old55

Will they still be available in 2015?

No I don't think that - but they took cheap advantage of a klutz and look where it's ended up. There's plenty of lines of investigation that good journalists don't pursue for the right reasons - this should have been one of them IMO. There's clearly a spectrum of views about Healy and Sheahan - Bub thinks they're part of a conspiracy to bring officers of the club down, you think they're good journalists pursuing a legitimate story, I think they're short-sighted opportunists ... I've never called talk-back radio but if this all plays out to the good for us you'll hear me when Healy and Russell host Wilson later this year.

Look to paraphrase Ben-Hur - I'm not alarmed that I'm on the opposite side of an argument to you.

Healy's brother is on our board and Sheahan purports to be an MFC supporter ...

There's a remote chance of an unlikely and ridiculously inept conspiracy but there's a much more likely explanation which I've provided. What I'm utterly sure of is that posters in this thread who've been accused of disloyality to the club did not conspire - they only want the best for the club - FWIW I stake my reputation here on that.

Occam's razor says no - Brock is dumb and Sheahan and Healy are uncrupulous opportunists.

I think Frawley, McDonald, Watts could be the best tall back combo going around in a couple of years.

I've never bought that the tanking investigation was brought on by a conspiracy against individual club office holders. As RPFC pointed out early in the piece - if it was a conspiracy it was the dumbest conspiracy ever because if successful it was likely to kill the club to remove the officers (which is still a possibility) and would only result in those officers drawing closer together (which has happened). I just think Brock is dumb and Sheahan and Healy are just hungry for any story no matter what the fall-out. I do think it's likely that once AA fired up the investigation in AD's absence, Haddad wanted to make his reputation and flex his muscle and that disgruntled former employees as witnesses saw an opportunity to get back at the club and fueled the fire. Yes - one possible outcome is that officers of the club go down while the club gets off relatively unscathed, officers who mis-managed the tanking and it's aftermath, and yes some posters will not be sorry to see those officers get replaced - but I completely and utterly reject any notion that there's a conspiracy to make this happen and that's what this is all about.

Believing that we could have a better President or CEO does not automatically lead to running for that position. Many here believe we could have a better Prime Minister but are very unlikely to be standing at the next Federal election. It seems to me that the point Hazy is making is not that the Board and the CEO should held responsible by us for tanking - because that's what the vast majority of us wanted them to do - but that they should be held responsible by us for tanking badly - being indiscreet and not managing the people involved well. It's very hard to argue against that.

Irrespective of positions held it's just not a fair fight - 100 against Hazy is unjust - far too much in Hazy's favour.

Oh come on Scoop - former employers like who had the swing to line up CC for a move sideways? Flack, Prendergast, the doctors, the fitness guys? The Board and the CEO make those decisions and would not have been influenced by departing disgruntled employees. Believe me, as I posted, I'd like to read it that way - but I'm struggling to.

It purports to directly quote CC from the report - if that's not in the report then the club should come out and say so.

Scoop, I'd be quite happy to read that CC thinks that disgruntled former MFC employees have attempted to set him up in this investigation because I reckon that's probably true and would discredit their "evidence" and the investigation. But that doesn't sound like who he's talking about in this quote. "...who lined me up to move sideways from football manager" ??? Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/connolly-claims-conspiracy-20130114-2cpwu.html#ixzz2I6CNlBDW

Just one goat eh?

Fan wants nothing more than success for MFC - that's his "agenda". He requires best practice from the people responsible - he doesn't see that in some areas and it's hard to argue with. He wants Neeld to succeed but has reserved his judgement until he sees evidence - that's fair enough. I don't always agree with him but I respect him as a very good thinker and I know he's red and blue to the core. You're mistaken in your interpretation of him and his motives.

See Maurie's post above.

McDonald should be played as key back. I was really disappointed to see him training with the forwards last pre season but I guess that was just a measure of hoe Neeld rated our forwards. He went back and came third in the B and F. We paid significant prices for Clark, Dawes, Hogan and Pedersen forward - we need McDonald down back.

Great work Adrian.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/demons-recorded-dean-bailey-in-coaches-box-during-tanking-year/story-e6frf9jf-1226551547888 That says Bailey is looking for the tapes to help the defence against charges. Sounds like they'll never be found to me "but if only they were then we'd be in the clear". I'd be looking behind the ice-cream in CC's freezer.

Neil Craig - most senior person not implicated in tanking investigation speaks on behalf of the club ...

I recall that Carlton match at Etihad - for a long period we played a forward line consisting solely of Mark Jamar, Paul Johnson and Jake Spencer with Stef Martin rucking. Ironically Jamar ended up kicking 5 straight. http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/games/2009/031120090822.html

Well you'll note the charges reported ... Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-charges-revealed-20130107-2ccw7.html#ixzz2HQGcX2wP Only Bailey is alleged to be charged under that rule.

We were ahead of the curve anticipating that the AFL is going to restrict rotations - we wanted to be the first and best prepared.

I didn't say that - 99.9% of posters here, including me, were in favour of this strategy - I'll only be sorry if we get caught.