beelzebub

What we do is at our cost, such is the way. Many are focussing on what our costs and losses are in all this. I'm more than prepared to look at our gains ; we get self respect ( can't count on any others ) and we get a spine and I'm sure if we look we'll find we've grown some. Well be part of that group that won't be f'd with. Lets face it we haven't been there for a long long time and what happens off-field often permeates to on field ! This is the domain of the filth, the squawkers etc even the Visy-vermin ! It's a mindset . You have to walk the walk to get there.

isnt it a tad ironic that an occurrence of blatant and advertised non-performing is all but ignored. Fumbling is admonished, striking isn't. Funny world !!

There are picadores and there's matadors !!

It wasn't pretty was it

Deluded I sort of agree in principle but the club got itself into a pickle. Fighting fires on many fronts it wasn't likely a "pleases all" answer was going to be available. This is combined with the situation of garnering the coach of choice. Here we're damned if we do or don't . Always was to be ugly as a chapter in our history I can only take from this that actions were taken in the best interest of he club. We can't change what was, we can only seek to learn and act better. As such casting a life buoy Deanos way isn't without merit, or logic.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-01-09/dees-not-penalised-for-boxing-day I'm pretty sure if you read between the lines you (even you ) might realise the Club is far from impressed but chose one method of reprehension over another. Stupid is as stupid does.

We aren't all cut from the same cloth

With ref to chokos post 1166 I'd say you most likely have something close to what their (afl) presser might likely be. I do however think like Fan ( an unusual occurrence I know lol ) that its a reverse type thing. This doesn't necessarily go against your tenet of the League knowing the outcome, in fact it requires it. Any which way it's all akin to theatrics, but I'm sure we can all do without the bill !!!

Whelan was on Nahas who was kept to a so-so game for the first half. Seems the injury impacted after half time as Nahas cut loose. That wouldnt be anything the Wrecker would ever stand for if able. This is where so much becomes laughable. Asking Whelan to go soft would just about get you a free trip in an ambo !!

To the best of my detective work , neither Martin nor Bennell took to the field after half time. I have a hazy memory of Whelan coming off early -ish in the last quarter ( or it might have been 10-15 mins in, its a bit fuzzy ) Matty's game wasnt as good after half time either, so its just possible he did have niggles to that foot before he came off.

Robbie, im not advocating giving him a blank cheque or even close to but if theres some manner of diffraying some of his costs as well as at least intel sharing also then why wouldnt you. Some seem content to cast him adrift. I see that as foolhardy as well as plain bastradry. He did effectively carry out the clubs wishes in some respects; i.e list managing to our best reward ( within the spirit of the then law) . He just failed as a winning coach when that was the direction warranted. I suppose there are differing ways of doing business . But as you allude if the League smell they can get him away from the pack then hes more vulnerable than close by. i dont even understand how theres a choice in this.....alas....

So then the argument taking to its end would suppose that any action or play must be done 100% effectively in order for it to be deemed OK, anything less can be construed as intentionally losing ?

nuff said

Thats the crux isnt it. His papers were stamped as of that game. No ones going to hang around. As to how well it was handled, its history. Hindsight may suggest perfect scenarios but the reality is they can seldom play out as its all happening in the moment. There are elements that might have been done in an other manner perhaps. Tis all moot however. Dean is pivotal to this as I see it. He goes down we all go down. If hes exonerated then i cant really see how anything more could be pursued. Its fraudelent to me for the AFL to attempt to apply a black/white filter to occurrences that were every shade of grey and Im sure thats where any healthy defence starts. Its ridiculous for the League to suggest that had not this or that been done then the outcomes MUST have been X. So many variables to a game, so many permutations to what may or might happen . By way of inference its laughable to suggest that it was intentional fumbling or poor play to conspire that McMahon got his kick. who could guarantee he split the sticks ?? You couldnt organise it to happen even if you wanted to. In the end it all boils down to that old chestnut. That we were so damned good we could orchestrate results one way or the other !! I reckon that year we'd probably have gone wanting for a drink at CUB !!

Howe

So what..go hold hands with Ben.That they got off doesn't diminish the stupidity. Club has bigger fish to fry currently.

I'm not even sure youunderstand what you're you saying let alone I or others.

I comprehend quite fine Rhino. You want one without the other, you want all the care without any responsibility. It just doesn't work like that. Ony a fool would have him hung out to dry. We are stronger in defence acting in collusion than we are to attempt so as strangers. i dont advocate wholly paying for him but some aid is certainly warranted if not morally then certainly as being astute. Glad we have differing opinions.

There's intent and there's execution. I hope they get the theatrics right Billy

This is what ought not be lost to many observers atm

That you consider Bailey to be outside our interests currently Rhino says it all really.

Apologies if this appears elsewhere I find it interesting to read the comments of Thomas in another 'Aged' article http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/call-for-tanking-amnesty-20130108-2ces3.html He seems almost singular and alone in print at uttering the common sense response to all of this. That we know the AFL is often incapable of much sense then we can only cross our collected digits and hope that the outcome is exactly as you suggest Billy. I'm a little worried that in their efforts to take a sledgehammer to a walnut that they might miss !!

Fan , I will agree with you on a point. That it all starts from the desired result and worked backwards. What I'm starting to concern myself over is that quite possibly they ( the AFL ) aren't as clever as they would have themselves be and might get stuck. Too clever by half ? The AFL want , if fact NEED this dead and buried, permanently. Dilligence must be perceived to have occurred. It is after all theatre so its about appearances.

Thats just it BH My view...is MY VIEW. That its not that of the Club is not MY issue. I'm sure even you are capable of such distinctions. That you say I cant does not in fact make it so, that also is only an opinion, yours.

Much of this seems to rest upon who actually has the final call as to whether a player takes to the ground for any reason. Are the AFL seriously trying to usurp the right of the individual club to its ability to play its game as IT sees fit ? is their some golden formula that every team must adopt at ALL times. What rubbish. How often do we see players rested after 3/4 time if a coach warrants what they could do 'next' as not as valuable as what they will need to do in the upcoming game . I could spell out the underlying logic but am sure most will get the gist.