BH - not a troll, more a content generator

The gospel according to BH:

1. Im right, youre wrong.

2. Even if Im wrong, Im right.

3. Even if youre right hang on, thats impossible, so Ill

just refer to something else about which Im right (even if Im wrong).

4. You still here? Go away.

The gospel of a lightweight thinker who tries to bully with aggression but won't answer the tough questions.

I've treated many of them in the past (not that I'm suggesting there's anything necessarily wrong with BH).

BH - not a troll, more a content generator

That's a good sig for Ben.

Oh, and btw, I bet the MFC doesn't sue Fairfax, or Ms Wilson. Anyone disagree ?

Why stoop to there level.

Good to see DM come out and say what cw has written is wrong.

Nice way to put her back in her box.

arent we a not for profit organisation?

if that is the case then we CAN sue.

Not sure we could sue when she says someone from melbourne is a contact. Which whoever that person is and leaking stuff out please go. We dont need you.

It was more enjoyable when she was writing about essendon. I just wish the AFL would put us out of our misery and hand down the punishment.

Been discussed before. The opinion of those in the know was that the MFC can't sue, only individuals can. So it's a bit difficult to disagree.

MFC can because its a non-profit organisation. I would give it a 1% chance at best.

Don's response was very short, pointed and guarded. No time for crowing Let's get the bog picture sorted first then go after the muck-rakers..

I assume the club now knows from the 800-1000 page report who the turncoats are from our organisation?? They might be in a spot of bother too...

MFC can because its a non-profit organisation. I would give it a 1% chance at best.

Don's response was very short, pointed and guarded. No time for crowing Let's get the bog picture sorted first then go after the muck-rakers..

I assume the club now knows from the 800-1000 page report who the turncoats are from our organisation?? They might be in a spot of bother too...

I hope at the end of this saga that you are incorrect...!!!

lol

If people are continually mean to BH he will pizz off in a huff for a third time...

To reiterate - how in the world is that article today a good reflection of what has happened?

It's a shame when the self-professed 'smartest people on Land' do not engage in a genuine fashion.

Just because you take a view that is contrary to the view of the majority does not make you right and shouldn't make you righteous.

And did RR call me shrill?

Love it how RR says that Petterd should have been forward in the Carlton game as he was kicking goals from midfield in the Richmond Evil Game of Losing.

You really do look ridiculous when trying to argue specific on-field actions was 'tanking.'

You are an expert Straw Man creator, RR. You pick your little points and dismiss easily but you would better off giving a genuine response.

I posted this in a different thread, but it is probably more relevant here.

It is in relation to Old Dee saying he is over the whole thing...

this is why I fail to understand the love toward CC. There is more chance than not that he will be charged. Going by Kero's article, she has obviously had word that Schwab is clear. Bailey, I don't know how I feel toward DB, I think I feel sorry for him. But if the AFL decide that there is enough evidence to charge CC, and don't think for one minute that they wouldn't do it without their own legal advice, then it will potentially get to the point that CC is the reason for this investigation.

My recent posts on here (mostly the tanking thread) are probably written with the expectation that CC is in strife. I am basing my level of support for him on nothing other than what I have read in the media. If I am wrong, then I have no hesitation eating humble pie, and will apologise to the man given the chance.

For a long time I have had concerns about CC's involvement in all of this. There has been nothing reported that should make me question my level of concern, if anything, the more I read just confirms why I think this way.

What he has he done that is so heinous?

The gospel according to BH:

“1. I’m right, you’re wrong.

“2. Even if I’m wrong, I’m right.

“3. Even if you’re right … hang on, that’s impossible, so I’ll

just refer to something else about which I’m right (even if I’m wrong).

“4. You still here? Go away.”

Easy and shallow.

You surprise me.

What he has he done that is so heinous?

If he is found guilty of bringing the game in to disrepute because of his comments regarding us doing whatever we had to to ensure we didn't win too many games, regardless of the manner in which he intended, then that's probably about it.

At the end of the day RP, it doesn't matter a fcuk what you think, what I think or what CC thinks, it's what the AFL commission thinks, or potentially what a judge thinks.

Yeah we get it Billy. Don't agree.

You are prepared to sacrifice an employee on the words of Wilson.

We fight as one...and win.

Yeah we get it Billy. Don't agree.

You are prepared to sacrifice an employee on the words of Wilson.

We fight as one...and win.

BS WYL, I have always put in the disclaimer that I have not seen any evidence and that I am basing my opinion on what the media reports. CW articles aren't the only articles I read. It's just her one today made me take notice due to the galring admission on her not going after Schwab at the usual pace that she does. I'm amazed you don't at least agree with that part.

Edit - changed the bit in bold. Orinally said "are". Apologies for the error!

WJ - plz change thread title to tanking allegations ffs who are these sadomasochists leaking info with some agenda??? This is a public forum and Caro loves to dig here,

I don't think it's appropriate to change the name of this thread as suggested in midstream because it really did start off as a thread about tanking and what it does and does not mean. The fact that some people (including senior media people) don't get it, don't understand or simply don't want to understand is another thing altogether. They're entitled to their views. I'm comfortable with the title as it is.

BS WYL, I have always put in the disclaimer that I have not seen any evidence and that I am basing my opinion on what the media reports. CW articles are the only articles I read. It's just her one today made me take notice due to the galring admission on her not going after Schwab at the usual pace that she does. I'm amazed you don't at least agree with that part.

todays article was unnecessary. It was written to reignite the interest in Tanking rather than PED's.

what did she say that was new?

She hasn't seen our submission. That i do know. She is back tracking and kicking anything in the way.

You are prepared to let CC go.

I say we must be 100% together all the way.

Show Strength for a change. I am suprised you cannot see that billy.

I am calling it, we will have no case to answer. DB and CC and MFC will not be charged or penalised because there is little or no substantiated evidence that could lead to any hope of the AFL making a case to the commission.

In relation to the comments CC made in jest at an internal meeting, The irony is that they only started bringing the game into disrepute when they were made public by a Journalist who was fed information from a disgruntled MFC former employee.

The AFL are investigating said Journalist and former employee for bringing the game into disrepute.

That's my position and I am sticking with it regardless, you can try and disagree with me but my answer to all replies will alternate between

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

and,

Error, no keyboard -- press F1 to continue.

Felix Out!

That's a good sig for Ben.

Have a "sig" about myself ? That could be fun. No.

Look, I have to say I'm astonished. The child like behaviour by so many adults on here is extraordinary. I'm genuinely amused. I only care about what the AFL decides. If they punish us I'll be mightily p1ssed off, as I can't see how they can prove any charge - not withstanding the fact that I haven't seen all of the evidence.

My position is simple (awaits the tryhards with such an opening):

1. We tanked

2. You shouldn't be able to prove it if all hold firm

I'll leave the legal debates on the definitions to the less emotional, i.e. no-one on here.

todays article was unnecessary. It was written to reignite the interest in Tanking rather than PED's.

what did she say that was new?

She hasn't seen our submission. That i do know. She is back tracking and kicking anything in the way.

You are prepared to let CC go.

I say we must be 100% together all the way.

Show Strength for a change. I am suprised you cannot see that billy.

What did she say that was new? It was what she didn't say that was new, the fact that the entire article makes no allegations, assumptions or personal comments regarding Cameron Schwab. When was the last time she did that when writing about this topic?

She may not have seen our submission, if you know, you obviously have a source, but I will give you the respect you deserve and not ask for it. I have no doubt she has spoken to someone that has seen our submission.

I agree, we need to fight, but if what the MFC has seen regarding CC would not win in court, and especially if their legal advice is to not challenge it, then shouldn't we act on that advice? Taking something to court that we have no hope of winning, I'm not sure if that is the smartest of your ideas.

Again, this is based on my suspicions and opinion that CC has a case to answer.

BS WYL, I have always put in the disclaimer that I have not seen any evidence and that I am basing my opinion on what the media reports. CW articles are the only articles I read. It's just her one today made me take notice due to the galring admission on her not going after Schwab at the usual pace that she does. I'm amazed you don't at least agree with that part.

I am of the opinion that the media are making it up as they go and feeding off each other; if one gets it wrong the others just repeat it.

Her latest report was comprehensively refuted by McLardy today, so I don't see how you can rely on her for inside information, she clearly doesn't have any. She is not going to get up on 3AW and say, "sorry I effed that one up", she is of the old school, deny, deny, deny.

Even if we are exonerated she will still say, "come on, we all know they did it".

What did she say that was new? It was what she didn't say that was new, the fact that the entire article makes no allegations, assumptions or personal comments regarding Cameron Schwab. When was the last time she did that when writing about this topic?

She may not have seen our submission, if you know, you obviously have a source, but I will give you the respect you deserve and not ask for it. I have no doubt she has spoken to someone that has seen our submission.

I agree, we need to fight, but if what the MFC has seen regarding CC would not win in court, and especially if their legal advice is to not challenge it, then shouldn't we act on that advice? Taking something to court that we have no hope of winning, I'm not sure if that is the smartest of your ideas.

Again, this is based on my suspicions and opinion that CC has a case to answer.

re the sentence in bold: Why do you have no doubt? If she has spoken to such a person, the evidence suggests that person fed her a pile of rubbish. (Unless you think Don M is lying.) So either she has been conned or she has not spoken to anyone who as seen it,

What did she say that was new? It was what she didn't say that was new, the fact that the entire article makes no allegations, assumptions or personal comments regarding Cameron Schwab. When was the last time she did that when writing about this topic?

She may not have seen our submission, if you know, you obviously have a source, but I will give you the respect you deserve and not ask for it. I have no doubt she has spoken to someone that has seen our submission.

I agree, we need to fight, but if what the MFC has seen regarding CC would not win in court, and especially if their legal advice is to not challenge it, then shouldn't we act on that advice? Taking something to court that we have no hope of winning, I'm not sure if that is the smartest of your ideas.

Again, this is based on my suspicions and opinion that CC has a case to answer.

you have a beef with CC billy. Your paranoia is baseless. Seriously.

CC works hard for the club. May it continue.

He did his knee when he could have been Captain of the Demons.

I don't sacrifice those people, particularly over the misunderstanding of a quick Joke.

Wilson is employed to sell chip wrapping paper. Remember that.

I am calling it, we will have no case to answer. DB and CC and MFC will not be charged or penalised because there is little or no substantiated evidence that could lead to any hope of the AFL making a case to the commission.

In relation to the comments CC made in jest at an internal meeting, The irony is that they only started bringing the game into disrepute when they were made public by a Journalist who was fed information from a disgruntled MFC former employee.

The AFL are investigating said Journalist and former employee for bringing the game into disrepute.

That's my position and I am sticking with it regardless, you can try and disagree with me but my answer to all replies will alternate between

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

and,

Error, no keyboard -- press F1 to continue.

Felix Out!

I already called it months ago, and continue to stand by it.

It's just a waiting game now.