Blistering

Best and most concise description of that game that I've read.

I made a number of statements and you didn't specify as to which you requested the source. The subject has been covered in detail over the years and, given the volume of the material, I'm not really prepared to go back to locate every piece of information that's been broadcast (any more than I think you would be prepared to do with respect to the things you claimed). However ... (i) the story about Scully's connections negotiating with GWS as early as in October, 2010 (at the end of his debut season) was reported in the media a couple of months after the defection was announced and, as far as I'm aware, was not commented upon and therefore not disputed by the Scully camp, GWS or the AFL. The timing of the above agreement coincides roughly with Scully's ill-fated China trip which was the subject of a substantial amount of untrue scuttlebutt. (ii) my uncle is a builder who used the services of Scully's father's roof tiling business for about 10 years until Scully Senior sold out his share in the company in 2011 (several months before Tom announced he was leaving). Phil Scully told my uncle at the time Tom left the China trip why he had done so. The reason was personal and related to a serious family illness and had absolutely nothing to do with the scuttlebutt mentioned above and which were spread about a long time after the event. Yes, so lies were told and I wonder why?

Just for the record, the items highlighted were all part of the lie. The offer of huge money was made to Scully's connections a year before he left the club and there were lots of stories bandied about to justify his leaving by various people with various agendas. The start and end of the matter was that he was made an offer in October 2010 which he couldn't refuse which had the full backing of the AFL which was eager to get a marquee player for its fledgling club. The AFL made it impossible for Melbourne to match that offer. Scully and his connections could have handled the Melbourne end of things a lot better but we as a club cannot be blamed for not matching the ridiculous sum that he was offered - we could never have done so and to his credit Jimmy handled the situation perfectly.

Not exactly a rat but there might be an element of the application of discipline because he didn't follow the rules during his recovery. If so, I don't have a problem with that.

I was doing a fun run across the West Gate bridge when the news came filtering through. I don't know whether it's a coincidence or what but the race ended at Goschs Paddock.

More popular than reruns of M*A*S*H, the rugby, Fox and Friends, old movies, the History Channel and Judge Judy. I would never have guessed.

I think the other clubs who have players suspended should have the right to nominate an additional rookie from the remainder of the draft pool. I would not be averse to us then picking Jake Lovett - he must not have been that far away anyway.

Happy to show generosity to EFC after their 34 get found out and proven guilty of cheating but what about action against the Bombers for their role in this? We were always led to believe that the previous sanctions were related to governance and that of players were found guilty there would be further ramifications. What happened?

I think history might one day prove you to be wrong.

What's that they say about statistics and damn lies?

It occurs to me that the fact this conversation is taking place suggests that Bailey was in strife before his gig even started.

So you are absolutely certain that no potential candidate for a coaching role at the time was put off from applying for the job by the club's poor financial position or lack of facilities?

Mark Stevens thinks that might be the case. He just tweeted "Jeremy Howe is of interest to GC, but interest not red hot. Could warm up this week with meeting looming ... $$ pivotal in conversation".

You raise some interesting points. Look at the first sentence in WJ's post - that is the crux of what's happening. I hope this doesn't sound pithy in comparison but think about how we as Melbourne supporters are expected to put up with comments about our team and how bad it is and the patronising remarks people make about us and the club and then multiply the hurt it causes a thousandfold and consider what it means to be called an ape and a monkey, especially in a society where the majority of your people have been murdered, bashed, brutalised and raped within a society that considers you and your people a joke and they then tell you, well we're booing you constantly at every move you make during a game, week after week, because you play to get cheap free kicks. Sheesh.

You really believe that? Liam Jurrah was never known for having the tank necessary for the style of game that they play these days. It certainly frustrated his coaches and held him back despite his undoubted talents. I was at that St. Kilda game and when he was taken off after kicking a goal, he was blowing hard. He would have come off the ground no matter who was coaching. Roos would have done the same and he never would have kicked ten and St. Kilda was toying with us in their last game before the finals. When they put on the afterburners after half time, they blew us apart. Liam's mentor and biographer often came on Demonland to compliment the way the club looked after him. He was made an ambassador to NT communities along with Aaron Davey to promote awareness of glaucoma among indigenous communities and Josh Mahoney put in a lot of work with him. Not only that, the end of Jurrah's career had nothing to do with tanking. He injured himself, didn't rehab well and then made that fateful trip to Alice Springs. I can understand how people forget these little things if they have other agendas.

Comprehension doesn't seem to be many peoples' strong point does it?

JR: What is your take on what has been a catastrophic failure to develop high picks at this club? PR: The more I delve into it, it was the perfect storm. There was interference from coaches and managers and tension between them and then that rubs off on to players. They are quick to pick up on problems and they picked up on a lot of them. Then you have a hard coach (in Mark Neeld) come in and it might have been good for another club, but not Melbourne. That was the circumstance over six or seven years.

What's your problem? Can you damn people for the loss made in one year when things went bad on a number of levels including a selective and costly AFL investigation without also praising them for saving it from extinction when it was deep in debt and friendless?

Some people are forgetting they have to be found guilty first. It seems to me that we all know that the players are in fact, guilty of having consumer TB4 because everything points in that direction but will the evidence be to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal? If the players are found guilty, I don't agree that expediency (like the AFL's interests or avoiding appeals to CAS) should come into it although these things will probably be on the minds of the tribunal members. The rules are that strict liability applies. There's no discount for co-operation available because the co-operation must be of a type that results in sanctions against other parties. The players are staring at 18 months and, failing that, we're off to Switzerland for an appeal.

Anyone have our profit figures over the last decade?

Don't you understand the difference between a court or tribunal decision and a bargain between parties to avoid having to go to a court or tribunal? The difference explains why it isn't nit picking.

Fair go. Port Adelaide under Ken Hinkley in 2013/4 is in a different universe to Dean Bailey's Melbourne in every aspect of the game, starting from style and going through to fitness, discipline, culture etc. Nothing even close.

Time to ban horse racing. It's a cruel sport for animals and punters alike. Enough.

Except Dion.