Leaderboard

Thanks to those who liked the article. As was obvious, a lot of the info came from my regular reading of Demonland and Ology. To those who didn't like it, a lot of what you say, I agree with. I'm not sure where I stand on the amnesty business - 'no case to answer' and an apology for the harassment would be a fairer result, but I'll take anything. With the other articles published today, perhaps there is a change in the atmosphere which can only benefit us. Carrot Top - yes - I agree - wish I had done more of a rant. As I said in another post, I wrote the article in a rush not long after Caro's piece, but the issue had kind of gone off the boil by then (I'm a slow writer - not a journalist's a-hole, alas), so the editor said they'd reconsider it if and when things hotted up. After the latest idiotic revelations (as if we ever needed any inducement to fumble the ball!) , I had started to write a much stronger piece - opening line was: "I barrack for Melbourne and I'm as mad as hell." (Actually, I think my original article was a bit stronger - I had a choice paragraph about Brock and his connection to the Morans, but that seems to have got the chop - probably defamatory) Stopped when I saw they'd published the piece this morning. Nutbeam - if you are in fact my wife, you should be at work. If you are me, then the situation is more critical than I could have imagined. Cheers

Hahaha. Questioning the non-selection of a first year player who had a boy's body and was so far away from being ready to play league footy has got to be a joke. When I saw the headline I thought the article would be about how we selected a player who wasn't physically ready for league footy and that this was 'evidence' of tanking. But it is the other way around! If we played Watts more they'd probably argue that that was evidence of tanking! Why doesn't Pierek comment on this being one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Can't wait for the next exclusive!

How do we know it isn't the club selectively leaking information, maybe even in a Machiavellian manner, to highlight how ridiculous the evidence is? Ideas about fumbling footballs and Jack Watts' non-selection can only help our argument and develop the Keystone Cops nature of the investigation.

I have to say it again, why is so little made of the injury list in 2009? I just did a little research, and the result is that as of round 19 2009 we had 20 players on the injured list. I wonder how this compares with Carlton from last season, given that they were supposed to have suffered drastically from injuries. To put it in perspective, at about the same time last year we had 15, and the entire football world knew that we were effectively crippled by it. How is it that we played in 2009 with a third more injuries than last year, made many of the same moves to try to compensate, and it is being called tanking? If it was tanking then, why is it not tanking now? Surely the AFL has to investigate our conduct in 2012, since it meets the same criteria? To me, this one factor is sufficient to have all charges withdrawn. No team could have competed with half of their list gone, as has been proven by Carlton and their failure to make the finals with significantly fewer injuries than we had.

Jack Watts made a big impact in his first year, according to today's Age.

As soon as I read that, I realised you had no idea. Johnstone never needed an excuse not to perform, Miller was simply not good enough, McLean was so slow that I would probably beat him over 100 mtrs and Bruce was responsible for some of the worst handball in AFL history. We had a [censored] list a [censored] coach and that's why we were so bad and delisted/lost 15 players at the end of the season.

Well that was a rambling diatribe. Our culture is shithouse, I would argue it was this way before 'we tanked' but that is just my personal belief. As for being guilty - of what? What particular actions was flagrant tanking and must be punished? We didn't have winning as our number one priority in the second half of 2009 and we acted accordingly. Why would we place winning above extreme development and experimentation? We did nothing against the rules and should not be punished. Curse the culture if you want to, but don't tell me we tanked.

1. A properly conducted investigation will produce a report which should include all material collated during the investigation. Whether the information helps or hinders the argument (from either perspective) is irrelevant. It should be included. 2. 800 to 1000 pages is not necessarily a long report if transcripts of each interview are included. 25 people by 30 pages per double spaced transcript equal 750 pages. 3. Any references to whether Jack Watts should or should not have been played may not have been raised by the investigators but by one of the individuals interviewed. As such, it should remain in the report whatever the investigators think. 4. Procedural fairness suggests that the investigators findings should be presented to the club before it is reviewed by the ultimate decision makers. In this way, there is less chance of bias (or perceived bias) in the final decision. I wouldn't want the AFL hierarchy reading anything that the investigators have collected until after the club has filed its response. In short, it all looks like it's being conducted properly to me. And nothing can be assumed to be right or wrong (by the AFL, the media or by us supporters) until the process has been completed.

It would be comical if it wasn't so serious? What about this Pierik moron? Clothesline and Saddam have an excuse - they have never been near the game before. But Pinprick is holding himself out to be an "AFL expert" After all the flack Melbourne has taken for recruiting, promoting , playing and retaining Jack Watts , how can a journalist possibly writes a serious article suggesting that if Melbourne was committed to doing its best in 2009 , it would have arranged for the school bus to take Jack Watts to every senior game fully kitted out ready to play ? Well Mr Pinprick the person who leaked that little gem to the media has effectively discredited the whole investigation - and you were too dumb to see it ! ( Apologies if years of indoctrination from Wilson has destroyed your ability to think objectively about matters involving the MFC)

gee.. We missed you

Always great to be excited by a new player coming in. I know this has been mentioned before, but in case anyone missed his Combine results: "Adding to his top-three 3km ranking, Barry was equal ninth in the shuttle run (level 14.2), had a third-best score in the kicking test and was top-10 in the running vertical jump (84cm) and repeat sprints (25.19 seconds)." But can he put it all together when he's hot and hassled out on the MCG? Still 67 days for him to convince the selection committee.

Thanks Macca. Feeling rather chuffed with myself. Hope Stuie and Biff like it.

Hey Jose - you're right - I am a regular reader, but rarely post - do a lot more over at Demonology - just wanted to get something in the press to restore some sense of balance to the outrageous reporting of this issue, and hopefully influence the AFL's considerations One thing I should explain - (rather hastily) hastily wrote and submitted the article in a fit of pique over a month ago - had pretty well forgotten about it - didn't think they were going to publish it - credit to them for doing so, but I'd write something different now, having seen how pathetic the so-called evidence is. Fumbling the ball? Jeez... Cheers A

Look who predictably comes out from under his rock. You can go back in.

To be honest it's more a "hunch" than anything. I reckon Dunn will get games down back, but for me it's either Dunn, or Garland and I'd probably go with Garland - even though his brain fades get to me. Dunn did well last year in defence, but I see Terlich in a different role. He has dash with good kicking skills and will take the game on off half back, which is exactly what we need. I see Jetta and Nicholson competing for a position, Terlich and Strauss, and Dunn and Garland. I'm not sold on Strauss. He's a good kick, but imo average one-on-one and a bit soft. Note: I haven't seen enough of Terlich to form a strong opinion and may well decide he's not up to it. Until I see him in a "real" game/s I'm guessing like anyone else. But anyone that gets 25 disposals to half-time off a HBF and goes on to be named BOG in a SANFL GF gets my interest. And his skills at training look good. In recent times Callinan, Morris, Puopolo, and Duigan have all been mature age recruits from the SANFL, just like Terlich, and I'm hoping for the same positive result. I doubt the club chose to bring him over for depth, or to play him at Casey. I think they're hoping for the same impact as me.

Your 1518 posts have had zero productivity.

That's a funny way of saying you won't be there. But don't worry you can voice your opinion at the agm, not long to wait either, that is assuming you are a financial member.

Maybe they're investigating why we took Watts instead of NikNat... (Sorry, couldn't help myself)

A poster criticized Barry's fitness base, but as pointed out by Bing, it's a strength. He came 7th in our 3km time trial last week. Combinations of pace, evasiveness and endurance are quite rare. Also, prior to being drafted in 2008 Stephen Hill's bio read 182 cm and 72 kg. Barry's reads 183 cm and 78 kg. Hill managed to play all 22 games in his debut year. If he's good enough he's big enough. As supporters we're very much now trying to shy away from over zealous expectations of young players, because we've been burnt in the past, but in reality Barry will play as many games as Neeld/Misson thinks he's capable of. I don't think he'll be put in cotton wool and I reckon we've got a very exciting talent on our hands. "He's a really nice kid, a top kid actually, and great with his family. I think he is a young Michael Long, very similar playing ability. I rate him as highly as that. I think he has got the capabilities of being something very special." -Scott Welly, former coach in Central Australia

Haddad wanted us charged with ball tempering, he claimed we squashed the ball in to an oval shape instead of the traditional round ball.

With a little reflection, this Watts info has been deliberately leaked to our mate Pierik. But whether it's by the MFC, to make the investigation look ridiculous, or by the AFL, to prepare everyone for a fizzler of a conclusion, I can't work out. Either way, it's working.

Wattsy playing every game as a 17 year old would have turned the whole competition on its head. The AFL know this is their strongest bit of evidence. In fact, the whole of season 2009 we were actually so good that we had to spend most of our time figuring out ways to lose-so we could get better .If that makes sense. The Jyndabyne/Volvo conference is a case in point. Robbo knew it, Caro knew it .Clothier knows it . We should have murdered Sydney that day and gone on to win the 2012 flag . Everyone knows Cale Morton can towel up Adam Goodes without even trying.

I don't find it surprising at all that Jim and the Board are being implicated in some quarters. After all, it was suggested by some very early in the piece that forces opposed to the Board and some officials have been strongly involved in a campaign to denigrate and deligitimise them stretching back much further than the current tanking investigation. I think even Blind Freddie might have noticed this.

Haddad and Clothier know nothing about AFL football. They were employed by the AFL to oversee integrity issues. Clothier was a solicitor and Haddad was recruited from the UN to set up a database of Club employees and managers (phone numbers and bank accounts) in order to track down illicit betting activity. They are now running around like chooks with their heads cut off asking anyone and everyone associated with the MFC what their thoughts are regarding the tanking allegations. Not understanding the responses they received would explain the voluminous nature of their report. Instead of "investigating", they have merely reported and asked the various persons of interest to explain themselves. They absolutely cannot be serious about the Jack Watts scenario.

Thought this little bio about him on The Age's website was funnier than intended... "Jon Pierik is a sports writer with The Age, focusing primarily on AFL football, cricket and basketball. He has won awards for his cricket and basketball writing."

Something tells me CW is behind this latest run of garbage from Pierik. Wouldn't be surprised if she's still driving her agenda and using this poor bugger as her pawn.

Thanks for the positive feedback, team. Much appreciated and glad you liked it. Good to see it generating a bit of discussion, with some pro Melbourne tanking articles circulating today. Cheers wmth

Myself I don't expect to see Dom barry much if at all this year as we try to instill a new hard edged way of play culture into the Demons jumper. If I was planning our future trajectory, I'd be showing our more senior players how we want the Demon way of play to move into, with a mixture of mature recruits showing they're games, & adopting Neelds tactics. I would think I'd hold Barry back to emerge next year along with Hogan. In an already shaped hard to play against culture. I'd make it harder for the kids to break into the team earning they're stripes thru guts & bloody hard work.

The journalists are trying to get what snippets of the report they can out onto the street, try to get 20 stories out of it instead of 1. They do not care about the right or wrong of it as long as they get a story out first. There is no investigative journalism at play here just rumour and inuendo. The plodders doing the investigation are making a farce of the whole thing, maybe thats why they were chosen. Anyone know if they did anything for Fairwork Australia or Treasury bribery investigations No football player or coach is going to take the vast majority of their 'allegations' seriously as being anything but fumbling and bumbling far in excess of anything shown by Melbourne players in the Richmond game. That has to undermine the whole credibility of their arguements, that is if they actually found one that will stand up to any sort of scrutiny. The 800 page report seems to propose a litany of pathetic arguments (without balance) to explain extensive tanking planned for and put into practice sometime shortly after the queens birthday match, in fact so cunning was our plan that the Dees brains trust decided to play crap football since then to cover out tracks.

Holiday again!!!!!

These Keystone Kops at the AFL are effin' unbelievable. Did they watch any games that year? Have they ever watched a game of footy? The question should have been, why did Watts play even 3 games that year? But that doesn't sit with their "spolight in the eyes, bamboo under the fingernails, sign-ze-papers-old-man" style of interrogation. I note that this kid Hogan who everyone has been drooling over has not played any games yet. What skullduggery are the MFC playing at???

As Jay Clark and Jon Pierik wrestle for ownership of the tanking scandal story, Pierik has done us a favour this morning. His piece in the Sunday Age says that investigative geniuses Clothier and Haddad "have questioned why he (Jack Watts) was not given more time in the seniors in a year the Demons would win only four matches". How bizarre when everyone who was paying attention at the time saw Watts' debut on Queens Birthday as partly a stunt to draw a bigger crowd. Remember, that was the time Demetriou warned that the QB fixture was not guaranteed for Melbourne and if it could not pull 60,000 some other more deserving club might get the game. So, Watts makes his first appearance, and 60,000-plus people see he is clearly not ready and he gets rag-dolled. He plays two more games because to drop him after the QB day would be admitting something about his selection, and heads for the gym. But Clothear and Hadit reckon something's amiss. What this tells me is they are questioning EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED AT SELECTION AND GAME DAY that year. The fact their report is 800 pages is not evidence of, err, evidence. It's a reflection of the fact that they are asking some very dumb, easily answered questions. The other point of interest from Pierik today is that it becomes increasingly clear that follow up interviews were accompanied by threats along the lines "tell us what we want to hear or you'll be done". In Pierik's words C&H made it clear 'during the interview process what the ramifications would be for those who did not cooperate'. Tainted evidence indeed. Legally useless. Pierik says: 'the afl's handling of the five month investigation has also been questioned by lawyers who feel there was not enough scrutiny on H&C by senior afl figures. The conduct of the investigation and the line of questioning is expected to be brought up at the hearing." OK, so maybe we can shoot this thing down, but it's time those at the club who are fuelling this media frenzy STFU. The drip feed of implausible, ignorant and sometimes unwarranted allegations is only hurting us and setting the public up for the expectation we take a fall.

Has Pierek ever watched a game of football sober?

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/investigators-question-melbourne-over-watts-20130112-2cmrs. This should add a few more pages to the thread So its now team selection and player development . Inspector Clouseau and his mate and now questioning why we did not play , jack watts more in his debut year Let me count you the ways, still going school, not training full time , not physically mature to play senior football.....

I have maintained two stances all along. It is important to note that this is a retrospective investigation and to all those who say it doesn't matter what others have done I say phooey - you cant have selective retrospectivity. 1/ we are not guilty of anything HOWEVER 2/ if the AFL in their wisdom retrofit our actions into a chargeable offence then the same retrofitting must be applied to 5 other clubs It can only be all or nothing (hence the reason for my belief that If that it will be nothing)

Fantastic shut down of the HUN and The Age with their pathetic attempts at hanging us. The rational sides to this saga are finally beginning to prevail.

Nah, it's fine how it is. I was picking on the standard of the work produced by the journos who regularly get the back pages. It's all yelling, accusations, in your face conclusions drawn from scanty or imagined facts and the journo playing judge and jury. Take it as a compliment that the piece wasn't run in that area, and leave the ranting to those not talented enough to write a thoughtful piece.

Viva La Adrian!

hardtack, saying the dees had a lick of the cream that the other tom cats had is not an admission of wrong if the other tom cats did nothing wrong then ipso facto we did nothing wrong

I've got it. With Reference to Watts, Viney, Grimes, Fitzy and co. She's got the Jack by AC/DC

Broncos and Patriots should win comfortably, highlighting the overall weak standard of the AFC. As for the NFC, being a 49ers fan I sincerely hope the home field advantage will be enough to overcome Aaron Rodgers and that bevy of receivers, but I worry about our defence. Justin Smith is key, but even if he's back to 100%, we've had a bad few weeks, Aldon Smith is out of form, and we're just conceding too many big plays. Russell Wilson and Tom Brady tore our secondary apart, and Aaron Rodgers is better than both (with better receivers). Meanwhile, Kaepernick is all over the place. If he gets it together like he did in Foxborough, then maybe we can match the Packers on offence. It's going to be close. Seattle-Atlanta should also be close. All week I've been leaning towards the Seahawks, but having watched their game against Washington, they were flat and started terribly. At Atlanta, maybe they Falcons can put up some early points and put some pressure on. They will certainly be more effective on offence than Washington with RG3 on one leg was. I'd love an Atlanta win; for one, they deserve it, but more importantly, I think SF can beat them in the Championship game, whereas I fear that, even at home, we'll lose to Seattle. I'm tipping Patriots to beat Denver in the AFC Championship, making it a NE v SF (hopefully) Superbowl.

The only things I care about when it comes to Melbourne are 1) winning games, 2) having a good jumper, and 3) being called the Demons. Anything else is completely uninteresting to me.

Whoever you are well done to get at least a different perspective printed.

Totally agree with most everyone's thoughts. When reading the article I thought I've read all this before. It was by our brother D' Landers. It's actually great to sit down and read it in 5 min. Rather than trawl through several thousand posts including all the sarcastic finger pointing personal arguments with other posters that don't even relate to the topic

All i see here is whinging. I think the club has done a pretty good job in marketing our brand. I love the new logo, the jumper, the First amd Forever campaign. The Blazers I can give or take, but youve got to have some sort of marketing program to promote the club. You camt please 100 % of the supporters 100% of the time. After it was stated a couple of years ago that the MFC doesnt stand for anything, we are trying to dispel that myth, with some strong facts about our history, which we include in the marketing campaign. Untill we can create some of our own modern history, of which im sure we will take advantage of when our time comes.

The AFL has instucted that all clubs provide a song......I think that it just cheapens the game.......Too much like 'American Sports that have to have the razzamatazz to make their sports watchable........Col, take it up with the AFL not the MFC....

Bangarang by Skrillex will get them pumped as they run out the race.

heres a link that bypasses http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/demons-recorded-dean-bailey-in-coaches-box-during-tanking-year/story-e6freck3-1226551547888