iv'a worn smith

You have taken my post out of context. I was relating it back to the stance Wilson takes on the MFC. My point being, Gutnick owned up, while the likes of Carlton were caught doing deals under the table on 3 separate occasions. Yes, we were severely penalised, but what would you have the man do? Emulate John Elliott?

At that time and to his credit, Joe Gutnick put his hand up acknowledging these breaches, before the AFL commission discovered them. Unlike the recidivist Carlton under Pig's Arse Elliott and of course, not to forget Esserd'n. Perspective Caroline, perspective!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

People in grass houses shouldn't get stoned. Or. Come and goose the cook that laid the golden egg.

you've opened a pandoras can of worms as the Coodabeens would say.

Unless of course you are out flanked 'politically'. Finklestein's involvement may well just do that.

We cannot know what sort of 'arrangement' has been entered into, insofar as retaining the counsel of Ray Finklestein QC. Needless to say, the man knows his stuff and is extremely thorough. All he needs to do is demonstrate the lack of merit in the current proceedings and the AFL will drop this like a hot scone. The AFL commission would not want to be embarrassed any further. If Finklestein's submissions make out grounds of a lack of procedural fairness on the part of the AFL, then this could provide a precedent, for which the AFL could well do without, looking forward.

From my reading of her comments, she is claiming Chook's On the Couch interview was the catalyst, but she now has 'evidence' that another 'player' - who clearly shall remain nameless as far as she is concerned - has given evidence to the AFL Star Chamber investigation. The case she has chosen to prosecute is getting weaker by the day.

Interesting to see a decidedly jaded CW on the ABC's Offsiders program yesterday. Both Roy Masters and Francis Leach virtually told CW how wrong she was and that the AFL was to blame for putting in place a system which promoted less than 100% efforts. Masters - understanding he is a NRL hack - was particularly caustic in his criticism of the AFL. Once again, in her meek defence of herself, CW said, but the difference here is that a "player" has provided evidence. A player or ex-player Caroline? Who is that player Caroline? Sorry, I forgot, you have to protect your source. Ever heard of disgruntled former employees? If this goes to Court, your protected source will no longer be protected and may well wilt under close examination of that "Player's" testimony. As you said yesterday Caroline, the only ones likely to win here will be the Lawyers. So why the sensationalist diatribe?

"I will speak daggers to her, but use none". - (Hamlet Quote Act III, Sc. II)

And as such, your previous post is moot and nothing more than obiter

That's very cheap Rumpole. Perhaps you could help me with a stalking matter to do with a certain female journalist. How is she who must be obeyed by the way?

You are either guilty or not. You cannot hand out sanctions based on degrees of probabilities. It is bit like being a little bit pregnant. This is the bind that the AFL find themselves in now. My only concern is that Vlad's ego is of such a size he may want to be seen to be doing something in this regard, but let's hope he receives some wise counsel and that is what prevails in the end.

Well said Pennant. Can we have a bit more of the same sanity prevail on this thread.

"On their merits" And just how meritorious was that list?

You are 100% correct Sue. However, if there were to be a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, then on what basis is such an arbitrary judgement made? The point being, if and when the AFL moved to sanction us, they ought to be damn sure of grounds and not leave themselves open to being whacked by the legal principle of reasonableness and what I would confidently predict would be the adverse findings against the AFL, made by Court, under the provisions of Administrative Law. Once again, while it is understandable that Wilson's article would raise the hackles of any true Dees supporter, the whole issue is without substance and as hollow as Paris Hilton's head.

The AFL and it's star chamber investigators can hypothesise all they like - and may I say, many on here are doing just that - but at some point you have to define - CLEARLY - what the parameters are, which constitute 'tanking'. Again, what does it mean? What constitutes serious tanking and what does not? Where do you draw the line? If the AFL wants to go down this path, it does so obiter dictum, - which means a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. Like I said, this is a crock and only designed to massage Carro's ego and salve the souls of Demon haters.

Do we actually need another thread on this. Please close it down. It is becoming tedious.

The best post of all on this subject. The first thing a court would do is examine what "tanking" actually means. Did the MFC say to the players, OK guys, today I want you to go out there and lose. Or better still, any body lining up from within 40 metres needs to aim to miss. Now that would be tanking. List and player management? Now that's another thing entirely and every club does it to varying degrees. If the AFL pursues this to the point of sanctions, they will walk out of a court room very red faced. While we are at it, we will go them for damages. This entire issue is a crock.

To suggest we "cheated"is ludicrous. We were confronted by a system that was fundamentally flawed and the simple fact is, precedents, as far as so-called 'tanking' is concerned, had long been set. If Carro's article has any veracity and the AFL place any kudos on evidence which can be best described as spurious, then Mr. Demetriou, et al, will need to be consistent and punish all those who went before us.

If sanctions are imposed on the MFC over this it would be an absolute travesty. This may have already been spoken about, but who can forget the so-called "Kreuzer Cup". Now don't get me wrong, as I know Trapper had some talent, but from memory Trapper had 48 possessions that day/night. The on-field moves made by Carlton were breathtaking and I remember making comment to my mates that night that it may as well have been a training session, with witches hats being the only obstacles to the Dees. Then there is Terry Wallace. Wallace is on the record about a game the Tigers played at the end of one season. He commented years later that he was confronted with a terrible "Sophie's Choice", in that if they had won that game, they would have lost precious draft picks. On SEN, Wallace went on to comment that the investigation into the MFC's supposed tanking was a non-issue and what was problematic was a system implemented by the AFL itself, which rewarded mediocrity with priority picks. He went on to say that if any tanking is perceived, then it is a symptom of a problem of the AFL's own making. Tanking is the result, not the cause of the problem. Both Paul Roos and Robert Shaw have echoed these sentiments. Their view is that the system is in bad need of an overhaul and should be fixed. Don't punish clubs which operated within the rules as they existed at that time. Seems some have very short memories in football and the worst miscreants are journos, who love to fling dung, in the hope that it will stick and give their grubby stories more legs. Any sanction handed down to the MFC over this, would be summarily dismissed in the relevant jurisdiction, which upholds relevant Law. Oh, and a message to Brock. You now play for a team that is recidivist in its flaunting of the laws. Pots and Kettles Brock, Pots and Kettles.

That depends on whether you hold a subjective or objective point of view.

We can hypothesise here as much as we like, but the facts are there was something terribly wrong with the culture of our footy club. To be sustainable in modern footy, we had to revamp the entire footy club. Over time, this has been done via the conduit of various change agents like Jimmy, his board and more lately, a FD that is unrecognisable to that which Bailey had. Mark Neeld made it clear from his first day in the chair that he would not endorse or countenance a 'near enough, is good enough' mentality that had prevailed at the MFC for far too long. There should be no surprises to anyone that Neeld now seeks to impose his own imprimatur on the playing group he either inherited or seeks to put together. He is prepared to live and die by his own sword. That is clear. I also suspect that the signing of the likes of Dawes, Byrne and to some extent Rodan and Pederson, was to demonstrate that players will come to the Melbourne Football Club, if the mission statement is clear. That factor on its own ought to be applauded. Sure, we may have tough times ahead still, but I am confident we will see a team of 22, which runs out in the red and blue, being more committed, week by week. Suck it up Demonlanders. We have what we have and I believe the right moves will be made. Things change awfully quickly in footy these days and the decade plus days of dynasties are consigned to the pages of history books. We are going to be OK.

Sorry to be a smart a..e, but that would be Vinny Catoggio and Phil Carman?

Number 25 Donny Williams was a champ and would be ideal even in today's so-called modern game. Not only a champion footballer, but an exceptional athlete. Another hero was Tassie Johnson, who was one of the few full backs to keep Peter Hudson goalless. Throw in Ray Groom, Wrecker Leahy, Doc Roet, and Frank Davis, with a special mention to Froggy Crompton. Oh what memories. Loved the way Gary Hardeman and Tony Sullivan went about it and they played for the big V, coming from what was then a very ordinary Melbourne footy team. Latter days, Brett Lovett, Anthony Ingerson, Matty Whelan and Peter Walsh for me

Ted Richards, Marty Mattner, Ben McGlynn, Shane Mumford, Rhyce Shaw???? Maybe NQR is not the right term, but all are recycled players who were spurned by the previous clubs and I reckon might have done OK this year and before with the Swans.