Leaderboard

THE TIMING OF THE SHREW by Whispering Jack "No shame but mine. I must, forsooth, be forced To give my hand, opposed against my heart Unto a mad-brain rudesby, full of spleen Who wooed in haste and means to wed at leisure" William Shakespeare The Taming of the Shrew Imagine if the Age newspaper published an opinion piece tomorrow on Adrian Bayley, accused killer of Jill Meagher, in which the author pronounced him guilty beyond any doubt of murder even though the trial is months away? What if it was suggested that the appropriate punishment for such a heinous crime was nothing less than life in prison to be served in solitary confinement for the next ten years? There are those who care little for the rights of the accused in such circumstances but in reality, it is the respect for those rights that is the very cornerstone of our democratic society. Without the rule of law, our society sinks into the realm of the uncivilised. Three years ago, the Council of the International Bar Association passed a resolution endorsing this definition of the rule of law: "An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client; equality of all before the law; these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law." What this means is that in the context of the AFL's current investigation into the Melbourne Football Club's activities in the same year as the passing of the above resolution, there is no place for sensationalist opinion pieces such as that written by Caroline Wilson and published yesterday in the Age. Wilson may well know more than she's letting on but playing judge, jury and executioner based on the evidence presented by her this week is not helpful to her reputation as a journalist or to her readers' understanding of the matter. What she has done is to treat her readers to rumour, innuendo, supposition, double meaning, lack of context, smoke and mirrors and general palaver that may or may not stand scrutiny in a court of law. Most of it fails to address the basic fact that for a decade before 1999, the AFL and its leadership set a certain standard as to what defines "tanking", the loose word that's supposed to describe the offence being investigated. During that period, there was an almost annual outcry about one team or another deliberately trying to lose games to achieve a better outcome in the draft and the AFL condoned the practice as long as it didn't involve a direct order to the players to lose matches. After the infamous Kreuzer Cup in round 22, 2007 an employee of the "losing" team, Carlton spoke about his concern about how that game was played. The AFL's investigation lasted about 15 minutes after which the world was told there was nothing to see here; move along. The message was loud and clear. Once your season is over in terms of your capacity to make the finals, you can send players off for surgery, play them out of position, interchange them when they're firing and, if you're permitted to do that, then surely you're also allowed to meet and discuss such things among yourselves, joke about them and even brag to your sponsors that things are going to get better next year because you managed to pick up a priority pick? I was never comfortable with this but, as Patrick Smith pointed out in the Australian yesterday, the AFL's position has always been based on Andrew Demetriou's narrow definition of tanking. "Demetriou's understanding allows for only direct action taken on the field of play - instructing a player to deliberately kick a point when a goal would have won the match - as tanking. According to Demetriou, putting inferior players on the field, resting elite ones, playing others in unsuitable positions, taking influential players off the ground are all examples of list management and experimentation. They do not define tanking." So what is Wilson telling us when she describes Melbourne's conduct in 2009 as shocking and awful? That it was worse than those other clubs including West Coast, Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn, the Western Bulldogs, St. Kilda and Fremantle that have lost sufficient games to qualify for priority picks but have (to date at least) not been investigated by the AFL? That the investigators have already found the club guilty even though it has yet been charged, has not seen the evidence against it or had the opportunity to put forward the case in its defence? I look at that definition of the rule of law above and I can only conclude that the Age and Wilson have trampled all over Melbourne's rights in the past week. If the AFL has been involved at all in supplying her with information/conclusions then they've created a fine mess for themselves and are about to help a lot of lawyers to educate their children at expensive private schools. Not only that, but Wilson has been disingenuous in the way in which she's gone about her business and in the timing of her articles. Her stories this week remind me of this famous scene from the Pink Panther - Inspector Clouseau was led by the concierge to believe that the dog on the floor in front on him didn't bite but he omitted an important fact - that it wasn't the concierge's dog. Who knows what manner of tanking Wilson's been writing about this week but is it the sort that would enable the AFL to apply sanctions against Melbourne without opening a Pandora's can of worms involving half the other clubs in the competition? Finally, what is it about Wilson and Demon CEO Cameron Schwab? Apart from a reference to him appearing "grim-faced" after Melbourne's third win of the season when the club was still two wins away from losing a priority pick (perhaps the chicken vindaloo at the president's lunch was off that day?), I don't quite see what he's done to deserve the gallows. Strangely enough, I've yet to find a Wilson article involving Schwab in which she has anything nice to say about him. It's almost as if there's a deep-seated rift between the Wilsons and the Schwabs going back centuries all the way to Shakespearean times, one that evokes visions of a shrewish Liz Taylor, mouth frothing and begging to be tamed. Taylor, of course, was acting.

Connolly has a strong and dry wit. By saying that Stynes will fall out of his hospital bed when he finds out we've won is a perfect example of his humour. Melbourne's not wanting to win was a hot topic at the time and the club knew its best interests weren't served by winning, so clearly there was much ammunition for Connolly to use his well known levity around the club. The written word doesn't always explain context, timing, or tongue in cheek remarks. As is often said, you had to be there. That's my take on it. And is my assertion not more logical than the proposition that he actually meant what he said ? Who really thinks that Connolly would say if we win games you'll lose your job and believe he meant it ? It's no doubt the type of joke that comes back to haunt you if you've got disgruntled ex-employees plotting your demise.

When one peels back all of the layers of speculation, innuendo, hearsay, etc. it seems to me that the only supposed smoking gun in this entire "tanking" investigation is the discovery of a scheduled meeting in a room known as the vault where it was apparently noted that winning games of footy wasn't in the best interests of the club from a draft perspective. Unless I'm mistaken that seems to be about the extent of it. Connolly's dry sense of humour on another occasion not withstanding. All of the other pieces of "evidence" are merely positional moves and a feeling from some former players that the club didn't want to win games, even though those players acknowledge that they were never instructed to under-perform. It all gets back to this supposedly clandestine meeting where perhaps 3 people present have noted that the club discussed the ramifications of winning. If there is stronger evidence than that it certainly hasn't been released. And merely noting that winning wouldn't help the club was merely a statement of fact and by itself doesn't necessarily amount to any breach of the game's laws, or intent to do so. It hasn't been reported anywhere that following the comments "winning wouldn't be in the best interests of the club" it was stated "and this is what we're going to orchestrate to ensure we don't". If those comments took place I'm sure it would have been reported and the contents of this meeting would be far more damaging. This meeting was also a common place meeting that was standard practice for the football department, which is at odds with the impression given in Wilson's initial article. If the above comments are a fair representation of the investigation thus far it's little wonder that this matter hasn't been concluded in over 3 months. That's right, 3 months. If the evidence was any better it would have been leaked to Wilson and the club would already have been asked to explain themselves to the AFL Commission. There's an inference that there's a lot more to come out, but I'm not so sure. At worst I can see circumstantial evidence, which wouldn't be easy to prove, or penalise. But I'm no lawyer. There's an overwhelming perception that the club will be heavily sanctioned and it's simply a matter of time. And while this may be correct I have a feeling that it's not as straight forward as being made out. Unless, of course, the real smoking gun happens to surface. Hopefully there are no incriminating emails that are about to be uncovered.

As a former Policeman (not a gun investigator but qualified enough to say calm the procreation down), I have been quite amazed at some of the things written in the news and on the forum, so wanted to add my two cents. 1 first of all it is a civil, not criminal matter so the rules for a finding of fact are based on 'balance of probabilities' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt') findings are based on evidence, heresay unless certain exemptions are made, cannot be allowed into evidence. 99% of everything I have read has not been direct evidence but would be dismissed after consideration by a judge. Mr. Haddad is mentioned as a UN investigator this means nothing but it does sound good. If he had been with the armed robbers squad or the hommies then I would take him a little more seriously, but he was not appointed via any balanced recruitment process, nothing personal but he is just a good soldier not Dirty Harry. Any reasonable silk will take large chunks out of a statement by a peanut like Brock, you can make statements too good and they look cooked when you read them. 2 a witness can only provide evidence of what he or she saw, so former sponsors ... Meh means nothing except 2" of news print. 3 there are literally dozens of witnesses, does anyone have any idea how long this would take to hear and depose, think Milperra Bikie Massacre, that took two years this would be longer, no one is going to be up for that not the AFL not the club (actually I'm wrong the lawyers would love it). My point being that if the AFL hits us with punitive sanctions we should make very clear to our board that we want them to challenge them in court, I really deeply believe a compromise will be worked out that doesn't gut the club. 4 there was no direct profit or financial misconduct, while draft picks are gold, their tangible value is very hard to debate, they cannot be redeemed for cash and which individual profited? there is no criminal conspiracy to defraud (a criminal charge) unless you had the board as a group put there hand up and confess, which considering their personal financial positions, they would not jeopardize, and even then proving the 'for benefit' bit would probably set a legal precedent. My point is in other areas that the AFL has come down hard on there has been a clear financial trail, whether gambling or salary cap rorts. In this case it's 60 different muppets all with a slightly different tale to tell, can anyone really prove what Bailey did as a result of a conversation with Connolly or Schwab? 5 football clubs have always sat slightly outside the law, this has caused me much consternation because I am a great believer in the rule of law, which directly conflicts with my love of the club. I think the AFL gets this and that is why they have generally been keen to stay away from the courts. AFL is part of Australian culture that is why it has been cut some slack in the past and will continue to do so-Societies being protective of their culture (I could tell you about some really obnoxious cultures I see here in Africa). For all the [censored] we hang on the AFL it's been pretty good at moving forward, thuggery, violence towards women, alcohol, and race are all issues that they have been moving forward on over a period of time to make sure the good aspects of our football culture remain, I don't think they will tear all that down which is what would happen if they really tried to kill us over tanking. The good aspect of football culture that stands out for me is getting a group of young men to play together for a common purpose and with each other, it breeds good people and allows an outlet for all the crap that goes with being young and male, short of sending them to the army or on a cattle drive. But it is a fine thing to balance collective responsibility (the club ) versus individual actions ( the player ), and sometimes this loyalty means that societies rules get bent in a football club, for the greater good I'm happy with that because they (the afl) have been getting rid of the excesses mentioned previously. 6 The AFL got the priority pick thing wrong, the lesser evil for them will be to amend the rules and incentivize winning games over draft picks via a lottery. This is typed on a dinky widget so please excuse typos/ grammar/spelling mistakes.

Half the people in the room were recruiting people who have nothing to do with match day and are not coaches. To tell the whole room that you will all be sacked is obviously a joke. Then he leaves. He is trying to be funny which he has done at every function I have seen him at. So he comes uninvited into a meeting and says "you will all be sacked if we lose the draft pick and Jimmy has fallen out of his hospital bed" and then leaves. Gee that sounds real serious. If he wanted to tank he need only quietly mention it to Bailey not in front of 15 witnesses. Get a grip, it's a bloody joke.

There's a few rats chewing at this carcass. After a week of this I'm inclined to agree with Ben Hur that either the smoking gun doesn't exist or it won't be found. It's been a [censored] week for the club but I'm beginning to feel that we're going to walk away from this minus a couple of employees and an AFL orchestrated "Fine" that will be imposed with a few stern words to show them puffing their chests. The [censored] that should follow us getting booked on this is something the AFL's don't want. Too many fat snouts at the trough. Corporates rarely if ever punish their own, it's way too intertwined. I've lost what little respect I had left for the Age and have been appalled at the journalism of Caroline Wilson. I honestly thought she was better than that. Her last few have us guilty, convicted and sentenced without barely a mention of the 6 or so other clubs that have done this. It's not journalism it's a form of kangaroo court. I think my "tipping point" just became a blur again. To borrow a phrase from others Go Demons Unleash hell

To anyone on Demonland or anywhere else who have personal agenda's with board members, ex board members or alleged board members grow up and move on. Your childish actions are hurting my god damn club. I know nothing about board members or if Schwabb is doing a good job or not. I'm just a bloke who pays up and goes to games. Leaking info to try to over throw a board hurts my club whilst you try to pursue your agenda's. You don't love the club you love yourself.

I have asked him on a number of occasions if he is a former board member, club official or employee and he refuses to answer so you can only assume that he is and this is where the vitriol comes from. I asked the same question of Hazeyshadesofgrinter and after at first refusing to answer he admitted he was a former board member. They work in tandem and I will do whatever I can to find out who they are and let all know the names of the two who are trying to undermine the club. Information is being fed to the press by someone that is, or was, at the club.

i shall quote the heraldsun. One club scout recently said if Wines landed at Melbourne there would be "explosions" in the centre square, adamant the pair were the toughest inside midfielders in the draft pool.

"You’re kidding Caroline aren’t you? You have the audacity to come out with a comment like “it’s not really like sport”. You’re an offensive, sneering and nasty woman. They should call you Caro the Grouch because most of the stuff that comes out of your mouth is absolute trash! Is anyone going to chat to you about your offensive behaviour I wonder? And who are you to talk about what people’s intentions are when they watch the paralympics, I have thoroughly enjoyed celebrating the achievements of these great athletes whenever I’ve had the chance to watch them competing. Keep your bigoted views to yourself and focus on the positives in future! Posted by Kate | September 17, 2008, 12:53 It beggars belief that Wilson would make such a callous comment about the Paralympic Games not being seen as sport(Offsiders 14th/9/08). Hello, one wonders who builds this woman up as being a competent journalist when you only have to watch ‘Footy Classified’ to quickly find her contribution as gossip -lacking positiveness most times and self opiniated to the extreme. And this is what is served weekly to the viewers. Now that should give you some understanding of where her sporting prowess lies because Caroline understands little other than the AFL competition. Her comments were definitely prejudiced against the decision to hold these games in equal billing to the non disabled olympics. Unfortunately her comments have done an enormous amount of damage to the acceptance years ago of equality and inclusion of all people in all types of sport be it at an elite level or not. Somebody should tell Wilson that these competitors are elite sports people who were chosen to represent their repective countries and they did it with such great aplombe, dignity, self confidence and professionalism. And those who won or not were just so happy to have had the opportunity to represent their respective countries. But why did Cassidy have to play that footage showing the unfortunate side of a what happens in all sports. Now was he trying to elicit this type of response from Ms Wilson for discussion and if so it didn’t work. As far as I am concerned there was no need to select this footage to highlight whether this is sport or not. I demand that Caroline Wilson make a public apology to all the Australian competitors when they arrive back to Australia.I also demand that she apologise to the dedicated viewers of the Offsiders program as well. Posted by pam mcintosh | September 20, 2008, 17:28 Absolute disgrace. She can now join that other sports journo Patrick Smith that I will refuse to ever read again. What a prejudiced [censored]! They are genuine sports champions and to see the steelers play murder ball was very exciting. Go for it, you are all champions in my book! Posted by Paul McMahon | September 24, 2008, 7:53 " The above comments were made 4 years ago in response to Wilson saying that the Paralympics weren't sport. What a disgraceful thing to say. This is the type of person the Age has as its chief football writer. You really are trash. You would be right at home on the Jerry Springer show.

Wilson is clearly baiting the MFC and it's supporters with this article. She clearly has little left in the tank and is hoping to fan the story via ours and the clubs reaction. This is what the modern media has become, a grotesque parody of itself, inciting a story rather merely reporting one. To react would give the fire of hatred within her the oxygen it needs. Ignoring her and subsequently her relevance would hurt her far more. Her actions appear to be desperate and I would suggest that she knows the story is starting to die a natural death. Given her position if this were to happen her career would be irrevocably damaged. With this in mind we must understand that she will not let this story go lightly. We must react in a calm and considered manner that will not afford her avenues of attack. She has been throwing some wild haymakers in this fight but so far none have connected. Lets stay light on our feet.

Please Football God just do one thing for the Dees this year, give us Wines, we've had a bad year surely we deserve some good fortune.

Not once did Scully say he wanted to come to Melbourne. He had a difficult, moody disposition when interviewed and his face only lit up when it was a possibility he might get picked up by Richmond. This bloke is / was poison and may cost the club its future.

As I said in another thread according to the AFL the worst draft-related penalty they can impose is the removal of all draft picks and then the allowance of the bottom four draft picks in the draft, meaning we would still get viney (and given our previous drafting might actually have more luck?). Here are some points that have been raised to me in the last 72 hours from various people: 1. In the media they know that reader's attention spans arent that long - they have milked the story in the last four days or so but if they had any damning evidence it would have come out by now because if it does in a fortnights time people have already gotten over the story. So her damning evidence when looked at the context of where it came from isnt really that damning. 2. There is a rumour circulating that the AFL have already told the MFC that we will be found to have brought the game into disrepute by allowing our actions to be interpretated as demeaning the integrity of the game. According to this rumour we will get full access to this draft but may lose access to our first rounder next season and some premiership points. We wont be found guilty of tanking according to this rumour. 3. Its interesting that the article that appeared today on the AFL website suggest that this investigation (purely into the demons) will finally 'put the issue of tanking to bed once and for all.' Does that mean that the AFL considers now that tanking does exist but only when MFC did it? 4. Why would theAFL allegedly leak this story? Why would they chose to leak it to Caro? Why did an AFL source allegedly leak the Misfud story and when it was proven baseless who looked stupid? Why have they chosen to leak the story now after four months of investigation at the same time that Adelaide is under investigation for serious issues and Israel has chosen to sneak out the back door? Why would the AFL compromise the 3rd-party perception that the investigation will be fair and honest by allegedly leaking small amounts of information or allegations? 5. I wonder if there is any truth to the rumour that the AFL view our current administration as being too big for its boots? But think about this whole scenario in the context of a criminal investigation. Flippant comments made four years ago to a room of people who allegedly have differing recollections of those comments is hardly damning evidence that those comments were endorsed, or that they constituted a directive to staff, players or coaches to lose at all costs or fix a match. MFC is clearly being made an example of by the media. it remains to be seen whether we will also be made an example of by the AFL.

I thought Bon Scott was in ADC.

Once again I will reiterate that the fact is the club will definitely pick Oliver Wines at 4 if available. Fact. If he's not available the club will pick up a mid and not a ruckman. Fact. Source: The Mighty Melbourne Football Club. Cheers, Hells Gates.

So what? I'd be boasting too, if I had the first 2 picks. That doesn't mean anything - unless the official said to the sponsor, 'We got that second one by deliberately losing games.' Everybody settle down!

After the Kreuzer Cup thousands of Carlton supporters were boasting about their priority draft pick as well. However, three weeks before that game, a former Carlton board member was boasting they would get the pick and how they were going to go about it. I'm waiting for a call from the AFL.

and so is the other inequities that create an unbalanced playing field. Like the draw, the fixture schedule, not rotating anzac day footy, etc. all these have helped to build a competition which has grown out of balance. With the aid of the VFL/AFL's actions,,,, & non actions... the power within the VFL/AFL has caused favouring decisions which have continually favoured the bigger clubs, (for the so called good of the game). Now the AFL is expanding, but whats changed elsewhere. where is the balance going to come from? Battling clubs who decide to fight back after decades of poor results & dying membership bases from playing too cleanly decide to role up they're sleeves & get dirty, then get attacked, like no others did.

That is the first and most important thing at the moment. Looking likely as no charges yet and Defence will take a long time to get ready.

Funny how one CW finds it less of an offense to tank only for .5 hour as opposed to a game or 2. This woman is full of double standards, a hypocrite. Her rage continues to blind her from sound logic and thought, removing whatever integrity she had (which, after reading a certain article recently over her thoughts on disabled people and sport, is non-existent). And she has the gall to label the MFC as shocking and awful! Might want to worry about improving your own ways, before belittling others Caro.

There are gutless players that fold when the pressure is applied and there are gutless, faceless men, who love the trimmings of power and resent being stripped of it. You are the epitome of the gutless faceless man that snipes away until he destroys all those that try to build. You and your mates left the club on the path to nowhere and quite rightly you were turfed out by those that could right the ship but getting the club back on top doesn't matter to you it's all about getting your position back and to hell with the consequences. Your mob are not welcome and your attempt to destroy the club will fail.

Guilty of what? We list managed and experimented to a tee. It was a thing of beauty. The club did it because losin seasons are only useful if they are truly terrIble seasons. We made sure of it with perfectly legal actions and we, and no-one at the club at the time, should be sanctioned for doing what losing teams do. We did not tank.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you*: A. The AFL finally reach tipping point on the issue of tanking. Under pressure from the state and federal governments (due to gambling implications), they launch a genuinely thorough investigation. MFC are the scapegoat. B. The AFL intentionally undermines its own investigation by leaking explosive information to the press. C. The press report this information, prejudicing the AFL's investigation. D. The AFL hands down a heavy handed punishment, including massive fines and loss of first round draft picks for two years. The AFL is widely applauded for this action in the press. E. MFC takes the AFL to court, where the prejudiced evidence and flimsy definition of tanking makes it relatively easy to overturn the AFL's sactions. F. The AFL decides not to appeal, stating that they respect the court's decision but also warning all clubs that such actions will not be tolerated in the future. The AFL is again widely applauded in the press. G. MFC isn't fined and its draft picks are reinstated. The AFL continues to provide funding to financially vulnerable teams and is happy that MFC isn't placed in further financial peril. H. MFC gains an unintended side effect of the saga, which is a galvanised supporter base and focussed playing list. *Disclaimer: Brian Wilson has not, nor ever will be associated with Caroline Wilson, her family, associates, Facebook friends or Twitter followers.

Wilson calls us pathetic and disgusting when her own club has been just that for 30 years, which club's supporters spit on their own players, which club has failed for years to develop its players or recruit successfully; Richmond. Fiora, Oakley-Nichols, Tambling all high draft picks that have turned out to be duds and she has the nerve to have a go at us. How did they get Trent Cotchin by the way; they finished last after their coach admitted he stopped coaching the team in the hope they'd lose and he would get a priority pick; tanking perhaps? Her father was the President of Richmond when it went broke and was also President when the club was involved in one of the most disgusting brawls ever at Windy Hill in 1974 where his right hand man Graeme Richmond was suspended for 17 matches for his involvement in the brawl. Now we have the Dustin Martin saga and it appears that he is out of control and even though he is living with the Club President he is so uncontrollable that KB on SEN has said the may have to delist or trade him. Their new recruit Aaron Edwards was found guilty of being drunk in a public place; it seems the [censored] rubs off on them as soon as they sign up. Wonderful club she supports and I can see why she wants to divert attention away from them.

Right next to Ms. wilson's so called 'article' is the rehash of the Sheedy 'I didn't get the job, they were hopeless, I'm the only one that can save them' piece by Adam Cooper. Nearly a full page of irrelevant, self serving rubbish. Some context: there is written evidence of breaking clear rules by Adelaide, Tippett and his agents. Tigers have serial issues with Dustin Martin, and now Edwards. Facts that could be reported and commented upon. Please, Ms Wilson, as you troll this site (pun intended) to feel important, please note that your continued poor efforts at true journalism and allowing your bias to show serves no one. Your editors have let you down by allowing you to make a fool of yourself by publishing your vitriolic opinion. You, madam, are the Alan Jones of sports Journalism. Please put your facts up or shut up. Report or comment on facts based stories would be a minimum standard of even high school journalists. To spend 5 days pumping your own bandwagon, hatred and attempts to damage an institution and everyone in it based purely on innuendo is really poor form. Attacking the legacy of a dead person who had more courage, dignity and decency in a toenail clipping than you have in your whole body is reprehensible, appalling and belittles you further. I would suggest you crawl under a rock... But the spiders and slugs may find you too repulsive.

Maybe they could dock all our Premiership points since the alleged tanking took place - that could qualify us for about 8 more compensation picks, of which we could even get a couple right :-)))

If..everythings IFguilty ? of what exactly ?? Lose ? Nothing. We would tie this up in court that long it would not only embarrass the AFL it would hamstring the draft and most that follows. Some of you people are far too prepared to roll over This far from over let alone defined. In life when youre pushed...you push back. Sometimes harder. Or perish !!

The rule is as stated on the AFL's own website: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=66411 'If a bid is made, the club that nominated the father-son player must use its next available selection if it wishes to retain its hold on that player'. Thus, if the AFL takes 27 off us, we'd just have to use our next pick, whatever that is, and we'd still have him.

Vlad told the media, team is guilty of tanking if the players given instructions to lose Not one evidence suggest we asked players to lose If we are guilty, there has to be new rules been created by Vlad saying they change the tanking rules

Why are so many people SOOO short sighted that they actually believe that what she has written - given her factual track record in other issues - is concrete evidence of what factually occured?

My goodness. I suggest everyone looks at this article., How the Offical AFL site can publish this crap and expect anyone to believe that the MFC is being treated fairly in this saga, That article is nothing out propaganda, and I am [censored] off. So obvious that Vlad and his mates are just trying to justify the money they have put into their new 'Integrity' department and that [censored] Brett Clothier, the integrity officer. And we are the victims. Seems like they need to hire another Integrity officer to check the Integrity of their laughable Integrity department.

I have no doubt we tanked - depending on the definition, but I don't take the "evidence" provided in Wilson's articles as proof, or in any way being definitive.

I couldn't agree more with this post. This, to me, is a perfect example of how Caro has taken little tid-bits and blown them out of proportion to suit an agenda. Her evidence is pathetically weak.

Rumpole, I can't answer that question but I do have some vision of the interrogation -

You've been reading too much Wilson and Robbo there Col.Because some hack asserts something ,does not make it true . As we are about to discover. Our strategy has been on public display for years. CS was pretty open about our plans to be competitive by 2013 on Whiteboard Wednesday. As for the words of a disloyal corporate sponsor? Really -do you believe the invective of a suit trained in Marketing? Have some faith in the oldest and greatest football club on earth.

While I have no doubt that Hazy was either a former Board member, or is related to one, I doubt ADC is. On the surface that person doesn't have the gravitas or intellect that I'd usually associate with someone in a Board position. I think they're merely a disgruntled supporter that is probably enjoying the association that some supporters are making and perhaps now even flaming the embers. Some will say that ADC's intellect perfectly reflects some of those that were previously in charge of the club. It's a debate in which I think I'd find myself on weak footing and not be inclined to engage.

I'm a former Archbishop.

Like what this guy did?

Neeld has made a statement by ridding the club of the last of the rotten core of the playing group, the group that went out on strike and allowed our club to be humiliated by Geelong. If there was a policy of playing youth over the supposed leaders and senior players of the club, then this day showed why it was the right policy. Now after bludging off the club for years they are crawling out of the woodwork to try and sink the club by giving their version of events to lowlife journalists. Not only that we have sad and bitter ex board members that are also giving their version of events to the same lowlife journalists in an attempt to win their positions back. That ain't going to happen. Our football club is like a family, you can disagree with your family but ultimately you stick up for your family you don't betray them. Only a dog of a person would do that.

Does anyone know how to get into the Carlton equivalent of "Demonland?" It would be interesting to see the posts before and after the Kreuzer Cup. After attending round 22, 2007, and facing derision from the Carlton fans after the final siren, I lost any qualms I'd previously held about "list management planning". I was hoping to hear some criticism of Carlton from the AFL after that, but it wasn't forthcoming . That made me think...once you reach the point where you can't make the finals,it's OK to plan your tactics to aim for the best possible draft picks.There is the advantage then of giving young players experience that they otherwise wouldn't get, and the opportunity to try players in new positions. Though there did appear to be a hint of lack of ethics in this, it had escaped scrutiny for several years before with other clubs. We were being naive by not doing it. I think our Club's administration must have felt the same way. In fact, AFL clubs are supposed to strive for excellence. Could it be argued that we weren't doing our best to improve if we DIDN'T maximise our chances of optimal drafting?

What makes you think it wasn't staged?

I think the AFL will be keen to extend this past the draft date, it could be a nightmare for them if they want to penalise us in this draft should they find us in breach of regulations. We've spent the money already.

You are correct here. A couple of seasons ago - quite out of the blue in March or April, I think - Caro wrote an extraordinary article headlined something like "CEO loan raises questions". The article was about an MFC loan of around $100-200k to Cameron Schwab. The article was extraordinary because the loan had been fully disclosed in the Melbourne Annual Report prepared several months prior as presented at the AGM at least 2-3 months before. She was correct when she said that executive loans had become increasingly rare - and that directors needed to take special care before approving them. Given our less than strong financial position at the time, I picked up the loan in my review of the accounts. The disclosures were unusually comprehensive - and they satisfactorily answered every question I could possibly think of. Ernst and Young signed off the accounts None of the lawyers and accountants at the AGM saw a need to mention it. Nothing in it - no story - even at the time. But away went Caro. "Even though the accounts said "X" there might be a problem if it turned out to be "Y"". "Cameron Schwab returned from Perth saying Z ....... and now this loan pops up.... makes you wonder" , she wrote. It was a none story when the accounts were released - and it certainly was a non-story 3 months later. Caro - was then - and is now - after Cameron Schwab. Both the Wilsons and the Schwabs were heavily involved with the Richmond Football Club. The tigers were not terribly impressed when the young Cam wlaked out of his job there and came to Melbourne.Caroline and Cameron are around the same age. Let me do a Caro.... "is there some history there?"Caro wrote glowingly of young "sportsmanlike" players - aka Brock McLean - being disillusioned by the MFC's policies. Let's not forget that Brock has a link to Richmond as well - through his Uncle Ricky. I wonder if that has something to do with her unquestioning faith in the word of an employee of the club that won the Kreuzer Cup. You are right - Caro wants to destroy a forner employee of her beloved Richmond football club Cameron Schwab Trouble is ... it looks like she's going to do it!!

Or she has to be right. As BH posted - she has gone too early, too hard and now she has got nowhere to go. She won't be finished if we get off but she will be heavily marginalised. And if we proceed with legal action it will only be worse for her as we settle out of court with Fairfax. How's that getting ahead of myself? I should write an article in The Age... This latest piece was the 'editorial' following the 'reports.' However, usually the reports that preceed the editorial are not from one journalist with the reports all coming from said journalist. Akin to Dick Cheney and Judith Miller pre-Iraq: leak to journo with lie, journo writes article of lie, cite article in case for war. Show me some evidence, Clothier!

What I sent... I have today cancelled my daily home delivery of your paper, and have removed the link from my Android phone and laptop, as a result of today's C Wilson article. I have come to the decision that a paper that allows an opinion piece at best, and a personal agenda at worst, to presented as a news article, and not as an editorial or as an opinion piece, cannot be relied on to provide objective unbiased reporting. I will source my news from other sources. Thank you.

Excellent statement from Don McLardy and the Melbourne Football Club making it clear we're not going to be tried by the media. It would be appropriate for all of our posters to read it and appreciate what it means. As a lawyer, I give 10 out of 10 to the legal team that helped put it together.

Just about any time of day. I'll be surprised if we don't get him. I can see Cometti at home drafting his "off the cuff" phrases. Wines combines with Sellars who spills it to Glass-How appropriate!

Barry Prendagast made his by reading bigfooty.

This selection should be left up to the supporters, the football department have had their chance now it should be ours. All in favour of Wines?