Leaderboard

I'm in the Insurance business and one of my mates in the industry is a Surveyor, it's his job to determine the suitability or otherwise of a risk and to recommend whether his company should accept or decline cover. He told me many years ago that if he looked at a risk, even if it was tip top, he would report some minor infringement of Fire regulations or Safety because if he didn't his employer would think he hadn't done his job. These clowns have spent more than 6 months investigating this and I would imagine that they have determined that there must be a "sacrificial lamb" so they look like they've done their job. I hope the club defend any employee of the club that's put under the pump, if we don't we will look like we are as weak as [censored] and as guilty as hell.

I joined in August because until then I'd stuck to posting on Demonology. With regards to negative comments, considering the season we had, making only four negative posts was restrained. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, was merely sharing what I'd heard with my fellow hardcore demons.

Thats how it reads to me, im no fan of CC but hes been a great servant of the game, as a player and coach, hope he beats whatever the parasites throw at him, after all he is one of us.

I volunteer we give up the Crows' first two picks in 2012.

A short report on training from 9.30 at the paddock. I was only there for the first half hour and would appreciate advice on the balance of the session. There were two groups a main group doing inside work and a second group of small forwards doing lead up drills. The inside group comprised the main list and they focussed on 2 v 2 contested ball movement in a tight space, tackling bag drills, and a contested spread drill. I watched the group closesest to the northern boundary which was Sylvia, Tapscott, Byrnes, Pederson, Frawley, Howe, Strauss, NIcholson (?) and others. Howe and Tapscott struck me as the most switched on - both were quick and effective. Sylvia is hard to stop and was impressive and elusive. Byrnes looked to me rather ineffectual - and a bit uninterested (too harsh?) - he is an outside mid afterall and pretty small. Frawley was fairly relaxed / laid back though clean and effective enough. Pederson was surprisingly quick for a guy his size. Watts and Gillies (?) ran laps. The small forward group (my assumption here) was basically doing a light one on one contest drill which resulted in a free kick which lead to a lead from a small forward. The participants were Blease and I think Dom Barry and others I cant identify. The drill wasnt executed well and the ball receivers werent really up to gathering the half volley and rarely timed their runs to be a full stretch. They were being asked to time their runs but they werent. I didnt see Dawes. If someone could fill in the gaps and expand on what happened that would be appreciated.

Fevola: "You could tell in the rooms," Fevola said of the Round 22 loss to Melbourne. "I didn't play that last game either. I had my finger done. I left at quarter time. I didn't even stay. I was home at half-time and listened to the radio. "We didn't want to win. I always say to people that when you look at that game, were we tanking? "We would tag Travis Johnstone every time we played them, because Ratts (coach Brett Ratten) came from Melbourne (as an assistant coach) - and Johnstone had 42 touches. "We tagged him every single time we played him. (Heath Scotland) had a few touches as well. But they didn't play on each other. "If we were serious about it, we would have tagged him." FORMER AFL star Brendan Fevola has reignited the tanking furore, claiming Carlton took steps to make it "more difficult for us to win games" as the 2007 season drew to a close. In his new book, Fev, In My Own Words, Fevola said the Blues were put in a "crazy situation", where they benefited from losing by gaining a priority draft pick for ruckman Matthew Kreuzer. The two-time Coleman Medallist said the club took "initiatives" such as asking players to have surgeries and making unusual match-ups. "It did seem like the club did a lot of things that made it more difficult for us to win games," Fevola, who yesterday kicked 18 goals in an exhibition match in Tasmania, wrote. "Often there was banter on the field about tanking," Fevola has said in the book. "I remember one incident in our game against Essendon in round 20. We kicked four goals in the second quarter and were 21 points up when the half-time siren sounded. "As I started walking towards the rooms, my opponent, Mal Michael, turned to me and said, 'What are you blokes doing? You don't want to win this game.' I smiled and said to him, 'Yeah, I don't think we'll win, mate.' "Sure enough, we ended up losing by 10 points." Liberatore: FORMER Carlton assistant coach Tony Liberatore has accused the club of "tanking" matches at the end of last season. The Blues lost their final 11 matches in 2007, ensuring they won few enough matches to earn a priority national draft pick, which they used to pick up talented young ruckman Matthew Kreuzer. Liberatore, who was part of the Blues coaching staff at the time, told the Footy Show last night that winning "wasn't the be all and end all'' for the club during the final matches of the year. Asked if he felt that constituted tanking, he said: "I would have to say yes.'' The AFL will interview Tony Liberatore next week over tanking claims made against Carlton, but say the former Blues assistant will need to produce a specific allegation to prompt an investigation. That appears unlikely, as Liberatore has already admitted coaching staff never talked about tanking and there was never any directive to lose from Blues officials. AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said that from what he had read of Liberatore's comments, made on the Nine Network's AFL Footy Show, there was nothing that would warrant an investigation. "If he put a specific allegation to us about the Carlton Football Club then we would go and speak to the Carlton Football Club and look into it," Demetriou said. Asked what sort of allegation would be required, Demetriou said: "If someone at the football club said to Tony Liberatore, directed him to do A, B, C, D to lose the game, that's a really serious matter." The Blues strongly defended themselves against Liberatore's claims and said they would consider legal action. Liberatore said the club made dubious team selections and positional moves in the final games of last season, in what he believed amounted to tanking. Amazing Carlton aren't being investigated with two insiders claiming the above. Would hope Melbourne raises this as well... Why is there an investigation even??? What 'evidence' prompted this investigation?? McLean's comments? Is that it?? Seems pretty tame compared to the Carlton comments yet we are under the gun?? DOesn't make sense to me...

Perhaps the Mayans were right, and this is the apocalypse. I can picture Wilson's headline now: "Demons charged with tanking; Schwab causes world to end".

There's so much shallow thought from posters like Fan and Timd I'm genuinely surprised. Using Bailey's win/loss as a measure for Neeld's pass mark is a very poor way of analysing data. Each year the competition changes, the strength of varying teams change, gameplans change, fitness changes, science changes, list ages change, injury ramifications, the fixture, etc. For example, comparing 2009 to 2012 is futile even though it's only 3 years apart. In 2009 10.5 wins got you into the eight, while in 2012 you needed 14 wins to make the 8. Bailey's record can't be used as any meaningful data to measure Neeld's expected output. Neeld has to be measured against the competition at the time. Bailey is now irrelevent, as is 2010. I base my expectations on the list changes, the maturation of certain players, player availability, the draw, our new fitness levels, changing culture, and familiarity with how Neeld wants them to play. As stated, Bailey's exploits are now completely irrelevent.

There seems to be some confusion here but this report from the Herald Sun AFL asks Melbourne Demons to respond to tanking claims from 2009 season states that no charges have been laid against the club or any individual but evidence that has been gathered during the investigation will be put to "the relevant parties to give them an opportunity to comment." There may very well be no charges laid at all depending on the evidence and the comments/explanations of the club and/or any of the individuals involved. This is a far cry from what deegirl maintained in the OP or what Damien Barrett claimed in his tweet several pages back. Things could change over time but I have yet to see anything that resembles the sort of evidence necessary to amount to a breach of AFL rules of tanking as they have been interpreted by high ranking AFL officials over recent years. If evidence existed that was strong enough to sustain a charge against the club, I believe that charges would already have been laid. This is yet another storm in the tanking teacup and it's time to go back to our Christmas parties and other end of year activities.

If any charges laid against CC are based on his flippant remarks then I would hate to see CC thrown to the wolves for the reasons mjt has outlined. If however there is written evidence well that lifeline will get shorter and shorter. It is still absolutely incredulous to me that we alone have been targeted

What do you think the bolded players added last year ? Show me a consistently effective forward ? Show me an effective mid ? Pedersen and Dawes immediately make us a better structured forward-line to help Clark. I think most supporters underrate how effective Pedersen's role will be. Byrnes may not be the best small forward in the league, but he's twice kicked 30+ goals in his career and is miles better than anything we previously had, which is nothing. Another improvement there. Viney is a ready made player and Toumpas comes in at 19 with the type of midfield class clubs salivate over. And he's played against men for two years. I also expect Kent to play quite a lot of footy. His body is already strong enough to compete. Who knows how Matt Jones and Terlich will fit in. Jones is tall, quick and has nice skills. Time will tell. Even the overall fitness levels will make a significant difference. It's amazing the difference that a couple of players can have on a group. Judd comes in and a second year gun young mid in Murphy helps take Carlton from 4-10 wins. What impact has Gaff and Darling already had on West Coast. The same for Thomas and Pendlebury in their early years at Collingwood. And more recently Sidebottom and Beams. With the right quality the mix doesn't need to change much to have a major effect. Ultimately you'll please yourself and assume the worst, and who can blame you. I take note of a vibe and energy at training that I haven't seen for years. I enjoyed my ninth session this morning - even though it was light.

how are you coping knowing that the apocalypse is only 3 days away ?

Leaked on to a fan forum. Water-tight investigation.

Ah, jeez... I hope no-one else thinks like this. What a subjugated, defeatist attitude.

When I was in Melbourne I spoke with Jack Grimes. He told me he was not injured in any way. He has been put in the rehab group because he is on a modified running programme to get some more ks and strength into his legs and core strength. He also mentioned he is on a modified programme in the gym. He was conducting sprint sessions when I was there and is very quick and extremely fit. He is fine and raring to go. FNQ Demon

Come out west. The western suburbs are great. No need for the perfectly cut lawn and if your car catches on fire you can leave it on the street. It's a modern garden decoration. You can wear footy jumpers every day of the week and have great access to such iconic fashion designers as fubu and stussy.

The probe, into practices employed during Dean Bailey’s tenure as coach, is believed to have found adversely against former football manager Chris Connolly. The above comment by Damien Barrett if true, is the innocent finding against the club we have all waited for. Remember the section allegedly breached, required a Coach or Player to breach it. If the above is true then obviously there is no evidence of said breach or we would be seeing headlines about Bailey. It would appear that Bailey has denied tanking and he was in charge. If there is no evidence that we did, end of story. What are we then left with if Barrett is correct? An off the cuff comment by CC that Bailey has been reported as saying was a joke and that clearly he didn't act on. What then? The AFL charges CC for making an unfunny joke.

Adverse finding - what does that tell you we have witnesses who say Connolly said this Connolly now has right of reply 1) I said that word for word and it was a joke, on other occassions I have also said these things did these witnesses also tell you this. and are you investigating all things I have said in jest, because they are clearly as ridiculous as these comments I said during this meeting your referring to. The only meaning they have is of a joke or comments made in jest 2) This has been taken totally out of context You can not write off an inquiry till you first interview the person who is alleged to have said the comments in question. FFS as others have said don't panic, the sky is falling. I would really hate to be under the pump or in the trenches with a lot on this forum. And some of you have the cheek to question our players not responding well to pressure

So much for accuracy and responsible reporting.

If we get charged we get 7 days to respond & I would expect review the evidence. Simple if they've got us covered we negotiate, if the evidence is just subjective or weak then we fight. Time for the Fink to earn his money!

Clifton Hill, where the train lines converge and often run express to Jolimont... ;-)

Nup! let them prove it. If they have written or audio evidence of a player being told to lay down then if they produce it we are in trouble, I doubt any such evidence exists. Otherwise there is no case to answer and they can go .......

Response should be to suggest discussing penalties after the investigations into other clubs (notably Carlton & Richmond) are concluded. If the response is that no other clubs are to be investigated, then jam your penalties and of to court we go.

And, off to court we go....

deegirl has runs on the board I believe, or am I mistaken?

If the AFL was convinced by the evidence they have obtained, we would be charged and then given the opportunity to defend the charges. The fact that they are letting us make submissions on the evidence is a mechanism to avoid charges being laid. This still sounds to me that they lack the necessary evidence and that they are going through the motions for the public and the media.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Well, we await the results of what five months of hard labour by the inquisitors has produced. Let's see what the alleged evidence is before drawing any conclusions.

The Dees need to be the hardest team to play against both on and off the field. The time to harden up is long overdue.

I understand. Ultimately every coach is judged by the W and L columns. It's the lot of a coach. But it's too simplistic. Look at these names: Ablett, Bartel, Ling, Scarlett, Stevie J, Milburn, Chapman, Kelly, Corey, Enright, Rooke, Hunt, Mooney, Wojo, Harley, King, Graham, Riccardi, Sanderson, Lord. That's a pretty handy group of 20 players. Sixteen are premiership players and belong to one of the great eras of all time. In 2003, Bomber Thompson's fourth year, they won only 7 games and finished 12 of 16. Their list consisted of those 20 players. As a side they were still developing. The following year they started to realise their talent and jumped to 15 wins and top 4. I think in Neeld's second year you still need to have some patience. Afterall, you were patient in Bailey's 4th. But like you, I want to see players develop and the team gel. They're non-negotiables. Also, you mentioned "VFL standard players", while Dawes isn't a world beater, I've seen enough to know that he can play. Ditto Byrnes, and Pedersen. If I asked whether you'd happily take Richards, Josh Kennedy, Mattner, or McGlynn I dare say I'd know the answer. The club has identified players it believes can play a valuable role for the team and that's a valuable proposition if you can get it right. Richmond did similarly well with Maric, Houli and Grigg, who have all at some stage been "VFL standard players". Simply saying "I want more wins than 2010 is that unrealistic ?" is not quite the analysis you used to give to the game. But then, you loved Bailey.

I think the Courts should all close down. According to some on here, if you are charged you are guilty. Bugger having a hearing and testing the prosecution evidence, not to mention presenting your own. Oh and by the way, we haven't been charged with anything yet. IF, we are charged and after a hearing found guilty, the AFL should hire a lot of lawyers as they are going to be inundated with claims to recover lost bets by punters and bookies.

No negotiated surrender. We did nothing that contravened the rules and until given evidence to the contrary, should be absolved of all guilt.

FFS the doomsayers predicting the cataclysm that will occur on the 21st of this month seem to have a more positive outlook on life than you mate!

The doomsayers have the world ending in a few days. The AFL are going to miss the boat on this one, Times up! In the meantime i've stocked piled up on the popcorn.I'll watch either event from my comfy chair.

The Afl has obviously got some hard core evidence if they're going to charge us.Eg- emails, stories collaborating etc... I reckon we're stuffed. Therefore plead guilty, WORK with the AFL for a fair and minimal punishment and let's put this sorry affair behind us and focus on 2013.

Disagree - If you are investigated and they believe there is strong evidence then you are firstly CHARGED with a crime - you are not guilty unless you plead guilty - you have every right to defend yourself against the charges. Then if you are found guilty, you can appeal the decision. Its not bleating - its called justice. Now none of us know what evidence has been uncovered - if the investigators have found a manual entitled "a blueprint for not winning more than 5 games and landing a priority pick" - then you plead guilty to lessen the penalty. All I have heard so far is lots of subjective postulating and very little concrete evidence - if there is nothing concrete then you absolutely fight it. So to you, bring back powell and dr Gonzo - I am sure that if the club is CHARGED they will have an opportunity to weigh up the evidence and decide whether or not it is strong. Until the investigators put their cards on the table we are all guessing but rule one - don't throw you in the towel until you know what the opposition has lined up against you.

you obviously dont go to 'ology much - the second thread down is "rumour that Peter Moore and Kelvin Templeton are coming to the Dees" - not a lot of action over there

mate if you are investigated and found guilty of a crime you can bleat all you want about your innocence, it is not going to do you any good - you might as well limit the damage. Neeld would be spitting chips, he's done nothing to deserve a big setback early in his career, and after all the carp that happened last year the bloke has copped a very raw deal indeed

what utter garbage... the Law is there to serve both parties. Its particularly there to serve the transgressed. its because people think like this that institutions get away with murder. take the bastards on !! take anyone on. you either fight...or youre nothing !!

No..what we cant afford to do , nor ever do , is roll over like some pup as you suggest. What a [censored] weak attitude , honestly.

Bargaining is admitting guilt.McLardy said we will fight it out. Off to court we go.

If it's Deegirl from Demonology I believe she's virtually always on the money.

Three posts since August and all three negative. Hmmmm

We now have many more players that are accountable and the coaching staff are trying to put in place systems to stop us from being thrashed and to make us harder to play against. We know this. We have new youngsters that are unproven but plenty of experienced players offloaded or swapped for low picks (except Dawes) to stop the collective dropping of heads. We don't have new guns ready to rock in 2013. Those that support Neeld do him no favors by giving high game pass marks. My determination of success next year will take opposition into consideration as well as not being thrashed. That's the biggie for me. We aren't the only team expecting to improve. I expect to improve to 12 wins in 2014. Being competitive in the last quarter is what I'm looking for in 2013. 7 wins.

Over 4 years Bailey's team never had a defensive bone in their collective body, yet we're being told by Fan that in time it may have come. That's a stretch too far for me. They never bothered training to implement or defend the forward press over his last preseason, yet other clubs had spent 2-3 years perfecting it. In reality, he didn't know where the game was going. I don't understand how long time posters could take any solace out of victories over Adelaide, Brisbane, Port, or Freo at the G. Three of those clubs have since changed coaches after stagnating and the other had a novice with a rebuilding side. And three of those 4 clubs were bottom 4 in 2011. The reason Bailey's last side had less scored against it is because they were winning games of footy against other mediocre teams, such as the ones just mentioned. It's obvious that when you're kicking goals the opposition isn't. But just as obvious is that Bailey's teams' lack of accountabilty and gameplan wouldn't hold up against good opposition regularly, let alone finals. To think that after 4 years he was going to suddenly introduce them to the word "defence" (in any meaningful way) is a self-serving argument. Some clubs just do things differently. Matty Lappin went from Carlton to Collingwood as an assistant coach a couple of years back. He said that at Carlton 80% of the focus was on offence, but at Collingwood 80% was on defence. Bailey went to Ratten's school of coaching. But it's defence that wins finals and premierships. Neeld didn't have the support of a woeful senior group and has had to endure the most wretched start to a coaching career in VFL/AFL history. If supporters can't see that then they don't want to. That said, the honeymoon is over. The list is now largely what he wants and he's had another preseason to get them fitter and playing how he wants; and I expect to see some genuine improvement in the year ahead. For me 8 wins is a bare minimum and 10/11 ought to be a distinct possibility - subject to injuries.

I know this is a commonly held view on Demonland but it's not necessarily one I agree with. Bailey coached close to the youngest group in the AFL in 2010 and 2011 and he coached to their strengths therefore maximizing their chance of success. And while this was based on fast ball movement and a very attacking gameplan there is no reason to suggest that as the players got older, fitter and stronger they would not have developed the defensive skills and running ability of the top teams. I know that Bailey's strategy led to large swings in results and we regularly got beaten up by teams such as Hawthorn, Geelong and WC but it also showed some very significant promise against Swans and Collingwood. It also allowed us some big wins against other clubs such as Adelaide and Freo at the G and some consistent performances against the likes of Richmond and Essendon. Young teams getting beaten up by older powerhouses is to be expected but the significantly good performances against others showed more potential than anything we saw this year. I know that in order to feel good about the Club it's necessary to blame Bailey for everything and praise Neeld but it's not that simple. In 2012 we focused on defence and the groupthink round here would have it that this was a necessary first step. But we conceded almost exactly the same score against us as the previous year albeit that we played three games against development clubs compared to two the previous year. To compound the situation we kicked 400 less points and had a 20% drop in percentage. Despite putting all our efforts into stopping the opposition scoring and blowing us away our losing margin increased significantly. I'm very happy to forget 2012 as a learning year. Much went wrong, Neeld was new and learning on the job and the players were dealing with a new game plan. But the reality is we now have a significantly better list than Bailey had in 2011, we have significantly more resources within our footy department, the players have had time to learn and implement a new game plan and we have several years benefit of the facilities of AAMI. I know that setting a benchmark for Neeld is difficult because we all want him to succeed and we all want success. Setting a benchmark which he fails to reach will threaten all of us because we are all utterly sick and tired of failure after 6 years. But that doesn't mean we should go easy. He's certainly not going easy on the players and he wouldn't expect us to go easy on him. Can anyone really suggest that we shouldn't be better in 2013 than we were under Bailey in 2010 and 2011? Given our draw that must mean 10+ wins although with the responses to this thread I get the impression that not many think that's possible. The stat that does tell the whole story is 15 wins for Bailey in 2010 and 2011 against non development clubs and 1 for Neeld in 2012. That's just a plain fact and it's a pretty terrible one. It's time for the Club to produce.

Most times you can tell when you are being spun a line. Or you get the usual 'we are taking one week at a time'. Mark Neeld came across as sincere, He added they (the players) have a way to go, but they realise they cant load them up with too much work load, or they will be dropping like flies, and or getting injured. he wasnt playing it down (optimisic) I got an honest answer on where we are at. Its going to take time. I was hoping he would say they are where he wants them. But he didnt, he told it as it was. He spoke to me like we knew each other well. No putdowns or an abrupt tone. He greeted me 1st, I was a bit taken back, as I wasnt expecting to be noticed. But I did stand out like a sore thumb. I get the feeling they appriecate supporters making the effort to observe training. If anyone can make an effort to get to training, even if its means putting yourself out a little, I am positive it wont go unnoticed by the staff or the players. If the timing is right, you can have a quick chat with the fitness coaches , players and Mark Neeld. In this point in time, is when they need support and encouragement. Instead of 5 people we got 50, we could fast track their progress. We'll get that easly when they are successful and winning games. But right now, if anyone can, I encourage them to make a effort, and show their support at training. I spoke to Trenners, one of his 1st questions to me was, I suppose you have been through all the bad times? So they do care, they realise we are overdue, they are doing their best to retify it.

Interestingly enough a lot of Fitzroy people did unofficially merge with Melbourne back when Oakley sent the bones of our old club to Brisbane. I've met quite a few up in the Redlegs. Melbourne was the obvious choice being the over all name of the city we lived in. I for one have never regretted that choice and i'm a Gold member now.

Lets remember Casey Scorpions only came into existence in 2006 after originally being the Springvale Football Club "The Scorpions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Scorpions. I'd be curious to know how many of the diehard Springvale supporters kept supporting with the move to Casey Fields. Frankly all I'm interested in is that our young players develop and push for selection.

Hmmm... I'm certainly not. Such things are usually nothing more than "squirmworthy", last years effort being right up there with the best (read, worst).