Redleg

What the media might have got this wrong, impossible.

I don't necessarily disagree on a failure of governance. I just want to know the true facts, not just the media version, which I clearly don't accept on every issue, before I judge people. Call it a handicap of my job.

Bob what you say as usual is sensible. What if you were a Board member, would you have suggested as a protocol, to oversee a Doctor, in handling the medical side of the club. Also how far do you think a non day to day Board can go in micromanaging a football club? Lastly how would you act when setting up your protocols, to not disenfranchise the staff member you were checking on?

Well I have unwedged my jockeys and I am smiling. Let me make my position on our club clear. I too am very upset and angry at our current position and by that I mean every aspect. I am not blind to the mistakes we have made in recruiting, appointing, sacking, discussing tanking, etc, etc, etc, That we are where we are hurts me more than I can express, after a lifetime of support. As you possibly know I have been on the other side of the fence too as a Director, Team Manager and even Recruiter of the club. What really worries me is that if this Board gets up and leaves who are the clever, talented, generous, experienced people lined up to take over. We had not one nomination at the last AGM in February. Yes we can say this Board has made many mistakes but they are not Robinson Crusoe. I only know one or two of them personally so I am certainly no lackey. They have given of their time, energy and to their credit large amounts of money,all to help the club. I just don't see their replacements readily available. I think the constant damning of the Board just puts others off from replacing them. Which successful businessman/woman wants to set themselves up for a scorching from the media and the members. Lastly, I don't accept what I read and see in the media as fact. Most times it turns out to be the opposite. Too many opinions on here are solely based on what is written and televised.

I suppose I should be honoured to be added to the list of people that you have abused and denigrated, simply because they offer a view different to your own. That you resort to personal abuse, tells everyone on here a lot about you. I have been on Demonland since it started and I am disappointed that it has now become a place for people to just abuse anyone who has a different view or opinion. There are those on here who appear to have the god given right to always be right and then they just abuse or ridicule those that disagree. I am not the first to say this to you and you know it. I don't abuse other posters but maybe according to you that makes me dumb. I am sorry that I see things that are alleged in the media somewhat differently to you, who is obviously privy to all of the facts on every matter.

1. It doesn't matter what I believe, that is what the club has said. I don't know any different and therefore that appears to be the position. 2. I might have a concern, but I also understand that if an employee has conversations with people, the Board will not know of them unless a third party informs them, or they ask directly, which they did and apparently were misled, or bug the person's home, phone, office etc.or have them followed 24/7 by Detectives. 3. If it comes to light that the Board learned of Dank's involvement, but acted as soon as they learned of Dank's issues, how would that be a failure of Governance? In this case Bate stopped speaking to him when Dank's issues came to light, he misled the Board when asked if Dank was involved over 3 interviews and when the Board discovered the lie to them Bate is gone, how is this a failure of Governance? Lastly it appears that Bate other than speaking to Dank did what Doctors are supposed to do and no illegal drugs are involved. The club told the AFL what they knew at the time. How is that a lie or a failure of Governance? PS. It will never happen but once again Demetriou has slandered the club and may owe us an apology that we will never get.

The recently departed CEO. Also by the way, the previous Doctors resigned, one of them who had been with us for at least 20 years, the same period many on here bitched about us being the club with the most injuries.

No I am not suggesting it's acceptable for a Doctor to take medical advice from outsiders and administer supplements unless he first checks them out, is sure they are legal and safe and then supervises their administration. This according to all reports including the ABC this morning is what Bate did. Why is it not possible for a Doctor to discuss supplements with other people who have a professional knowledge of these supplements. It is not the discussion that would be the problem, it would be the abrogating of the Doctor's responsibility that would be a problem but that didn't happen. Why would the Coach , Misson or Craig have to know of every such conversation Bate had? He can talk to who he likes as long as he is in control and is responsible for what happens. Nothing illegal was used, why then do others need to know? There is no evidence of anyone else knowing of these conversations. And soon as the Board found out Bate has been stood down. Maybe the Board should bug all employees phones, homes, offices and hire Detectives to follow them 24/7.

They may be happy to do just that Old Dee, who do you suggest they give it to, no one else bothered to stand in February at the AGM. I don't see a huge line of talented people volunteering to have their reputations scorched.

Think about what you said leaving aside the emotion. Bate was apparently speaking to Dank and getting some suggestions on supplements. Bate then did his own checking on these and supervised all medical procedures and nothing illegal was used. As Wilson says Dank was not a club employee. How then would the Board know of these discussions other than for them to ask Bate directly which they did. They received an answer that appears to have been untruthful. They believed the club Doctor. They then answered the AFL specific question, not knowing anything more. Now they have found out and the Doctor is stood down. Explain to me how that is a Company letting its employees do what they want without being accountable. Also I think it is offensive that you called Stuie an idiot when your hysteria has got the better of you. Calm down and think about it for a moment. Yes the buck stops at the top but that doesn't mean that a President will know who every employee is talking to all of the time. That is just too ridiculous for words. What more would you have had this volunteer President do? No wonder people don't want public office. I know you are hurting, I am too, we all are, but that doesn't mean we have to act like a pack of vultures.

Couldn't agree more Stuie. Satyriconhome and I have been trying to stop a hanging all day. One poster even called me a "lawyer using weasely words" because I advocated waiting until all the facts were known.

i just gave up this afternoon. People on here calling people liars without knowing the facts. Now it appears the Board did not know of any Dank involvement, even though they asked the question of their employees. I wonder if those same people on here who called them liars will now apologize. You can bet they won't.

I couldn't say if it was misleading at all because I don' t know the full facts. It answered the question asked, that is all that needs to be said.

When you say "come off it" that is prefaced of course on the notion that you don't need accuracy to condemn someone. You say I use " lawyers weasel words " and that of itself is inaccurate. Yes I am a lawyer of some 36 years and whether you believe it or not, my job to a large degree revolves around discovering who is telling the truth. A lie simply is defined as not telling the truth. It is therefore important when you accuse someone of lying that you know the question asked and the answer given. In this particular instance we don't even know who was asked the question or who answered it and yet many on here are happy to say that unknown party is a liar. Do we even know if the person who answered the question even knew that the Doctor had spoken to Dank? In my view if you are asked a specific question and you answer it truthfully, you should not be called a liar just because you don't volunteer information, that was not part of the specific question and of which you may have no knowledge anyway. In summary many on here are prepared to say someone lied without knowing all of the facts.

Demetriou refused to disclose which Melbourne officials the AFL had asked about any involvement with Dank. "We asked the specific question that the media had asked: 'Was Stephen Dank approached or did Stephen Dank approach Melbourne or was there discussion around employment at the Melbourne Football Club? "We got the same answer the public got. This is from the 3AW interview this morning with AD. From the horse's mouth. A specific question was asked and answered. We told the AFL that Dank approached the MFC and he wanted employment and was not given employment. Where is the LIE? It is reasonable to assume if a body wants more answers they will ask more questions. I can think of a pretty simple one " did Dank have any involvement whatsoever with the MFC or its players or officials?"

Demetriou refused to disclose which Melbourne officials the AFL had asked about any involvement with Dank. "We asked the specific question that the media had asked: 'Was Stephen Dank approached or did Stephen Dank approach Melbourne or was there discussion around employment at the Melbourne Football Club? "We got the same answer the public got. This is from the 3AW interview this morning with AD. From the horse's mouth. A specific question was asked and answered. We told the AFL that Dank approached the MFC and he wanted employment and was not given employment. Where is the LIE? It is reasonable to assume if a body wants more answers they will ask more questions. I can think of a pretty simple one " did Dank have any involvement whatsoever with the MFC or its players or officials?"

I offered to be President and nobody called me.

Jackson, the former Essendon chief of 14 years, has insisted he would remain at the club only until the end of the 2013 season and help with the recruitment of a permanent CEO. His appointment was ratified after a meeting this week with club president Don McLardy and his deputies Peter Spargo and Guy Jalland. Melbourne has also officially seconded leading business figure Geoff Freeman onto the board with a view to moving him into the presidency over the coming year. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/jacksons-rescue-mission-20130418-2i31j.html#ixzz2QsY2qs1z Seems like change is coming.

Stop talking sense on here, it won't go down well.

What a shock, a post from you smashing the Board. Anyway I give up. Please could everyone at the MFC just resign and walk out the door. No doubt people from Demonland will then volunteer to run the club, win a premiership in a year or two and make millions of dollars. Oh by the way, not one person nominated for the Board at the AGM a couple of months ago. However, I am sure there are many briliiant potential board members, just dying to volunteer and give money and have their reputations scorched by Demonland and the membership. Come on suckers the line starts at the MFC front door.

You refer to an assertion that Dank had no involvement when I think you mean it was an implication. An assertion is an actual statement and that is not the case. Then you conclude that an SMS to meet someone later, means that they actually met. I hope you are never on a jury judging me.

I give up. Please could everyone at the MFC just resign and walk out the door. No doubt people from Demonland will then volunteer to run the club, win a premiership in a year or two and make millions of dollars. Oh by the way, not one person nominated for the Board at the AGM a couple of months ago. However, I am sure there are many briliiant potential board members. just dying to volunteer and give money and have their reputations scorched by Demonland and the membership. Come on suckers the line starts at the MFC front door.

What untruths?

I'm with you on this. The readiness of some on here to just want to convict and hang the club, without any real knowledge of the facts, just astonishes me too. Those same people want our players to go hard, while they are as soft as butter in their support.

Because it was the correct thing to do. That media conference alerted the football world to a potential problem with a person.