The problem with his definition is that it as airy fairy as the word tanking. What does "we didnt try to win" mean ?

I understand that but the general footy public don't see it in those terms and I doubt the AFL did. They may now having had significant discussions with us.

This is a branding exercise to the AFL, they don't give a rats toss that we got an extra draft pick. And the man in the street thinks we cheated.

That's the issue and that's what Caro's on about.

She just calls it as she sees it and she's fed inside info from the AFL. She has no agenda against the club, she just doesn't like what she believes we attempted to do, i.e. deliberately manufacture losses.

She's also called for James Hird to resign even though it's yet to be proven that his players were outside WADA's guidelines. Does she have an agenda against Essendon too ?

I don't like the woman and reckon she knows SFA about the actual game, but I don't question her motives and I'm not offended by her articles, even though some have been hopelessly inaccurate. I acknowledge that we're being "investigated" for a reason and that journos prefer to paint a bleak and damning picture where possible. To expect otherwise is naive.

I didn't mind her initial reporting on the issue. She was calling as she saw it. She is actively cheerleading the AFL investigation and pushing for a guilty conviction, evidence and process be damned. If she wanted Melbourne to be punished, then fine. I could accept that as an intellectually honest argument. I can't accept that she seems to think that the AFL is completely guilt free in this saga. If she were to get real and say that, then she would lose her source at AFL house.

You can count the number of insider traders taken to court on one hand. You'd need only a finger or two to count those actually found guilty. It's hard to prove ... very much like 'tanking'.

And IMHO, the appropriate response is not "We want to get off because all the others did it" but "If we are guilty, then others should be charged too".

I woke up this morning with the simple thought of 'one law for all'.

And also reflecting on the fact that despite numerous writs out regarding the defamation of Trent Croad, the Age still went for another, very aggressive, round of malicious gossip about him. They are getting reckless and legally running towards cliffs.

lets also not forget that in the 2 years prior to 2009 we won a grand total of 8 games (5 and then 3). its not as if we played finals, or as if we should have been playing finals in 2009.

She's not presiding over any judgement, so in reality her contributions mean little.

Not worth the angst.

I understand that but the general footy public don't see it in those terms and I doubt the AFL did. They may now having had significant discussions with us.

This is a branding exercise to the AFL, they don't give a rats toss that we got an extra draft pick. And the man in the street thinks we cheated.

That's the issue and that's what Caro's on about.

You mean that is the issue Caro *wants* it to be about...

'You can't prove it and the AFL is on no sound legal footing but punish them anyway!' she says in a convoluted and confused piece this morning.

We all know this is PR for the AFL - but this mess is of their own creation.

As per what we were discussing yesterday: we have got to worry about our own PR and it is not served by accepting guilt.

Even The Bitter One thinks we have the legal side of the argument.

I say, if we have to, as a stakeholder in the AFL we should, if required, stand up for the other 17 direct stakeholders to act in their own interests as they see fit and take this to the legal system to sort out.

Nutbean - Since the start of this investigation (could be argued that it was well before that), CW has had a personal goal of sinking Cameron Schwab. She has written some pretty bloody ordinary things about him, and at any chance, she has tried to catch him out.

This recent article has absolutely minimal on Schwab. Why has she stopped now? If this was an opinion article based on nothing other than her personal disliking for the MFC, why wouldn't she be getting up Schwab again? She wrote;

"Connolly will be charged as will former coach Dean Bailey, but Fairfax Media could not confirm whether CEO Cameron Schwab would also be charged."

This is the only mention of Schwab in her article. The only mention of the man that she has individualised in many articles for well over 2 years. What has changed in the last week or so that has made her take her foot of his throat? The only logical response is that she knows something, which is most likely that CS is in the clear, therefore anything she tries to pin on him could be used when the AFL announces its next move. The fact that her focus seems to be solely on Chris Connolly, in my honest opinion, speaks volumes.

We may still get told we have no case to answer, and Wilson is covering her ar$e in that article, just in case this eventuates (much to her disgust). But the thing that I took out of this article is not what she has written, it's more about what she hasn't (or who she hasn't written about).

You mean that is the issue Caro *wants* it to be about...

'You can't prove it and the AFL is on no sound legal footing but punish them anyway!' she says in a convoluted and confused piece this morning.

We all know this is PR for the AFL - but this mess is of their own creation.

As per what we were discussing yesterday: we have got to worry about our own PR and it is not served by accepting guilt.

Even The Bitter One thinks we have the legal side of the argument.

I say, if we have to, as a stakeholder in the AFL we should, if required, stand up for the other 17 direct stakeholders to act in their own interests as they see fit and take this to the legal system to sort out.

RP - can you please give me your opinion on the piece I wrote early (as posted above). I would love Ben Hur's view on it, but I'm on his ignore list (maybe someone can copy and paste it on my behalf and get BH to comment).

I personally think I'm on the money.

They won't be selling any product to anyone on Demonland or Demonology..........

oh i know. But many of the swill will!

I didn't mind her initial reporting on the issue. She was calling as she saw it. She is actively cheerleading the AFL investigation and pushing for a guilty conviction, evidence and process be damned. If she wanted Melbourne to be punished, then fine. I could accept that as an intellectually honest argument. I can't accept that she seems to think that the AFL is completely guilt free in this saga. If she were to get real and say that, then she would lose her source at AFL house.

She has been absolutely soft (pathetic) in her take on the AFL in all of this. Dismissive of previous 'transgressors', apologetic in regard to AD's role and has said nothing about the comedic value of the investigators vis-a-vis the analysis of the last 3 minutes of the Richmond game and how we used Jack Watts. Probably as a service to her AFL sources but the penalty Age readers have had to suffer has been an unbalanced and opinionated editorial rather than a reportage.

The bottom line is if Bailey is charged the MFC have to fight with him right to the end.

If Bailey goes down, i believe the club will follow.

The gaming licences are up. Sponsors won't answer the phone.

Yes it is going to be expensive but there is no choice. The alternative is we play against Fitzroy by the end of the decade in my view.

The worst thing about Wilson's latest purge is next to the headline "Why the Demons should be punished"..... is a picture of her [censored] smiling head!

Repulsive.

Caro jumped on this story early and is not letting it go. She has no real news, no evidence but keeps peddling the same crap.

She wants to be able to shout out "I told you so" if we get toasted.

On the available evidence (that seems to be freely leaking from within the AFL) there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. Only some evidence of misguided comments.

Back to the smoking gun. if there any emails or specific meetings to engineer tanking that they have evidence of then we are toast. I very much doubt this exists. And without it they can't really do much.

One issue is that all parties seem to have appointed separate legal advisors. This will likely result in 3 separate legal opinions about what to do or say to the AFL.

CS, CC and DB and the Club might all have differing views on any strategy making a negotiated settlement much harder. Of course if one party rolls and fesses up that might make things more difficult.

I remember a few years ago Ken Jarret from Elders fessing up about some offshore transaction and doing 6mnths jail. Scanlon, Elliott and others fought and won despite the Jarret confession.

Because Justice Frank Vincent wrongly ruled out the evidence against them.

Wrongly? Yes, as it was ruled by the Court of Appeal although by then it was too late to try Elliott.

I didn't mind her initial reporting on the issue. She was calling as she saw it. She is actively cheerleading the AFL investigation and pushing for a guilty conviction, evidence and process be damned. If she wanted Melbourne to be punished, then fine. I could accept that as an intellectually honest argument. I can't accept that she seems to think that the AFL is completely guilt free in this saga. If she were to get real and say that, then she would lose her source at AFL house.

The problem is CBF, she can't articulate what she "sees", so that it is in terms of something that is sustainable and prosecutable. All her current article can be described as no more than a recycled crock

that article is literally just to set her up for if/when we get off. she has set the basis for continuing to attack us and the afl afterwards.

using words like "Excuses". she can just say the afl were soft for accepting their "excuses" because blind freddy could see we tanked.

we need to sue her for defamation.

Here's the current situation in Australia under the "uniform defamation law":

under the Uniform Defamation Law, corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue. However, be warned that individuals or groups of individuals employed by or associated with that corporation - such as company directors, CEOs or managers - can still sue if they are identified by the publication.

Not-for-profit organisations can still sue for defamation, no matter how many employees or members they have.

It is probably possible for MFC lawyers to obtain an injunction, if the article could influence future legal actions. But it's unlikely any judge would be swayed by CW's puny lines of argument.

..... And the man in the street thinks we cheated.

That's the issue and that's what Caro's on about.

Yes and the reason so many of us are completely [censored] off is that the man in the street would think no more of it than they do of the similar cheating by a number of other clubs if CW and others didn't decide they needed to fill some column inches to further their miserable careers.

Again i have no great truck with CW. I dislike her style of gossipy journalism but acknowledge some like it. I do wonder again though where was she when the biggest story in recent AFL history was brewing? She and others and purely reactive and in no way are investigative journalists.

However as i have noted CW whole modus operandi relies on having good sources and her recent significant missteps have likely threatened the qulaity of her sources and information. To me the latest article is evidence of this. It suggests that her sources were probably some ex Melbourne people, AA and possibly others connected the investigation. These sources have dried up and she has nothing new and is now really struggling (to the extent that her articles are now overtly marked as opinion which is perhaps also protection against defamation suits).

Her assertion that "Connolly will be charged as will former coach Dean Bailey" is most likely AA's view of how things will/should proceed and is now months old.

As an aside I have to say i loved the line ''but Fairfax Media could not confirm whether CEO Cameron Schwab would also be charged." Such tricky snake oil salesman style journalism that again is symptomatic of the standards of footy writing in general.

What does it mean? It implies that it has been confirmed that the others will be charged (impossible i would have thought - unless Gill is talking directly to her and even then it would not be 'officially' confirmed as such) and that she (or Fairfax) have some sort of official dialogue with the AFL on this issue (when in fact not ever talking to anyone about this issues or asking the question would be not confirming it - i could say that i can't confirm CW has used performance enhancing drugs, which would be true - i can't confirm it - but at the same time implies she does).

It's just so bloody annoying how she doesn't even think for one moment that the AFL might have had something to do with this. I could accept a nuanced argument that Melbourne should be punished that took in the entire picture. I wouldn't agree but I could respect it. Caro just dismisses anything that doesn't fit into her template as irrelevant and pushes what she thinks is 'important'. The reason being I would suggest is that she is getting fed info from inside the AFL and if she were to be critical of them, that source would no longer talk to her.

I spoke to a long time MFC supporter yesterday and he said "we tanked". I said "it depends on the definition". He said "we didn't try and win".

That's not accurate - what we did was "try to lose". - that's what this is all about.

Last night I had the strangest dream. The Age was in court as a witness for the MFC in its defamation case against CW. As evidence of the harm she had done, the Age's evidence was that her articles led them to drop their sponsorship of the MFC.

I must stop eating those pizzas before bedtime.

I understand that but the general footy public don't see it in those terms and I doubt the AFL did. They may now having had significant discussions with us.

This is a branding exercise to the AFL, they don't give a rats toss that we got an extra draft pick. And the man in the street thinks we cheated.

That's the issue and that's what Caro's on about.

Depends what man you are talking to 'Bob', opinion seems pretty divided on this as it is in the media. Some think we have been treated harshly, some think we did what any club would do with the system in place and some think we cheated. Where the numbers lye who knows. Maybe we could get RR to run a poll in the wider football community, of course he will have to come out of the sin bin and the questions would need to be well framed (Sir Humphrey style).

Yes and the reason so many of us are completely [censored] off is that the man in the street would think no more of it than they do of the similar cheating by a number of other clubs if CW and others didn't decide they needed to fill some column inches to further their miserable careers.

Perhaps to a degree yes, but shyte happens.

And the man in the street thinks we cheated.

That's the issue and that's what Caro's on about.

No it is not. It's the issue Wilson wants to push.

There is a big difference there. Seriously i have not come across a journalist who is so intent on embedding her own venomous feelings along with facts. I have seen it in magazines and "sunday" pieces but not in a daily.

It is the same as at Windy Hill right now. No charges have been laid, but Wilson has them guilty on all fronts.

It sells papers.

I want to read facts, but right now there are none out there.

What the man in the street thinks means sod all, it is not the issue. But it is the one you like FanBob.

"The Demons have engaged former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein to lead their defence and their view is that they have a very good case. Perhaps in legal terms they are correct even though their stated excuses are so so flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish.

Perhaps, in the name of political expediency, their punishment will be mitigated."

This is the relevant part of the article and the conclusion that I have begun to draw.

The rest is just Caro rambling. What matters is what will matter in a court of law not a court of journos. I couldn't give a stuff about her opinion.

And the man in the street thinks we cheated.

We must walk down different streets Bob. From my experience the man in the street generally thinks we are being crucified for breaking a rule that does not exist.

"The Demons have engaged former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein to lead their defence and their view is that they have a very good case. Perhaps in legal terms they are correct even though their stated excuses are so so flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish.

Perhaps, in the name of political expediency, their punishment will be mitigated."

This is the relevant part of the article and the conclusion that I have begun to draw.

The rest is just Caro rambling. What matters is what will matter in a court of law not a court of journos. I couldn't give a stuff about her opinion.

Oops went too early. Story of my life.

Agree with the above and seems to me the new man on the case for the AFL can either see the issue off to court where it should go if we are singled out for all the very good reasons previously enunciated, or he can resolve sensibly. Over to you Gil , does it get messy or do we move on. This may tell us all a bit about the type of AFL management we are likely to expect in the future.

I understand that but the general footy public don't see it in those terms and I doubt the AFL did. They may now having had significant discussions with us.

This is a branding exercise to the AFL, they don't give a rats toss that we got an extra draft pick. And the man in the street thinks we cheated.

That's the issue and that's what Caro's on about.

The man in the street thinks we tanked because of the articles they've read of hers