heartbeatstrue

This is plausible. We may eventually discover the evidence in support of this theory, in the form of the disgruntled ex-employee(s) who she has so far not named. Perhaps they'll be named in the AFL brief, because you would imagine they would be some of the primary witnesses. Unless the AFL refers to him/them as 'person X' (a la Mossad). There is little doubt that Adrian Anderson was involved with some leaking in the opposite direction, because the flow to Wilson from the AFL has stopped since he's gone. But like you say, if she was the source of the original allegations then she didn't need leaks for that info at least. I'm hoping that Garry raises the hypocrisy of her boots-and-all tactics against the Dees, while Richmond (glass houses) has the Terry Wallace admission that is equally damning. I'm sure Grant Thomas wouldn't have been afraid to [censored] her arrogant bubble.

Her contacts in the AFL dried up when Adrian Anderson left. As for Wilson, Russell & Denham, who cares. I'll just get more pleasure every time Richmond fail. And to cheer things up, here's Eddie's take on it (& he's probably more influential than those others): Collingwood president Eddie McGuire this week urged the AFL to accept some blame for the controversy over tanking. "Why did you ignore everyone that has got a scintilla of knowledge of football and has been telling you for years that priority picks (provided an incentive to tank)?" McGuire asked on Triple M. He said the AFL should go easy on Melbourne, considering the incentives to finish last. "I'd have loved the AFL to come out and say 'no one won out of this, it's a nil-all draw'," McGuire said. "Just leave it behind."

Yeah, Caroline does. She answered this (definitively and officially) on the Footy Show, and the answer through her gritted lips to Garry was... (wait for it)... tomorrow (i.e. last Friday). Wrong again? Nope, it was the AFL just dragging their feet, not a mistake by the all-knowing astonishing Infallible Woman. So! she simply made it up, fantasised over what she hopes is the best outcome for her, and wrote the two fanciful and incredibly nasty articles in Saturday's Age. By contrast, the Herald-Sun is quite objective and honest: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/melbourne-legal-eagles-ready-for-demons-tanking-fight/story-e6frf9jf-1226579464610

Thanks W_J, you said what I wasn't sure I would get away with But I did read Garry Lyon into those closing sentences, wonder how he enjoyed her "opinions"?

Perfect reasoning!! Wilson finished her article: whatever the final resolution to be announced in the coming days, nothing will alter the fact that the football world knows now what Melbourne did that year and that everyone involved in some position of off-field influence in 2009 knew what was happening. Even if they have now convinced themselves they didn't. And nothing will alter the fact that Caroline "unofficial" Wilson has forever tarnished her reputation as a legitimate journalist over her frenzy to destroy MFC. Do you see Garry Lyon in her sights in those closing sentences??

Excellent! You want to fax that through to Gillon McLachlan before Monday, Redleg?!

Just like Terry Wallace... Rnd 22, 2007 (he's even on record as admitting it)

This is surely blatant twisting of truth by Wilson & The Age? She states: On Wednesday we reported that Melbourne had run its unofficial defence upon five lines. We also stated that there seemed to be no doubt in anyone's mind any more that the club worked to lose games of football in 2009. These two issues provoked an angry response from chairman Don McLardy on the Demons' website, although McLardy did not address either of the above. And McLardy said: Wilson also lists 5 points that she says forms part of MFC’s “unofficial defence”, and concludes these “stated excuses” are “flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish”. In fact not one of these points has been raised in the submission made by the MFC to the AFL, and in any hearing before the AFL Commission none will form part of our defence. So the key points of Wilson’s opinion piece are just plain wrong Is that not McLardy addressing the "above" (that MFC had run its "unofficial" defence upon 5 points of Ms Wilson), and pointing out to her that she is just plain wrong?

Agree all others must now be equally investigated by the same standards. One big difference is that Wilson who led the media charge against the Dees is a "rabid" Richmond supporter. And so in her "opinion" pages in The Age, she has totally hidden the following info: Wallace Tanked for Top Pick Terry Wallace admits not trying in AFL game to secure Trent CotchinRead more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/terry-wallace-admits-not-trying-in-afl-game-to-secure-trent-cotchin/story-e6frf3e3-1225752963181#ixzz2L0voIJQj Former Richmond coach Terry Wallace has confirmed he did "absolutely nothing" in a game two years ago, knowing a win would cost the club prized recruit Trent Cotchin. As the AFL continues to deny tanking exists, Wallace told the Herald Sun he was compromised as the Tigers took on St Kilda in Round 22, 2007. "It was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach's box," Wallace said. "We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out. "I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes." Richmond led by nine points 12 minutes into the final term, but the Saints kicked the last three goals to win by 10 points. In any case, The Age sports editors are in heaps of trouble with their own abysmally poor ethics: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football/media-bosses-critical-of-papers-miscalculation/story-fn63e0vj-1226579191175

Nice critique. You a body language psychoanalyst or something? I seem to remember reading in an early article of hers the allegation that Melb players "fumbled" in several games including the last minutes of the Richmond one and a Sydney game. Maybe someone can find her fumble article and Gary will have the evidence to stick under her nose (IF she has the courage to front next week). It's barely believable that for all her determination to find MFC guilty of the very thing Richmond have admitted (wished Garry had raised that), that she has totally missed the allegations of fumbling. It sounded very much like a bare prune-faced lie to me (which fits the psychoanalysis.. thx). My assessment was of supercilious hypocrisy (she had the gall to dismiss us all as "rabid supporters").

You may however be right, I hope so... I will check tomorrow. (it might also have something to do with whether MFC is a "public body"... getting too late for this!)

It's tricky but I believe where once MFC would have been an unincorporated association, now it's an incorporated company and hence does not qualify as a "not for profit" organisation. Are there any examples of a footy club suing for defamation? It was certainly possible under the old Vic defamation laws (i.e. common law) which is now superceded.

I've said it several times, under Australia's new uniform defamation law, corporations like MFC cannot sue for defamation, only individuals within the club. DB possibly could over her suggestion about him "not coaching to his utmost", and statements like "Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009. Bailey knew it," could be looked at. At first glance, they appear defamatory of Bailey. If she ever actually called McLardy a liar, he could. The good thing is, she's wild as a cornered snake.

Memo: Herald-Sun Stick this up The Age big time! Yay!!!

Here's the current situation in Australia under the "uniform defamation law": under the Uniform Defamation Law, corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue. However, be warned that individuals or groups of individuals employed by or associated with that corporation - such as company directors, CEOs or managers - can still sue if they are identified by the publication. Not-for-profit organisations can still sue for defamation, no matter how many employees or members they have. It is probably possible for MFC lawyers to obtain an injunction, if the article could influence future legal actions. But it's unlikely any judge would be swayed by CW's puny lines of argument.

Very good post. Of course we "tanked". By which I mean "we" as in many supporters and undoubtedly many at the club, did not want to win more than the prescribed 4 as we got near season's end. But not the players which is a fact that annoys C. Wilson so very much. I watched all those games and it's fair to say, in every game every player was trying his hardest to win. Even despite the occasional fumble, which annoyingly persisted all through the DB years (it was that type of game plan). We all hated the AFL system (rules) which would penalise us severely for winning more than 4. It was so conflicting, I went and watched, wanting the team to win on the day, but not wanting them to win for the future. The system was their doing, they contrived a system which strongly discouraged a bottom, fumbling side from winning more than the prescribed 4. They did that, and we hated it. What about the coach? IF (and it's still an "if", despite C. Wilson the hanging judge) he coached with an eye on next season, many before him have done just that (including Terry Wallace by his own admission at Wilson's beloved Richmond, and Sheeds also, who went on to win a flag with what he developed). Neither Wallace nor Sheeds coached (or selected) to the best of their abilities to win each game, but looked ahead in hope of a better future. But unfortunately mud sticks. This is the reputation of MFC that Wilson is trying to drag down. Pity a club can't sue for defamation. Nevertheless, perhaps MFC lawyers should be considering an injunction against The Age for articles like this.

There's no rule about "tanking". The AFL created the situation where bottom, fumbling sides like ours got penalised for winning more than 4 games. The rule-makers contrived the situation and they will find in court that that's a very hard fact to get over, if they want to charge any bottom footy club of not wanting to win more than the prescribed 4 games.

Even the word "excuses" is loaded with nasty bias: Perhaps in legal terms they are correct even though their stated excuses are so so flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish. excuse: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense. This is a legal defence of a (quasi-)legal investigation. MFC presents "evidence", not excuses. MFC hasn't admitted to any fault or offence, that we have to find excuses for. We have evidence that is of legal weight, to the effect that we have not broken any AFL rule. This is the crux of any proper investigation, and certainly of any ensuing legal case before a court. It's all just compelling evidence of some very biased and nasty personal opinions that are in fact, worth squat.

Nasty anti-Melbourne Football Club bias. Her own team is self-confessed of the same "crime". THE AGE BETTER THINK QUICKLY IF IT'S PREPARED TO ALIENATE TOTALLY ALL MELBOURNE SUPPORTERS FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

It smacks of an attempt to twist the AFL's arm to bring charges, in the hope that they might need some encouragement from the mighty press (and Wilson's bloated idea of her ability to influence public thinking). At the very least, she's getting in first and pronouncing from out of her nasty biased thinking, that MFC is GUILTY. She displays no awareness of legal process, nor of the "bias rule" in natural justice as applied to a properly conducted investigation.

And in Wilson's biased mind, what was Richmond's lame-duck excuse for doing similar (as even admitted by TW)??? Nothing new in there, simply more nasty and biased opinions from The Age which seems to be hoping to twist the AFL's arm and have MFC charged. Vindicating all Wilson's anti-Melb vitriol. Charges of draft tampering and - for Bailey - not coaching to his utmost have also been looked at. Cheap shot. I wish someone would "look at" charging her with tampering with due legal processes and natural justice. She certainly displays no awareness of legal processes or of the 'rule against bias' in natural justice.

It's been an eternity, mate. But today it felt like footy's back, as I started filling in my DreamTeam and realising all the Melb talent we've got to choose from. Jack Viney's a must-have in your DT. Can't wait...

Think it was against Dipper in the GF wasn't it, with everyone watching. Dunno what supplements those Hawks were on but they were twice the bulk of Swooper's skilful Melb side. There are some wonderful hangers of Stretch while roaming the wings, on YouTube. Nice accurate kick too. One of my favourites.

Me fourth. Oh, happy day!

And I've always firmly believed that absolutely nothing could make me renounce my love and support for MFC to my dying day. But,... I can see it now, if I'm fortunate to get picked for that jury and asked the question. I will look the judge in the eye and with all the plausibility I can muster, mutter something like "Tige's, your honour!"