Redleg

To be honest I think I am sick to death of AGM's. I learn nothing.

They are certainly concerned as it is a serious matter.

No food at all. Spoke to a Director and CC and CS after the meeting and then left.

I don't follow.

Can't say that I have.

Maybe suppositories would be better.

I'll go just to hear Howcroft's comedy lines in the Financial Report.

Don't forget the threatening and intimidating gathering of information. Hope they also talk to ex-sponsors and supporters in pubs. BTW Sandy has denied he is leaving 7 and says he has not received any offer from Fox Footy.

What some might see as meddling others would call doing their job. If Craig and Misson turned him down, they would be acting well and would seem as far as that issue goes and judged solely on that, good appointments.

Hey Buddy give me a clue.

Any Footy news lately?

Interesting sideline for those complaining about CS meddling in footy matters. In todays press on the Bombers, the media and the AFL, have stated that the CEO should have intimate knowledge of the whole footy area of the club and know pretty much exactly what is going on. Seems maybe CS was only trying to do his job. I note we knocked back "the Pharmacist" for a job last year after he left the Bombers. Seems our admin got that right too. C'mon CS haters, you too Caro, lets bash CS again.

You are not Robinson Crusoe, I am just as sick of it. Can't we talk about drugs for a change?

The statements might not be worth a pinch of sh-t if received in an illegal manner. I would have thought evidence would be led in front of the tribunal and submissions made and then a decision given which could then be appealed to a Court by either side if unhappy. Witnesses might say statements were obtained by threats and intimidation for example or might say that the person recording them did so incorrectly or left parts out. I would think a Tribunal would act on evidence on oath or affirmation given before it and tested, rather than statements that may be completely wrong. .

My question as well and it would have to be a body that can administer the rules of Natural Justice, so may be some form of tribunal that the AFL has already or can constitute to hear the matter.

If people and/or the club are charged, then there must be a hearing, if they want to contest the charges. Maybe the AFL wants us to defend ourselves and if we beat the charges, all is sweet. Then there would be no need for Court intervention.

Major club, President son of former AFL Commission Chairman, poster boy Coach, yes this will be interesting. IF they were prohibited substances and Bomber players used them, unlike Wade Lees who never actually used anything but got 18 months, one would expect a harsher penalty, for each player who used the substances. You can bet London to a brick that Bomber players won't be suspended, nor will Caroline Wilson call for the Chairman, CEO or Coach's sacking. The rich club will be fined, which won't mean a thing to it and some Official or Officials will cop a penalty. BTW a disgruntled ex-player in Reimers has added salt to the wound, in an interview with Damien Barrett. Possibly more ex players or officials to follow. Where have we seen that happen before?

Wilson has called for CS to be sacked. He was seen walking past a Bombers membership tent last year.

Amen again.

Amen.

Not quite Maurie, its actually more like 5 identical crimes are committed but the Police choose to investigate only one. Do you think that would go down well with the Public? It's not about others not getting caught it's about selective investigating. If the AFL was serious why wasn't there a general inquiry into tanking by the AFL clubs, no one could have argued unfairness in that scenario.

Bailey said last year at his farewell press conference: "I had no hesitation at all in the first two years (2008-09) in ensuring the club was well-placed for draft picks. "I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club and I did it. I put players in different positions," Bailey said. An AFL investigation which followed Bailey's bombshell found the Demons had no case to answer over tanking allegations. I was wrong as above is from an AFL article on the subject. he actually said both things. Last line is still interesting. There was an AFL investigation which cleared us and yet given Brock's comments were far less inflammatory than Bailey's, yet another investigation was started. The question then becomes, Why?

"this is different to DB stating at his final press conference in direct response to a question about tanking that he had "no hesitation in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks..." Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Bailey ever used the words "draft picks" , I recall him saying he "did the right thing by the club"

Clearly ghost written, as there was no reference to CS needing to be sacked.

Gee, at the top of the Board is an ad that states 5 foods never to be eaten, if you want to stay trim, number 1, the banana. Mercy no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!