Leaderboard

Not a particularly gruelling session today, as the boys were off the track by 11.15. A couple of observations: -The rehab group consisted of Sylvia, Tapscott, Clisby and Stark. They ran multiple laps and never reached any great speed. -Dunn and Gawn did some speed work separate to the main group. They both moved really well. Dunn later joined the main group. -Hogan and Toumpas also worked separate to the main group. They did lots of ball work, repeat running. Hogan went on to run 5 x 200m at good speed. Hogan's hands out in front were incredible. He just did not drop anything, particularly balls kicked to him at good speed. -Trenners was the only player I didn't see. -Mark Neeld was also nowhere to be seen. Neil Craig ran the majority of the session. -Two lads from the AIS Under 18 group joined in some of the training today. I didn't get their names, but one was from Vic Metro and the other was from Vic Country. -Three AFL umpires took control of some of the full ground drills, and spent some time explaining decisions they made, and bouncing the ball at stoppage works for the mids. -As is Neeld's game plan, the players spent a lot of time chipping the ball around the boundary line in full ground drills. They were really careful about not coughing the ball up. In fact, at one stage Tommy Mac turned the footy over coming out of defence. Craig stopped the play and made him take his kick again. Tom turned it over again, at which point Craig roared at him and made him take his kick a third time!!! -Jack Grimes took part in the whole session and looked pretty sharp. It was good to see. Players that caught my eye: -Dom Barry was lightening quick, and used the footy really well. A couple of times he jumped out of the way to avoid body contact, but you'd expect that from a 67kg kid. -Jack Viney won heaps of the footy in contested and full groud drills. His break away speed was pretty good, as was his ability to hit a target by foot. -Chris Dawes moved well and took a couple of solid overhead marks, including a one-hander against Sellar. He looked a bit unsure about where to lead at times, but that will come as he gets to know his teammates better. -Cam Pedersen worked hard and used his voice well. He leads at the footy and hopefully he will provide a good target for our mids. -Tom Gillies was surprisingly mobile for a big fella, and was able to match up on smalls and talls. He made some good decisions with the footy. -Sam Blease was in everything. At one stage he took a mark, and Jack Viney was right on top of him. Blease looked at him, turned around and took off. Viney chased him hard, but Blease left him for dead. I had to chuckle to myself. Bleasey also kicked 4 goals in an up and down the ground drill. Enough waffle from me. If you have any questions, just fire them through.

I went down there with a mate and it was our first training session ever. I had to email the club last week to see if training was on as I had to get work off. We didn’t get down there until 10:30 and they finished at around 11:30 which was a little poor. The pies next to them were training for quite some time afterwards. From what we saw the main group were doing match simulation, the skills were ok, but a little sloppy at times. After a few people knocking Dawes last week, he looked in pretty good nick this time around. As people have mentioned before, all the players and coaches are really vocal. People screaming for the ball and congratulating nonstop. You can also hear the coaches giving constant advice during each play. We went over to the far side of the ground and watched Toumpas and Hogan doing short kicking to each other. It’s been said before, but Toumpas has a very “delicious” kick on him. Then both of them took in turns at kicking at goal from an angle. They were very accurate and rarely missed. They both smashed out a bunch of push ups which Toumpas did with ease compared to Hogan who was a little slower. Most people have already mentioned how big Hogan is for a 17 year old, but I was also very impressed with Toumpas’s size. He is a big boy, looks very fit, and has the body to go round 1 in my opinion. After that, Hogan ran laps. Most of the time we were there Gawn ran constant laps, and you could hear everybody yelling encouragements to him as he ran past them. He is a giant, and has a very big body. Disappointing he isn’t training with the main group though. From the time we were there we didn’t see Mitch Clark, Sylvia, Tapscott, Trengove or Barry. We did turn up late however. After the match sims, they all went into their line groups (backs, mids, fwds), then broke up into heaps of little groups. Forwards were leading out of the square, as another player would run in and kick it from outside 50 to them. It was a pretty basic exercise, but we still saw a few fumbles. Fitzpatrick was one we saw drop a very basic one, but you could see he was dirty on himself for it. Blease, Davey and Burns all looked pretty solid from what we saw from a distance. We actually thought Davey looked in really good physical condition. He was moving well and still has a very solid kick on him. In what I thought was a strange drill, JMac and Strauss were being thrown the ball, and they would take in turns just fisting it unopposed back to the coach. It really wasn’t the most impressive drill. On the other side the backs were getting the ball kicked to them and they would have to body the other player out and spoil. It was on the other side of the ground so I didn’t get a great look at it. We also noticed Watts kicking is still one of the best in the club. It was good to see him in the main group after reports he has been in the rehab group. Not long after a lot of the players started to walk off, but a small midfield group remained. One coach would throw it in the air to another coach, who would tap it down to 2 players. One of the players would grab the ball and bolt as hard as possible to a cone about 20 meters away. I liked this drill as it would be awesome to see our mids try and break the lines more and take the game on. From memory the group consisted of Viney, D-Rod, Jones, Couch, Jordie and Davey. They all looked pretty sharp in this drill. Then everyone headed off, but Jordie and Couch stayed out on the field doing some kicking and close handballs to test Couch’s reaction time. Neil Craig also took Viney out one on one and did some kicking for goals, etc. We managed to talk to Neil Craig who asked us how long we had been Dees supporters, which we said all our lives, and he said hopefully they can bring us some success soon. He seemed like a really nice guy who was more than happy to chat with us. He said he thinks Viney will be good to go round 1, and talked up Viney and Toumpas and said they will bring us a lot of success and exciting footy. He said he doubts Trenners will be ready to go round 1 as we would probably already expect. We also managed to have a quick chat to Viney. Such a big unit for his age. He was happy to chat, but it felt like he was giving us the standard footy player answers “yeah the boys are putting all the effort on the track”. We told him Craig said he should play round 1 (sorry Craigy, we leaked your inside information to the player instantly haha), and Viney was pretty excited by the news. Also asked him how Mitch was going and he said he isn’t with the main group but hopefully he won’t miss too much as he is important to the team.. obviously. So while we didn’t catch much of the day, it was good to finally see a practise. There were maybe 8 people watching all up? I guess the tennis and the fact that the club didn’t advertise on their website kept numbers down.

The MFC did not place an absolute priority on winning games; they had one eye cocked on the Priority Pick from some point in the first half of the season. Like so many teams since 1999. Call it what you like, they did it. It's pointless to argue the finer points, except to demonstrate the absurdity of some of the 'finer points' (fumbling, Watts) being aired against the club. But the implied conclusion of this position, my position - that the MFC did 'tank' - taken by some, even if they won't say it, is that we should be punished and cop it - Individual responsibility rules, and we can't hide behind 'just following orders', or 'others were doing it'. This kind of thinking is wrong and could be fateful and fatal for the club. We are not talking Nuremberg principles here. If we were, the other 'criminals' would be assiduously and relentlessly tracked down and placed on trial - Eichmann was not brought to justice until 1961, but his case and others show that no one individual was made a scapegoat. Melbourne IS being made a scapegoat in a ridiculous trial by media and witch-hunt by the AFL. The real issue is not whether the MFC 'tanked' or whatever it may be called, nor is it bringing the game into disrepute. The AFL itself has done sufficient of that by creating an ethical/moral vacuum in which cynical actions are rewarded. Further, it has failed to oversee a fair and just competition, with its endless fiddling of the fixed-ure, its drafting and salary cap imbalances, its allowing TV stations to dictate where and when matches will be played and therefore which clubs will reap the largest financial benefits. The AFL is not an area of life in which concepts of individual responsibility and ethics are paramount, or even relevant. No, the real issue is that of the victimisation of the MFC, seemingly based on the malicious motives of a few individuals with an axe to grind, a prejudice to be satisfied, a personal vendetta, a vengeance to exact. Let there be a full inquiry into 'tanking' by all means, but it cannot begin and end with the MFC or any one other club. What is happening now is so astounding that one wonders how it all arose - was it really because of the words of a numbskull footballer on a couch in a TV studio, talking to other numbskulls who love the sound of their own voices? Who knows? But here it is, a full-blown public kicking of the victim while it is down in the gutter. Let those who moan about our 'tanking', and stand in judgment, lash the club, criticise its ethics, abandon it if they wish; it is their right to do so. But for heaven's sake stop harping on it and implying that the MFC should accept its punishment meted out by some externality of AFL combined with mainstream moronic media on the basis that the MFC is 'guilty' of something. This will play into the hands of the club's antagonists. Make no mistake, this is a very public and very large kicking we are getting, while we're down. It's an Australian blood sport. The irony is that Demetriou himself has averred that there was no 'tanking'. Of course, he had to say that in order to absolve himself and the AFL of their maladministration at the time. I don't believe him. But perhaps he will be called as the first (maybe only) witness for the Defence, if it should come - bizarrely - to that. That the wrongs of others should not justify one's own wrongs is something I agree with; but in this instance I challenge the notion that what was done was 'wrong'. Perhaps it was damaging to the club's ethos, culture, reputation, a huge internal error of judgment (and I agree with that) but this kind of judgment is mostly a hindsight one (for me, too) stemming from an apparent failure of the actions to improve on-field performance, and it is supporters and members who should be excoriating the administration rather than the AFL or the MSM. But it was not 'wrong' in the context of a skewed competition in which there was a tacit agreement that 'tanking' was an obvious thing to do, an obligation, almost. That is how silly the AFL football competition has become. How to stop the club's being 'punished' is another matter; I don't know which course of action is best but I have no objection ethically to any course which will stop this absurd juggernaut in its tracks. Let the legal team work that out and execute it with more finesse and skill than has been shown in the past by the MFC itself. I suspect the AFL will want to keep a lid on the pandora's box of worms and the matter will not find its way into a court. Nor should it.

I want to be able to say that I barrack for the Dees without people looking at me like I just told them I had a terminal disease.

Just got this in an email from a mate of mine. I happened to speak with some one inside the club on Friday about the tanking situation. This is how he perceives the situation; The focus will be on match day moves rather than the meetings or any of the comments or directions the club allegedly delivered. They are looking at player commitment which I find just incredible Because of this the club feels that the advantage has swung our way in the past week Meetings were called without notice and often involved table thumping and stand over tactics. Bailey was interviewed 5 times just to try and find an inconsistency There is no way information was leaked from inside the club to Caro. AFL commission want this over and done with and out of the papers asap. Anyway the sender is not one to talk crap so this sounds encouraging.

But no premierships. Near enough good enough? In any case, much of what we've had to put up with of late is as a result of Danihers' "short term gain" policy. Play in a few finals, but leave the club in a sorry state as a consequence? No thanks. I'd take Neeld over both. Yes, already. Long-term culture-changer.

Dom Barry - how heavy is he? FCS, someone find out.

Theres no way that kids 78 kg.

You're a worry Robbie, I genuinely think you've got a problem with diversity of view and are so racked with prejudice you can't see the argument for the person. Yes, Bailey was appointed by the Gardner Board in 2008 after a though interview process involving people from outside the club and from within it. Bailey then was reappointed in 2010 by the Stynes Board after two years "form". Unlike the Gardner Board who were appointing a person with no experience as senior coach the Stynes Board appointed someone with two years experience and who they had had the benefit of working with for two years. They had much more information to work with than Gardner. If you argue that Bailey was a poor coach then how much worse was the Stynes Board's decision to extend his contract? On your grounds the decision was terrible and yet you want to sheet the blame to Gardner. Bailey clearly made mistakes and Junior's dismissal was one of them. I've no problem recognizing his weaknesses and faults and I've said on many occasions I agree that he should have been replaced at the end of 2012. When replacing him I think the Board should have interviewed people like Sanderson, they should have asked Lyon if he was interested in the job, I'd have expected them to do a though job looking at all possible candidates. But they didn't and when appointing Neeld there wasn't one person on the selection panel who had coached a game of AFL footy. You might be happy with that but I'm not because it's shoddy and so far below best practice it's frightening. I've not included Neeld in the same group as Junior, Bailey's dismissal etc because I haven't formed a view on his ability as an AFL coach. There is much to like and much to question and I'll wait and see whether that turns out to be a good decision. But regardless we should have at least picked up the phone and spoken to other coaching candidates because while Neeld may prove to be good we'll never know if we could have got better. I can't be bothered answering for the hundredth time you're questions on Caro because you have you're view and I have mine and you don't listen. What I find quite amusing is your divisiveness on this forum when you seek to belittle others with a different view and criticise them for their agenda's and accuse them of hurting the club. You're in the same boat Robbie because it should be clear to you that all who post here have nothing but the best interest of the club at heart. Sadly you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others of doing.

I thought about starting a new thread, but for now I'll put it here. It's point 2. which was going to be the topic. #1. I'm bemused that some don't think we tanked. While I agree that it's not easy to prove I'm wondering whether the "no we didn't" brigade really believe the club didn't try to manipulate the results of certain matches, or whether they're putting everything under the umbrella of "list management" and "experimentation". Maybe they privately acknowledge the club's aims in 2009 and are merely toeing the company line and arguing definitions. The MFC in 2009 deliberately tried to lose matches. They did this under the guise of "experimentation", but it's clear to most that through drastically reduced interchange rotations, unusual match-ups, players put in foreign positions, and the extended "benching" of certain players, that their aim was to lose select matches. Dean Bailey admitted as much during his departing press conference - I had no hesitation at all in the first two years of ensuring this club was well placed for draft picks, Bailey said. I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club, and I did it. Yes, it's hard to prove and yes, you may have a different definition, but this club tried to deliberately lose matches. Under my definition that's "tanking". #2. I was a vociferous advocate of tanking. What was the point of winning 5 matches ? Why win one more pointless match and miss out on a potential gun running around the G for 10 years (or more) all for the sake of one extra meaningless win ? It didn't make sense. And we needed the help anyway. The PP system was designed to help clubs like us that were chained to the bottom of the ladder. In fact, if we had won that extra game and missed out on the PP we would have been the AFL's laughing stock. These were some of my beliefs and arguments. Many posters have only joined this forum since 2010 and may not be privy to some of the robust debate at the time. I posted under a different username then. I needed to explain my previous position in order to clarify it now. I was wrong. And while there are no absolutes in life and as I've often said, "there are degrees of everything", I believe that our systematic and calculated decision early in the year to ensure the PP was majorly detrimental to the club and its culture. Some will argue that the culture was no good anyway, which is true, but our obvious attempts to lose didn't escape the playing group and set the club on a path of destruction. My eldest Brother was on Hawthorn's senior list for 3 years in the late 1970's when they were winning flags. He played footy with Matthews, Knights, Martello, Scott, etc. so I take on board his opinion. I discussed Melbourne's tanking situation and he confirmed my growing beliefs. His opinion was that the environment the players were subjected to, and players are a perceptive lot and do talk amongst themselves, would have been terribly detrimental to the culture and fabric of the club. The game is hard enough to play and successful cultures hard enough to build without the erosion of group fundamentals. The intense focus that groups need to ensure they have ingrained behaviours and cornerstones that become their very footballing existence will have also been eroded. Once a playing group starts questioning a club's direction and purpose it will have dire consequences on their mindset, output, and team dynamics. While I think the new playing group has a fresh start and is now setting their own course, the quicker this investigation is completed the better it will be for all parties. Some will point to Collingwood, etc, as other clubs that took advantage of a flawed system with seemingly little impact on the club's culture, but as stated, there are no absolutes and we also don't know the environment at the time for the players. There wasn't as much exposure to "tanking" and the decision to send players off for surgery may have had no palpable effect on the playing group. If their perceptions weren't effected then the likelihood of a negative impact would have been minimal, if at all, especially if all other aspects of the club and coaching were identical. Collingwood made decisions later in the year when their season was shot. One couldn't have said the same about Melbourne in 2009. Btw, I'm not talking about degrees of guilt or innocence when it comes to Collingwood versus Melbourne and tanking, I'm talking about the impact of the group's psyche. I doubt there was any negative impact at Collingwood in that one year. That said, I agree that the club needs to bunker down and fight the good fight. And I support them in doing that, as my many robust posts on another site attests. But I think it's unfair to abuse posters that may have a different take on all of this. This is one issue that isn't cut and dried. Even those questioning what the club did fully support them in this fight.

Pardon me if this piece of tunnel vision journalism has been discussed somewhere else but it's so hard to keep up with things these days:Tank or no tank, Dees sunk Certainly the cost and expense of this very selective investigation into the alleged tanking practices of one club will not be insubstantial and may well end up being taken into account when a final outcome is reached but Pierik obviously isn't aware of the capacity of sportspersons and sporting clubs to rise to the occasion in times of adversity. When I arrived in Sydney this morning it was to the news that 20 year old Bernard Tomic is the flavour of the month after winning a major tennis tournament here on the eve of the Australian Open. Hard to believe that it was just four months ago that the pundits were claiming his career was over after allegations that he "tanked" a series of matches. I have a feeling the club will make a similar comeback from this travesty of a farce - it's the best way to answer our detractors.

My perfect result on all of this would be: 1. No charges laid - insufficient evidence (even anecdotal evidence) 2. Rules clarified and all previous suspicious actions exonerated 3. We start the climb up the ladder and enter a period of sustained on field success and 4. America De Cali and others like him cover themselves in sticks and leaves for another 20 years waiting for the next opportunity to pot the club.

Neil Craig, and he is a top appointment doing a great job.

Here is a bright idea ........If you are going to ask a question, let's be different and ask about the future, why must we continually look backwards, the Club is moving forward so should the supporters........hair shirt wearers excepted of course.....continually raking over old coals does nothing, achieves nothing, means nothing.........if you think the Club hasn't learnt from past mistakes.........I sit at the AGM waiting for the past to rear it's head........hopefully the Club will only look forward.......we survived last year and made a small profit...2012 is over roll on 2013..............

You and your cohorts seem to want to destroy peoples careers? For doing what the club wanted done. To rebuild the list thru list management & youth. and it almost looks like the ones pushing this barrow on demonland, are somehow linked to the ones who brought the clubs list & culture to its knees.

We've just published wmth's great article MELBOURNE A VICTIM OF MEDIA LYNCH MOB in our articles and features column. The article was first published here in draft form and the final version was accepted for publication on BACK PAGE LEAD) You can also follow William on wmth's blog We already have a thread on the tanking investigation but we do invite discussion specifically on the content of wjmt's article which we think is great.

MELBOURNE A VICTIM OF MEDIA LYNCH MOB by William Thomson The tanking saga that has its hands around the throat of the Melbourne Football Club would benefit from some objective analysis - a refreshing change from the continued search for guilt. The Demons are looking more and more like a sacrificial lamb and whatever the result, the current wait is feeding the hysteria of media outlets. Melbourne fans were in uproar over Caroline Wilson's daily attack on the club before Christmas, and while noting most journalists are returning from holidays, she has been conspicuous by her absence since. The media has set up tents in the camp of the more attractive guilty result and rather than provide objectivity, have instead searched for guilt even in the most unlikely places. With the centre of focus now being on Melbourne's infamous game against Richmond in round 18 of 2009 a game in which Jordan McMahon converted after the siren to win the Herald Sun has published an excerpt of the match, complete with commentary over the questionable moments. Such dissection is ugly at best, while the analysis and search for guilt sets dangerous precedents. How long can the AFL let this fester without an answer? The commentary questions the moves made by former coach Dean Bailey, starting with why he brought in ruckman Jake Spencer for Cale Morton. There was no mention of Morton's 10-posession, zero tackle (the only player that week not to record a tackle), zero handball performance in a three-goal loss to Sydney the week prior. Why was ruckman Paul Johnson playing at full back on Richmond's Nathan Brown? Melbourne fans that saw Johnson chase down then Brisbane speedster Justin Sherman in 2008 can think of reasons why and let's not forget at this dire stage of the season, it's more a case of why not. Johnson was no lumbering ruckman and ended up retiring without ever really finding a position. Brown only kicked one goal in the quarter, which was from the boundary after he was led to the ball by Johnson only for it to bounce from its oblong point and into his hands. The video nonetheless focused on this crucial conversion. "The questions started before the game when Melbourne left out Russell Robertson and Colin Sylvia," the video's narrator reads. In fact, Robertson was dropped the week prior after a seven possession shocker against Geelong and didn't warrant a call up, while Sylvia was serving a three-match suspension for striking Scott Selwood in a recent win over West Coast. While the video claims the Dees brought Michael Newton into the game, he played against Sydney the week earlier and took six marks and kicked two goals. Why was James Frawley playing in defence? When you've won four games the year, most fans were screaming to try something and knew his defensive capabilities. Brad Miller in the ruck? Hardly a strange move at 194cm and only 16 goals for the year up forward at that point. Why did he then play in the middle? No comparison in skill or talent, but Matthew Pavlich and Jonathan Brown have bursts in the centre and with the game on the line, a big body at the bounce wasn't overly foolish. In a first, some articles have queried deliberate fumbling by players. If fumbling is a hanging defence, then most Melbourne sides since 1964 should be cast in irons. How do you measure the level of 'fumbleability' in a match? It's ludicrous. To date, any accusations have been against the Demon hierarchy but to question players' integrity with as little proof as this is concerning as the longer this saga drags on the more convoluted it becomes. The video continued, quickly glossing over Melbourne's fight back into the lead to eventually level the scores at the final siren, instead focussing on the rather glum looks in the coaching box that showed little enthusiasm about Ricky Petterd putting the Dees in front. Make no mistake, Melbourne were a horrid side in 2009 (perhaps even worse in 2008 for that matter), but what precedent do you set, or worse still, what quality of evidence is the lack of emotion in a tense finish. Should coaches be forced to read a manual and stick by it, or have their every move questioned by video analysis? To pick apart this game or any for that matter is trivial and unpleasant. To dissect a game with the intention to find foul play will only raise further questions. If Melbourne had foul motives for these moves, it has broken the game's laws in a most significant way. But without proven motive, media assertions do nothing but spread innuendo at the expense of balance. The AFL's decision to respectively investigate the Melbourne Football Club on the back of a Brock McLean comment no less has the potential to leave it dangerously exposed without more evidence than what the media is pouring over. Indeed, the implications may be far reaching. If the AFL starts opening 'cold cases' then Carlton's 2007 tactics may be placed under similar review. The Blues won four games for the year, losing the last 11 to ensure they had access to Matthew Kruezer in the draft. Further still, Richmond coach Terry Wallace confirmed he did "absolutely nothing" in the latter stages of 2007. The Tigers subsequently drafted their now captain, Trent Cotchin. "It was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach's box," Wallace said. "We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out. "I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes." Former Melbourne coach Dean Bailey now has to defend claims he brought the game into disrepute by failing to coach the Demons to their utmost throughout his second season in charge. The disproportion is there for all to see. The AFL knows too well the priority pick system left an all too enticing carrot for cellar dwellers, and while this does not excuse any manipulation, it has brought upon just that. Melbourne officials and Bailey are in the process of responding to the AFL's reportedly 1000-page report. Whatever the result, which will be known in a matter of weeks, it's a messy affair and one the football world should hope doesn't end up in courts or extend beyond the Melbourne Football Club. (Originally published on BACK PAGE LEAD) You can also follow William on wmth's blog Our thanks to William for this great article!

That's the spirit Tim.

You know what...i'll just be glad when this whole f'n thing is over and we can all get on with actually BARRACKING for Melbourne instead of dissecting its personnel and their intents. Honeslty , some of you, at a game cheering on i'd buy you a beer, Here I just want to take some quietly out the back and "reason " with you !! But as they say, at the end of the day we're all ( well about 98% by my calcs ) going in the same direction. Go Dees and honestly, f*#k the media and its cohorts , the snouts, the sabatouers and those that dont have the best interests of the MFC at heart. What this has done is actually show that in the main we are , as the club is, stronger than this bullsh!t...as thats all this is S...H...I..T !!!! Bring on the footy !!

In my experience anything involving 50 "pints" involves someone getting belted!

Me too. It's obvious that the AFL is totally incapable of thinking at all and needs Caro around to make all of the important decisions for it in this case

Robbie, try actually reading what he said. Fan has already answered that and you've outed yourself as arguing with him and not reading what he is writing at the same time. This is starting to make you look a bit more than 'silly'. So obsessed are you at trying to counter and denounce Fan that you aren't even reading what he is saying - just yelling "he's wrong" with little regard for what he is actually trying to argue.

Well, whatever we did at the time, whether we want to call it tanking, list management or whatever we want to call it, it was accepted practice at the time. All under the watchful eye of the AFL. Why, if it was such a heinous crime, didn't the AFL do something about it then? The fact that the AFL are acting now doesn't change the fact that they turned a blind eye back in '09. And that's where we will eventually end up. The retrospective nature of this inquiry is it's own achilles' heel. Many clubs had embarked on this 'accepted practice' before our team did and in fact, last year the very same 'accepted practice' was undertaken by GWS. The AFL's own love child. Will the AFL turn the blowtorch on Allan, Williams, Sheedy and GWS? We are meandering through a lot of unmarked roads and in the end we will reach a dead end. At some stage an impasse will be reached and it will fall into the 'Too hard basket' . Edit: spelling

They hand out blindfolds to passers-by.

Very annoyed at the club over this. I spent the weekend checking the website for times and locations and up until 2am today (last time I looked) it was still saying Friday the 11th. I check this afternoon and discover that they have updated the site after the fact so it now says the next session is on Monday the 14th at 9.30. This was one of the few times I could actually have gotten out to see the boys train and I missed out because they can't keep their website up to date.

I want to shoot some messengers for the following simple reasons. Where there has been some evidence or actions that has rightly been open to interpretation ( rotations, comments made and even some player positioning) the "messengers" have gone in boots and all with opinions that have cast the MFC as villains of the highest order. When there has been some evidence or actions that defy logic and common sense such as fumbling or Jack Watts there has been a complete absense of any opinion attached to what can only be described as farcical lines of enquiry.

Sorry but wasn't your mate Bailey selected by the previous administration, you know the one you think did a great job. Wasn't it your mate Bailey that dismissed Junior? Wasn't Bailey sacked because he had lost control of the playing group and was taking the club down the road to nowhere? You say that the selection of Neeld was shoddy but you agree with his appointment; what would you have done, dotted the i's and crossed the t's then appointed him anyway? What exactly has Wilson said that has shed light on the process to date; what information have you gleaned that has lead you closer to the end result of the investigation? Do you think that Wilson has helped Melbourne or blackened our name making it harder for us to gain further sponsorship? Just what is it you want to come out of this investigation, apart from vengence? Oh! do you hold your mate Bailey responsible for any of this; do you think he should have told the club "I won't do it" if asked to tank, he's a man of principle, isn't he?

This whole thing is just so unbelievably stupid, and actually becoming embarrassing for the AFL.

nice to see all the sado-masochists emerging from the woodwork at the smell of blood like zombies in the dawn of the dead

I took offense to it. Every man and his dog got stuck into Watts for not tearing the comp up as a skinny teenager. At the time we were scrutinized for playing him too early. Up until this day many people regard him as a failed 1st draft pick which is so unfair as the kid has no control what draft pick he's aligned with. And to suit some weird twisted set of rationale now not playing this "NQR" is proof of tanking? If that's their evidence it is comedy hour!

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

We'll agree to differ. I believe the club had the PP in sight from very early in the year.

It was almost as if the players were doing us a favour by staying with the club and in certain circumstances holding us to ransom every contract renewal time. We appear to have a harder edge now an if we can get the results on the field then the rest will flow, albeit with some hard work.

If something seems weird, I suggest you have a look why. The first 4 pages of this thread were written in 2009, when the kid was drafted. Before being a smartarse one should always make sure they are not acting like a moron!

Baileys ultimate defense must surely utilise the idea that the players never really did anything that he instructed do how could he possibly orchestrate a result !!

Why? Didn't work for Eichmann when he tried it. nor most others at Nuremberg

Is this thread cryptically and subliminally suggesting 'Swan Lake' as our song?

Jimmy Toumpas 183 cm 77 kg And most would expect Toumpas to play virtually every game.

Hot off the press. We were at wit's end. The ship was about to dock in Sydney and the tape was missing. The cruise line's entertainment director was heavily concussed with no memory of the vicious assault that preceded the theft of the tape we hoped would prove the Melbourne Football Club innocent of all charges against it in the forthcoming tanking trial at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The ship's security cameras proved useless; the criminals who committed the outrageous theft were far too clever; all footage of the passage outside was blocked by a large figure rendering identification impossible. We had reached yet another dead end in a series of dead ends and decided the situation was so hopeless that the only thing left for us to do was to disembark and mingle on shore with the ship's American tourists. We were carrying the thoughts of that depressing prospect with us down the gangway when we noticed him. He bore a distinct resemblance to the Michelin Man, obese beyond imagination but the furtive looks over his shoulder and the fact that he was ripping into one of the largest ham sandwiches you would ever see, gave him away. It was the ship's guest lecturer - Phil of the fifty banana a day diet and it dawned on us both at the same time that he had to be our man. His huge shape was what had blocked all vision of the attack on the security videos. The give-away was the back pocket of his trousers bulging with ugly excess fat and from which you could just make out the outline of an audio cassette. He was a fair way in front of us and before we could apprehend him, he noticed us and took flight landing on the dock with a thud that registered 6.5 on the Richter Scale. The banana yellow Lamborghini Gallardo LP550-2 Spyder was waiting for him and we immediately recognised the young driver who was revving up the motor with a sense of urgency. He managed to prize his passenger inside (I'll never know how this feat was achieved so efficiently and expertly with a man that size but my guess was it had been rehearsed many times) and, with wheels screeching and the exhaust belching acrid gusts of smoke into the dockside air, they were on their way heading in the direction of The Rocks and the city centre. Hot on their heels, we jumped into a waiting taxi and I pleaded to the driver, "Follow that car, driver!" He gave us an expressionless look indicating he failed to understand my request but fortunately, Redleg is a linguist of great cunning and possesses an expert knowledge of the Urdu language. Seconds later, our pursuit began and, though our quarry was at least a hundred metres ahead, I was confident I knew the place where the chase would take us. Breakfast Point.

Nick Maxwell on SEN just said how ridiculous he thinks it is that the AFL open an investigation as big as this based on a knee jerk reaction to disgruntled ex player Brock Mcleans comments on a television show.

How the hatred shines through, no matter what the issue.

you've gone off clearly 2 years to early... a bit prem there dee-tox...and blind as well? hmmm? If you'd been watching us for a long time, you would notice that we lost our hardness in the 90's sometime. I can't be certain exactly which year because at that time I had stopped following footy altogether, for reasons, including family loss etc. But I slowly picked the game back up again just watching, but without analysing it... just a supporter without a critical eye over the club. Around 2004/5 I started getting bothered by our lack of top players & was starting to realise our better footballers weren't "going in". starting to think back & reflect on the way our boys had played previous years, I started to see the decline had in fact started prior to the 2000 GF... no doubt the bombers took us to task, as they new it was our Achilles Heal. we had none after Schwatrz & Neitz to fly the flag & neither were hard hit men. So, for you to say the list managing has killed our culture & hard at the ball ways is just plain wrong & one eyed & short sighted.

The latest article really shows how poor the AFLs attack is getting, FFS they have resorted to arguing about how an injured , first year player still in VCE only played a handfull of games... I can't wait till this joke is over... Hopefully before the Zulus get here

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

rubbish there almost as many errors in that post as there are words

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.

The cold, hard facts are we tanked. We can curse Caro, Brock McLean or any other person that has a crack at us, but why bother? Such a decision, and it was a deliberate choice, has made us the laughing stock of the competition. It exposed us as a lazy club. One not willing to do the hard work (within the rules and spirit of the game)necessary to get back up the ladder. It has exposed our CEO as a two-time cheat. It has exposed the model that Schwab put forward in his Whiteboard Wednesday series as horribly flawed. It forgot that leaders such as McDonald, Bruce, Mclean (three best in our last finals win), even Miller and Johnstone could guide a new generation back up the ladder. We wanted an easier way, one without integrity, proper leadership and hard work. Tanking gave the players an excuse. An excuse not to perform. And such a mindset becomes ingrained in your culture. Sportsmen shouldn't be given a reason not to perform at 100 percent. Is it any wonder that we curse that the likes of Sylvia have not come on as players?

I wouldn't mind hearing Third Eye by Tool before the game, although they'd need to extend the players race by about 4kms. Could we march in to this? http://youtu.be/-bzWSJG93P8