Thanks a lot Alotta but my comments about Bailey and his remuneration weren't made to "demean" him. 

Rather, as I stated, they were by way of providing "background to his arrival at the club" which was about how we were poor and in particular, how poorly we were perceived at the time by the rest of the football world. 

I mentioned how our previous coach had been spruiking for the club (full credit to him for that but he was really doing someone else's job). You now confirm that the amount Bails "could command as a rookie coach was modest by industry standards in 2007" meaning I assume that he was among the lowest paid of the AFL coaches. I accept what you say about money not being a factor in the appointment but that was not the public's perception or mine.

 

You point out that we made a modest profit in 2007 but it was well below expectations amid reports of $2.2m in combined payouts from the AFL (a substantial amount of that being a one off payment) and $500k from the MCC. I also recall we had difficulties with staff turnover being well above expected levels - it was said 20 out of 29 office staff were gone in 12 months - which also affected our bottom line. But as an insider, you would know better if what was reported at the time was in fact incorrect.

 

The conditions at our training facility at Fitzroy Street were substandard and were said to be given by Chris Judd's management as one of the major reasons why we were eliminated from contention late in the race to gain his services (I'm a sceptic about that but the story was certainly put about and accepted by many in the media). I was also told much later that one coach with AFL premiership scalps under his belt refrained from applying for the job because we were that unimpressive a club at the time.

 

So if you're that convinced Bails was the best coach money could buy and you have all the inside knowledge, are you able to divulge exactly who the club approached for the job and who were the actual applicants?

 

Again for the record, by stating the background of how the club was perceived or that Bailey's remuneration was "modest", this was not meant to disparage him - in fact I was in total support of the appointment and was impressed by him when he was interviewed in the media and on the few occasions when I had the opportunity to speak with him over the years. That doesn't change my view about his ability as an AFL coach after nearly four years in the job, nor the fact that his capacity to coach the team was limited due to a number of factors beyond his control including, among other things, the club's financial position.

 

Bailey was in fact a stroke of genius compared with some of the later appointments. Of those soon after his, Prendergast and McNamee come to mind but as we know, a lot more very costly mistakes were made on both sides of a gaping divide at the club by many to get it to the point of 186 and beyond.

 

And as I've stated more than once, I'm happy to have gone well past that point now.

It occurs to me that the fact this conversation is taking place suggests that Bailey was in strife before his gig even started. 

3 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

" Within 2 years, Daniher was gone and the club eventually replaced him for the following season by Dean Bailey. We were a poor club and chose our new coach, partly on the basis of cost. That's some of the background to his arrival at the club. "

So you state that we chose him on cost and them cannot come up with a single piece of evidence to support your claim...and then ask Alotta for a quality of evidence you cannot produce. You say Bailey wasn't that great compared with the field but don't know the field. You state that an AFL coach did not want to come,...but not for the reasons you originally claimed (remuneration). Funny, given what I know of you and Alotta, only you have form  for making big claims you never back up with evidence despite guarantees that you will.

You also know that the appointment process probably had a certain level of confidentiality to it that he won't want to compromise, and ask a question that Alotta probably won't answer, knowing he won't.

Don't forget that there will be a few that remember the conspiracy theory rubbish that you brought up years ago about how our whole situation was a stitch up from a shadowy group of baddies. That you promised evidence. Evidence that you never produced.  

Stop trying to fight a battle you lost years ago and are better to leave alone. You embarrass yourself. 

Rubbish.

"You know that the appointment process probably had a certain level of confidentiality to it that he won't want to compromise, and ask a question that Alotta probably won't answer, knowing he won't."

 

I've highlighted your comment to demonstrate that you are a vile and hypocritical piece of work.

 

For those who aren't aware of the so-called "conspiracy theory" TimD is referring to, I'll repeat it because of its relevance to the thread about Dean Bailey.

 

Soon after Caroline Wilson revealed the controversial "vault" allegations in late October, 2012, I received communications from two different and I believe unconnected sources saying that the AFL tanking investigation had been on the verge of being wound up when two former MFC employees approached the AFL's investigation team with the "vault" story. One of those sources added that the two had been encouraged to do so by at least one person who used to be close to the club. My informant did not want to be identified for personal reasons which were work related and I honoured her request.

 

That's the so called "stitch up" and TimD knows I had agreed not to divulge her identity. In other words, the standards of confidentially TimD expects Alotta to honour only apply to his mates and yet, he abuses others for wanting to maintain the same standards.

 

In the event, it was revealed much later that the circumstances by which the "vault" story reached the AFL investigation were pretty much as described by my correspondents as having come from disgruntled ex-employees. Whether anyone who used to be close to the club was involved has never been disclosed.

 

For his part, Dean Bailey's version was clear. He didn't cheat.

 

BTW, that AFL coach's definition of "unimpressive" included his view on our financial position at the time. So please TimD don't pee on my back and tell me it's raining.

On 7 December 2015 at 9:23 AM, H_T said:

Honest man throughout his tenure at Melbourne IMO. He said it at his press conference honestly, that he did his job to the best of his ability, did what he was instructed to do - put the club in the best position. 

Gil - as Bailey indicates and confirms - wheeled and dealed on behalf of the AFL to force outcomes. Not unlike the 'non-documented, injection regime saga'.

 

On 7 December 2015 at 9:40 AM, iv'a worn smith said:

Makes me just a touch angry really.

Makes me more than a little bit angry: basically it appears that he was blackmailed by a stand over bully boy.   One who has done very little to be excited about in his new exalted rôle. 

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

 

I've highlighted your comment to demonstrate that you are a vile and hypocritical piece of work.

 

From Demonland Code of Conduct:

With regard to posts on the Demonland Forums, the Demonland Administrators and Moderators reserve the right to edit and/or remove posts that are considered to be:

• Acts of personal abuse

Ban yourself.

6 minutes ago, Alotta said:

From Demonland Code of Conduct:

With regard to posts on the Demonland Forums, the Demonland Administrators and Moderators reserve the right to edit and/or remove posts that are considered to be:

• Acts of personal abuse

Ban yourself.

I've taken your suggestion under consideration and concluded that since I provided evidence of the hypocrisy and double standards employed by the poster, there's no case to answer.

 

 

Read your thundering moralising in the Code of Conduct thread I've just bumped. You remember, the zero tolerance stuff and so on. It may be that you consider a unique set of standards apply to you. For many of us to see you try and weasel your way out of the consequences of your abuse of another poster is just hypocrisy.

if you think yourself justified because you have provided proof of his hypocrisy, where's your proof that he is a "vile...piece of work"?

19 minutes ago, Alotta said:

Read your thundering moralising in the Code of Conduct thread I've just bumped. You remember, the zero tolerance stuff and so on. It may be that you consider a unique set of standards apply to you. For many of us to see you try and weasel your way out of the consequences of your abuse of another poster is just hypocrisy.

if you think yourself justified because you have provided proof of his hypocrisy, where's your proof that he is a "vile...piece of work"?

The post in question was offensive and misquoted me in a number of ways but the vile part was to suggest I made up a conspiracy when he knew very well that I had confidentiality obligations yet he covered for you on the basis of confidentially. 

In my book, that's disingenuous and dishonest ... and vile.

If you want to continue this discussion, you can continue by PM because the subject is now closed.

I will be asking my two sources if they want to confirm what they told me three years ago. If they agree, I will post.

As promised, I went to my two sources and one has given me his consent to reproduce the personal message he sent to me on the proviso that I omit the name of the person referred to in his PM because he didn't want to cop any flack even after all these years. However, he remained firm about his source being an impeccable one:-

bazza226 17

Started conversation: 20 Feb 2013 · Report

It is my understanding from a good source that the initial investigation got nowwhere - denials from all and sundry. Then 13 days later they got heavy with the witnesses after they received 'information' from (name withheld). A disgruntled Ex-employee.

My second source remains reluctant to have her information reproduced because she feels that it would most likely give her identity away and would likely have repercussions at her work. Another of her concerns is that the release of the information might also hurt the club which she doesn't wish to do. I should add that he information matches that of bazza226 and includes the name of a second disgruntled ex-employee, the claim that these persons told the investigators that they provided the information only after discussing their stories with others who had been close to the club. She also provided other information relevant to the club (but not connected with the tanking information) which I subsequently had verified by a former board member. If and when she is agreeable, I will provide a statement from her.

I don't see what purpose it would serve at this stage to raise old ghost stories about the treachery of these awful characters and (if my source is correct) the vindictive conduct of those who urged them on.

I believe the information vindicates Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly and is actually consistent with how the AFL has been accused of being heavy handed both in the tanking investigation (confirmed from the passages from the book made available in the Herald Sun) and in other investigations as has been reported in the case of the Dustin Martin investigation.

I have to reiterate, there has been no attempt on my part to "demean" Dean Bailey. I stand by my belief that he was not a great coach but that's an opinion based on supporting the club during his tenure and others are entitled to disagree. If there has been any demeaning on this thread it has been of a number of great servants and indeed heroes of the club like Jimmy, Garry and Chris and others who gave their all for the club and certainly don't deserve the crap heaped on them from some quarters.

Now let's move on.

•