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

No, many men in the street form their own view and their opinion is divided.

If Wilson is right in her contention that CC will be charged with "bringing the game into disrepute" I for one feel for poor Gill McLachlan . How does he bring the charges of bringing the game into disrepute when seemingly no rules have been broken. How can you bring the game into disrepute when you have abided by the rules as defined at that moment of time. If it's based on CC remarks then I would suggest that "The bringing the game into disrepute charge" is a bigger can of worms than the Tanking charge

If Wilson is right in her contention that CC will be charged with "bringing the game into disrepute" I for one feel for poor Gill McLachlan . How does he bring the charges of bringing the game into disrepute when seemingly no rules have been broken. How can you bring the game into disrepute when you have abided by the rules as defined at that moment of time. If it's based on CC remarks then I would suggest that "The bringing the game into disrepute charge" is a bigger can of worms than the Tanking charge

It's only a can of worms if Connolly or the MFC contests it. If all parties are prepared to accept it to make this go away then it's a can of beer.

There is so much in today's Caro piece that offers insight into her methods. It really is a rich piece.

Let's not overlook her steady walking away from that pre-Christmas declaration that Cam Schwab was finished at the club..now he might be charged.

But best of all is that non-correction correction about the vault meeting, no the tin shed, no the building in which the match committee met.

It was a multi stage process but she finally made it right.

And that is the most important thing of all because it highlights her great weakness as a journalist...lack of attention to detail.

People do talk to her and she does find stuff out. That's her strength, but the inattention to detail means she takes opinion as fact, as well as regurgitating it as fact.

It's amazing how far that can take you...that and a vindictive, judgemental and cynical nature.

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 majority of my peer group, work mates and others (ie the man in the street) i chat to about this issue don't believe we cheated. Most seem to be saying that it was standard operating practice to list manage in a way that maximized draft position and that they accept multiple clubs did exactly that (this view mirrors that put forward by the CEO of the most powerful and influential footy club CEO in the country - Eddie McGuire).

Some of those men in the street also believe that we are being crucified for breaking a rule that does not exist but not the majority as to be honest most don't care enough to have formed a view on this (or whether we should be punished for that matter).

However it is absolutely true to say that the majority of people i know or have talked to about this seem to believe if we are punished then all the other clubs who did exactly the same thing should also be punished (which is an ace up our sleeve as the AFL will be well aware of the public pressure to go after,say CW - a point CW made early on)

It's only a can of worms if Connolly or the MFC contests it. If all parties are prepared to accept it to make this go away then it's a can of beer.

Or bottle of Grange

The majority of my peer group, work mates and others (ie the man in the street) i chat to about this issue don't believe we cheated. Most seem to be saying that it was standard operating practice to list manage in a way that maximized draft position and that they accept multiple clubs did exactly that (this view mirrors that put forward by the CEO of the most powerful and influential footy club CEO in the country - Eddie McGuire).

Some of those men in the street also believe that we are being crucified for breaking a rule that does not exist but not the majority as to be honest most don't care enough to have formed a view on this (or whether we should be punished for that matter).

However it is absolutely true to say that the majority of people i know or have talked to about this seem to believe if we are punished then all the other clubs who did exactly the same thing should also be punished (which is an ace up our sleeve as the AFL will be well aware of the public pressure to go after,say CW - a point CW made early on)

Same from me Bm except add that those MIS mates etc still think it is great that it is my club and not theirs that is copping the attention and it does allow them to make some pretty painful (in a poor taste way) puns.

interesting that the dons supporters are now sying less and have changed their view to be a little less derogatory

Lets just walk a mile in CC's shoes for a minute. You make a flippant throw away comment in a meeting 3 years ago and suddenly you face the prospect of being charged with bringing the game you love and serve into disrepute. Honestly who amongst us would not defend their own reputation and integrity against the charge. Personally I would defend myself with vigour. The thought of my reputation being tarnished over a rather innocuous comment made years prior would be unacceptable in the extreme, my reputation means everything to me. Still I accept that some people aren't as commited to their reputations as I. Each to their own I guess.

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.

My mates think the same.

Wilson's articles are the news paper equivelant to a Kyle Sandilands .....

Wow.....you have got really nasty now. I am not sure that there is a worse insult that you can throw at someone.

Media Alliance Code of Ethics

Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities.

Alliance members engaged in journalism commit themselves to

Honesty

Fairness

Independence

Respect for the rights of others

1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.

2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.

3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source's motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.

4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.

5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.

6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.

7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.

8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person's vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.

9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.

10. Do not plagiarise.

11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.

12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.

Guidance Clause

Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.

If you feel an Alliance member is in breach of the code, you can lodge a complaint using the process outlined here.

http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html

There is so much in today's Caro piece that offers insight into her methods. It really is a rich piece.

Let's not overlook her steady walking away from that pre-Christmas declaration that Cam Schwab was finished at the club..now he might be charged.

But best of all is that non-correction correction about the vault meeting, no the tin shed, no the building in which the match committee met.

It was a multi stage process but she finally made it right.

And that is the most important thing of all because it highlights her great weakness as a journalist...lack of attention to detail.

People do talk to her and she does find stuff out. That's her strength, but the inattention to detail means she takes opinion as fact, as well as regurgitating it as fact.

It's amazing how far that can take you...that and a vindictive, judgemental and cynical nature.

Well written mate, agree with every word.

Wilson does gather information, no doubt & then writes it up so poorly. Seriously all these articles should be used as Exhibit A,B,C in later proceedings. She has left herself way open.

Lets just walk a mile in CC's shoes for a minute. You make a flippant throw away comment in a meeting 3 years ago and suddenly you face the prospect of being charged with bringing the game you love and serve into disrepute. Honestly who amongst us would not defend their own reputation and integrity against the charge. Personally I would defend myself with vigour. The thought of my reputation being tarnished over a rather innocuous comment made years prior would be unacceptable in the extreme, my reputation means everything to me. Still I accept that some people aren't as commited to their reputations as I. Each to their own I guess.

It depends what the other alternative offer is - maybe it's to be charged with that AND have MFC, MFC Board, Dean Bailey, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly all charged with tanking which will no doubt end in court.

It depends what the other alternative offer is - maybe it's to be charged with that AND have MFC, MFC Board, Dean Bailey, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly all charged with tanking which will no doubt end in court.

so then it goes to court. The alternative is Hello Fitzroy.

The majority of my peer group, work mates and others (ie the man in the street) i chat to about this issue don't believe we cheated. Most seem to be saying that it was standard operating practice to list manage in a way that maximized draft position and that they accept multiple clubs did exactly that (this view mirrors that put forward by the CEO of the most powerful and influential footy club CEO in the country - Eddie McGuire).

Some of those men in the street also believe that we are being crucified for breaking a rule that does not exist but not the majority as to be honest most don't care enough to have formed a view on this (or whether we should be punished for that matter).

However it is absolutely true to say that the majority of people i know or have talked to about this seem to believe if we are punished then all the other clubs who did exactly the same thing should also be punished (which is an ace up our sleeve as the AFL will be well aware of the public pressure to go after,say CW - a point CW made early on)

Points well made Binman.

Did we "tank" or didn't we? The debate is moot, for to have such a debate is to ignore the dichotomy which, to any reasonable mind, is patently obvious, in terms of the "rules" as they existed at the time in question.

Again, we cannot be charged with "tanking". However, if we were to be charged with anything, it is clear that the AFL Rules, as constituted, mean we can be charged with bringing the "Game into disrepute". Given the construct of the rules which existed at that time, drafted and implemented by the AFL itself, it, at the very least, if not a legally flawed concept, is certainly counter intuitive, should the AFL seek to charge us, in relation to conduct in which we allegedly engaged, within a paradigm which was designed by the AFL Commission.

As an analogy, Melbourne Cup horses are "handicapped" according to the perceptions, real or otherwise, of the handicapper. In this case, the AFL were in charge of rating the "handicaps" made available to all football clubs, based on their performance during the time in question.

If the handicapper got it wrong, then it is not the beneficiary of such a flawed system, that ought to be punished. AFL, to thine ownself be true.

Did we "tank" or didn't we? The debate is moot, for to have such a debate is to ignore the dichotomy which, to any reasonable mind, is patently obvious, in terms of the "rules" as they existed at the time in question.

Again, we cannot be charged with "tanking". However, if we were to be charged with anything, it is clear that the AFL Rules, as constituted, mean we can be charged with bringing the "Game into disrepute". Given the construct of the rules which existed at that time, drafted and implemented by the AFL itself, it, at the very least, if not a legally flawed concept, is certainly counter intuitive, should the AFL seek to charge us, in relation to conduct in which we allegedly engaged, within a paradigm which was designed by the AFL Commission.

Catch up time for me - did the below law not exist in 2009 as to my understanding this is the tanking law ?

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

( note they can only try and get Bailey on this - not CC or CS)

DESPITE the regular protestations of the AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou and his commission, when the blowtorch was placed on the integrity of certain home-and-away matches

in 2009, there appears no doubt in anyone's mind any more that Melbourne worked to lose games of football that year.

mmm...there seems to be doubt in a few peoples minds. She mustn't read this forum after all.

Has she gone around a checked everybody to see if there is any doubt in their minds, what about the billion plus people in China and the same again in India who couldn't give a toss? Any doubt in their minds?

Wait a minute, it's just a figure of speech. Ah! so it is an opinion piece after all and not a statement of fact.

Catch up time for me - did the below law not exist in 2009 as to my understanding this is the tanking law ?

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

( note they can only try and get Bailey on this - not CC or CS)

Well, yes, no, maybe. It's not what the supposed man in the street supposedly understands by tanking though, if you believe certain claims above.

But read it again with the following emphasis in mind:

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits AND must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

It's no surprise that DB will be off to court if they try to charge him, whatever else might happen. It ain't over till it's over.

mmm...there seems to be doubt in a few peoples minds. She mustn't read this forum after all.

Has she gone around a checked everybody to see if there is any doubt in their minds, what about the billion plus people in China and the same again in India who couldn't give a toss? Any doubt in their minds?

Wait a minute, it's just a figure of speech. Ah! so it is an opinion piece after all and not a statement of fact.

It's clearly a combination of the two rjay. I believe their is some fact in it due to her lack of personal insults toward Cameron Schwab. If there was any chance of him stil lbeing charged, she would've based 90% of that article on him. The fact that he gets barely a line makes me beleive she knows he is in the clear.

But, this is about the third time I have posted this, and not one person on here has shot me down, so that's a fairly good indication that some don't want to believe it could be true.

To let the club off the hook now would be as damaging to the game's image ....

A message for the AFL from Caroline perhaps (appears the AFL will let the club off the hook)........and getting back to the charges earlier in the article it is "expected" the club will be charged for bringing the game into disrepute.

I think this is what is being discussed atm. And she may be warning the AFL here^ that if they do let the club off the hook she will take aim (at the AFL) with both barrels (so to speak).

But, this is about the third time I have posted this, and not one person on here has shot me down, so that's a fairly good indication that some don't want to believe it could be true.

Or a good indication they agree with you and that some may have already indicated so here or elsewhere.

Or a good indication they agree with you and that some may have already indicated so here or elsewhere.

Apologies HT, didn't see anyting of the kind, but there are 1797 posts so it is possible I missed it.

It depends what the other alternative offer is - maybe it's to be charged with that AND have MFC, MFC Board, Dean Bailey, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly all charged with tanking which will no doubt end in court.

Charged with what? No mention of tanking in any rules.

A message for the AFL from Caroline perhaps........and getting back to the charges earlier in the article it is "expected" the club will be charged for bringing the game into disrepute.

I think this is what is being discussed atm. And she may be warning the AFL here^ that if they do let the club off the hook she will take aim (at the AFL) with both barrels (so to speak).

hahaha, bet the afl is real worried about a dying newspaper that is trying to resurrect the mo of the defunct Truth. What next Heartbalm?

the AFL media centre probably already outguns the age for number of football reporters

and i doubt vlad or gillom are kero fan-boys

hahaha, bet the afl is real worried about a dying newspaper that is trying to resurrect the mo of the defunct Truth. What next Heartbalm?

the AFL media centre probably already outguns the age for number of football reporters

and i doubt vlad or gillom are kero fan-boys

I know I know both barrels can be considered powder puff at the AFL.