Geez there are some moronic opinions beeing thrown around.

Fear is no way to run a club.

Values seep down from the top...I want to see a fight if needed.

I have enjoyed watching our boys sparring with the AFL and the bi-play. If we have no case to answer it will be a vindication of the tough stance taken by the club against the allegations. If they charge one of us we fight.

You don't want our players to shirk a contest, well neither should our management.

he wont take on the saving of his reputation by himself and are you also confident that he wont have some choice words about his ex employer who shafted him ?

We seemed to have generated a bit of that in recent years.

And it is an unrealistic scenario that CC goes for a lifetime ban for silly joke and Trigg only got 6 months for flagrantly breaching the salary cap rules (twice).

If we are negotiating a settlement with the AFL then it will have to involve both parties exiting the investigation with an acceptable level of integrity, good faith and little residual smear or taint. And the proposed scenario of a lifetime ban for any MFC official can't be within the bounds of sensible negotiation.

Geez there are some moronic opinions beeing thrown around.

Fear is no way to run a club.

Values seep down from the top...I want to see a fight if needed.

I have enjoyed watching our boys sparring with the AFL and the bi-play. If we have no case to answer it will be a vindication of the tough stance taken by the club against the allegations. If they charge one of us we fight.

You don't want our players to shirk a contest, well neither should our management.

I rather see some common sense demonstrated by the Board in ensuring a sensible feasible and pragmatic closure to this issue through an appropriate negotiation with the AFL.

If we get off or the penalties are soft touch this its probably more a case that both the AFL and MFC realise that any other outcome is bad for both parties.

And given the 10 ton elephant issue the AFL is grappling with in doping, there is incentive to ensure a sensible and quick closure to this.

Whatever, if all you diehards want to go to court put your money were your posts are.

Most of us diehards can't even afford an upgrade at Maccas.

I have put in as much as I can afford.

I'll happily kick in some cash if it leaves me with a club I can be proud of. I'm not sure I've got it in me to follow a club that won't stand for something. I'm sick of us being rolled over and having to take it from all and sundry.

I'm an optimist but I'm not naive. There is a lot on the line here.

Go DEES!

There is a lot at stake but us mediocre supporters don't really mean Jack S**t

WYL - what are we fighting for? In my view there are 2 things;

1. The Melbourne Football Club

2. Individuals (i. Schwab ii. Connolly iii. Bailey)

If we are charged for tanking, bloody fight like there's no tomorrow. We can't bend over, I do agree with that.

It's the individuals that is not so easy to fight. Based on the reports that we've all heard, I don't think it's worth fighting for CC (fighting = take it to court). This is in absolutely no way that I am bedning over, it's just that I refuse to fight a case that we won't win.

Nb. If Bailey is charged, I think we should take that to court as I would expect the AFL don't have sufficient evidence to prove him guilty.

To gain some respect we must support our employees. In some cases these employees are past employees, but employees all the same.

The club is showing some integrity by doing this. This has been their fight all along to fight for "THEIR INTEGRITY".

Edited February 12, 201312 yr by Chippy

A life ban for an imbecilic joke ? So you would jettison CC in heartbeat. Just what we need - an angry CC going to court to clear his name furious at the MFC for throwing him to the wolves.

If you have no problem with CC being banned for life are you that confident that he wont take on the saving of his reputation by himself and are you also confident that he wont have some choice words about his ex employer who shafted him ?

Nutbean, it's my opinion, and it won't change given that none of us have seen any evidence.

My argument would be that if the AFL were to ban him for life, they would believe they have a very strong case, just in case it gets taken further, and I have absolutely no doubt they (the AFL) would've received strong and accurate legal advice.

And if CC went to court on his own after we "threw him to the wolves", I'd be very confident that he won't have some choice words. What's he going to reveal that could harm us, given that he has been interviewed/interrogated multiple times during this investigation? I don't think the judge would like it if he brought new stuff to the table that he must have "forgotten" to mention during his initmate chats with Clothier and co.

IF it were to happen, proving CC's innocence will be a lot harder than his guilt. If it got to that stage, I'd imagine the AFL have done their due diligence in ensuring they won't lose.

With all that said, I'd doubt the MFC will let him fend for himself, but I'd like to think they wouldn't have a "win at all costs" attitude.

We seemed to have generated a bit of that in recent years.

And it is an unrealistic scenario that CC goes for a lifetime ban for silly joke and Trigg only got 6 months for flagrantly breaching the salary cap rules (twice).

If we are negotiating a settlement with the AFL then it will have to involve both parties exiting the investigation with an acceptable level of integrity, good faith and little residual smear or taint. And the proposed scenario of a lifetime ban for any MFC official can't be within the bounds of sensible negotiation.

Agreed on a negotiated settlement but when you say both parties - the MFC side of the equation needs the compliance of Bailey, Connolly and Schwab (if those are the three individuals targeted).

We seemed to have generated a bit of that in recent years.

And it is an unrealistic scenario that CC goes for a lifetime ban for silly joke and Trigg only got 6 months for flagrantly breaching the salary cap rules (twice).

If we are negotiating a settlement with the AFL then it will have to involve both parties exiting the investigation with an acceptable level of integrity, good faith and little residual smear or taint. And the proposed scenario of a lifetime ban for any MFC official can't be within the bounds of sensible negotiation.

I think Vlad has made it quite clear what he expects that punishment to be should anyone be found guilty.

Nutbean, it's my opinion, and it won't change given that none of us have seen any evidence.

My argument would be that if the AFL were to ban him for life, they would believe they have a very strong case, just in case it gets taken further, and I have absolutely no doubt they (the AFL) would've received strong and accurate legal advice.

And if CC went to court on his own after we "threw him to the wolves", I'd be very confident that he won't have some choice words. What's he going to reveal that could harm us, given that he has been interviewed/interrogated multiple times during this investigation? I don't think the judge would like it if he brought new stuff to the table that he must have "forgotten" to mention during his initmate chats with Clothier and co.

IF it were to happen, proving CC's innocence will be a lot harder than his guilt. If it got to that stage, I'd imagine the AFL have done their due diligence in ensuring they won't lose.

With all that said, I'd doubt the MFC will let him fend for himself, but I'd like to think they wouldn't have a "win at all costs" attitude.

CC is not going to get banned for life for one stupid moronic comment, its up to CC to face the music, 6 months at best.

Nutbean,

And if CC went to court on his own after we "threw him to the wolves", I'd be very confident that he won't have some choice words. What's he going to reveal that could harm us, given that he has been interviewed/interrogated multiple times during this investigation?

I would suggest that his testimony given during the interrogation, at a time when he had the full backing of the club might just vary slightly from what he might say or notes he may produce when he is trying to save his reputation and is an ex exployee who said "you are on your own buddy".

All I am saying is that any charge and penalty "we" accept which includes CC and Schwab ( and i would venture even Bailey) would have to be accepted with their compliance.

We seemed to have generated a bit of that in recent years.

And it is an unrealistic scenario that CC goes for a lifetime ban for silly joke and Trigg only got 6 months for flagrantly breaching the salary cap rules (twice).

If we are negotiating a settlement with the AFL then it will have to involve both parties exiting the investigation with an acceptable level of integrity, good faith and little residual smear or taint. And the proposed scenario of a lifetime ban for any MFC official can't be within the bounds of sensible negotiation.

Just have a feeling it will go like this - if our legal team advises we can win, we will fight , if they don't think we can we will be forced to negotiate. Now I know the scenarios will be different for different people so hopefully the negotiating will fall our way and no need to go to court

life ban for that joke??

You are kidding. There is no hard evidence of telling the players to lose. FFS even Caro says we didn't tell the players to lose..and she would know !!!

I rather see some common sense demonstrated by the Board in ensuring a sensible feasible and pragmatic closure to this issue through an appropriate negotiation with the AFL.

If we get off or the penalties are soft touch this its probably more a case that both the AFL and MFC realise that any other outcome is bad for both parties.

And given the 10 ton elephant issue the AFL is grappling with in doping, there is incentive to ensure a sensible and quick closure to this.

I understand the sentiment but we don't need to be pragmatic here, the AFL will not want this to get inside a court.

This is one time when we should stand firm and not negotiate, that is unless there is some physical evidence that exists out there that will damn us.

I would suggest that his testimony given during the interrogation, at a time when he had the full backing of the club might just vary slightly from what he might say or notes he may produce when he is trying to save his reputation and is an ex exployee who said "you are on your own buddy".

All I am saying is that any charge and penalty "we" accept which includes CC and Schwab ( and i would venture even Bailey) would have to be accepted with their compliance.

How would this stand up in court?

Just have a feeling it will go like this - if our legal team advises we can win, we will fight , if they don't think we can we will be forced to negotiate. Now I know the scenarios will be different for different people so hopefully the negotiating will fall our way and no need to go to court

Yeah lets fight it all the way to the Supreme Court with the Millions of Dollars we have stashed away at the Commonwealth Bank.

Personally, I'm with the Zulus, the desperate effort of an army with limited weapons and just their mad courage, trying to overcome a ruthless and treaty-breaking attempt to subjugate them by a foreign power well-resourced, established in a fortified position and wielding fast firing lethal weapons with skill and efficiency born of decades of similar conflict while subjugating an empire that spanned the earth...

Can't be be the Rats of Tobruk, instead?

Then you merely wait for the club to die.....

That is your choice, it is not mine.

Yeah lets fight it all the way to the Supreme Court with the Millions of Dollars we have stashed away at the Commonwealth Bank.

Ummm is that what I'm saying here ???????????????????

CC is not going to get banned for life for one stupid moronic comment, its up to CC to face the music, 6 months at best.

life ban for that joke??

You are kidding. There is no hard evidence of telling the players to lose. FFS even Caro says we didn't tell the players to lose..and she would know !!!

I think Vlad has made it quite clear what he expects that punishment to be should anyone be found guilty.

Jnr, just interested which pages of the 800-odd that the AFL presented to the MFC have you read?

I'm amazed at how people think that CC is innocent, and that any charges against him should be fought. FMD, joke or no joke, he made comments about ensuring we don't win a certain amount of games, he indicated this on numerous occasions. He is a major reason why we are in this mess, having to put up with a 7-month investigation, yet we want to spend as much money as required to try and clear his name?

I'm sure that will go down well with new/potential sponsors.

Yeah lets fight it all the way to the Supreme Court with the Millions of Dollars we have stashed away at the Commonwealth Bank.

don't worry mjt, we'll just take out a 2nd mortgage on the mcg

Ummm is that what I'm saying here ???????????????????

Who would know, from what i read you had 50 each way.

don't worry mjt, we'll just take out a 2nd mortgage on the mcg

you baby boomers are deeluded.

Who would know, from what i read you had 50 each way.

Then why such an extreme reply? Let me clarify it for you, if we get shafted for something our legals feel we are clearly not guilty of then why wouldn't you fight it?

Agreed on a negotiated settlement but when you say both parties - the MFC side of the equation needs the compliance of Bailey, Connolly and Schwab (if those are the three individuals targeted).

Absolutely. Hanging someone out to dry for tanking would not be acceptable to either AFL, MFC or the individual. Others have speculated that Bailey may be still seeking an appropriate settlement for himself (Fair enough).

I think Vlad has made it quite clear what he expects that punishment to be should anyone be found guilty.

He also made it clear in recent years there was no evidence of tanking.

Just have a feeling it will go like this - if our legal team advises we can win, we will fight , if they don't think we can we will be forced to negotiate. Now I know the scenarios will be different for different people so hopefully the negotiating will fall our way and no need to go to court

I have a stronger feeling that the determination of whether we can "win" will be decided on broader commercial and strategic issues beyond the court room. There should be a realisation that in the greater scheme of things that if we have to end up in Court its never going to be "win". More of mitigated loss.

Then why such an extreme reply? Let me clarify it for you, if we get shafted for something our legals feel we are clearly not guilty of then why wouldn't you fight it?

Two things you never trust in life, Politicians and Lawyers, when you complete High School you will understand that.

I understand the sentiment but we don't need to be pragmatic here, the AFL will not want this to get inside a court.

This is one time when we should stand firm and not negotiate, that is unless there is some physical evidence that exists out there that will damn us.

And MFC dont want this in Court either. We need to recognise where the MFC and the AFL have share interests (along with CC,CS and DB)

We should be negotiating every outcome other than "no case to answer".