...a man can dream can't he??

Cue music from the Man of La Mancha

Cue music from the Man of La Mancha

With the proviso that this is not the 'impossible dream'

Pierik states: "eight were interviewed as part of the AFL's investigation into the team's coaching and management philosophy in a year the club was desperate to not win more than four matches and therefore secure the two top picks in the national draft".

Since when do journalists speculate on the motives and therefore guilt, or innocence of a club when they're supposedly reporting on the matter ? Melbourne deny any tanking charges, but the reporter is insinuating that we were loathe to win, which is at the crux of this investigation.

My thoughts exactly.

Disgraceful piece of journalism there.

While it's probably a case of extremely sloppy writing (which would not surprise given the quality of Age articles on the investigation), I cannot believe something like that passes through any proof reading of the article by the journo himself and the editors and actually makes it in print.

I also love how he has trawled through the Annual Reports to find comments that show that the club was looking long-term in a bid to induce the reader into drawing a connection between the long term focus of the club (which would be the case for any club near the bottom of the ladder) and the alleged 'tanking' in 2009. Top work there Hercule Poirot.

Can't wait to see what Pierek will invent next.

Disgraceful piece of journalism there.

..................................................................................

Can't wait to see what Pierek will invent next.

Don't hold your breath Scoop. His brain (?) is already at breaking point from regurgitating the same old tripe, ad nauseam!

Pierik states: "eight were interviewed as part of the AFL's investigation into the team's coaching and management philosophy in a year the club was desperate to not win more than four matches and therefore secure the two top picks in the national draft".

Since when do journalists speculate on the motives and therefore guilt, or innocence of a club when they're supposedly reporting on the matter ? Melbourne deny any tanking charges, but the reporter is insinuating that we were loathe to win, which is at the crux of this investigation.

Spot on.

On second thoughts I was not p...ed off enough when I first read this online. Reading it again, it is absolutely outrageous. This bloke, and one or two others have become laws unto themselves and it's left to us to do the "fact checking" such as when the Sun claimed Sylvia being dropped, when he was really suspended, was evidence of tanking.

Maybe Pierik should just go back to the Sun where he started.

So, what's the definition of "players being instructed to lose" (or what ever the wording is)?

Let's say CC at the infamous Vault meeting, indicated that people will lose their jobs if we win more than we should, and some of those people attending that meeting took him seriously, then mentioned to members of the playing group that the CC wants them to lose. Is this going to be the AFL's sly way of saying that the players were instructed to lose, albeit during an informal conversation?

From memory, wasn't it at the 3/4 time huddle that some players said along the lines of "stuff the Club wanting us to lose, let's win"?

Christ, next week can't come quick enough.

As I have since day 1, I'm expecting the best, but preparing for the worst. I didn't do the latter when $cumbag left, and as a result, 12 months later I no longer believe in voodoo dolls.

I dont think the AFL will even be that magnanimous - i am tipping "inconclusive and insufficient evidence to bring charges"

( the slap your having when you're not having a slap)

I fear you might be correct. But "inconclusive and insufficient evidence" doesn't really kill the issue. It just leaves an opening for "new evidence" to be provided sometime in the future...and the investigation can start all over again.

Which makes me think...would we be better off with a "no case to answer" and therefore no forwarding of the matter to the Commission for its consideration or for the matter to be considered by the Commission and finally and conclusively put to rest in our favour (assuming the Commission forms that view)? If I were a Director of the MFC and absolutely certain that we did not tank, it might be better to take the latter option.

Maybe we need this lawyer

I found it totally refreshing today to read this positive article written by Pierik about an AFL club with a long history and culture of "tanking" - Analysis finds Blues similar to 2006 Cats

However, I can't help asking what is the matter with this bloke? No mention of the massive salary cap rorts or the three consecutive years of systematic losing and number 1 draft picks, of the fact that a former coach and a former player has questioned that club's motives in not seeking to win games, the eleven consecutive defeats at the end of 2007 culminating in the Kreuzer Cup, the failure to comprehensively analyse the coach's tactics during that and several other key matches and the oh so brief non investigation of comments made by the AFL into the possibility that the club tanked.

The bloke's obviously losing his touch.

Is it tomorrow that we provide the AFL with our answers to the 800 page report?

Our response is due by the 29th. It will be interesting to see how long after that, the AFL Star Chamber makes its decision and announces it to the world.

If the announcement is made within a day or so, I would suggest that would further support our claims that this whole process was a travesty in the first place.

Maybe we need this lawyer

Actually we need Jimbo Bazoobi & Gary the Goat, (or is that furry Gary) to come down & highlight the plight of Individuals taking on the might of Big Brother, or should that be 'Vlad, & the Huns'...

... step aside,,, & witness the birth of 'Rua', king of the Hun. and his alliance with Aetius.

Our response is due by the 29th. It will be interesting to see how long after that, the AFL Star Chamber makes its decision and announces it to the world.

If the announcement is made within a day or so, I would suggest that would further support our claims that this whole process was a travesty in the first place.

I hope that the whole thing is cleared up by the start of NAB cup.

I'm trying not to get caught at work checking media and other websites every hour to see if we have handed in our response. If the AFL strings out reviewing our response for too long then I fear I'll be out of a job.

The suspense is killing me...are we going to court or aren't we?????

Boys - too much information. I am having my dinner.

I found it totally refreshing today to read this positive article written by Pierik about an AFL club with a long history and culture of "tanking" - Analysis finds Blues similar to 2006 Cats

However, I can't help asking what is the matter with this bloke? No mention of the massive salary cap rorts or the three consecutive years of systematic losing and number 1 draft picks, of the fact that a former coach and a former player has questioned that club's motives in not seeking to win games, the eleven consecutive defeats at the end of 2007 culminating in the Kreuzer Cup, the failure to comprehensively analyse the coach's tactics during that and several other key matches and the oh so brief non investigation of comments made by the AFL into the possibility that the club tanked.

The bloke's obviously losing his touch.

The contrast between the Age's approach to Melbourne and Carlton is scandalous.The fact that Carlton were allowed a salary cap premium to get Judd is just another of Pierik's neat omissions.

Club after club is getting its annual pre-season boost while Melbourne gets its daily beat up. The Age's spell checker now automatically replaces the phrase ' Melbourne coaches meeting' with the phrase 'the now infamous "vault" meeting'.The only thing infamous about the routine coaches meeting held in the Vault after the Port Adelaide game is that the Age has insisted on giving it a code name !

How or why the Age sponsors the club defies logic. Their editorial policy suggests a determination to bury us - and all our sponsorship dollars- in a very deep - dark - hole.

The contrast between the Age's approach to Melbourne and Carlton is scandalous.The fact that Carlton were allowed a salary cap premium to get Judd is just another of Pierik's neat omissions.

Club after club is getting its annual pre-season boost while Melbourne gets its daily beat up. The Age's spell checker now automatically replaces the phrase ' Melbourne coaches meeting' with the phrase 'the now infamous "vault" meeting'.The only thing infamous about the routine coaches meeting held in the Vault after the Port Adelaide game is that the Age has insisted on giving it a code name !

How or why the Age sponsor the club defies logic. Their editorial policy suggests a determination to bury us - and all our sponsorship dollars- in a very large dark place.

i'd say sponsoring us has paid off in spades (from their perspective)

they don't pay for good news. bad news is big business

This from Bigfooty:

"What I have heard, and this is not from the media, is that there are two people who have stated that the club was actively tanking. No idea who they could be and I won't guess. Both were ex coaches who left the club under poor circumstances, everyone else was interviewed on multiple occasions to try to get an inconsistency in their replies. Threats were made, start/stop recordings, fist bangings on tables blah blah blah. No one else provided evidence confirming what these two said and the investigators knew they didn't have enough so that's why they looked into the matchday actions, things like the players fumbling in the final three minutes and Jack Watts only playing three games."

Is it tomorrow that we provide the AFL with our answers to the 800 page report?

With a small note attatched "You are so good at putting all the pieces together, Try this"

800 pages returned, shredded. and put into a small bag.

This from Bigfooty:

"What I have heard, and this is not from the media, is that there are two people who have stated that the club was actively tanking. No idea who they could be and I won't guess. Both were ex coaches who left the club under poor circumstances, everyone else was interviewed on multiple occasions to try to get an inconsistency in their replies. Threats were made, start/stop recordings, fist bangings on tables blah blah blah. No one else provided evidence confirming what these two said and the investigators knew they didn't have enough so that's why they looked into the matchday actions, things like the players fumbling in the final three minutes and Jack Watts only playing three games."

It's plausible.

This from Bigfooty:

"What I have heard, and this is not from the media, is that there are two people who have stated that the club was actively tanking. No idea who they could be and I won't guess. Both were ex coaches who left the club under poor circumstances, everyone else was interviewed on multiple occasions to try to get an inconsistency in their replies. Threats were made, start/stop recordings, fist bangings on tables blah blah blah. No one else provided evidence confirming what these two said and the investigators knew they didn't have enough so that's why they looked into the matchday actions, things like the players fumbling in the final three minutes and Jack Watts only playing three games."

It surely can't be right that only two disgruntled ex coaches said we were tanking. According to the papers, the majority of nearly 60 witness statements disputed Chris Connolly's version of the events.

You're not suggesting they got it wrong in the papers, are you?

The contrast between the Age's approach to Melbourne and Carlton is scandalous.The fact that Carlton were allowed a salary cap premium to get Judd is just another of Pierik's neat omissions.

Club after club is getting its annual pre-season boost while Melbourne gets its daily beat up. The Age's spell checker now automatically replaces the phrase ' Melbourne coaches meeting' with the phrase 'the now infamous "vault" meeting'.The only thing infamous about the routine coaches meeting held in the Vault after the Port Adelaide game is that the Age has insisted on giving it a code name !

How or why the Age sponsors the club defies logic. Their editorial policy suggests a determination to bury us - and all our sponsorship dollars- in a very deep - dark - hole.

Is the age using recycled paper pulp these days?

This from Bigfooty:

"What I have heard, and this is not from the media, is that there are two people who have stated that the club was actively tanking. No idea who they could be and I won't guess. Both were ex coaches who left the club under poor circumstances, everyone else was interviewed on multiple occasions to try to get an inconsistency in their replies. Threats were made, start/stop recordings, fist bangings on tables blah blah blah. No one else provided evidence confirming what these two said and the investigators knew they didn't have enough so that's why they looked into the matchday actions, things like the players fumbling in the final three minutes and Jack Watts only playing three games."

Lol, how did they fill 800 pages with that startling evidence.

There must be a lot of pictures. McClean's statements were all in crayon.

+4

getting toey

This from Bigfooty:

"What I have heard, and this is not from the media, is that there are two people who have stated that the club was actively tanking. No idea who they could be and I won't guess. Both were ex coaches who left the club under poor circumstances, everyone else was interviewed on multiple occasions to try to get an inconsistency in their replies. Threats were made, start/stop recordings, fist bangings on tables blah blah blah. No one else provided evidence confirming what these two said and the investigators knew they didn't have enough so that's why they looked into the matchday actions, things like the players fumbling in the final three minutes and Jack Watts only playing three games."

Pretty sure Deegirl alluded to the fact that the strongest evidence had come from 2 former employees and so far she has been pretty much on the money. If this was regarded as not enough to go on and therefore they started looking at matchday moves THEY HAVE GOT NOTHING!

Pretty sure Deegirl alluded to the fact that the strongest evidence had come from 2 former employees and so far she has been pretty much on the money. If this was regarded as not enough to go on and therefore they started looking at matchday moves THEY HAVE GOT NOTHING!

If true then the world knows who they are.

Talk about burning your bridges.

This investigation has become so bloody boring.

In fact, it's always been boring.