The AFL haven't even scratched the surface - if you think an interim CEO is the answer your wrong.

The Schwabb issue was not a split second decision - the MFC should have landed a permanent CEO by now - and the AFL needs to take charge and clean out all the people who are holding the MFC under water.

Yes and they/we have appointed Peter Jackson as our interim CEO. Maybe you don't get it? Peter Jackson is a Melbourne/AFL appointment. The AFL have taken charge.

This just about sums up my feelings for the MFC at the moment.

So the only thing we did wrong is lie?

Politicians legalised lying years ago.

I am astounded how many people on here can't read between the lines of the MFC statement.

A) It is likely that the meetings with Craig and Misson referred to in the text messages was part of the interview process for the position Dank applied for and was unsuccessful in pursuing. In fact Bate saying "give it a crack" to me confirms this. This also means that the players can never have met Dank in an official capacity, and the club never said that senior members of the FD department didn't meet with Dank as part of this process, indeed they confirmed the process took place. Which means it is still possible that players never interacted with Dank, so the club statement may actually not be a lie.

B) It is likely the club was completely unaware that Bate consulted with Dank about supplements, and this on its own is not suprising, it would be extremely irresponsible for a club doctor to not be informed about all the supplements different AFL clubs are using, I would hope Bate has consulted widely accross the industry with other pharmaceutical providers, and Dank was one of the most well known and highly respected before this investigation began. Also it is hardly suprising that Bate consulted with Dank on an ideal clinic for the players to receive their vitamin injections as Dank owns one of the largest sports science clinics in Australia and at the time was in contention for a job at Melbourne.

C) No player has been prescibed or given any of the substances Essendon is in trouble for. Our sports science division didn't aprove it as it wasn't prescribed and the statement infers that Bate thought these substances weren't suitable (3rd last dot point of MFC statement) and didn't prescribe them.

D) the only way MFC players received contentionious substances is if Bate was doing the dodgy behind the clubs back, or if players were going to Dank of their own valition, as Dank was never employed by the club this is possible but I think it is extrememly unlikely as there would be a money trail that should have been easy for ASADA to find before now. It is worrying but Bate may be completely innocent as the ABC report didn't show the complete transcipts to provide context for the messages.
E) Even if Bate has been dodgy it is possible he kept the club completely in the dark about Dank hence the statement. He may have done this deliberately, or it is possible that he thought the correspondance between he and Bate was inconcequential as it was just standard consultation. Whatever the true answer it is likely the MFC never knew about this Bate Dank correspondance. If they did they would have nothing to lose in revealing it, which is what leads me to believe this is the case.

F) MFC is not guilty of any of the things Essendon is in trouble for, all MFC medications had to be prescribed which leads a clear paper trail (Essendon Didn't) all Melbourne's injections were given by a registered Nurse at a medical clinic (Not houses in the outer suburbs like Essendon), MFC can confirm no player was given any contentious substances (Essendon can't), Dank was never employed or given any right to treat MFC players (unlike Essendon). The only way MFC can be in trouble is if the club doctor or players have done the dodgy behind the clubs back without following protocol, unlike like Essendons program which was club sanctioned. Certainly the MFC isn't accused of the institutionalised doping that Essendon is, and this is what the clubs statement says.

How can anyone even begin to try and engage with anyone so far in denial? It is quite ridiculous what the Good Germans will do and say to defend their leaders despite the facts staring them straight in the face.

And for Redleg, this is no longer about innocence or guilt, it's about good governance something which the leaders of our club are utterly bereft of. This is the reason we are where we are and why the members are now fed up and want change. It's got nothing to do with being weak or soft or any other ridiculous insults you wish to bandy about.

Denial about what,

Facts....what facts

"A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability"

A phone text message printed out (and possibly edited) is not a fact, show me the original message

something may have happened, do you have concrete proof? where you present?, have you read original notarised documents .....I am not in denial what I want is inrefutable proof, then I will form an opinion and if necessary take action

I am more concerned about the posters on here who will immediately believe anything certain journalsist or commentators say as fact

If you want change, then lets see you stand up and demand it, start a petition, take it to the club, may requre a bit more effort on your part than typing at a keyboard

Most posters wouldn't have known what good governance meant six months ago

Demetriou refused to disclose which Melbourne officials the AFL had asked about any involvement with Dank.

"We asked the specific question that the media had asked: 'Was Stephen Dank approached or did Stephen Dank approach Melbourne or was there discussion around employment at the Melbourne Football Club?

"We got the same answer the public got.

This is from the 3AW interview this morning with AD. From the horse's mouth.

A specific question was asked and answered. We told the AFL that Dank approached the MFC and he wanted employment and was not given employment.

Where is the LIE?

It is reasonable to assume if a body wants more answers they will ask more questions.

I can think of a pretty simple one " did Dank have any involvement whatsoever with the MFC or its players or officials?"

"It wasn't a lie, we just... omitted a few, minor, details".

Let's see how well that defence goes down with the AFL.

So the only thing we did wrong is lie?

Politicians legalised lying years ago.

Politicians, PR/advertising companies and corporate stooges lie all the time - it's why we hate them.

All quotes from Demetriou this morning on 3aw.

"If there was an association, regardless of whether there has been an employment agreement, I think that would have been relevant to our briefings.''

Demetriou did not want to speculate on the ramifications for the club, but did say that Melbourne would have broken league rules if it was shown to have mislead the AFL about a relationship with Dank.

"This issue of ethics and trust in our code ... is something that you can't play ping-pong with,'' Mr Demetriou said.

"If anybody hasn't got the message that they must be absolutely truthful ... then there will be consequences.''

So, back to ACTUAL information... Anyone heard what came of the meeting this morning?

We misled.

And deejammin - your suppositions don't fill me with confidence. If what you have said is true we are looking at firings and fines.

We are looking at more pain no matter what you think or how you slice it.

Hey RPFC, we are, certainly Bate is in trouble. But comparisons with Essendon are stupid, and it is still possible that the club didn't lie to the AFL, it may have been unaware of what relationship Bate had with Dank. I am sure it will all come out, but everything I said is there in the statement. The club seems to have followed all the AFL's protocols, unlike Essendon, so Bate may be sacked, but there hasn't been any illegal supplement use, and its possible the club is innocent.

and its possible the club is innocent.

Not of stupidity

Denial about what,

Facts....what facts

"A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability"

A phone text message printed out (and possibly edited) is not a fact, show me the original message

something may have happened, do you have concrete proof? where you present?, have you read original notarised documents .....I am not in denial what I want is inrefutable proof, then I will form an opinion and if necessary take action

I am more concerned about the posters on here who will immediately believe anything certain journalsist or commentators say as fact

If you want change, then lets see you stand up and demand it, start a petition, take it to the club, may requre a bit more effort on your part than typing at a keyboard

Most posters wouldn't have known what good governance meant six months ago

As I said to Redleg it's no longer about guilt or innocence - it's about good governance. You may have failed to understand what that was 6 months ago but most people with a critical and analytical mind who use their capacities for logic and reason are able to comprehend it and understand when they're having the mickey taken out of them.

Keep banging away trying to defend your mates on the board though, I however support the club, the personalities to me are irrelevant.

Hey RPFC, we are, certainly Bate is in trouble. But comparisons with Essendon are stupid, and it is still possible that the club didn't lie to the AFL, it may have been unaware of what relationship Bate had with Dank. I am sure it will all come out, but everything I said is there in the statement. The club seems to have followed all the AFL's protocols, unlike Essendon, so Bate may be sacked, but there hasn't been any illegal supplement use, and its possible the club is innocent.

Don't know what we used - I guess that will come eventually but our beahviour since Feb is nothing short of naive and stupid.

Here is a metaphor: We were f___ing the hot girl that turned out to be nasty and left another bloke with something sinister and we were asked by the coach whether we were dating this girl.

We said "Nah, not dating her" and then didn't call her back and hoped that would be the end of it.

We are but harbingers of our own little hell and the men that have led us to this place seem unapologetic and seemingly incapable of critical self-reflection or personal culpability.

Just thought I would share some footage from the meeting that took place with MFC officials last night.

Demetriou did not want to speculate on the ramifications for the club, but did say that Melbourne would have broken league rules if it was shown to have mislead the AFL about a relationship with Dank.

Which, to my knowledge, and according to AD's comments, they didn't (technically) do.

edit: I'm happy to be proven wrong, but none of the information anywhere here, or available publicly, says we misled the AFL, given the direction of questions.

If worse comes to worst in this awful matter and the AFL finds that the MFC have broken the holy code what exactly would the "consequences" be?

Draft Pick denials and Fines are only going to further enfeeble a Club already on its knees.

Which, to my knowledge, and according to AD's comments, they didn't (technically) do.

edit: I'm happy to be proven wrong, but none of the information anywhere here, or available publicly, says we misled the AFL, given the direction of questions.

Frankly I won't be happy if you are proven wrong. Much better for the club if nothing is wrong.

According to the MFC statement issued at 11.52 am today the club is in the clear in that all the correct processes were adhered to - if its all true and correct then all well.

However there may very well be an issue with the earlier MFC response which appears to have omitted reference to emails between the club doctor and Dank. The MFC are saying that if was just the clubs doctor keeping up to date on the latest developments in this area as this would be part of his ongoing duties. The MFC obviously do not believe that this constitutes a relationship as per the tone of the AFL query.We may be in a little trouble for not disclosing the texts. I think AD would want to know of every comminication.

If worse comes to worst in this awful matter and the AFL finds that the MFC have broken the holy code what exactly would the "consequences" be?

Draft Pick denials and Fines are only going to further enfeeble a Club already on its knees.

I've seen this film I am sure

If worse comes to worst in this awful matter and the AFL finds that the MFC have broken the holy code what exactly would the "consequences" be?

Draft Pick denials and Fines are only going to further enfeeble a Club already on its knees.

You would imagine they would be after at least one head to roll. Even if we qualify for their new rules to pick up a priority a pick they will be even less likely to give us one. It was already a hard sell.

Bate is gone will be a scape goat and the AFL will be happy, until the next time!!!!!

Frankly I won't be happy if you are proven wrong. Much better for the club if nothing is wrong.

Obviously, neither will I. Perhaps I should be more accurate in my wording. Ironic, no?

You would imagine they would be after at least one head to roll. Even if we qualify for their new rules to pick up a priority a pick they will be even less likely to give us one. It was already a hard sell.

Even if a head or two does roll that would hardly be a penalty or a deterrent.

The whole punishment thing is going to require some significant imagination.

Maybe they'll need to call a Consultant in.