I agree with most of that and I wonder if those that thought they had the best interests of the club at heart and only wanted to get rid of CS and a few others were aware of the ramifications of their treachery.

Perhaps Fanbob would like to give us his thoughts, he's been quiet for a while now. Still happy with Wilson?

McLean, Riley, Prendegast all Melbourne to Carlton, all up to their necks in this.

Some times I think I see humour in every situation RobbieF

It seems funny to me that they all went to Carlton

The worst unchargered tankers in the league

Some times I think I see humour in every situation RobbieF

It seems funny to me that they all went to Carlton

The worst unchargered tankers in the league

Correct and it will remain that way, we were the fall guys and now the AFL are happy, they reckon that once and for all they've cleaned this up and that's that.

Off on Holidays Saturday, old dee so I can get away for a couple of weeks, bloody internet follows me unfortunately.

Correct and it will remain that way, we were the fall guys and now the AFL are happy, they reckon that once and for all they've cleaned this up and that's that.

Off on Holidays Saturday, old dee so I can get away for a couple of weeks, bloody internet follows me unfortunately.

Do you need a bag carrier Robbie?

I would love to be able to escape the AFL for a couple of weeks.

I am quite suprised at the apparnet lack of concern on this forum for the latest developments. I think we are potentially in a world of trouble. as Sue said , the commission wont differentiate between motives but will determine whether or not actions were taken which could be perceived as tilting match day or attempting to tilt match day results. If their findings reflect this then they are free to act as they wish and will be well within their powers to remove or at the very least, suspend our gaming license. And that, my fellow Demon lovers, could set a course of events in motion that will result in the club no longer existing in its current entity. This is a VERY grave development.

As a lifetime Melbourne supporter, I have got used to us rolling straight out of one disaster into another. Perhaps that is why I tend to agree with you. The VCGR is a conservative box-ticking bureaucracy which would love to upstage the AFL. It is answerable only to the Minister (Michael O'Brien) who ( for all we know) might drink at the same water cooler as Ms Wilson.

In our favour is the fact that if they overrule the AFL on us then they will be duty bound to look at the whole AFL competition. They will also have to factor into their findings the effect of the priority pick system which has now disappeared.Thinking it all through - I think you are probably drawing too much of a long bow. But you are right in alerting us to the potential seriousness of the development.

It is not something we should dismiss lightly

"Everyone thinks we are tankers"

WGAF.

They were always going to whether or not we were fined or not, or completely absolved or not.

This is a pragmatic decision to move on and we have been cleared of any guilt realting to tanking.

Just step back, stop worrying about perception and worry about the footy.

I think this puts one thing beyond doubt...the song that we run out to on match day has to be the Benny Hill theme.

I'm tipping this one will not be going for 7 months. And they will have their definitions met before they proceed.

My thoughts too dc.

Amen

Mine too, despite the weasel words we have been found guilty of something that would seem impossible to prove.

"Everyone thinks we are tankers"

WGAF.

They were always going to whether or not we were fined or not, or completely absolved or not.

This is a pragmatic decision to move on and we have been cleared of any guilt realting to tanking.

Just step back, stop worrying about perception and worry about the footy.

Wise words rpfc but that is a little easier to do in Canberra where this is probably already old news.

We are top of the pops on everything down here and will be for sometime yet.

I think this puts one thing beyond doubt...the song that we run out to on match day has to be the Benny Hill theme.

Thanks for the smile P_Man

Wise words rpfc but that is a little easier to do in Canberra where this is probably already old news.

We are top of the pops on everything down here and will be for sometime yet.

Then stiff upper lip, OD.

Just grow some and deal with it.

FFS just consider their investigatiion & outcome into Damien Oliver, move on & stop worrying.

Clayton's investigation will be undertaken boxes ticked and do not believe for one minute our legal team will not have been all over this

Speaking of soft it's not the club it's half of demonland

HTFU

We have not been cleared, we have been SHAFTED big time

We are guilty in the eyes of everyone despite the afl's pathetic effort of incomprehendable spin

It has cost us a min of $1M in fines and legal costs and who knows what in sponsorship and membership

It has derailed the club for 8 months and its not over

We have had the most appalling media coverage

We have been scapegoated for what others pioneered before us and will never be brought to account

Two careers have been severely damaged

We have been made a laughing stock in the football world

We are still a fractured club internally if reports are to be believed

It may not be fair and balanced but we have been SHAFTED big time

And I am so pizzed off at our current position i couldn't begin to explain

I try to be unemotional about my team but the reality is that it has volatile, highly charged emotions attached to it.

I understand the pragmatic approach taken by club however I cant help but feel exactly the same as you DC and shafted is very accurate description in my eyes and the words "rolled over" come to my mind.

Again pragmatism dictates that you dont bite the hand that feeds you but the comment that reasonated with me the most was " the AFL required Melbourne to prove its innocence whereas a court would require the AFL to prove the MFC's guilt".

Then stiff upper lip, OD.

Just grow some and deal with it.

So far I am into my fifth decade of SUL rpfc

I had to grow a mustache to cover the cracks that appeared back in the third decade.

I now have it permenately wired up.

"Everyone thinks we are tankers"

WGAF.

They were always going to whether or not we were fined or not, or completely absolved or not.

This is a pragmatic decision to move on and we have been cleared of any guilt realting to tanking.

Just step back, stop worrying about perception and worry about the footy.

Agree

Every-time someone has a dig at us for tanking , we can simply say " We didn't!! The AFL ( which is the only body which knows all the facts)said we didn't - and that's good enough for me!! Let's just laugh it off - and move on.

(( Back to topic)... as long as the VCGR doesn't say anything different...........)

Edited February 20, 201312 yr by hoopla

The AFL is the only ones who signed off on yesterday...The MFC is once again in a vulnerable position.

Whatever is in a written statement from the President 2 of our employees from 2009 have been banned from the game for periods of time. Their crime has to be something along the lines of "influencing results" to some degree.

On top of that a fine of $500,000 is not imposed on an innocent party. So until the Gaming Authorities announce "we are satisfied" i am very concerned.

I hate Gambling but $5 mill is a lifeline.

To be the scapegoat of at least 6 clubs i will never forget.

I am sure Mclardy was pressured big time last friday, but i am still disappointed this mess wasn't argued in court.

The vultures are still circling. We did not remove them.

Whatever is in a written statement from the President 2 of our employees from 2009 have been banned from the game for periods of time. Their crime has to be something along the lines of "influencing results" to some degree

Well, no - the outcome was conduct prejudicial to the interests of the AFL but don't let that stop the Henny Penny's around here.

Well, no - the outcome was conduct prejudicial to the interests of the AFL but don't let that stop the Henny Penny's around here.

I don't feel particularly Henny Pennyish, but that begs the question that anyone would then ask: What was the conduct that was prejudicial to the AFL?

I don't feel particularly Henny Pennyish, but that begs the question that anyone would then ask: What was the conduct that was prejudicial to the AFL?

Beat me too it 'Sue'. It reminds me a bit of the old Alan Jeans sausage story. You can fry em, you can bbq em, you can grill em and you can bake em but in the end they are still sausages.

No matter what words you like to use in the end we have been found guilty of tanking, not doing our best to win, conduct prejudicial to the AFL....

I don't feel particularly Henny Pennyish, but that begs the question that anyone would then ask: What was the conduct that was prejudicial to the AFL?

A person in a managerial position at a club making comments to employees that, although taken out of context, were perceived to have been of a bullying/threatening nature. That is the crux of it. Regardless of the intent of Connolly's comments someone in a managerial position needs to take ownership for them regardless of the intent. If a manager at a bank, for example, makes a light-hearted comment in a meeting that staff should charge extra fees in order to meet monthly targets or face the sack and a couple of people in the meeting take it seriously the manager will be held to account because being in a position of authority they need to be aware that their comments, although of a joking nature, could be misinterpreted or taken out of context and acted upon by people who may feel threatened or bullied by those comments. It's pretty simple yet the media and the public seem unable to comprehend this concept which is unsurprising considering the way McLachlin butchered his press conference yesterday.

Edited February 20, 201312 yr by Dr. Gonzo

I try to be unemotional about my team but the reality is that it has volatile, highly charged emotions attached to it.

I understand the pragmatic approach taken by club however I cant help but feel exactly the same as you DC and shafted is very accurate description in my eyes and the words "rolled over" come to my mind.

Again pragmatism dictates that you dont bite the hand that feeds you but the comment that reasonated with me the most was " the AFL required Melbourne to prove its innocence whereas a court would require the AFL to prove the MFC's guilt".

I understand it could have been worse and to some extent why the club bent over

my rant was not about who was to blame and tactics etc

It was just to point out the reality of the situation NOW and how PIZZED off and ANGRY i feel

Don't worry PSD i'm not going soft on you and i don't quit that easy, but did i tell you how PIZZED off i am?

Well, no - the outcome was conduct prejudicial to the interests of the AFL but don't let that stop the Henny Penny's around here.

Clutching at imaginary straws there Dr. G, but thats your problem. Until you can guarantee the Bentleigh & Leighoak clubs will continue to trade as normal i shall be concerned.

Clutching at imaginary straws there Dr. G, but thats your problem. Until you can guarantee the Bentleigh & Leighoak clubs will continue to trade as normal i shall be concerned.

Relax, we've got this. B)

If anyone thinks the MFC and it's lawyers didn't have this at the forefront of their thinking during the whole process then they've got rocks in their head. Everything done, agreed upon and the wording/language used was to ensure that there would be no issue or evidence upon which the gaming commission could mount a case or remove our license.

It was almost the sole reason McLardy fought so hard to ensure there was no evidence that the board of directors influenced games and therefore were not fit and proper people to hold the licenses.

Take a breath. They were all over this issue a long time ago...

If anyone thinks the MFC and it's lawyers didn't have this at the forefront of their thinking during the whole process then they've got rocks in their head. Everything done, agreed upon and the wording/language used was to ensure that there would be no issue or evidence upon which the gaming commission could mount a case or remove our license.

It was almost the sole reason McLardy fought so hard to ensure there was no evidence that the board of directors influenced games and therefore were not fit and proper people to hold the licenses.

Take a breath. They were all over this issue a long time ago...

Almost.