Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden
  • IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

    Posting unsubstantiated rumours on this website is strictly forbidden.

    Demonland has made the difficult decision to not permit this platform to be used to discuss & debate the off-field issues relating to the Melbourne Football Club including matters currently being litigated between the Club & former Board members, board elections, the issue of illicit drugs in footy, the culture at the club & the personal issues & allegations against some of our players & officials ...

    We do not take these issues & this decision lightly & of course we believe that these serious matters affecting the club we love & are so passionate about are worthy of discussion & debate & I wish we could provide a place where these matters can be discussed in a civil & respectful manner.

    However these discussions unfortunately invariably devolve into areas that may be defamatory, libelous, spread unsubstantiated rumours & can effect the mental health of those involved. Even discussion & debate of known facts or media reports can lead to finger pointing, blame & personal attacks.

    The repercussion is that these discussions can open this website, it’s owners & it’s users to legal action & may result in this website being forced to shutdown.

    Our moderating team are all volunteers & cannot moderate the forum 24/7 & as a consequence problematic content that contravenes our rules & standards may go unnoticed for some time before it can be removed.

    We reserve the right to delete posts that offend against our above policy & indeed, to ban posters who are repeat offenders or who breach our code of conduct.

    WE HAVE BUILT A FANTASTIC ONLINE COMMUNITY AT DEMONLAND OVER THE PAST 23 YEARS & WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE CLUB WE LOVE & ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT.

    Thank you for your continued support & understanding. Go Dees.


Hawks racism allegations (merged thread)


Demonland

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Rather than assuming guilt it seems the majority of assumptions being made are that the former players and their partners/families are fabricating their stories. Why?

Really ?

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread and I've also skimmed past plenty.  I also have some posters on ignore.

If there's a ''majority assuming the players/families are fabricating their stories'' are you able to quote some of these posts, as I haven't seen them.  Btw, I'm not saying you're incorrect. 

I would have thought the sites moderators would have removed them, but perhaps they missed them too.

For clarity, I don't assume the accusations are correct and nor do I assume they're fabricated.  I hope for fairness, but don't assume that either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Really ?

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread and I've also skimmed past plenty.  I also have some posters on ignore.

If there's a ''majority assuming the players/families are fabricating their stories'' are you able to quote some of these posts, as I haven't seen them.  Btw, I'm not saying you're incorrect. 

I would have thought the sites moderators would have removed them, but perhaps they missed them too.

For clarity, I don't assume the accusations are correct and nor do I assume they're fabricated.  I hope for fairness, but don't assume that either.

I didn't say a majority of posters assume the players/families are fabricating their stories, I said "the majority of assumptions being made are that the former players and their partners/families are fabricating their stories."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

No, the testimony of players and their families may not be sufficient evidence.

You are assuming guilt without any due process.  Without the testimony of potential witnesses.  Without cross examination.  Without the testimony of those being accused.  Without the potential to prove lies.

In your world accusations are enough.  They're not and should never be.

I know you never want to argue with someone on the merits of what they are saying and prefer to build a easily defeated straw man so I don’t expect anything better than the above…

But just for the record, I don’t assume guilt and those accused will get their right to ‘natural justice’ but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice. 

But it’s great to see you back from BigFooty, there’s only so much enjoyment you can get from agreeing with 14 year old Tigers supporters hey?

  • Like 4
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Through a normal complaints investigation process the complainant provides their statement which is then investigated. Allegations are put to the accused who provide their own statement, witnesses are provided to give their own statements/testimony and the investigative team pieces it together to provide their report and recommendations.

I don't think it is commonplace for complainants in internal investigations to be cross-examined by lawyers. This isn't a criminal or civil investigation it's an investigation of an employer/organisation.

Exactly.

What's all this palaver about the player's, and God forbid their families, being obligated to participate in further interviews.

Leaving aside not bring obligated to, why on earth would they want to given how woefully the afl has proven to be in dealing with cultural issues.

The focus should not be on pagan and clarkson. It should be on the overall situation. Specifics distract from the central problem.

Sure it is important Pagan and Carkson have the opportunity to put their side of the story forward. The AFL investigation will give them that chance. No doubt they will consider media interviews too. 

And of course they both have the right to pursue legal action to clear their name by suing the ABC for defamation, the same way Roberts sued the AGE.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tiers said:

Judges don't have to understand perspective. Royal Commissioners don't have to have perspective. They are selected because of their particular skills to find justice and or solutions. That they could be ignorant of the issues does not mean that they would be ignorant of the correct, fair process of investigation and understanding.

This panel is not, on the face, as serous or important but in the context of footy in the community they might be even more important. As I stated, those that have perspective should be available to provide their knowledge and understanding to the panel members who can then apply the correct weight to their opinions.

My great fear is that a panel consisting of those who "have perspective" might not be able to reach an adverse report due to their perspective. That would not be fair to either the complainants (who might not accept the report) or to the coaches (who might not be able to rely on the report).

A totally independent panel's report will carry much more weight and will more likely to be accepted in the community.

So you ascribe to hardcore legal positivism regarding the role of a judge...! As opposed to the softer Hart model which recognises a judge has discretion within the law and that social norms or principles may be reflected in the exercise of that discretion.

Heaven forbid we even consider some of the more radical legal theorists who note that judges are humans with their own biases and social understandings which can inadvertently sway outcomes.  A good judge does understand perspective rather than pretending neutrality and challenges themselves to think broadly and independently about a matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I didn't say a majority of posters assume the players/families are fabricating their stories, I said "the majority of assumptions being made are that the former players and their partners/families are fabricating their stories."

Where are these assumptions on this thread ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Where are these assumptions on this thread ?

 

3 minutes ago, layzie said:

No direct assumptions but the suggestion that their original testimonies won't hold up is a little dicey. 

No direct assumptions, but implications GALORE. Of course no one is gonna explicitly state as much, for to do so would be an invitation to be howled down or even have one’s post deleted, and rightly so. But the implications are there and they’re many. 
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

I know you never want to argue with someone on the merits of what they are saying and prefer to build a easily defeated straw man so I don’t expect anything better than the above…

But just for the record, I don’t assume guilt and those accused will get their right to ‘natural justice’ but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice. 

But it’s great to see you back from BigFooty, there’s only so much enjoyment you can get from agreeing with 14 year old Tigers supporters hey?

Talk about strawman...

You said, ''And are we to infer the testimony of the players and their families are not sufficient evidence?''.

Not sufficient evidence for what ?  To ascertain guilt ?  What conclusion are you drawing here ?  Be specific.

And no, as stated, I don't agree with that premise and articulated why.  To be succinct, so there's no confusion, their evidence, by itself, is NOT sufficient evidence.  Is that not arguing the ''merits'' of what someone is saying ?  How could I be clearer for you ?

What does the following statement mean ?  ''but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice''

Who is ''atacking'' them for their anonymous reports ?

And stating that ''they are brave enough to report the assault'' is insinuating their evidence is to be believed and that they're victims of the Hawthorn Football Club's behaviour.  But these very allegations have been denied and are yet to be prosecuted. 

You say you don't ''assume guilt'' yet your comments clearly imply that you do.

You'd be good at chasing parked cars.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, layzie said:

No direct assumptions but the suggestion that their original testimonies won't hold up is a little dicey. 

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process.

Their testimonies may or may not hold up.  They need to be adequately tested.

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process.

Their testimonies may or may not hold up.  They need to be adequately tested.

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

Of course an investigation has to consider all sides and try to establish the truth as far as possible.  But repeatedly saying that in order to refute assumptions by other posters that there is likely to be a serious case to answer, smells slightly to me.  

If 3 or 5 people said that they saw me breaking into your house, I think most people would think there is likely to be something in the charge and await proceedings.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It makes sense both sides will have lawyers giving them advice on their statements/responses but I would be staggered if lawyers for the opposing parties were allowed to cross-examine. Perhaps they will be and I am just ignorant of the process but I would be shocked if that were the case.

gonzo, i don't think you will see cross-examination in the sense you would in a legal trial. lawyers no doubt will be pushing for some system whereby they can pose questions in some format to the complainants and accused, whether they succeed who knows. We should also recognise that at this stage we don't know what the rules of engagement will be for the panel, it's all supposition. And finally we don't even know yet whether the complainants will even make themselves available. Some have indicated they don't want to. i'll be very surprised if the panel will complete their investigations and findings in 2 months or anything close to that. 

Edited by daisycutter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

So you ascribe to hardcore legal positivism regarding the role of a judge...!

 A good judge does understand perspective rather than pretending neutrality and challenges themselves to think broadly and independently about a matter.

I don't ascribe to anything other than a fair, independent and credible investigation.  In the context of this issue, a clear, unbiased and open mind is to be welcomed. Those with perspective are therefore limited.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process.

Their testimonies may or may not hold up.  They need to be adequately tested.

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

Gee I would

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

And stating that ''they are brave enough to report the assault'' is insinuating their evidence is to be believed and that they're victims of the Hawthorn Football Club's behaviour.  But these very allegations have been denied and are yet to be prosecuted. 

This is the heart of the issue.

You, like many, appear to be conflating the accusations against Fagan and Clarkson with those against the club, which are much broader than headline grabbing accusations (eg forced termination of pregnancies)

You say 'these very allegations have been denied'. What allegations have been denied?

As far as i'm aware Clarkson and Fagan have only denied telling a player their partner should terminate their pregnancy. And Fagan made a general comment in his media release denying HE was culturally unsafe with Aboriginal players.

To be clear, Hawthorn, or Fagan and Clarkson for that matter, have not denied the central issue  - that the evidence from the players indicates the club was seemingly culturally unsafe in the period the report covered (noting his is not a proven fact).

The noise around Fagan and Clarkson just distracts from the central issue - cultural safety.

As a proponent of free speech, i presume you agree that the players had every right to say what they said. They didn't put the comments into the public arena - the ABC did.

Of course, when speaking to a reporter they would assume it would be reported, but one also assumes the ABC did their due diligence in terms of things such as checking sources, corroborating any accusations and assessing legal exposure. If they didn't they are rightly exposed to legal action 

People are free to make their own assessment of the comments from the player's and their families. 

Fagan and Clarkson will have their opportunity to tell their side of the story, both as part of the AFL investigation and in the  media, who will be gagging to give them both air time.

And people will be equally free to make their own assessment of those comments.

If that doesn't satisfy Fagan and Clarkson, they can take the ABC (not the players) to court for defamation

It was stupid, and so on point, by the AFL to not get ahead of the story and respond immediately they received the report, for example by coming out and doing what they now have been forced to (ie setting up a panel and investigating).

Instead they chose to sit on the report, presumably till after the GF, and left the door wide open for a news outlet to gazump them.  And the ABC obliged. 

The players don't owe anyone anything and are under no obligation, legally or morally, to participate in any way with an AFL investigation.

The players participated in a process commissioned and initiated by Hawthorn. What more do they need to do? They certainly have no obligation to justify or substantiate their claims.

And why would they have any interest in being interviewed again? What benefit would they derive from participating in the AFL investigation?

If they do decide to go down the legal path then they will have to substantiate their claims. 

Perhaps you think they do have a moral obligation to participate in the AFL investigation given the impact on Clarkson and Fagan's reputation?

I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say i don't. Its neither here nor there if they have a moral obligation to participate. The bottom line is they can't be legally compelled to participate in an AFL investigation, which leaves only the courts as an option to have their 'stories tested'. 

If WorkCover get involved they might be interviewed as part of that process and any resulting legal action.

If the players sue Hawthorn their claims will be tested in court (assuming no settlement) 

If Fagan and Clarkson sue the ABC for defamation their claims will be tested in court.

But the players can leave the AFL to their own devices with their investigation. 

 

Edited by binman
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

There's nothing ''dicey'' about due process.

Their testimonies may or may not hold up.  They need to be adequately tested.

I'd hate to be an accused and have Demonland as my judge and jury.

How much extra testing do they need to do though? Do you want them cross examined with the light shined into their eyes? 

I understand what you're saying about due process but what I don't get is why we can't take their testimony in an official report from an internal club review seriously?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, layzie said:

How much extra testing do they need to do though? Do you want them cross examined with the light shined into their eyes? 

I understand what you're saying about due process but what I don't get is why we can't take their testimony in an official report from an internal club review seriously?

Their allegations should be taken seriously ?

Who has said otherwise ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, binman said:

This is the heart of the issue.

You, like many, appear to be conflating the accusations against Pagan and Clarkson with those against the club, which are much broader than headline grabbing accusations (eg forced termination of pregnancies)

You say 'these very allegations have been denied'. What allegations have been denied?

As far as i'm aware Clarkson and Pagan have only denied telling a player their partner should terminate their pregnancy. And Pagan made a general comment in his media release denying HE was culturally safe with Aboriginal players.

To be clear, Hawthorn, or Pagan and Clarkson for that matter, have not denied the central issue  - that the evidence from the players indicates the club was seemingly culturally unsafe in the period the report covered (noting his is not a proven fact).

The noise around Pagan and Clarkson just distracts from the central issue - cultural safety.

As a proponent of free speech, i presume you agree that the players had every right to say what they said. They didn't put the comments into the public arena - the ABC did.

Of course, when speaking to a reporter they would assume it would be reported, but one also assumes the ABC did their due diligence in terms of things such as checking sources, corroborating any accusations and assessing legal exposure. If they didn't they are rightly exposed to legal action 

People are free to make their own assessment of the comments from the player's and their families. 

Pagan and Clarkson will have their opportunity to tell their side of the story, both as part of the AFL investigation and in the  media, who will be gagging to give them both air time.

And people will be equally free to make their own assessment of those comments.

If that doesn't satisfy Pagan and Clarkson, they can take the ABC (not the players) to court for defamation

It was stupid, and so on point, by the AFL to not get ahead of the story and respond immediately they received the report, for example by coming out and doing what they now have been forced to (ie setting up a panel and investigating).

Instead they chose to sit on the report, presumably till after the GF, and left the door wide open for a news outlet to gazump them.  And the ABC obliged. 

The players don't owe anyone anything and are under no obligation, legally or morally, to participate in any way with an AFL investigation.

The players participated in a process commissioned and initiated by Hawthorn. What more do they need to do? They certainly have no obligation to justify or substantiate their claims.

And why would they have any interest in being interviewed again? What benefit would they derive from participating in the AFL investigation?

If they do decide to go down the legal path then they will have to substantiate their claims. 

Perhaps you think they do have a moral obligation to participate in the AFL investigation given the impact on Clarkson and Pagan's reputation?

I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say i don't. Its neither here nor there if they have a moral obligation to participate. The bottom line is they can't be legally compelled to participate in an AFL investigation, which leaves only the courts as an option to have their 'stories tested'. 

If WorkCover get involved they might be interviewed as part of that process and any resulting legal action.

If the players sue Hawthorn their claims will be tested in court (assuming no settlement) 

If Pagan and Clarkson sue the ABC for defamation their claims will be tested in court.

But the players can leave the AFL to their own devices with their investigation. 

 

Think you're getting someone mixed up here mate.....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Their allegations should be taken seriously ?

Who has said otherwise ?

You've said you're not interested in 'half-truths' and the testimony of players and their families may not be sufficient evidence. I get what you are trying to say about process and avoiding Kangaroo Court style approaches but the language seemed to play down the initial testimonies made in the report.

In an ideal world you would want all parties to be part of the investigation but it's not like they told their story to New Idea or something like that surely? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Talk about strawman...

You said, ''And are we to infer the testimony of the players and their families are not sufficient evidence?''.

Not sufficient evidence for what ?  To ascertain guilt ?  What conclusion are you drawing here ?  Be specific.

And no, as stated, I don't agree with that premise and articulated why.  To be succinct, so there's no confusion, their evidence, by itself, is NOT sufficient evidence.  Is that not arguing the ''merits'' of what someone is saying ?  How could I be clearer for you ?

What does the following statement mean ?  ''but I am past the point of where society has been where we attack the marginalised that have been brave enough to report the assault on THEIR justice''

Who is ''atacking'' them for their anonymous reports ?

And stating that ''they are brave enough to report the assault'' is insinuating their evidence is to be believed and that they're victims of the Hawthorn Football Club's behaviour.  But these very allegations have been denied and are yet to be prosecuted. 

You say you don't ''assume guilt'' yet your comments clearly imply that you do.

You'd be good at chasing parked cars.

Who is attacking the accusers? Have you been on social media or are you above it?

Our society has built itself around an ethos of marginalising those alleging  mistreatment of those in power. At the risk of ‘triggering’ people, the #metoo movement was a reaction to this ethos and that is the shift that we need to make in reacting to those who are alleging wrong doing like this. 

I presume innocence (in fact I wish it is all a big misunderstanding as a family friend is caught up in this), but I am past assuming lies and deceit from the accusers.

Nor will a failure to meet ‘the burden of proof’ in whatever investigation/litigation make their claims false or condemn their behaviour in looking for justice.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tiers said:

I don't ascribe to anything other than a fair, independent and credible investigation.  In the context of this issue, a clear, unbiased and open mind is to be welcomed. Those with perspective are therefore limited.

Who do you consider would be unbiased? Or more to the point, who should be excluded due to perceived bias?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    DEPTH CHARGE by Whispering Jack

    The jubilation on the coach’s face as he danced a celebratory jig by the playing bench after the final siren sounded to record his team’s four-point victory over the Demons when the teams last met, said it all.    On that rainy Friday night at the Adelaide Oval, Ken Hinkley’s young midfield secured much more than four points on offer. The victory over one of the big dogs of the competition after a succession of wins over some of its lesser lights gave his team respect and validation fo

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 5

    TRAINING: Monday 25th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Demon Dynasty & Kev Martin were trackside at Gosch's Paddock today to bring you their observations from training. DEMON DYNASTY'S TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Kade Chandler's left knee heavily strapped. BBB, Spargs & Jake Lever also in rehab group. Jake Bowey solo running separate kicking/sprint/agility drills. Super fine morning / early arvo at Gosch's for the boys to blow out some cobwebs. Choco initially had the light duties / rehab group

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    HIBERNATING by KC from Casey

    When they locked up the rooms for summer at the end of last year’s football season, the rooms gathered cobwebs, the atmosphere became dense and the place developed a sleepy feel. They opened up the rooms to let Casey out to play on Sunday but the team was still hibernating and they missed the bulk of the opening quarter. By the time they worked out it was game on, their opponents from Box Hill had accumulated five goals and, if the game wasn’t over, it might as well have been. For a se

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    A FORK IN THE HAWK by George on the Outer

    For too long in the past, Demon fans became habitually sick and tired of watching the Hawks hand out thrashings to their side. But Melbourne’s empahtic 55-point win at the MCG on Saturday has truly put a fork in the Hawk and turned that history well and truly on its head. The Demons have now won nine of their last ten encounters with the other result, a draw.     And like a fork, it was the multi-pronged options that Melbourne had all across the ground.  It certainly helped that Hawthorn

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports 8

    PREGAME: Rd 03 vs Port Adelaide

    The Demons head on the road for the next 2 weeks as they travel to Adelaide to play Port on Saturday and then have a 5 Day break before facing the Crows in the Gather Round. With injuries to May and Lever who comes in and who goes out?

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 262

    PODCAST: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 25th March @ 8:30pm. Join George, Binman & I as we analyse the Demons victory at the MCG against the Hawks in the Round 02. You questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human. Listen & Chat

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 46

    VOTES: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    Last week Steven May took the lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Jack Viney. Clayton Oliver & Max Gawn round out the Top 4. Your votes for the win/loss against/to the Hawks. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 50

    POSTGAME: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    The Demons cruised to an easy 55 point win over the Hawks at the MCG but but paid a heavy toll on the injury front with Steven May & Jake Lever possibly sidelined for a number of weeks.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 357

    GAMEDAY: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    It's Game Day and after mixed results in the first two weeks of the season the Demons have the opportunity to capitalise on their good form last week when they take on the Hawks at the MCG today.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 437
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

  • Podcast 

  • Podcast 

  • Podcast Stream 


    Open Stream in
    New Window
        TuneIn    Opens in New Tab
  • Support Demonland  



  • 2021 Premiership  

  • Social Media 

  • Non MFC Games  

    NON-MFC: Round 03

    Discussion of all the other games that don't involve the Demons in Round 03 ... READ MORE

    Demonland | Round 03

  • Match Preview      

    DEPTH CHARGE by Whispering Jack

    The jubilation on the coach’s face as he danced a celebratory jig by the playing bench after the final siren sounded to record his team’s four-point victory over the Demons when the teams last met, said it all ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 27

  • Latest Podcast      

    PODCAST: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    The boys dissected the clinical thrashing of Hawks praising the immense performance of Christian Petracca whilst lamenting the injury toll to our defensive unit ... LISTEN

    Demonland | March 26

  • Training  

    Monday, 25th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Demon Dynasty & Kev Martin were trackside at Gosch's Paddock today to bring you their observations from training ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 25

  • Casey Report      

    HIBERNATING by KC from Casey

    When they locked up the rooms for summer at the end of last year’s football season, the rooms gathered cobwebs, the atmosphere became dense and the place developed a sleepy feel. They opened up the rooms to let Casey out to play on Sunday but the team was still hibernating and they missed the bulk of the opening quarter ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 25

  • PreGame      

    PREGAME: Rd 03 vs Port Adelaide

    The Demons head out on the road for the next 2 weeks as they travel to Adelaide to play Port on Saturday and then have a 5 Day break before facing the Crows in Gather Round. With injuries to May and Lever who comes in and who goes out? ...READ MORE

    Demonland | March 28

  • Match Report      

    A FORK IN THE HAWK by George on the Outer

    For too long in the past, Demon fans became habitually sick and tired of watching the Hawks hand out thrashings to their side. But Melbourne’s empahtic 55-point win at the MCG on Saturday has truly put a fork in the Hawk and turned that history well and truly on its head ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 23

  • Post Game      

    POSTGAME: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    The Demons cruised to an easy 55 point win over the Hawks at the MCG but but paid a heavy toll on the injury front with Steven May & Jake Lever possibly sidelined for a number of weeks ...READ MORE

    Demonland | March 23

  • Votes      

    VOTES: Rd 02 vs Hawthorn

    Last week Steven May took the lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Jack Viney. Clayton Oliver & Max Gawn round out the Top 4. Your votes for the win/loss against/to the Hawks. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...READ MORE

    Demonland | March 23

  • Game Day      

    GAMEDAY: Round 02 vs Hawthorn

    It's Game Day and after mixed results in the first two weeks of the season the Demons have the opportunity to capitalise on their good form last week when they take on the Hawks at the MCG today ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 23

  • Training  

    Friday, 22nd March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatcher Kev Martin and I attended the Captain's Run at Gosch's Paddock on this lovely sunny morning to bring you the following observations from the training session ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 22

  • Training  

    Tuesday, 19th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Kev Martin & Walking Civil War attended Tuesday morning's training session at Gosch's Paddock to bring you the following observations ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 19

  • Training  

    Saturday, 16th March 2024

    Demonland Trackwatchers Kev Martin and Dee Zephyr wandered down to Gosch's Paddock on Saturday morning to bring you their observations from the Captain's Run in the lead up to Sunday's Round One match against the Bulldogs ... READ MORE

    Demonland | March 16

  • Farewell  

    Angus Brayshaw Retires

    After 167 games including the drought breaking Premiership Angus Brayshaw has made the heart breaking decision to medically retire from football as a result of a series of serious head knocks over his nearly decade of footy. We wish Gus all the best and he'll always be a hero at Demonland ... READ MORE

    Demonland | February 22

  • Latest Podcast  

    PODCAST: Koltyn Tholstrup Interview

    I interview the Melbourne Football Club’s newest recruit Koltyn Tholstrup to have a chat about his journey from the farm to the Demons, his first few weeks of preseason training, which Dees have impressed him on the track and his aspirations of playing Round 1 ... LISTEN

    Demonland | December 14

  • Latest Podcast  

    PODCAST: Jason Taylor Interview

    I interview the Melbourne Football Club's National Recruitment Manager Jason Taylor to have a chat about our Trade and Draft period, our newest recruits, our recent recruits who have yet to debut as well as those father son prospects on the horizon ... LISTEN

    Demonland | November 27

  • Next Match 

    .

    Round 03

       vs   

    Saturday 30th March 2024
    @ 07:30pm (AO)

  • MFC Forum  

  • Match Previews & Reports  

  • Training Forum  

  • AFLW Forum  

  • 2024 Player Sponsorship

  • Topics

  • Injury List  


      PLAYER INJURY LENGTH
    Jake Lever Knee Test
    Clayton Oliver Hand Test
    Oliver Sestan Concussion Test
    Steven May Ribs 1 Week
    Lachie Hunter Calf 1 Week
    Daniel Turner Hip 2-3 Weeks
    Charlie Spargo Achilles 2-4 Weeks
    Shane McAdam Hamstring 3-5 Weeks
    Jake Bowey Shoulder 7 Weeks
    Jake Melksham ACL 12-14 Weeks
    Joel Smith Suspension TBA

  • Player of the Year  


        PLAYER VOTES
    1 Christian Petracca 27
    2 Steven May 25
    3 Max Gawn 21
    4 Jack Viney 20
    5 Bayley Fritsch 19
    6 Clayton Oliver 18
    7 Christian Salem 12
    8 Blake Howes 11
    9 Jack Billings 10
    9 Alex Neal-Bullen 10

        FULL TABLE
  • Demonland Interviews 



  • Upcoming Events 

×
×
  • Create New...