really tricky but in essence I think is ok but TBH I'm not sure. Players doing anything but their best (in contrast to list management) is unacceptable in any circumstances.

you're "not sure"? Sheesh you are one conflicted individual

  On 09/02/2013 at 06:53, mjt said:

would you lose the club over his dumb remarks?

What has me scratching my head is that you are not the slightest bit irked about the penalty for dumb remarks being the loss of the club?

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:35, daisycutter said:

it's the old low hanging fruit analogy redleg

time we climbed higher up the tree

so mjt, what odds are the wonderful betting companies offering on your prediction?

worst than yours DC unfortunately, the boys club will fight to the death, theres a dozen guys there that a willing to watch 200,000 Followers hit the deck, you will see, who the [censored] does the AFL care About, us or GWS or GC, they only have to carry us for 4 yrs, were already 800,000 in the hole.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:41, nutbean said:

What has me scratching my head is that you are not the slightest bit irked about the penalty for dumb remarks being the loss of the club?

The bottom line is dumb remarks are going to finish OUR club.

  On 09/02/2013 at 07:43, mjt said:

better than yours DC unfortunately, the boys club will fight to the death, theres a dozen guys there that a willing to watch 200,000 Followers hit the deck, you will see, who the [censored] does the AFL care About, us or GWS or GC, they only have to carry us for 4 yrs, were already 800,000 in the hole.

tell me mjt, which club official ran over your pet dog?

give us some history for once

oh and tell us how much you love the club