PJ_12345

The offer which the media is speculating is a $500k fine but the club wouldnt be charged, they are saying just DB and CC. So having CC being charged for (what I guess) bringing the game into disrepute, and DB (what I guess) charged for not coaching upon his merits is a BIG DIFFERERNCE to having the club charged with match-fixing, draft-tampering or tanking. In court it would be a civil case, therefore would rest on the balance of probabilities, unlike criminal which is beyond reasonable doubt. Sporting appeals do not have a good history in the Supreme Court, partly because judges can turn around throw it out of court because they dont like it when these type of cases clog up the judicial system. At the end of the day you can either take the negotiated offer where: - We can keep our draft picks - Fined $500k - DB recieves a suspended sentance which would not affect his current employment or role - CC recieves a long holiday - Club not charged OR go to court: - Legal fees costing more than the fine - Another 12 months - Possible better or worse outcome For me the biggest thing is that the club isnt charged and we keep our draft picks... take the deal

I agree, it would be romantic but at the end of the day it was always going to come down to DB and CC. Like with Essendon, down to Hird and Robinson. The MFC managed to get CS out of charges, but with DB the charges are suspended so it wouldnt is current position or employment and Port and as for CC... he will have to go on holiday but needs to watch out for those Zulus. We wouldnt be hanging them out to dry, I dont think I need to mention all the time and effort spent defending these men. BUT the risk is we could either take these charges which the media are bantering around... or run the risk or worse ones in court. I reckon if you ask CC or DB they would suggest to take the deal. Just my opinion.

Fat chance that would ever happen. It took 8 months to investigate us, imagine how long it would take to investigate 6, most of which have been 6 + years in Carltons case, 7 in Freos and almost 10 years for Hawthorn. I would like it however if we could get a statement that the club isnt being charged... just DB and CC - which is what the media is speculating.

The issue with the courts are that they always are a gamble. It depends on the judge. There are always those who might not bother overturning an appeal because they believe that these types of issues should stay out of the already clogged judicial system - and sporting appeals in courts do not have a good precedent. Also the legal costs would still be extremely high, so high that from an oppotunity point of view - might be better to take the fine. I've thought about this long and hard, and always been an advocate of going to court. But I have to admitt, with a confirmed no draft pick penalty, only DB and CC being charged, and with the club only recieving a fine (reportedly $500k) + the prospect it could all be over tomorrow instead of another 12 months in the future - I'm finding this an incredibly tempting offer. Bash me all you want. There are pros and cons about both paths: but I'll support the MFC no matter what choice.

Don't know why your raising this up again. It was published in November 2012, purely speculative and they did raise some fair points: - We are in a crisis - Draft picks would hurt us incredibly - Even if we are low on the ladder we shouldnt expect sympathy/charged less - The issue between charging the the club as a whole and/or individuals In all honesty I like listening to this. I mean at least now we know it is only individuals who are going to be charged, Cameron Schwab wont face charges and MOST IMPORTANTLY we wont loose draft picks.

Well actually she has been when you think about it. WYL is just has a no charge, no fine, no compromise view on this. He doesnt need a reality check because this issue is just becoming polarised: willing to accept charges or not

For better or for worse? I say for better.

I'm not happy if anyone is charged and we receive that size of a fine - 500K is huge considering the profit we made this year. Their defence is weak, and these downgraded punishments are only to save face after such a long and public investigation. And as CW surprisingly puts it: "McLean could provide no clear proof of tanking when confronted by the AFL investigators, he stated on Fox Footy in July last year when asked if the Demons had tanked: "Definitely, and I think you would have to be blind Freddy to not figure that one out." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/no-draft-penalties-likely-for-melbourne-20130215-2eia4.html#ixzz2Kx114n1p

Caro seemed to think we will be charged by tomorrow... I mean it really wouldn't surprise me if the AFL breaks my heart on Valentines day

If we have no case to answer to, or successfully challenge the charges in a court I thought she could be sued for defamation. ‘Defamation’ is the wrong of injuring another's reputation without good reason or justification. And must satisfy 5 elements: 1. It is the communication or publication 2. to a third party 3. of a defamatory matter 4. of and concerning, or identifying, the plaintiff 5. without lawful excuse. She satisfied all of this with "Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009" amongst other quotes. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but in the news dont most reporters assume innocence until proven guilty to avoid defamation such as 'Mr. X is being acused of murdering Mr. Y in 2009', rather than 'Mr X. murdered Mr. Y in 2009' incase they are found innocent? So what I want to know is how is this any different? I know a defence to defamation is the truth, however if we have no case to answer to, or successfully challenge the charges in a court I thought this would satisfy all the elements.

If this happens WYL ill put another round on your tab: - 1 pint of your choice of beer, 1 tequila shot if we are found to have no case to answer too - 1 pint of your choice of beer, 1 tequila shot if Caroline Wilson is sued by a club (extra shot if its Melbourne)

Dear Caroline Wilson...

Yeah talk about putting everything on red. She has really put herself in an awkward situation... but at the end of the day if we beat all the charges, and yes we could sue for defamation, lets face it she and us know we wont

When I read all her articles about us I can't help but ask: who the f&%k from the Melbourne Football Club ran over her dog? Most likely CC driving erratically away from the Zulus

In Caroline Wilson's mind we will be guilty no matter what the outcome is. "The Demons' unofficial defence since it became clear they had a very serious case to answer has been run along several lines. The first is the schoolyard excuse: that everybody else was doing it - or at least a sufficient number of clubs, meaning that their club should not be singled out. Further, if the club is punished, then it will drag down others along with it." I implore her to publish her sources/quotes because I'm honestly struggling to find any presser where we have said: 1) Everyone else did it; 2) We will bring everyone else down.

I think she was being facetious

All stars - NixsonsChicksU16 Get excited... but not too excited

Two more rippers from CW today: 'Seven clubs vulnerable on drugs (11/02/2013) The Age http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/seven-clubs-vulnerable-on-drugs-20130210-2e6oe.html 'Hird future hangs in the balance (11/02/2013) The Age http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hird-future-hangs-in-the-balance-20130210-2e6mm.html She condems him is he goes, she condems him if she stays... either way caro gets paid

I'm thinking more along the lines of Morgan Freeman's narration in Shawshank Redemption

Remeber that Carlton was subjected to an investigation. It was found that they had no case to answer due to their high number of goals missed by hitting the post during the Kreuzer Cup. A lawyer once told me: the issues with grey areas are that they are as easy to argue for black as they are for white. I personally think that we don't have a case to answer to, and if the AFL decides to press charges then they would honestly "go ahead, make my day"

Hahaha they are right. These injections were supposted to help with recovery - nek minit - 26 soft tissue injuries What are drug dealer's policies on refunds these days? I hear most of them really care about customer service

But last time I checked Melbourne is the one being investigated, not Carlton. Finger pointing isn't a defence. Unfortunately its tough luck

Concussions can cause short-term memory loss. Concussions can cause short-term memory loss.

If we had enough money in our salary cap I think Franklin, Clarke and Dawes would be a dream team. But at the end of the day dont think there would be enough room in the salary cap, and from an oppotunity cost perspective I'd much rather secure our midfield...