iv'a worn smith

I am sorry S_T but you are sadly misguided. You cannot accept any punishment or sanction, if it has no legal basis in the first place. As the old adage goes and to paraphrase, bad things happen, when good men do nothing. This is not some foolish altruism, it is simply what is right. As I said, Vlad presides over the AFL, the very body that has the power to impose any possible sanctions. You might want to consider the precepts which have stood the test of time, being the principle of natural justice and precedent. Of course, if you believe you have a greater grasp of legal principle than other learned jurists, feel free to impart your wisdom.

Yep, 117 pages, so I don't expect you top trawl through them to find the numerous posts on this topic that I have submitted. So the CEO of the AFL, making such pronouncements is not a sound argument? The same CEO, which presides over the very same body, which, if it eventuates, will hand down the penalties to the MFC. Go figure. As for your reference to KB, I fail to see the relevance. Did I mention him in any of my posts?

We did not "tank". Rather we simply list managed a very poor list. Secondly, we operated within a set of rules, the framework for which was designed by the AFL itself. Lastly, if we were so blatant, why did Demetriou spend so much time and effort publicly stating that no-one "tanked"? The only evidence - so-called - that has been provided so far is at best hearsay, based on the rantings of Wilson, who bases her opinion pieces on information she claims to have derived from faceless and nameless people she speaks to from "within the Club". People who wish to enter into conjecture about the facts are of course free to do so, but so far you rely simply on your own perceptions, not the facts.

You're right, it has been done to death, but not only were many locked out, a Director at the time "purchased" 1,000 proxy votes to tip it in favour of the "merge" The vote in favour, as opposed to against had a very small differential.

Outsiders? Are you referring to us or the show the "Offsiders"

Not quite true Sue. Remember we fumbled on purpose too!!!!!. Seriously, once again, there are some on here who will just not come to terms with the fact that we were a very ordinary unit back then. We didn't have to "tank" to lose these games. Also, given the limited cattle we had, there is nothing wrong with any coach to challenge any player, beyond their perceived limitations, even if those players are collectively, an ordinary unit.

Have to keep turning up that stereo -------- type P Man

When I read about being "rabid" I dropped my thermos and broke it, as well, I burnt a hole in my tartan rug, with my cuban cigar. Off to the club for a cognac now. Toodle pip!!!!

Only just got to see the shrew on Footy Classified. Now let me see if I have got this right. This Dowager of Armadale says that DM is wrong in his media release, because she never said that what she wrote formed the MFC's official response, but rather, what she cited was an "unofficial" defence, which she has come to know, due to the "people" she speaks to at the Club. When challenged by Garry Lyon, as to why she didn't address the "official" response, she turns to the weak kneed defence, that GL has no credibility on this issue, because he is too close to the Club. Simply breathtaking logic. Also, I must say I took some comfort from Gillon McLachlan's statement, which was part of a clip they played on FC, that the AFL did not want this difficult issue to be played out in the media.

And to carry on the theme, apparently the AFL have handed down their verdict. It went something like this: Coordinator: Crucifixion? Prisoner: Yes. Coordinator: Good. Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each. [Next prisoner] Coordinator: Crucifixion? Mr. Cheeky: Er, no, freedom actually. Coordinator: What? Mr. Cheeky: Yeah, they said I hadn't done anything and I could go and live on an island somewhere. Coordinator: Oh I say, that's very nice. Well, off you go then. Mr. Cheeky: No, I'm just pulling your leg, it's crucifixion really. Coordinator: [laughing] Oh yes, very good. Well... Mr. Cheeky: Yes I know, out of the door, one cross each, line on the left.

Reg: If you want to join the People's Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans. Brian: I do! Reg: Oh yeah, how much? Brian: A lot! Reg: Right, you're in.

There is live chat on the MFC website

Correct and Eddie would deny it anyway.

If I robustly agree with you JD, then ipso facto, does that make me a protagonist of GAG and by extension, my feet are firmly planted in the group think camp?

If you are unfortunate enough to be in an "ambulance" due to a train wreck that wasn't of your doing, you might be glad that someone is actually chasing that in which you are being transported. Let's not forget, Guy Jalland is a Lawyer of some repute. Having said that, no, I do not want to go to Court, but nor do I want peoples livelihoods needlessly affected and the name of our proud club sullied for the sake of face saving for the AFL.

My view is that if any sanctions are handed down to anyone, they will be wholly suspended for 12 months.

Perhaps I can be of assistance old chap.

No, I think that's more like a ray (Finkelstein) of light being cast on the conflab.

Might have something to do with a reference to RPFC and the use of the word "shrill" Whatever it is, I would suggest some here still need to look at the code on conduct.

When people distort the facts, that will happen. If some wish to subscribe to the old journalist's axiom of never letting the facts get in the way of a good story, then good luck to ya. But for those who are old enough to remember Peter Finch, in the movie, "the Network:; I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". All journalists supposedly are required to adhere to a code of conduct. If CW does, then that credo obviously is as hollow as a rotten log. And one more cliche for good measure, good news simply doesn't sell. CW is well aware of that imperative.

Joan of Arc? BH, just so that I become enlightened, could you give me a concise definition of your version of "tanking". PLEASE. Also, it would appear that at least one of RR's posts has been removed from this thread. AMAZING!!!!!

A laid down misere I would have thought. But one must leave all contingencies open, mustn't one, until the gavel is slammed down on this for the final time.

Indeed, if what you say is true, journalism surely has sunk to an all time low.

So such a dissection is necessary to lessen the veracity of what he is saying, as it pertains to the current "tanking" debate? Your post entirely misses Jamar's point that he considers that experience made him a better player.

Precisely !!!!!!!!!!! And Wilson believes you can unequivocally legislate for these "minefield" scenarios, sustain a case in such vagaries and sanction accordingly. Give me a break please. Under the "out of contention" scenario, would it be drawing a long bow for any coach to say to a gun young bloke, mate, we're shot this year, best you rest up for the rest of the year and get yourself right for next season? For that matter, it is likely a coach would say that to several gun players. Were such a conversation to take place and I am bloody sure it would regularly and it happened to be overheard and relayed to the likes of Wilson, what would she make of that? Clearly, this is pulp fiction at its best by Caro and almost as gruesome as its celluloid counterpart. As a postscript, I say again, you cannot be charged with "tanking". That is simply fact.