Whispering_Jack

The problem with this scenario is that while I consider the leaking of information from the inquiry by the AFL to the media to be outrageous behaviour, I'm of the view that its not, of itself, unlawful or prejudcial to Melbourne's position. It might be different if the AFL or the investigator is leaking information which they know is false and /or is being used to entrap one of the parties but I'm not an expert on such fine points. However, the AFL (and the club) needs protracted legal proceedings like a hole in the head so the likelihood is that, if the inquiry recommends an adverse finding, the parties will sit down and arrive at some form of mediated settlement.

What's the source for that statement? I thought it was only possible for him to go into the national draft if Port Adelaide delisted him at the second list lodgement. There's no indication they will do that at this stage and, even if they did, he's no sure thing to get to a favoured destination in Melbourne by going into the national draft. On the other hand, the tanking allegations, the ongoing inquiry and the adverse publicity in the media would not be doing any good for our cause.

I've just been told by a source who asked not to be named that Ms. Wilson has read this article. The source claims that when she began to read the piece, her eyes started rolling around uncontrollably and she was visibly joyful at the revelation that the Demons were apparently in deep sh1t for causing an international crisis. It's been alleged that she didn't realise that it was all a leg pull until she reached the part about Jordan Gysberts being captain whereupon witnesses claim under condition of anonymity that she remarked "That can't be right. I'm sure Gysberts is co-captain with somebody. Is it Cale Morton?"

OK people, let's not stoop down to her level. Please keep it clean and above the belt.

This is an opinion piece from Wilson and she's entitled to have opinions although many might ask, given that she holds these particular opinions, whether she is capable of reporting the facts on the issue of the Melbourne Football Club objectively. Personally, I don't think she is but I won't hold my breath waiting for the newspaper's editor to do what's morally right and take her off this case. On the other hand, I think it would be not only helpful, but fair if the Age gave space for someone to provide an opinion piece giving the opposite viewpoint. Finally, while I give credit to her for her work from time to time as a journalist, she needs to brush up on her skills when writing op eds.

OK, in light of Don McLardy's statement, the Demonland legal team has announced it's time to party. The best joke wins dinner at my favourite fish and chippery. Second best joke wins dinner for two at my favourite fish and chippery. The catch is that the second diner will be a hungry Phil Scully.

Excellent statement from Don McLardy and the Melbourne Football Club making it clear we're not going to be tried by the media. It would be appropriate for all of our posters to read it and appreciate what it means. As a lawyer, I give 10 out of 10 to the legal team that helped put it together.

Sorry folks but I need to consult with the other mods about this thread. We're not allowed to tell jokes around here because they could be used in evidence against us.

You don't understand that we're living in the old Soviet Union and we're not allowed to make jokes any more. If we do, the Age will reproduce them as being criminal libels against the people and the system and the KGB will come and take you away. Don't believe it? These things actually happened during my lifetime.

One of the things that I enjoy about being at Melbourne functions is Chris Connolly's wry sense of humour. It doesn't come as a surprise to me therefore that he would have made the following comment after Melbourne beat Port Adelaide at the MCG in 2009: Even Blind Freddie would know, given the ongoing discussion at the time about whether or not the club should tank experiment that this was a joke and nothing more: that his tongue was planted firmly in cheek when he commented about the cavalry and sacking people. Let's get real please! But Caroline Wilson in today's Age takes it seriously enough to dedicate an entire article on his comments - Jobs on line: Dees warned I think it's really sad when people have no sense of humour. Hilarious when they use it to push someone else's agenda. Meanwhile, the so called exposé in the little paper today confirms again that the club did not tell its players to tank. Instead, Dean Bailey informed them that the club would be experimenting with positions etc. for the remainder of a lost year. Former Melbourne coach Dean Bailey told players to accept new 'strategy' Of course, we all know exactly what was going on but at least Melbourne won three games after the change in strategy was applied. That's unlike Carlton in 2007 which lost its last eleven and Collingwood in 2005 and Melbourne in 2003 (when Paul Gardner was on the board and about to become chairman and we know how he wouldn't tolerate any thought of tanking). I don't believe that Dean Bailey was a great coach, I don't think the club treated his dismissal well and I don't believe his comments immediately after were appropriate but it's becoming exceedingly clear that Dean treated the awkward situation which both he and the club were in at the time in exemplary fashion. He was straight with the players as they were with him. From all this, it's also clear that although winning games was taking a back seat to the future of the club, there was no attempt to induce or coerce the players into going out to lose games which is how the AFL has time and time again gone out of its way to describe as the criteria for tanking. If the AFL is going to retrospectively change the definition of tanking and move the goalposts it would be doing itself and the game a disservice. The way to put an end to the unseemly witch hunt now going on against one club and some of its officials when at least half of the AFL's clubs have practiced the same strategies is to accept that the system it then had in place was flawed, it has now been changed to minimise tanking and to move on. The flaw was that the AFL offered an incentive for tanking and idly sat by for more than a decade as club after club took advantage of that flawed system. It even gave the nod to Carlton's monumental effort in performing the "grand slam of tanking" in 2007 that culminated in the infamous Kreuzer Cup game. Now, we've reached the stage where people are actually interpreting a clever joke as evidence of wrongdoing. And of course, its becoming patently clear that the media is being fed many of these scraps by former insiders with axes to grind who want to bring down certain individuals within one club because they bear a grudge against them. It's getting really filthy and abhorrent. The AFL needs to act responsibly to end this farce.

Also blames Cam Schwab for everything.

Up here on the Gold Coast and was forced to do some shopping by she who must be obeyed. Bananas are $2.48 per kg.

Any chance that Jack Watts looks like a man mountain and is he training the house down?

I suspect that's the outcome that one would expect after setting McLean up with Sheahan, Healy & co on On The Couch.

If he's true to his word, I'm ready to help out by providing him with the details of a discussion I had with a then Carlton board member in 2007 about three weeks before the Kreuzer Cup game. I have to add however, that although what was revealed to me indicated very clearly that Carlton was doing everything which Melbourne has been accused of in the current witch hunt against the club, it was not suggested that the Blues were sending their players out to lose either. Nevertheless, for the sake of consistency and the integrity of the competition, I welcome an AFL investigation into whether, at various times in the past 15 years, the following clubs have tanked for draft position advantage - Carlton (on multiple occasions), Fremantle, Western Bulldogs, Hawthorn, Richmond, West Coast and the Giants this year.

I woke up yesterday morning and read this tweet from the Melbourne Age Now that's a bold statement and quite definitive but the problem is that on reading the five articles on the subject, I found speculation, innuendo, several flawed examples of logic (or rather lack thereof) and the obligatory failure to check facts but absolutely no "detail". No detail whatsoever to confirm the allegation in this sordid little tweet but I did discover that it now is a crime for one club to hold meetings and discuss matters affecting the club. The ubiquitous blind Freddie would tell you that the tanking debate was a live issue at the club in 2009. We were reminded of it on a weekly basis and most supporters hated knowing that we were better off losing than winning. Fortunately, the players (as poor as they were) look like being our salvation. They didn't need counsel from blind Freddie to know where our priorities lay but they have confirmed that there was no edict from on high to them to throw matches. That they apparently banded together at ¾ time with a determination to win the game (which they nearly did) should seal it. There was no tanking as consistently defined by the AFL over the past decade.

49ers still travelling well. Do any of the teams in the NFL ever tank?

Not to mention the fact that we can expect the spelling and grammar in the reports to be atrocious as a result.

Don't forget maldonboy38. He's usually spot on with his training reports too!

I've been flat chat at work preparing for a week's break so I've been out of the loop for the last day or two but would like to thank those who reported, well mainly Demon Destruction. Looking forward to Thursday and reports on the open training session by which time I'll probably be sitting on some beach and reading the reports. Much more interesting than some of the old stuff coming out of the Age.

Caroline Wilson is a journalist whose sources are usually impeccable and, unlike many others in her trade, she is unlikely to rush into print without having a good handle on her story. That would raise some concerns for Melbourne but it still leaves the question open of what is required to make the activity in question in breach of AFL rules. This is particularly so in view of the past pronouncements by people like Demetriou and other investigations that have been carried out by the league. The other thing is the question of what weight do you put on the evidence of coaches and players, some of who are now former employees who might not have left the club in happy circumstances? Were their actions sanctioned by clear instructions from club officials or were they acting off their own bats in the belief that they were seeking the best outcome? I note while the article says "league investigators re-interviewed several players and coaches", it does not indicate whether club officials or administrators have been interviewed. Whichever way this plays out, I suspect that heads will roll including possibly some high up and some of the witnesses themselves might also be in a spot of bother. If any of the coaches have admitted to involvement in tanking, I think they can kiss goodbye to their careers. One also can't dismiss the possibility of this playing itself out in a court of law if Melbourne finds itself punished hard for something that might have happened 3½ years ago. What I do find unsavoury about this is the possibility that Wilson's information was leaked by the investigators themselves which, while not unusual where sporting bodies are concerned, would be outrageous in these circumstances. Moreover, Wilson's work is unusually sloppy for her. Apart from the gaffe about the wrong year in which alleged conversations took place, her version of Brock McLean's comments on Fox Footy's On the Couch that "tanking" prompted him to leave the club is not quite right. McLean, did insist that "tanking" wasn't the right word and he preferred to call it "experimenting". A number of people (including AFL officials) have gone on record as endorsing experimentation when applied for the long term good of a club. Finally, you don't have to be "Blind Freddie" to work out that Wilson has been consistently pushing an agenda against the current club administration for some time now. This sort of thing is not only prevalent in journalism but it seems it's now also acceptable.

Sorry Rollo. Distracted by having to do some work on a VCAT matter. You know what it's like. And the winner is ... Leeroy, just ahead of Cords1. Problem is we don't have a prize so what we need is a belated sponsor.

Already adding to the culture at Tigerland - Intoxicated Tiger fined

It's refreshing to read an article that gives some insights into what Mark Neeld and the football department are seeking to achieve at the club instead of the agenda driven blather of low class journos who have an axe to grind with the club or are seeking cheap publicity by their poor attempts to be sensational. They could learn a thing or two from this bloke.

They are very light on for ruckmen and I'm surprised they didn't go after Stef Martin when we were negotiating with them for Dawes. If the aging Jolly goes down, they're really cactus.