pitmaster

He is a grubby Port Adelaide supporting hack who has no relevance east of Murray Bridge. Fugedaboutit.

Seven News last night suggested Bailey was holding out against an 'agreed outcome' - which suggests there might be a day or three to go. Sounds like they are shaping for negotiated penalties - although it's hard to see how a career coach could accept anything but 'no case to answer' or 'impossible to prove'. I'd like the latter for us and for the AFL to shut down tanking once and for all by introducing a ballot for the bottom four clubs and then for the middle six. Without a ballot there is still an advantage for lower clubs to lose in, say, the last month of the season. If there's a Cotchin in the draft and not much else then clearly the 'Spoon comes with an advantage for the theoretical possibility of tanking remains. So let's have a strong statement that while suspicions were raised the MFC was able to explain its experimentation by means of player development in the context of a punishing injury list (20-strong - or should that be weak) after round 18, 2009.

Must disagree with those who say most fans want us punished. Those I talk to say we did nothing others have not done, and that any club in our spot would have done the same. They also suggest the AFL is at fault for creating the system. Meanwhile Jay Clark tweets that CC had a long day at AFL HQ yesterday. First movement of any sort for almost two weeks. Who knows what it means but Clark says it would be a shame to see CC scapegoated.

Yet another inside tip that amounts to nothing.

It's based on Morgan polls which are supposed to identify thje national number of supporters for each team - the same flawed poll that each year says Sydney has the most supporters because everyone in Sydney, pushed for an answer goes with the swans even if they don't give a rats'.

I was relieved we didn't - always found that a bit contrived, especially after the years we have had.

They've already got us there in their home game. In fact the only two decent home games we have from a crowd perspective are Pies and Hawks.

Yeah right. I did say last night we had only a few hours to see how honest and principled she really is. Well we have our answer. A clear lack of bottle, insight, and vitriol. That must be what happens when someone who has not previously [censored] you off does wrong.

We are only hours away from learning how selective Caroline Wilson is in expressing high principle...or is that confected outrage? If she has not mounted her high horse by tomorrow morning I think we can write her off entirely.

Five months to research it; less than four days to consider the response?

Actually...the Kreuzer Cup was Brocky's top possession game for the year. You'd think he'd have noticed something.

Self serving, self promoting [censored]. Walked out on us when we could have used him and wasted his career in Sydney. Has a grievance about us he just can't shake. And unlike poor, dim and nasty Dwayne Russell he doesn't have the defence of being a Port Adelaide bogan boofhead to fall back on. I reckon Gerard must have taken a surfboard to the back of the head one time.

Yeah well, I feel for the guy a bit. He's had to file something because it's deadline day but there's nothing new to say. That's really the good news. It still comes down to the ridiculous 'vault meeting', (thanks for that amateurish misrepresentation CW), a game in which Melbourne finished in front at the final siren, and whether Cameron Schwab looked happy enough after we thumped Port Adelaide fcs. I want to know if he was crook in the guts. Was the fish off at the president's lunch that day? Unless there is something the investigators have not leaked - and that seems unlikely - then this should be able to be blown out of the water.

Exactly. I agree Jones ought to be in the top 35% and how our rucks rate 16th out of 18 with a recent All Australian in there seems a bit harsh. Can't argue with much else on "exposed form".

For mine, a big part of what landed us in trouble was the increased sensitivity to the issue by the time we were open to it. After the Kreuzer Cup it was going to be noticed. Add to that West Coast's big rebound after dropping back for one year and people were looking for it.

Spot on. On second thoughts I was not p...ed off enough when I first read this online. Reading it again, it is absolutely outrageous. This bloke, and one or two others have become laws unto themselves and it's left to us to do the "fact checking" such as when the Sun claimed Sylvia being dropped, when he was really suspended, was evidence of tanking. Maybe Pierik should just go back to the Sun where he started.

Many on this site who are grammatically challenged and incapable of writing coherently like to bag journos to an excessive degree...but this latest article really does warrant condemnation. An absolute crock.

He needs the structure we gave him (or that any AFL club would). The turps was a big factor in him getting into strife in Alice, too. Without the conflict in his community he could have been anything. Sad waste.

And I am still waiting for an answer to my direct question on the matter - when have we had a board and president who were better? I'm not saying it's not possible. I just want to see what his standard is - so far no response...

OK. So who have we had who was better?

Including season ending injuries to Green, Wona, Garland, Blease, Bell and several others who, if they had been picked would have been evidence of tanking (Maric and Meesen for example).

Big improver this year? Seen a bit at training, so my pick is Luke Tapscott. Hope to see him as a big impact player.

As Jay Clark and Jon Pierik wrestle for ownership of the tanking scandal story, Pierik has done us a favour this morning. His piece in the Sunday Age says that investigative geniuses Clothier and Haddad "have questioned why he (Jack Watts) was not given more time in the seniors in a year the Demons would win only four matches". How bizarre when everyone who was paying attention at the time saw Watts' debut on Queens Birthday as partly a stunt to draw a bigger crowd. Remember, that was the time Demetriou warned that the QB fixture was not guaranteed for Melbourne and if it could not pull 60,000 some other more deserving club might get the game. So, Watts makes his first appearance, and 60,000-plus people see he is clearly not ready and he gets rag-dolled. He plays two more games because to drop him after the QB day would be admitting something about his selection, and heads for the gym. But Clothear and Hadit reckon something's amiss. What this tells me is they are questioning EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED AT SELECTION AND GAME DAY that year. The fact their report is 800 pages is not evidence of, err, evidence. It's a reflection of the fact that they are asking some very dumb, easily answered questions. The other point of interest from Pierik today is that it becomes increasingly clear that follow up interviews were accompanied by threats along the lines "tell us what we want to hear or you'll be done". In Pierik's words C&H made it clear 'during the interview process what the ramifications would be for those who did not cooperate'. Tainted evidence indeed. Legally useless. Pierik says: 'the afl's handling of the five month investigation has also been questioned by lawyers who feel there was not enough scrutiny on H&C by senior afl figures. The conduct of the investigation and the line of questioning is expected to be brought up at the hearing." OK, so maybe we can shoot this thing down, but it's time those at the club who are fuelling this media frenzy STFU. The drip feed of implausible, ignorant and sometimes unwarranted allegations is only hurting us and setting the public up for the expectation we take a fall.

Fine piece of work. Pity it's buried in the second half of the sports section. Meanwhile the Hun bays for blood and reinterprets every element of selection for round 18 2009 through its selective and flawed 'tanking filter'. The AFL started the leaking on this investigation but we seem to be keeping it going and the constant drip will erode us.

If you've been paying attention there's not a lot here that's new apart from the two potential charges against Connolly-Schwab (game into disrepute/draft tampering) and three possible charges against Bailey including not coaching to his ability. rpfc's point is right. For me the most interesting thing is that Pierik picks up Caro's line about the meeting being called 'The Vault' which we all know is wrong. Why persist with it when Caro herself has corrected the error? Because this is the gospel according to Haddad. Until we know more detail such as Schwab's purported comments to some coaches this does not take it much further, but it confirms there's a lot of hot air in the case. Also of note is that McLean has retracted. Which legally at least makes his OTC comments next to worthless.