PJ_12345

In terms of third party dealings - they will have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed about because it was within the rules. You cant be retrospective in terms of morals and rules

Thrid party payments/dealings werent against the rules when Judd signed. Thats why $cully was the highest paid contracted player this year, whereas if you had taken in Judd's Visy and environment ambassador payments + his contract there would have been quite a difference. Long story short it will be interesting to see what happens to Judd when his contract is up for renegotiation & Carlton's salary cap

Ps you missed a glorious pun oppotunity... The title should have been "Tank god for Brendon Fevola"

Haha I thought caro and balance was an oxymoron. Balance should have been presented earlier. That was just a poor use of 'woops I've been a bit one sided and I dont know how to end this ill just throw in this last line that kinda contradicts my whole article and instead of leaving the reader with an informed argument I've now left them thinking well what the hell did I just read? If Demetriou backs them then is it a big issue, is it going to bet worse? And then they will be forced to read my other churnalism articles and become in a constant loop of deja vu and 20 articles later they might get whats happening' Welcome to the caro zone...

And is it just me or are her articles incredibly openended?? I'm reading through, waiting to get to some facts, figures, or counter arguements and then it just ends abruptly with something like 'ALF supremo... has always defended the dees'??

On the bright side at least Fev has a gambling and alchohol issue - Brock cant change being a dick and an idiot Nar but seriously thank you Fev. I have alot of respect for players who retire and play in local clubs, and now I have alot more repect for him coming out. The best thing for us is to make this a code, not just single club, issue. If carlton get worried and starts weighing in it puts more pressure on the AFL and you would think change the punishment if it got to that stage.

Absolutely I couldnt agree with you anymore. Ps, whilst get rid of the board I also feel that we should: Recruit Fev Employ Nixon as the manager for all players Ask Caro to do more stories on the MFC Merge with GWS Manditory weeing on club floors Make Brock an honorary MFC member Get rid of Dawes/Hulk Hogan/Viney ... Can anyone think of anything else?

Lift your game calli - your trolling used to be better...

Kettle calling the pot black much?

1. Look at the articles by caro 2. Get over it - how long ago was it? 3. If your refering to beamer thats footy. His heart wasnt in it and if your not in get out 4. Give Morton and Cook a call and ask them 5. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink If you want to ve positive about "our new coaching & recruiting & they cant be accountable on past picks" then have the common sense to realise that the old recruiter (prendergast) is gone, have a look at the new direction of the current recruitment, and if you want to talk about tanking and culture then you might aswell say that the MFC, Carlton and co. all have the same culture. We are all paid up members, we have all contributed to the debt demolition

[media=] ^^^ you picked it

No doubt they will wyl along witg every otger football club, player and manager. Thats probably the best thing that will come out of this issue - a clear definition of tankong and experimenting... i hope!

The betting agencies wont get involved - particularly considering that the year in quesion is when most agencies didnt offer betting on the wooden spood for this exact reason

Thats a poor attitude to have Soidee. You can argue as to if we tanked or were experimenting, and how this has come to light or any other faciet of this issue. BUT as a matter of morals: 1) If everyone does something it doesn't make it right (i.e Lance Armstrong and 80% of the pelaton) 2) If you see something immoral you should so something

Unfortunately precedence actually doesnt apply to this situation. Partly because there are no binding or persuasive precedence actually available Also you might need to review your definition of precedence - its not entirely correct (maybe for persuasive but not binding) and also provocation isn't a defense (since 2006).

We have some of the best lawyers going around The AFL wouldn't get to that stage unless they have a water tight case and with the lack of evidence, questionable witnesses (i.e McLean) combined with the greyness of tanking - I'd be extremely surprised if they even bothered. This issue isnt new, meaning the board and legal team would have had a defense no matter what actually happened. If they didnt think they had an extremely good defense and if they did actually do it they would have done an Adelaide with Tippett and confessed.

CONTEXT PEOPLE CONTEXT! The only reason why this investigation was initiated was because of Brock McLean's answer to why did he leave Melbourne. Blind Freddie would be able to see that he was merely avoinding the honest answer which was - money. Instead he chose a high ground approach but came off as a hypocrite because the dipstick went to a club who broke their salary cap and tanked for Kreuzer - my my what fickle morals. This is coming from a bloke who tweeted to a reporter that the reporter's mum gave him Aids...

Debt free for the first time in 30 years - not easy to do when we were also the worse team in the AFL

The Kreuzer Cup

Her articles or the tanking allegations?

Im sorry I have no idea what your on about/point is

I re-read the original reason for this thread... Its for people who view the glass as half empty and have questionable sanity. I had prepared the following reply but it now seems irrelevant and will ultimately disintegrate into an argument of perspective/reality and I'm not bored enough for that. Obviously people like me arent welcome here so carry on! The preprepared argument is as follows: I keep seeing the argument that we let the players you have listed go for nothing... We got what they were worth and if you want players to come in then you have to have players come out. I honestly cant dumb this down anymore I dont like to say this but Bennell, Cook, Bate, and Morton were rubbish. Gysberts had one good year and Moloney lost interest and had an appalling season. These actions arent drastic and I'm fairly certain most people would have been predicitng Cook, Morton and Bennell to have been delisted after this season. Also I'd like to take you back to your original statement: I have a few questions: Is the delisting of the mentioned players drastic or what we let them go for drastic? You keep jumping from one to another Do you realise your statement "I just hope we can... back ourselves in a bit more" and "If we end up bottom 4, I will again call for his head" is contradictory Why dont you attribute any of the '12 season failures to any of the players? Who would you rather have: Morton or Byrnes? Why do you not attribute our current situation as a result of a long-term strategy instead of your short-term perspective and that its a result of a series of failures?

You should take a note out of Voss' book: bring back Fev!!

Thats a regular part of football. Sydney made more than 30 list changes over the past 5 years. I want to know what these drastic changes are. I.e, overhauling the leadership squad ect.

What are these drastic measures?