Leaderboard

The position of the AFL is shameful in this whole sorry episode. It created the priority pick system. Despite years of abuse of the system and complaints by the media, it endorsed and legitimised that abuse, actually making it legal under then AFL policy. It created a shameful rule, that allowed GWS to steal the young player we got for our Priority Pick in 2009, by giving him AFL money and contracted during the first year of his initial contract with the MFC. It then banned the MFC from doing what other clubs have been allowed to do, using a 3rd party contract to keep him. Despite then being the highest paid inexperienced player in the league's history, the AFL Ceo said it was our fault that we didn't retain him. The AFL then accepted their error with the PP system and abolished it. The AFL then chose to launch a tanking investigation of over 8 months so far, on the say so of a former, disgruntled, less than perfectly behaved player, who actually provided no evidence of the offence to the AFL. Despite admissions of other players and coaches and examples of similar behaviour of other clubs, provided by the media, the AFL refused to investigate other clubs or widen the investigation. The MFC which is the only club to have won 5 games under the PP system and lost a PP pick twice, costing them Nic Nat and another player in the other year, have received no credit for that. The AFL has started this investigation knowing that their rules on the subject were poor and that the system has failed. The AFL has heard other Presidents like Eddie say that the MFC would have been the laughing stock of the AFL if they did not do what others had done and what was approved of by the AFL The AFL has conducted the interrogation like rank amateurs and bully boys with probably unusable statements. The AFL runs a competition for the benefit of its member clubs that it admits is totally compromised by its fixture and various deals and concessions. The AFL at the moment appears to be in disarray. Despite the above the AFL has continued with this victimisation of one club and seemingly is intent on not losing face above all else and securing charges against the MFC and its officers. The AFL should be ashamed of itself. Print this Caro, you self-opinionated harpie.

Sent. Quite therapeutic, I recommend giving it a bash. Afternoon Caroline, I don't know if you take the time to read through emails from the public, as I'm sure you get your fair share. Thus, I put the main underlying point in the subject. There was a general acceptance of your positioning yourself as the defender of justice and truth in the tanking affair. But I have to say Caroline, your latest "lame duck" article is actually more offensive for its shoddy journalism than anything else, for several reasons. It goes beyond poor fact checking. We previously overlooked the embarrassment of your calling the alleged (you should look that word up btw) tanking meeting the "vault", in an attempt to make it seem more insidious, when that nickname was revealed as the name of the room in which football meetings were held year round. Sometimes fact checking goes off the rails. [censored] happens. But to actually present to the public the defences of the club, that you label as "lame duck excuses," when the club has not come out with any of the stated defences regarding its conduct, is quite frankly disgraceful on your part. It is in fact blatant lying, Caroline. The club has NOT presented a defence, unofficial or not, that "everyone was doing it". Some of the fans might hold that view, but for the club to present such a defence would be foolishness. It would be an admission of guilt. Your stating that they have used any such defence is an outright lie. The club has NOT tried to use its registered complaint regarding the conduct of AFL investigators as some sort of defence or excuse for tanking. The two are unrelated. The club is however entitled to natural justice (which I'm sure annoys you to no end) and thus the concern was rightly raised. Your attempt to criticise the club for using it as an excuse for tanking is without ANY basis. Connolly had EVERY right as an individual to contest the accusations you put to print regarding his threats to staff, and yet you found reason to group that into these fictitious "lame duck excuses" by the club. You go so far as to admit that the club probably has a solid legal case, but in the same sentence label the excuses (the ones the club has not used) as "flimsy" and "childish". How does that work exactly? How does one have a solid legal case based on flimsy and childish grounds? What are we talking here, Caroline? "Sure, they probably won't be found guilty but they should be punished regardless"? Welcome to the world of law and order, where there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and only the guilty are punished. Not the reverse. You use statements such as "Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009", a slanderous statement, which you back up with further speculation. In essence, this brings me to what in my opinion is the worst thing a journalist can do, even one that is opinion based such as yourself. You speculate, but present that speculation as fact. You mislead your readers. I can not say with any certainty if you do this with any agenda, but the fact remains that you have done this continually in your covering of this matter. The basis of this article in particular is not only shaky, it's non-existent. It is by some margin the worst article I've seen you write, and that includes all of the disgusting and frankly hateful articles you've written about the MFC these past several months. So why write it? I believe because you know that Melbourne will likely get off and are getting your ducks in a row for the final judgement, to cause the least amount of egg on your face as possible. Honestly, I think you are better than the way you've conducted yourself recently, and if I were you I'd be doing everything I can to stitch together what remains of my reputation. The way you are going about it right now is just digging the almighty hole even bigger. Regards, Simon

Dear Caroline Wilson...

So in summary: She mad.

Who'd have thought that Energy Watch would only be the second-most offensive sponsor we'd have to dump in a 12-month period?

I'm gonna side with Don on this one. Sorry Ben.

Cop that, Caro! Tough to defend her after reading that I'd have thought. Interesting that he mentions it forms none of what the MFC have put to the AFL - something I was intrigued by and wrote as much about last night. "Unofficial defence" indeed. Well done, Don.

"The Demons have engaged former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein to lead their defence and their view is that they have a very good case. Perhaps in legal terms they are correct even though their stated excuses are so so flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish." That's gold. Legally correct but hang 'em anyway. What a troll. I hope it burns that witch to know that CS is off the hook.

So your hoping the Board offers up poor cuddles Connolly as the sacrificial lamb guilty or not. After we have betrayed one of our own loyal servants, because we personally don't have the stomach for the fight, how do we as an organisation address our Football Department. "Now guys I realise that we as an organisation have committed an act of spineless betrayal against cuddles, but don't worry cos we got your back. Now go out there and play like Demons and not like Demon board members". To me a sporting clubs Life force is the that wonderful notion of loyalty. Standing by your people when they need you most. Setting the ethos and leading by example. I know that its a professional sport but that doesn't mean it's exclusive of integrity and commitment. I believe that this integrity filters down through organistation and becomes part of our club culture. Giving us as supporters something to be proud of. We ask a lot of our player on field , demanding courage and commitment sometimes at their own physical peril and yet in the past have shied away from the same courageous commitment off field. I see this as an opportunity for the club to break the habits that have condemned us for the last 45 odd years. Sadly I know that notion of loyal and inspiration leadership in todays world is an abstract concept that some people will never comprehend. Mores the pity.

CW - In legal terms we may have done nothing wrong and nevertheless we should be punished heavily. I might have to completely rethink my whole career.

Another poorly thought out lightweight opinion piece that demonstrates by how far she misses the point. So never mind that you are innocent until proven guilty and never mind that you have a very good case "in legal terms", Wilson has pronounced us guilty before the charges have even been laid.To Wilson's feeble mind we need to do away with the legal system altogether. That way we can send people we don't like to the gallows as they do in backwater dictatorships or to remote prison camps without trial as they did regularly in tyrannical regimes. Welcome to Wilson's Gulag Archipelago.

The man in the street thinks we tanked because of the articles they've read of hers

We had the debate with fan/bob regarding her influence and I suggested my dislike for her work isbecause she is widely read,respected and noticed (as opposed to that giant [censored] Denham). After reading some of Bomberblitz and their indignation at her work I will say that her influence is even worse as 400 odd pags (of which I only read a sampling) there is not a mention of her work elsewhere - ie on the tanking probe. This tells me that unless her writings directly affect your club her articles would be read digested and hardly questioned by a large cross section of supporters of other clubs. I am not sure that other supporters would be dissecting her writing like we do and seeing the very obvious lack of quality - this is the most worrying part of her writing IMO.

There's a difference between thinking we most likely tanked, and thinking we should be punished for it. Especially when it's something that can't really be proved, has been tacitly approved in the past, is not breaking any concise and definitive rule but rather a media driven moralistic stance, and is a retroactive investigation into something that was deemed fine at the time. Maybe the AFL should go back to investigate and punish the teams involved in the Nathan Buckley to Collingwood saga, now that the details are out in the open? How about the former club officials that openly tell stories of paper bags full of money changing hands with players decades ago? Where do you draw the line? My indignation is over the injustice of it, and the fact that it won't stand up in court.

A well crafted statement from the Pres. imo, and exactly the sort of communication that we, the loyal MFC supporters, deserve. It was music to my ears, and another signal to the wider football community that we are becoming a club that will once again 'stand for something'. Bring it on!

The thing that concerns me about Caro's appearance on AW is her "sources inside Melbourne". Can we please plug these leaks and get rid of those "supporters" who would prefer to settle their vendettas at the expense of their club.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-02-13/from-the-president.workstation I love you, Don McLardy.

How quaint. Somebody actually asked a footballer about his experiences on this subject.

Wilson just had to write the line "And Melbourne is just too weak to punish..." Must have taken her a while to find a position for that line. This club should never forget that line, & never put ourselves in a position where somebody can write that

Points well made Binman. Did we "tank" or didn't we? The debate is moot, for to have such a debate is to ignore the dichotomy which, to any reasonable mind, is patently obvious, in terms of the "rules" as they existed at the time in question. Again, we cannot be charged with "tanking". However, if we were to be charged with anything, it is clear that the AFL Rules, as constituted, mean we can be charged with bringing the "Game into disrepute". Given the construct of the rules which existed at that time, drafted and implemented by the AFL itself, it, at the very least, if not a legally flawed concept, is certainly counter intuitive, should the AFL seek to charge us, in relation to conduct in which we allegedly engaged, within a paradigm which was designed by the AFL Commission. As an analogy, Melbourne Cup horses are "handicapped" according to the perceptions, real or otherwise, of the handicapper. In this case, the AFL were in charge of rating the "handicaps" made available to all football clubs, based on their performance during the time in question. If the handicapper got it wrong, then it is not the beneficiary of such a flawed system, that ought to be punished. AFL, to thine ownself be true.

But it's got everything to do with providing a relevant defence. The defence that 'everyone was doing it' is about as valid as an insider trader getting up in court and saying 'I'm not guilty because the ASC didn't chase/pursue/catch all the other insider traders. So you want it both ways ... you think we 'probably' tanked in 2009, but in response to possible charges, you want us to say adamantly that we didn't? If Caro and Fairfax are that concerned about subsequent defamation litigation, there's no way they'd come out with this morning's piece reiterating all the things she's said earlier.

Tanks for not winningRETIRED Carlton great Anthony Koutoufides wants to see the Blues lose to Melbourne this week and secure the number one draft pick. The former Carlton captain and dual best and fairest winner said it was in the club's best interest to lose on Sunday at the Melbourne Cricket Ground and collect promising Victorian ruckman Matthew Kreuzer. But he denied new coach Brett Ratten and the players would tank. "In all fairness, I would rather them lose because of the draft picks," Koutoufides said last night. "But I know their mentality is going to be to go out there and win. "But in all truth, I think the majority of Carlton people would like to see them get the number one draft pick." If Carlton loses the "Kreuzer Cup" this week and St-Kilda beats Richmond, it secures picks one, three, 20, 36 and 52. If the Blues win, they lose the priority pick. "Of course, I don't want them to win for the simple fact I want to see them get the draft picks," said Koutoufides, who retired after round17 because of injury.------------------------------------ Several other high-profile Carlton identities said it would be better for the Blues to lose. Four-time premiership player David McKay said he had mixed feelings about the game. "I don't want to lose, but I don't want to win. Players don't go out to lose and they'll be trying. For the long term future of the club we have to get the best possible picks," he said. Former president John Elliott said winning was simply not an option. "We've got to lose. (Matthew) Kreuzer was best on the ground again at the weekend. I'll be going and I'll be sitting there quietly praying for Carlton to lose by less than three goals, knowing we could've kicked the three if we wanted to," he said. Premiership coach Robert Walls said the number one draft picks should be the priority. "I don't want Carlton to win because, as a supporter, the benefits of losing are so great. But I think they will win because the players will be trying hard, and they're better than Melbourne," he said. Carlton premiership player David Rhys Jones said he had already been barracking for the Blues to lose. "Saturday week ago it looked like they were going to beat Essendon and it's the one and only time I've ever barracked for Essendon," he said. "I think the league owes us a few draft picks so even if we tanked this week, so be it." http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/tanks-for-not-winning/story-e6frf35u-1111114282657#.URrSSPI3vKE AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou will watch some of the "Kreuzer Cup", but won't bother searching for signs of tanking. Demetriou yesterday re-iterated tanking was a non-issue over-blown by the media. "People have theories about which player went off at which particular time ... and all the nonsense and dribble that goes on. "There's been lots of occasions over the past few weeks where Carlton could have won games and they were just beaten on the day."

Wilson is running a public campaign against the MFC, as a current member I have had a gut full of her rage against our club. Her stories have a hate tone and I am finding this offensive. I implore the MFC to fight damn hard against this on behalf of its supporter base. I want this gutter journalist to be held accountable for her public campaign against this club. This daily rant has to stop.

the thing that annoys me is - apart from the fact she has NO evidence - that if/when we are innocent, she will just say how pathetic the afl are because we clearly tanked.

She does read Demonland - unfortunately like everything else she does - she reads demonland selectively Tomorrows headline Exactly what I was thinking. She reads Demonland. So improve your writing people or the Age's standards will fall even further.

CW needs a lesson in manners!

My information is that Croad won't be the only person taking a newspaper publisher to the courts and seeking damages for defamation.

It's actually just really sad. Her articles say so much more about the writer than about the MFC. What kind of sad, bitter creature spends hours and hours writing her vitriolic opinions about another entity? If she was presenting new, interesting facts that would be another matter. The irrationality in her pieces only grows in accordance with her bitterness. It is Gollum all over again. I feel for her.

That's great, a loyal servant of the club makes a joke according to you and you would have no symapthy if he got a life ban. On that basis the Essendon Coaches face death by firing squad.

Billy I understand your thinking on Wilson. Why would she put so much on the line over this? But then again why would DM also risk everything with his statement. Given that we know DM has read the report and we have no way of knowing if Wilson has or hasn't, I for one would back Dons account. To me Wilson is trying her damnedest to influence a outcome that she knows is pending. A bit like a politician in the last days of an election campaign. The fact is she went way too hard from the start and has been slinging mud ever since to justify her position. More than anybody Wilson needs to AFL to charge us with something. As to her motivations I can only suggest that she has become a victim of her own over inflated ego and in her mind she simply cannot be wrong.

I am of the opinion that the media are making it up as they go and feeding off each other; if one gets it wrong the others just repeat it. Her latest report was comprehensively refuted by McLardy today, so I don't see how you can rely on her for inside information, she clearly doesn't have any. She is not going to get up on 3AW and say, "sorry I effed that one up", she is of the old school, deny, deny, deny. Even if we are exonerated she will still say, "come on, we all know they did it".

The gospel of a lightweight thinker who tries to bully with aggression but won't answer the tough questions.I've treated many of them in the past (not that I'm suggesting there's anything necessarily wrong with BH).

I think the greatest indictment upon the AFL is that they changed the priority pick rule. It is, in effect, them conceding that they had created a situation where teams had an incentive to lose. And that teams would manipulate the rules to their own advantage. I think it's interesting to compare to the NBA, where despite having a lottery, teams quite openly shut up shop late in the season, content with only a good chance of receiving a high pick. They rarely outright say it, but no efforts are made to hide it, and the cognoscenti understand that it really is just an attempt at making the best of a bad situation. There's no artificial moral outrage from the media, but then again, Caro isn't an NBA beat writer...

As another day goes by & still no announcement it wouldn't surprise me if MFC have said , if you think youve got the evidence go ahead and charge us, but we don't think you have & will play hardball. The afl know they haven't got hard evidence & are finding it hard to reach a resolution. Really hoping I'm right

Wilson being sued successfully."Happier Happy Joy Joy..."

Lets just walk a mile in CC's shoes for a minute. You make a flippant throw away comment in a meeting 3 years ago and suddenly you face the prospect of being charged with bringing the game you love and serve into disrepute. Honestly who amongst us would not defend their own reputation and integrity against the charge. Personally I would defend myself with vigour. The thought of my reputation being tarnished over a rather innocuous comment made years prior would be unacceptable in the extreme, my reputation means everything to me. Still I accept that some people aren't as commited to their reputations as I. Each to their own I guess.

Nice work nutbean. Reminds me of this note Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly sent back to California lawmakers when he vetoed a bill.

The defence that "everyone was doing it" is valid; I doubt the AFL would want a situation where 5 or 6 clubs are all excluded from the first two rounds of the draft for two years or more, especially if they include Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond and West Coast. Despite what some on here might believe, there are times when the old adage applies about "safety in numbers". This has got nothing to do with robbing banks, or breaking the speed limit, or running red lights, this is about the interpretation of a competition’s rules that are somewhat confusing, and lacking in clarity.

"The Demons have engaged former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein to lead their defence and their view is that they have a very good case. Perhaps in legal terms they are correct even though their stated excuses are so so flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish. Perhaps, in the name of political expediency, their punishment will be mitigated." This is the relevant part of the article and the conclusion that I have begun to draw. The rest is just Caro rambling. What matters is what will matter in a court of law not a court of journos. I couldn't give a stuff about her opinion.

The Straw Man Argument There are a couple on here who are attempting belittle the views of those who do not believe we tanked by creating a Straw Man to blow over. This is when you simply attach a ridiculous or easily dismissable point-of-view to those to which you are arguing. The Straw Man du jour has been around The Pointing Defence: that we are just pointing to other clubs who were not charged with tanking and being 'childish' (to quote CW). Many have made that juxtaposition but it hardly dominates the argument against our guilt or punishment. What does dominate the argument, and CW points this out in her recent desperate attempt to save face, is the legal improbabilty of proving tanking without establishing motive. If they cannot prove motive then they must find an action that is 'tanking.' All actions that constitute our colloquial vision of 'tanking' are not unique to it. In fact, only telling players to lose would be unique to tanking. So why not legislate against the only thing that can be constituted as tanking? That is why I say we did not tank. Because the only way of legislating agianst it is by giving it a definition that is useful, and well outside of what we did in 2009. That is my main argument and it can't be so easily blown over, which is why it hasn't been addressed by a few 'choice' posters on here and a few troubled journalists out there.

I hope he doesn't get into bad habits.

Greg Denham rejoiced in the phrase that the MFC stood for nothing. Standing up to a bully is a great start. I don't see how the oldest sporting club in the world can do justice to its history, members, supporters, past players and officials, if it accepts a title as a match fixer. Any deal that avoids that, is worth considering, as long as it doesn't involve unfair treatment of its staff. I would imagine our players and the football community are watching our handling of this issue and it really is line in the sand stuff. How can you expect our players to fight if we are seen as a coward?

Someone said recently in a discussion on today's journalists, that in the old days they reported the news, today they try and make it. CW is probably the leading exponent of the latter.

Hows these bomber blitz quotes; Yep, getting very unfairly treated by the media. A bit like the accusations against the Demons for tanking when they did nothing other clubs have done (not us BTW) and have to read ignorant guff in the press like deliberately not playing Sylvia in that Richmond match when in fact he was suspended that week. And accusing Melbourne of 'fumbling' - they don't have to try to do that. Demons supporters must be loving that another club is getting a raw deal from the media. Melbourne and Essendon should play off for the Wilson/Smith Cup. Whoever wins is immune from having them write articles about them. This may be incentive enough for u to finally beat the Dees.

Nothing new here. In fact she's had nothing new for a couple of months. Which adds weight to my suspicion that her "source" for her initial onslaught was Adrian Anderson.

Pretty harsh on Gollum

Let me get this right. She's saying that we don't have the right to defend ourselves even if we have a valid defence? If this is the chief football writer at this rag, how bad are the hacks?

It really has become a journalist tactic - speculate and then quote your speculation as fact. Murky evidence is right Caro. How is that our unofficial defence? Because she says so? I reckon our defence has been that we did nothing wrong in terms of what can be proved by the laws of the game. When was it an "excuse" that players and officials were intimidated? It has nothing to do with tanking and everything to do with a relevant remark over the investigation process. Ridiculous. How investigators gather "information" is very relevant. I also notice her using the term "vault" for the room - I see she's backed away from using the term as a description for the nickname of the meeting. Not that she's taken back that statement. Her article smacks of unfinished sentences and trains of thought that end before reaching logical conclusions. She draws out inferences from little. Her continued (incorrect) fascination with Mclardy defending the players is also baffling. Surely, a chief football writer would be aware that our players have indeed been accused of it and she is being disingenuous by taking a swipe at him over his comment at a club function. She bases a lot of what she says on pure conjecture; "it is clear now that not everyone at the club is behind that fight-at-all-costs mentality." Clear how? Who is not behind it? Where did this "information" come from? It's so strange to read because it seems as though all the facts that she alludes to are being produced by her alone. No quotes it references to people, just re-hashed criticism of the club and certain individuals. I'm glad Caro mentioned being childish - she'd be able to recognize the characteristic in her continued attacks.