Leaderboard

Hi all, I have refrained from posting on this topic as I like 99% of people on here have no idea what was in the AFL report or the MFC's response and also have no idea when and what the AFL will do with regards to the end of this investigation. Like the vast majority of people on here all I have is the reporting of a sensationalist and untrustworthy football media and the arguably even more biased views of my fellow demonlanders, however four things have really peeved me about the reporting of this issue by Caro: 1. Belief: I thought it was truly disgusting and was dissappointed Gary didn't pick Caro up on it when she went around the table and asked Hutchy and Lloyd whether or not they believed Melbourne tried to lose games in 2009. The fact is anyone can believe whatever the hell they like, many on here believe we tanked and they are entitled to their opinion, but the fact some people believe it, or even the majority, means nothing with regard to charging the Melbourne football club. Not one person on that panel, or anywhere that I have seen, has offered definitive proof that Melbourne issued a directive to lose games. We have all heard about the "vibe" the "gist" the "Mabo" that because Melbourne stood to gain from a priority pick they would have thrown matches. But no proof. As for experimenting and playing players out of position the fact is clubs must be allowed to do this as sometimes they perform better in the new position and sometimes they don't, but without the right to experiment coaches of bottom placed teams are basically sealed to their fate. Also for the record, statistically Brad Miller did better in the middle than he had done in the forward line in the Richmond game, as did Johnson in the backline. The fact a majority of people believe something has more to do with the way it is presented to them by the media than any empirical proof, the fact is many people believed (and some astoundingly still believe) that Lance Armstrong never took drugs. 2. Credibility: For Caro to state that Gary had no credibility on the tanking issue as he is a friend of people involved and loves the club whilst simultaneously stating the the reason Melbourne should be charged for tanking is that 'there were splits within the club resulting in disinfranchised former employees coming forward' on Offsiders this morning is hypocrisy in the extreme. So those that support the current administration have no credibility whilst those who want to bring it down have credibility? As I have said in the past it is easy for former employees, particularly those with an axe to grind, to take pot shots at the club, in fact it makes them look better as it allows them to justify their removal from the club with very little scope for punishment. If anything there is equal credibility amongst both groups then to not hear from those that support the club is presenting the same biased, unproven and acidic commentary that we have received on this issue so far. 3. Facts: So far the only piece of evidence we the public have heard from Caro is about a comment at a single meeting. For a start to coordinate half a season's worth of thrown games would take far more than one meeting. But also all we have heard is that there was one comment, that may or may not have been a joke which has sparked this reporter into calling our club "pathetic and disgusting" and any number of other slurs. Also this is not on its own definitive proof as it would require the majority of the Melbourne FD taking it as a directive and putting it into action to make it tanking. If this is the only factual piece of evidence of our football club tanking that Caro has then her slander against the club is unjustified in the extreme. 4. Precedent: First off there is no such thing as an unofficial response from an organisation, there is the official response and a whole bunch of hearsay. However, to say that the argument that other clubs actions have no bearing on the Melbourne case is "childish" is ignorant in the extreme. If Dean Bailey is found guilty of not coaching to his utmost, in what will be a retrospective judgement then this precedent must be applied to all AFL coaches and other coaches guilty of the same action in a similar period must receive the same charge. Had the AFL brought in a new description this year of what not coaching to your utmost meant then other coaches from previous eras would be spared. But if this judgement is made against Bailey then Wallace and several other coaches must also be scrutinised. As a result the AFL could find that the practice was so widespread that a retrospective judgment would have to be made against number of clubs which may make the decision moot. Also, since when is having a thorough, clever, well thought out official legal defence a bad thing? Anyway, thats been my peeves, in the past I have had a large amount of time for Caro but her reporting on this issue and the Drugs fiasco has made me seriously doubt her credibility. Here's hoping theres no charges at all when it is announced.

Despite Wilson's assurances that the outcome of the tanking fiasco would be known by Friday and her revelations of the details of that outcome, it's Sunday morning and we're none the wiser. Wilson has done this to death and continues to dig a hole for her sagging reputation as a journalist, so the Age has enlisted a ghost to keep things simmering. It's an old newspaper ploy and poor old Jake Niall drew the short straw so he put this piece together (which tells us nothing new) - Dee great escape The most interesting thing about the article in the link is the message at the top: "FOREVER CURIOUS" with the Age banner underneath. Trouble is, if you're an Age reader and are curious as to the nuts and bolts of the potential charges the Melbourne Football Club is facing, then you are being kept completely in the dark by Wilson and her friends. Back on Wednesday, she conceded that the Demons, who have engaged former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein to lead their defence, consider they have a very good case and that "perhaps in legal terms they are correct" (but they still should be punished even if legally innocent). This makes her conclusions about Melbourne's so-called (and supposed) light punishment which has yet to be officially announced so nonsensical that it beggars belief. It also leads to the question why has there been no analysis in the Age (or anywhere else in the media) of the elements of the offences of which Melbourne, Cameron Schwab, Chris Connolly and Dean Bailey potentially stand accused? After all, if there are sanctions to be imposed, how are the charges to be concocted if the crime did "not exist according to Demetriou" and how do you prevent the ensuing Pandora's box from opening and swallowing up clubs like Carlton, Collingwood, West Coast, Richmond et al who presumably committed similar crimes in the past that previously never existed? Instead, we are told by the Age that of course, Melbourne is guilty and even if it is not, it must be punished. There is no arm, no hand and no law. The rival Sunday Sun takes an altogether different tack - Melbourne legal eagles ready for Demons' tanking fight. My take is that the matter will be resolved by consensus and very soon but only because it is in the interests of all parties to settle without incurring enormous legal costs and the other burdens associated with protracted litigation. The difficulty in finalising the terms lies with the way in which the terms of settlement are to be set out. In order to understand this, one needs to have shown more curiosity about the nature of the charges and have done so in the first place, instead of concentrating as the Age has done on the sensational aspects of questionable evidence like the vault story and poor jokes about Zulus and the like. Such things might sell newspapers but in the end they damage reputations.

From Ralph:"Insiders said yesterday that Schwab was hardly mentioned in the 1000-page dossier which detailed allegations over a stretch of games from late in 2009. But while a negotiated settlement still looks a likely outcome, Melbourne sources were defiant last night about accepting penalties. The club was adamant it would not be bullied, and was determined to protect employees ''both past and present''. Despite speculation the Demons could accept a fines of several hundred thousand dollars and a short ban, possibly suspended, against former coach Dean Bailey, no agreement has been made." And "A Melbourne spokesman said last night the Demons were yet to receive an official set of charges or penalties from the AFL's acting football operations manager Gillon McLachlan. Melbourne has been told by top legal experts is has an extremely strong legal case, which includes significant doubts about the manner in which interviews were conducted and whether they would stand up in a court of law. The AFL's burden of proof falls on the club to prove its innocence, while in a court of law Melbourne believes it would be certain to win." The slant is very different. Aint that hard.

I love these threads where I can skip ten whole pages and I don't miss anything. The same ol crud by the same ol people. I'm right your're wrong Hopefully we will all know in a day or two..... ...

The AFL jumped in to this investigation boots and all, did they consider the consequences of our being found innocent of all charges, i doubt it. If the AFL have lost face and the only way they can restore it is to trump up a charge or two against us, stuff them, why should we help them? They should have had a wide ranging review of tanking, not just targeted what they considered the softest target. We shouldn't have to bear the consequence of their stupidity.

Thanks for asking WYL and maybe just what I need... We tanked. Big time. The club officials that is, not the players, never the players. I think, and it has been suggested to me by someone who has had access to the AFL, that the whole investigation proceeded without Vlad's approval. It was Adrian Anderson acting off his own bat. This is the simple reason why we have been singled out. The AFL know they are in a no-win situation. We can take this whole scenario to court and comprehensively not only win but reveal the absurdity of the whole investigation in the process. I, like others, believe the 'investigation' has in fact, been for the majority, a negotiated stand-off, with both parties looking for a way out of a situation that should not have eventuated while saving as much 'face' and money in the process.

Dwayne Russell and Caro in the same segment. If Denham was given an opportunity to stick the knife in, it would have been the closest thing to radio hell this Demon has heard. That was nails down the chalkboard stuff.

Easily our most important player IMO. We've had no heart for a few years at least, and Mitch came in and instantly gave us one. Really looking forward to having him and Viney in the team at the same time, finally the makings of a team with spirit. Incidentally, his initials also stand for Man Crush.

For what it is worth Ben, last night was the second time I have been told, by a different source, that there is no evidence of actual tanking or match fixing in the report of the AFL. If that is true and given our President is the third to say it, I can see why our legal advice is as everyone now seems to agree, that the case is extremely strong. This whole shameful episode is now about the AFL saving face for launching an Inquisition against one club, that received the lowest gain of all clubs that did the same thing.

The interesting part is how the article ends The rule was renumbered and is the current 19 (A5) but the AFLCA was never able to have the rule changed.This means that if you accept that Connolly was joking when he talked about Zulus and Jimmy falling out of his hospital bed then you have to follow the precedent set by the AFL over Paul Roos and throw the whole thing out rather than let the Supreme Court make that decision. The farce continues ...

Roos said he was only joking and they let him get away with that?Wow. And what about the comment by Westy who said I wonder why the CEO of West Coast complained about Carlton tanking to get draft picks? Surely, not to help them prize away their former captain? Which reminds me of a similar story about a conversation I had with a former Blues board member a few weeks before the Kreuzer Cup game.

I think in general football terms, the people who view our brand as tarnished (or who believe we tanked) a ruling in our favour would not absolve us of clear our name. People will generally agree that we tanked IMO. The problem is with the whole fiasco, no one really cares. It's a non-issue. It happened 4 years ago. We've moved on, the comp has moved on. I think we'll be regarded as tankers in a flimsy, disinterested fashion that won't really affect us moving forward. I'll simply be glad to have the whole mess done with. I cannot believe it's taken over 6 months go conclude. It's not even the first time it's been investigated!

Make no mistake, there has been an unprecedented attack on the MFC by the Age and CW. FWIW, I belief the "tank" image in the age this morning is defamatory. Also the use of the MFC logo in such a scenario to be in breach of copyright (trademark). An unprecedented attack! No other media outlet has published with the same vitriol, condemnation, judgement. There is some time to go on the issue; not the least being legal action by individuals

I find this whole situation very strange. Do all of you zero-tolerance zealots think a player should be sacked for having a beer? If not, why not? Alcohol is a drug, just as marijuana, MDMA and LSD are. Why does it receive special dispensation from your indignation? Because the US government couldn't stop gangsters from distributing it in the 1920's? It's a joke. Smoking a joint is not going to affect the performance of an AFL player any more than drinking a beer. The line between them is entirely arbitrary and impossible to logically justify. You want zero tolerance? You have to include alcohol, caffeine, ibuprofen, aspirin, and everything else. It's a morally untenable position.

"others tanked but you won't find evidence that others had a 'vault'-like meeting" Really? I would suggest that an admission by Richmond's coach of 2007 that he did nothing to win a particular game that year which resulted in his club securing its current skipper in that year's draft would be far more compelling, direct and conclusive evidence that Richmond breached the AFL's rules. Perhaps, Garry Lyon might see fit to ask her about that on Thursday night and Wilson could write a cheque to the AFL for $500k on national TV on behalf of her pathetic and disgusting club to save it months of trouble and help the Toigs get off the rap lightly.

what are your views on the "Tanking" issue Toast?

Apparently and I stand to be corrected if the whole report is ever released and proves this to be wrong, but from what I have heard, the most damning bit of evidence in the whole report, is the Connolly statement, which he and Bailey have described as a joke. Bailey also said he never acted on it. Again there is no evidence of actual tanking or match fixing. No wonder the lawyers want us let off or head to Court. Obviously only poster boys for poster clubs like Roos at Sydney can make jokes in the AFL. I think the AFL needs to stand up and stop this now and say, extensive investigation, no proof no charges, we are sorry to the MFC for the damage this has done. Think I saw a pig fly past that fairy at the bottom of my garden.

Niall says this: What is the 'significant evidence?' CW has always alluded to it and here Niall does the same. If it is so 'significant' - please tell us what it is, because I haven't heard the significant evidence, all I have heard is a joke about zulus, some ex-employees claiming they take the threat of Zulus seriously, Schwab's 'ashen face,' and the killer evidence of the general footy public 'knew what they were doing.'

Our President,along with his able board have conviction .A standard of stand up and be counted philosophy. This is something I strongly admire.

I was there today and some of it was really interesting rather than a highlights reel. The first thing to note was that apart from a couple of the young boys, we are a much physically stronger list than last year. No skinny legs, Muppet arms etc... Even a lot of the newer recruits have some serious size about them. The scratch match seemed to be planned around ball movement from defence to attack. At times, when the umpire blew the whistle or there was a goal/behind, one of the coaches would move the play to the other end of the ground or the wing, and give the ball to the defensive position team. If any of you guys remember that Dean Bailey's main practice emphasis was on running patterns when Dees had the ball, you would have been happy to see the succession of handballs moving the ball forward today. There were few poor kicking options chosen. If things were closed down, they ran and handballed in patterns until a gap was found. It was refreshing to see. If the half-backs had no options forward they would simply run into spaces between half-back and centre line until a gap was found - a little like Hawthorn or Fremantle. There was no Mitch Clark, no Dawes, and Pederson hardly ever went forward after the first 5 minutes. So the emphasis was not on our forward structure whatever it might be. It was on moving the ball out of defence. Some of the interchanges of handballs was outstanding to watch because it looks like the horrible Melbourne habit of panicking and handballing to a stationery target is gone. 1. Hogan - have to agree - star in the making. Leads well, contests well. Was bumped off the contest or led under it by mature defenders but his leading and contest at the mark is of a very high standard. . 2. Jones - Very vocal around stoppages and efficient with the ball.. 4. Watts - With the ball in his hands he is simply a gun. He still hangs back a bit when he could contest and did it a few times in the first half. However, it seems he was being instructed to play wide and loose at times. 5. Toumpas - His pace of the mark is amazing. Didn't get a lot of it but was clean when he got it. Hits the ball at full pace which is exciting to watch. 7. Viney - was in and at every contest, but was unclean and sloppy at times. Obviously loves the hard stuff. 8. Frawley - Definite backline general and I reckon I saw a bit of his old arrogance at times. He is in for a huge 2013. 10. Byrnes - Everywhere, quick, accurate and knows where the spaces are. Those looking for a forward spot have to get past him. BOG today. . 12. Sylvia - Hardly saw him, but was efficient when he had it. 13. Jordie -Usual great work rate, but a few times handballed when kicking was clearly the right option. Other players let him know this each time. 14. Dunn- was everywhere today, often in the right place at the right time. He reads it so well and with Watts looks to be the rebound 50 designated player. His kicking still is outstanding. Also some fumbles and strange choices. 15. Rodan- Amazing first half. He was in everything and leading into spaces other players could not find. 17. Blease - One of the best today. His running to the next play after disposal was excellent. His kicking a little wobbly sometimes but he just kept running and getting it. 19. Strauss - Some people don't like the phrase "elite kick" but I can now confirm he is one. Great game down back and after watching our defensive kicking out from the backline over the past 5 years, he is a must for starting 22. 20. Garland - Didn't notice him a lot but he is that quiet 'humphrey' type. Efficient but not brilliant. 21. Pedo - OK, but didn't impact contested opportunities when he could have. 22. Magner - As usual went hard at every contest and did some good set up work through the wing at times. 23. Tynan - grew in confidence in the second quarter and had about 6 good, solid touches in a row. Cleaner by foot than I expected and seemed to understand our defensive structure quite well. 25 TMac - Didn't stand out but his spoiling, reading of the game and defensive positioning was good. 26. Nicho -didn't notice him a lot. 27. Gillies - He makes our starting back 6 more problematic. Reads the play OK and is very aware once he has the ball. A good game. 31 Grimes- Spent a fair bit of time on the bench but was OK when in play. His kicking was cleaner than previously. 32 Evans - didn't notice him a lot - just OK. 33. Barry - didn't get into the game much and might be a year away. Very quick. 34 Kent - Liked what I saw. Looks ready to match it physically and is team oriented. Skills might need some refinement. 35 Tappy - Was playing as a forward and the emphasis was on defense, but was quite good in patches. 36 Davey - Chased and tackled really well but we want him kicking. Didn't win or receive a lot of the ball. 39 Jetta - Didn't get a heap of it but when he was involved looked really, really good. Ran well, kicked well, made options well. 40. Jamar - Bustled at the bounces and throw ins but provided nothing around the ground. I thought he was out done by Spencer today. 41. Davis - Looks made for defence and positions well. Still not convinced of his kicking but he was marginally better today. 42 Pencil - Broke even in ruck contests with Jamar but provided run and options around the ground. A good game. 43 Taggert- Really goes at it but doesn't win a lot of it. 45 Jones - Really surprised me, did some top notch stuff and could challenge for a spot. 46 Terlich- saw him do some nice things, but didn't notice much 47. Couch - Got better as the game progressed and ended up playing really hard and really well. Looked more ready than last year. 48. Fitzy - He is SO unco but played a good game at times. His pace and second efforts for his size are surprising. On today's performance will definitely challenge Pederson for that 3rd forward/ruck help position. It was a game that highlighted the half-backs and the midfielders. All of them had a go and showed their wares at times. I have picked Viney in my Supercoach starting 22 but on today's performance I am not sure if he is ready. Tynan, M. Jones, Terlich and Fitzy were the ones who surprised me today. Davey and Sylvia were disappointing Loved it - the footy is back!

Well if you put it that way, we might as well go back to reading DC Comics.

Agree. I have also just watched it and saw without any shadow of a doubt, a woman with a clear agenda, she even talked over Whately to stop him making valid points about other clubs.

Taken me a few days to share my observations of the practice match, as I've been trying to catch up on having taken the time to go to Casey Fields. Let me start by saying I was pleasantly surprised by the improvement in the complex since my last visit a year or so back. Roads andparking finished. A suburb of houses surrounding the 'fields', magnificent athletic track and reasonable ground. Whether the best decision to go their or not only time will tell but I congratulate the admin for this inititive. Re the game: I thought it was the best disciplined team orientated practice match I can remember seeing of the demons. Of course the pressure was not the same as a real match, but you have to be able to do it in practice if you hope to do it elsewhere. Despite still being a cynic of the collection of cast off players we have gone for, Byrne was a real winner, and benficiary of the team movement of ball into the forward line. He knew how to position himself / lead etc really well. I still wonder what the long term value is in a Geelong reject, but He will add value in the short term through the first half of the year. Rodin as theother two time reject showed the Rodin qualities and we will similarly enjoy his contribution for a while. To expect a consistently good year from him is over hopeful. No doubt Jack Viney is a beauty and will be even better than his father who took a long time to be really significant. Give Jack one or two years and he'll be having a great influence. Toumpas is not far behind. Moves well and as someone said silky skills, good brain and I am excited. I think he is a bit behind Jack at this stage but wonder if in fact he will turn out even better. All other mid fielders did their usual stuff but none stood out to me, Jones, Grimes, Sylvia were at runnjing at 80 percent, and I don't blame them and I'm not worried. Glad evans was out playing which was a win in itself. I puzzle over Jordie McKenzies staus in the club pecking order. Did his things which included a few miss kicks etc, but still committs the cardinal footballers sin, he constantly falls to his feet - a close checking scragger that in time will be surpassed by a team we build for further up the ladder. Jones is well worth keeping an eye on. I reckon he'll play at least half the season and may do even better. This is based not so much on the amount of the ball he got, but looks as though he has the attributes and with some casey games will surely be given a chance. He's ahead of couch in my opinion, although there was a player (no 47) who was doing some good stuff and only after the game I learnt it was couch. Better than I had seen of him before. Jamar ran at 75% pace and despite others opinions I thought Jake Spencer did reasonably well against him. Although I've never been a fan of his despite his clumsiness he does surprise me. I would have kept Martin as the backup. And that is his role. He is our backup knock ruck man at the moment. He has a good leep and will be as competative as any in the big mans wrestle. I think Cam Pederson and Jack Fitz are fighting oneanother for the second ruck and utility forward. Cam looked okay without shining and I think will be given first shot. But I expect it again the be just a matter of time before Jack Fitz passes him. Of the back line Chip looked good and along with Jack Watts are the play maker (quarterbacks - forgive me) Jack has finally made it physically. He looks like a supreme athlete. Not bulky but strapping athletic muscles. Yes one stranger standing next to me at one point stated he thought Jack was our best player (not on the day but in general) I would not have disagreed. If he hasn't got 'Sylvia-itis' this should be an excellent year and who knows in '14 and '15. Dunne payed a good solid game and I am surprised I think barring reports and injuries will play the year on the backline. But the better news from my point of view was the Kent played on him for much of the game and I thought remained competative, not bad for a new kid on the block. Tom Mc was again doing well and I think with a season behind him will be better for it becasue I have always believed his a a good mark. something that was limited last year as he established himself. I liked the look of Tom Gillies ( despite my Geelong fans staement we could have him) although he didn't do lots. I'll enjoy watching him closely to see if their is something worthwhile. I believe Straus-ie will play first game and maybe the rest of the season. I thought he was more competative. His running and kicking have never been questioned, but along with Nicho they should be our small running backs (nothing to do with the american football chess). Not many back line positions left, Col Garland , Joel MacD, Sellar will have to fight oneanother for the other positions. I assume Col Garland will be first choice but I'm concerned he has reached his peak. Injuries will give them all a chance. Blease will do better on the big stage. Tappy was okay and has a challenge to keep improving. Jetta will have to fight hard. I liked the look of Dom Barry moving around and will need time. Tynan di a number of good things and may surprise a lot of us. I think he might even be on the bench in the early part of the year. A fit Clarke, Dawes 2nd ruck, Byrne and the Tassie flyer should be the core of the forward line. So these boys will all be competing hard. But I've kept the best till last. I'M IN LOVE, YES HOGES THE HULK, just 17, and showing he could play at least competatively against some big well developed players was great. He moves well, knows how to play the game, can mark and kick. Who needs JB LF Pav, etc....we've got the Hulk. Yes I'm mature enough to keep the lid on it, but it is hard,,,,, by the way how's thank guy.....what's his name..doing at GWS..WHO cares...We've got the HULK

One of my favourite periods as a Dee's supporter was the John Northey period. Northey was a straight shooter who ran with an "us against them" philosophy for motivation . If there is one good thing to possibly come out of this whole affair is we can rightfully claim the tag of the persocuted underdog. Which ever side of the fence you sit ( tank or no tank, court or acceptance), I think we can all agree that we have been treated unfairly to some degree. We can now stand tall as the underdogs and bad boys of this competition and if were smart enough use it to our advantage. This brain wave came to me this arvo as I valiantly defended the dees at a bbq , whilst might I say under the influence of a considerable amount of "Little creatures Pale Ale". BTW the consensus of the group after I brow beat them with "the facts",was that we have been treated as scapegoats for the AFL incompetence.

Lots of this I would like to have said if I had taken the time to do so. I will thus just add I thought Tim Lane's artical today (Sun 17) was grappling with the broad context which made the entire issue complex. I believe the AFL would have been far better off, drawing a line in the sand once the priority pick was removed, held a moritorium and invited clubs to come up with their opinions on what was acceptable team management (eg Dockers leaving their best doz players home in their game against hawks in Launceston the week before the finals) Vlad is a heavy handed autocrate who does not see much value in the opinions of others - it seems to me. Hence he missed a better opportunity than the root he took

Me too. Surely Col is smart enough to see that a big year means the difference between a 4 x $500k contract and a 2 x $300k contract. As I've posted elsewhere - a big year from Col and everything else going right and we could make the eight.

There is no link whatsoever. These are totally separate issues.

I find Gerard Whately to be one of the better journalists going around, the guy calls it as he sees it, you have to respect that.

This thread has gone for 111 pages of exactly the same postings page after page. I wonder what we would have posted if there was no tanking probe. All it has achieved for me is I now know who hates who on Demonland!

Toast, I wouldn't even think of censoring you for the above comments, boorish as they may be. This is a forum and if you want to make a monkey out of yourself, you're free to do so. But if you try using the same coarse language as those who we have had to give a holiday to recently, you'll find that unlike the AFL we're pretty consistent in dealing with those who break our rules. Now please get on with the matters at hand.

I agree that wasn't particularly insightful but I simply found your post very boring. I have been on the end of moderation I didn't agree with being banned by RR for suggesting CS may have turned Kero down for a date. I thought it was harmless and a ban without warning was way over the top and so I took it up with the site owner who was more than reasonable and reinstated me. They won't always get it right but for the most part I think they do a great job. There are of course other forums which are less moderated with a greater divergence of views that you might find meet your needs better. As for being a life member, as an interstate follower I really appreciate the training reports etc. we get over the summer to see how things are progressing so I was more that happy to pay the small on off fee to contribute to the running of the site which in turn made me a life member rather than simply being complicit in any views expressed here. I am sure you would be listened to if you were able to summons up a little more substance to your posts.

The thing about intraclubs is if it is a free flowing skillful affair then you have to be concerned about the players defensive pressure. If it is scrappy then you worry about the skill level. What we should see is patches of both and an improved intensity. The training I've watched this year hasn't impressed me in terms of skill level but has impressed me with a better intensity. Especially the likes of Dawes, Dunn, Viney, Rodan, Byrnes and a few others are training at a high intensity which should improve the team. One thing we can't tell until the season proper is who has actually improved individually and whether all the improved individuals can combine to form a better team.

Definition; Good Journalist - Someone who agrees with my opinion.

I wish Offsiders on the ABC was an hour long program because the articulate, intelligent and reasonable Gerard Whateley was taking it up to Caroline Wilson with reason and logic. I will need to watch it again, but interestingly Wilson has again changed her tune since Friday saying the fine would likely be "watered down" and wasn't as assured as her article suggested on Friday. EDIT: It will be on iView on the ABC website later, worth a watch.

Are the cited penalties official? The AFL spin & bullsh!t department operates like a political party's spin & bullsh!t department. In politics it is customary to leak information, gauge the reaction to the leaked information, then tailor the release of the information to the reaction to the leaked information.

I just wanted tell my exception rule joke.

Surely not as good in your estimation as Caroline Wilson?

I've been a critic of Sylvia too. He's given supporters so many reasons to disbelieve. That said, I reckon he's about to have his best year. He didn't do a heap in the intra, but he did a couple of things that showed he's as fit and strong as he's ever been. He took on players and got around them with his typical "burst power". Col will never be an A grade midfielder, because he just doesn't have the smarts, creativity, or vision that the best mids have. He's more a powerful finisher. But he can step up into the midfield and do really well if he plays within his limitations and to his strengths. I understand the scepticism, but I'm on the Col bandwagon for 2013.

I always felt that this incident didn't get enough exposure, the "joking" excuse was used here and accepted. EDIT: More here.

Maybe, maybe not,that it would have panned out that way. Brock squealed, and Kero has been throwing petrol on it ever since. If you look at round 17 . Richmnond, sitting 14th, beat 8th placed Essendon yet faced West Coast in round 20 and lost by more than 13 goals. Thats one example. Our worst perferormce in the latter games was against North. We pushed Sydney, playing at Manuka. We havent ever played well at Docklands then to play Carlton there, 16th played 5th,we lost by almost the same amount as Richmond did,when they played Hawthorn, who were only just a few places above them. On paper what it highlights, is ,how anyone can say we threw games.Yet Richmond, when you study their latter games, went worse than we did.Its all water under the bridge now, but the investigation supposedly was checking our performances, to prove tanking, yet, it is there to see. that it isnt as cut and dried as some have reported in the papers. Our crime was we finished last. Without all the hype and any background on the events, the results show, we were more competitive than Richmond in the latter games. If that is any guide, we really have been found guilty by media witchhunt. When our fate was sealed I was torn between winning and hoping to gain priority picks. Yet some hack in the paper, has stooped to using anything she could get her hands on.it make matters worse. Nobody has ever mentioned or reported the results of these last games,clearly showing we werent trying to win. Nobody in their right mind, would expect last place to win again St.Kilda sitting 1st. Yes, we threw players around, why wouldnt you, we were crap for the whole year, not just for the latter part of the season . Richmond were fast pegging us back, the question should be asked, why? They wanted extra picks, and Scumdog too. They went from beating a 8th placed team to being slaughtered by West Coast, who were just a few places above them.While all this was going on, our results show we only had one bad lose to perhaps a team we may have beaten, all the rest of our games, you wouldnt expect any different on the outcome. We finished last, and got cruxified by media,thats not reporting the facts, that is a witchhunt.

The other thread is now Whispering Jacks personal column which is fairly disappointing. We all know Caro is a dumb COAT and we should have the right to pour scorn on her shoddy log of events. 'Landers need the right to party in the cyber streets over this. I'm a little tired of the censorship going on right here in this little place ,and the lack of it at Fairfax. Range Rover has been banned for what looks like a personal vendetta. and Stuie ,whom I loathe ,was returned after one week for his sojourn into the realm of Greek Pleasure I am going out today with a couple of mates from THE AGE.One is in sport currently . I am going to give them heaps for defending Caro from my criticism of her crap work and lack of ethics. She too has lead a personal vendetta against Schwab in particular . May we please have a thread for adults only? A bar room for these old fashioned brawls . I have had some blues with Curry and Beer ,Stuie ,Ben Hur and others but I think we have all been big enough to move on. The warnings, the selective bans, the CoC referrals ,the reminders of libel laws etc are a bit much when we all write under aliases and can be considered a special interest(nearly special needs) group. Mods and stalwarts , I suggest we actually begin to enjoy our football a bit more and lighten up . We got first choice of nearly every decent young player for the last 5 years and we got away with it . Party time .

Bing181 this article brought a smile to my face too.i am sure we are all happy to see this in the HS this morning. Nice to see that we will not roll over and have the fire power to fight if needed. This is something that in the past we wouldn't have done. The club is moving in the right direction. WYL enjoy this article, it's better than most (apart form the Eddie spaghetti crap at the bottom).

This happened behind the scenes of Footy Classified during the ad break. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fqs9DYisSsg

They won't be trying to lose either.

really? as for charges/punishment say much the same, albeit without the vitriol i suspect he cherry picked his version direct from kero's copy

Annual thread about how Colin Sylvia is going to finally "break out" this year...

Or the other way round.

Could everyone who has me on their "ignore button" please let me know.

Well here is my view on this whole sordid episode. The MFC should be completely exonerated, due to lack of any legally binding evidence and the damage/penalty it has already suffered, to its brand and commercial operations, as a result of a selective investigation, for a course of conduct widely accepted being done by many other clubs, with most gaining substantially more benefit and advantage than the MFC, yet without investigation by the ruling body and without any explanation from it, as to why that is so.

Can anyone remember last year's intraclub match at Casey? We ended with about 26 guys on the ground, and our game tactic consisted of getting the ball and kicking it along the boundary line. This year we had enough for two full teams of 18, and there was a little more sophistication about our ball movement. The defence was working hard free up the kicker with a series of handpasses. There was more emphasis on Team, with players spreading and providing backup. They did cross the ball too, but mostly in conservative mode (from half back or pocket to the other half back, using a free man as the link). The moonball kick out of defence wasn't as prevalent, but is still used if you've got a boot like Dunn and Strauss. Neeld said at the GM that supporters will notice the players running harder for longer, and that seemed the case. The guys were working hard to offer the kicker a target - usually a target that only required a short safe delivery. Both sides were limited by the absence of our two key forwards, but at least we had a good small option in Byrnes. Out disposal is still a bit iffy and Jones (not Matt) was one of the offenders, although in fairness he does get the ball a lot. I don't think he will have the 'post-Bluey Truscott medal' blues, unlike the previous 3 winners. A special note about Jetta. He's fit and did some good things on the flanks. Good to see the support there. And hello to Rob, the chiropractor from San Francisco, who was watching his first ever practice match yesterday. He's an ex Aussie and long time supporter who watches all the matches on cable. Great to see you there.