titan_uranus

In her latest instalment, she has quite significantly toned back the attack: Demons and league on collision course She now recognises the 'vault' was a name for the room (note her swipe at our financials, as it was a 'tin shed'). She now recognises that what Connolly said may have been tongue in cheek. She now recognises that the meeting may not have been as serious as she first said. In other words, she's finally provided a bit of balance and a lack of hyperbole. And she's slowly confirming what we all know now; that the allegations against us aren't strong enough and the evidence is lacking.

That's journalist speak for 'we don't know what's happening but it might be big'. If we are found guilty of an offence, the idea that the punishment will be severe is nothing new. It's what everyone's been saying, or at least thinking. Fact is, he's speculating on what might happen, but as per usual, no one actually knows, so let's all calm down.

This is as scary as everything else Wilson has said. Come back to me with some evidence. Not some hearsay about someone thinking something.

Exactly. So she milked it for all it was worth, and now she's run out. I can assure I am not over valuing her reporting skills. She's also not on holiday, as evidenced by her story about Tippett: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/crows-and-tippett-charged-20121112-2986r.html

That's complete rubbish. It's gone quiet because there's nothing new to say.

She's up the proverbial creek with only Brock McLean and potentially some other jaded, washed up, failed MFC player to use for paddles. As was the case when they were Melbourne players, they just don't get the job done.

What a week so far. I'm crapping myself watching this OT finish between St Louis and SF. Missed field goals by both sides. Smith down with concussion. What a game. Bengals over Giants is huge. Giants falling apart (I hope. I hate them). Saints over Falcons is enormous, Saints have Oakland next week to go 5-5 after being 0-4. Wildcard chance for sure. Bills almost finally won at New England, but didn't. Vikings over Lions puts the Lions almost out of it. Huge. Edit: AS IF HE PULLED THAT OUT! 24 yard pass on 3rd and 23 at the STL 25 with 10 seconds left in the OT period. We're baked I feel. Edit 2: They have ties in the NFL?! How did I not know this? We just tied. Wtf. I thought they played till there was a score. Wow.

Haha 'noodle arm'. He went 18 of 19 against Arizona though! Had a great game, got NFC Offensive player of the week for that effort. Our offence goes well beyond Smith though. Gore, Moss, Davis, Crabtree...not so bad. That was such a disgusting blip though. I hope we learnt some lessons from that game. I didn't see it, and pretty confident I don't want to.

Fair comment, I think Jacksonville's secondary made some of his throws look better than they actually were. Agree re: the athleticism, he moved out of the pocket really well and knew when to move and when to throw. Also: no. We've got your mob covered, thanks. Also coming of a bye week, so we'll be eager to beat up on your travelling crew.

I want him in the middle at the opening bounce in Round 1. None of this FP/HFF rubbish. In the middle, with an expectation he gets X disposals and X clearances and X inside 50s. Tell him he's to be a full time midfielder. See how he responds.

Can't wait for Houston-Chicago, should be a corker. The Colts looked pretty good on TNF, even if it was against the Jaguars. If Playoffs started today they'd be in there, so that's a testament to Luck and their improved defence from last year.

Day 1 really wasn't as bad for us as people seem to think. Amla was one millimetre from being out LBW for 0, Peterson should have been given out LBW for a bit less than what he made, Amla also edged one between Wade and Clarke which Clarke should have gone for, and had he, could have caught him, and Kallis was saved by the most minute of no-balls which Rauf wasn't prepared to call at the time (and which, IMO, should therefore mean it's not a no ball and so be it. Let the on field umpire decide. If it's too close to call, or even if he misses a bad one, so be it. None of this referring it upstairs or, as is now the law, requiring the third umpire to check each delivery). People seem to hate Lyon but he bowled well yesterday. Got good bounce, which is a weapon he needs. It was that bounce which got Amla's edge, and Clarke should have gone for it. Hilfenhaus was pretty average yesterday, if he doesn't lift I don't see him holding his spot over Starc (or Hazlewood/Harris/Cutting). As much as I am sorry for Greig's terrible sickness, I really am not missing his voice at all, nor his 'banter' with Lawry (or anyone). I would never wish that illness upon anyone, and I hope he recovers 100%. But I do not miss his commentary one bit.

Great thread. Love it. Crikey can get stuffed.

Wasn't sure where else to put this, but: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150827/default.aspx They've returned to announcing the draftees from 1-10 in real order. No more of that ridiculous countdown from 10.

Rah rah rah. Thanks for reading what I wrote. Legally, many, if not most, corporations cannot sue for defamation. As in, many corporations aren't allowed to go to court and say 'hey, I was defamed'. The law won't recognise defamation against a corporation. Individuals, though, have their own right. Different country, different law. Also, it was 20 years, up until the end of the case in the European Court of Human Rights. Made a great doco, too.

The club won't sue, because it legally can't. I wouldn't be surprised if action was taken by individuals, however. If, and of course at this stage it's solely an if, we end up coming out of this with a finding that we didn't tank, and CC and CS keep their jobs, and if some of what Caro wrote starts to come out as being hyperbolic and/or untrue, then there is going to be scope for CC and CS in particular to want to protect their reputations. That last piece of hers completely ridiculed them, and as she continues to attack the club, those attacks continue to get at their morality, reputation, and integrity. It's all their choice of course. I'm just interested to see what comes of it all, as I am increasingly of the view that we'll be OK, and if that's the case, what follows will be intriguing to say the least.

As the days go on it becomes clearer and clearer that Caroline Wilson was hasty and incorrect, that the 'evidence' the AFL has is still shaky, that the AFL deep down doesn't want to find tanking, and that we won't be found guilty of anything serious. Once this is all over, the interest will then turn to what, if any, action Melbourne will take against people like Caro.

I think he could add a bit to the side, in terms of running off HB and strength, but it's certainly not like it'll be disappointing not to take him.

Looks like Quiney will get the nod in the now likely event Watson doesn't pull up for Friday: http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-south-africa-2012/content/current/story/589712.html Good on him. If he plays, there will be 4 Victorians!

The rule is as stated on the AFL's own website: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=66411 'If a bid is made, the club that nominated the father-son player must use its next available selection if it wishes to retain its hold on that player'. Thus, if the AFL takes 27 off us, we'd just have to use our next pick, whatever that is, and we'd still have him.

He/she/it. Not sure trolls have a gender.

I couldn't agree more with this post. This, to me, is a perfect example of how Caro has taken little tid-bits and blown them out of proportion to suit an agenda. Her evidence is pathetically weak.

I can't wait for the Test to begin. For one, it will be a good distraction from the whole tanking crap. For another, it should actually be very entertaining. It's very interesting to consider who is the '7th best batsman' in Australia. If the top 6 starts with Warner, Cowan, Watson, Ponting, Clarke and Hussey, then the question of who's next in line is very important, not least because there are injury concerns with Watson and Ponting, and there's no certainty at all that Cowan will hold his spot through the six Tests we have. IMO, Andrew McDonald will be a smokey to get a game if Watson goes down. Watson's clear value is the bowling he brings, and there's no doubt that McDonald's bowling is as good, if not better, than Watson's, whilst his batting has improved considerably since he last played a Test in 2009. The fact he's captain of the Australia A side must surely show the selectors have some faith in him. He'd have to bat low, though, at 6 or so, which would push Ponting to 3 and Clarke and Hussey up a spot probably, but I think Clarke would enjoy having the extra bowler. In saying that, Steve Smith just made a half century for Australia A, and whilst most people recognise he's a shocking bowler at first class level and his batting is sporadic at best, the selectors and Clarke seem to love him. Another option I think. If Cowan fails (I hope he doesn't, I like him), whilst Hughes would be considered, I'd be looking for someone more like Rob Quiney or Alex Doolan. A steadier hand to bat alongside Warner would be preferable to Hughes. Also, I have no confidence in Hughes at Test level after that NZ series a year ago. Having said this, I think Cowan is good enough to hold his spot. In terms of bowling in Brisbane, if it's a toss up between Starc and Lyon (as I think it is), I hope they pick Lyon. Lyon bowled well at the Gabba last year. He's actually had a good year at Test level; he bowled well in the Windies. He bowls best when he gets drift and bounce, which the Gabba suits, so I hope they recognise that and give him his deserved spot. He's the best spinner we have at the moment (especially with Holland injured), so we need to persevere, and South Africa have a bunch of lefties (Smith, Rudolph, Duminy) who are all susceptible to off-spin, unlike the Indians who only had one left-handed batsman.

If ADC's a former board member, then I'm Bon Jovi. Note: I am not Bon Jovi.

That doesn't work for all crimes. Only the most severe ones. Ever heard of 'attempted fare evasion'? Didn't think so. And even if 'conspiracy to tank' is a thing, what kind of club conspires to do something, but doesn't? If we wanted to tank, we would have. If there is evidence showing that we 'conspired' to tank, then we'll be found guilty of tanking. There just won't be evidence of us conspiring to tank, or wanting to tank, or tanking.