timD

So maybe this discussion has descended into identifying whether the poster is part of the "axe-grinders" or "back-slappers" and then ignoring what they actually write in favour of just taking petty pot shots? That's fabulous. We are so much better than collingwood supporters. I'm wondering if any posters have ever run or helped run a business with a 30 million dollar turnover - what would they think of the figures to date? I never have (and doubt I will) so opinions from a group that have would improve the commentary on this issue. BTW, if Fan and Rhino are the only ones who have (and I have no idea if they have btw) is makes a lot of the statements so far kinda funny.

FNQ, you are a beauty. Thanks to all for their training reports. I live on this stuff...sad as that is...

The line about "personal bias" is poor - and I'm being generous. "Any club interest"? Really? While I am all for defending the club against the vindictive outside interests, I think that the club needs some serious scrutiny about its behaviours from us. You are not interested in doing that; you just dissect players. What, management a bit too big a target? You got stuck into bailey as the disasters unfolded in 2011. That was crisis stage but it didn't stop you then. What is the magic threshold for criticism of a club? We were already a laughing stock. So many of your ingredients were already present. not so relevant then for you - this crisis issue - but it is now. why? Crisis bad enough now but not bad enoguh then? This "defend the club" guff has no basis in reason. None. If the club is strong then we can withstand it. If it is weak then the weakness needs to be addressed. To do nothing is to accept that our leaders actions are beyond scrutiny and to accept the club is too weak to even bare scrutinise on the interent fan forum. Seriously. A fan forum. As if it the MFC is that bad; as if it is that weak. The next concern is that the boogie man is going to come and get me if I think the wrong thing. You are the fan of a right-wing conservative who rails against all sorts of stuff - including forcing people to think the politically correct line. That is exactly what you are espousing. To the letter. Don't criticise. Accept all for the betterment of the club. Disregard all external criticism. Do not doubt. And here you are, champion of the open minded man who doubts the 'experts', saying that doubt is dangerous and disloyal. FMD.

Facts are unfortunate steve. You said "all of hawthorn's inside mids use the ball extremely well". You did not say they kick better than us. Hawthorn's inside mids include sewell. Lewis does not have elite disposal. Hodge does not play as an inside mid - his fitness prevented it for several years now. Do Hawthorn generally kick better than us - yes and they kick better than lots of other teams, so what is your point? They get the ball first and foremost. Their only inside mid with elite disposal is mitchell. The others are hard nuts who get the pill and their disposal ranges from average to very good. Our mids don't win the pill well, and when they do have no organisation to free up someone to dispose of it - the primary problem is a nasty intersection of a lack of size, experience, fitness and structure. Now, you pointed that out in your post but did not relate it to disposal. Hawthorn do not have a host of inside mids with great kicks - they have one. When we get the size etc we lack, I wonder how are disposal will go then? I suspect that all of a sudden our kicking is going to look really good. Our lack of quality is all of a sudden going to disappear. And it's good you rate your own footy opinion. I don't care what you think of mine. I object to you posting tosh.

I wonder if we'll get Whitfield? I know it sounds crazy, but what if GWS want grundy, plowman and one of menzel/o'rouke. They might well identify that they have a need for types of talent they don't have yet and they picked a heap of mids first time round didn't they?

Hodge plays loose off half back. His disposal is good - it is not better than that. He is one sided and suspect over short distances, funnily enough. Sewell's disposal is average at best. Mitchell's disposal skills are good - his decision making is friggin exceptional. The others are good but no more than that. A midfield is deeper than 4 players and you are factually wrong. I don't like your posts because they imply a lot while actually arguing very little. They are frequently inaccurate and your language exaggerates or misleads. You also big note yourself and cannot back it up. I have nothing personal against you - what you say sh123s me to tears.

I disagree with a lot of this binman. I think that if you look at discussion on the forums over a long period that people who criticise the club (rightly or wrongly) are often shut down on pretty flimsy reasoning. I'm guilty of it and I suspect many many here would be. To call anything on DL a "campaign" is a gross overstatement (not just an overstatement), Really, calling any discussion on a fan forum a "campaign" and imply a sense of organisation and effectiveness (that would effect a club & board) does not bare up to scrutiny. And then there is that idea of 'tearing into" the club. How can any comment on an anonymous fan site "tear into" anything in reality? But you link comments about the board to 'a campaign' and 'tearing' into stuff...into a sorry tale of disunity. Really? What disunity? . So, in one post you claim there is no problem questioning the club, imply that questioning the board is dirty club politics, state that is fosters "disunity" and then excuse the board. You have decided that questioning is only ok about topics broadly considered ok and that to depart from that is dangerous and disloyal. You can only question what you think is ok and you can ignore and dismiss all other complaints. But there's no problem with questioning? I'll make this as clear as I can: the board is not the club; the players are not the club; the admin are not the club. As a fan, supporter and member of this club I have the right to question any and all of the decisions made by the administration, goals, objectives startegy and tactics employed by the club. I will not be told by you, Robbie or anyone else what I can think or ask about this club and its operation. My loyalty is to the club and my questioning is motivated first and foremost by this interest. This club is big and strong enough to stand up to great scrutiny; if it is not, then the weaknesses that exist will only be addressed through scrutiny. The club should pride itself on its ability to withstand scrutiny, change when needed and embrace its members, new and old. Those who seek to shut down discussion are acting (deliberately or otherwise) to shield the club from examination and protect the status quo regardless of the adequacy of such. Dismissing people who question as "dissenters" or as part of some shadow conspiracy is convenient & complacent. It rationalises ignores the substance of a concern through questioning the motivations of the authors. That can only be trully achieved by addressing the facts, which perversely, brings us back to why Caro's attacks suck so bad.

If you think that questioning the behaviour and direct of the club is destabilising, then the club must be extraordinarily weak. Is that what you believe? If it is so weak, how did it get to that position?

diesel, I hope that clarity is there: it was not before wilson and dissenters (and I was one) were decried for "demeaning" Jim and the Board.

Unmamed? Unmaimed? Perhaps a matter of time. There are big differences in the views expressed in this thread. I think all those ranting (and it is ranting) for dissenters to not speak are not thinking things through. THe problems with dissenting is that is creates uncertainty. Strong organisations deal well with this. The MFC doesn't feel that may because it isn't. Those decrying dissent do so because they feel that weakness and want to hide it. Arguements that dissent weakens the MFC are pure tosh: the mfc is weak and dissent highlights it. And let's face it, weaknesses need to be highlighted. Would ANYONE who has bitched about Fan's dissent turn the same standards to the current government? Would they for one minute go along with the idea that the Liberal party need to stop whingeing and just back up the ALP because we need solidarity at thie time of financial instability and global uncertainty? Really? So why have that standard about the MFC? Time to cast aside the illusion of muffling dissent for the greater good: the arguments should be heard and debated and we should hope that reason and the truth will out. IMO Fan is confusing a few issues. Caro can produce good work. She should continue producing work that actually is good. I don't think her work about the MFC is good and I think her agenda and drive to damn has replaced what I expect in terms of standards of journalism. That said, the reason she can make us look bad is in part that we've left ourselves open to it. THAT POINT is not lessened because Caro is doing a bad impersonation of journalist, judge & jury. Again and again, issues about the management of the MFC come up. Something is stinky and at some point things need to be cleaned up. How that should happen I don't know; nor do I know who should do it. That said, I find it impossible to believe that saying "everything will be right if we don't criticise" inflates a sense of our real power and fails to recognise the responsibility of members to/for the welfare of the club.

Caro is presenting pieces on information in a distorted way to push an agenda. She is not presenting facts and an opinion - as if they were separated in any of her articles! She is presenting information shaped by an opinion - the information may or may not contain 'facts'. The distortions evident in her pieces on the MFC to date call into question the manner of her reporting, the quality of her sources and her own motivations. That is not, to my way of thinking, journalism of any quality beyond muckraking. The investigative reports of Nick McKensie into racing, into the RBA; the articles of Michael West about power companies both represent good journalism: a heavy reliance on information, corrorborated sources, careful argument and balance. Caro's articles about the MFC lack any semblance of that.

'All' meaning Sewell too? And "keep failing"? Really? Hodge is good. Lewis is a good user without being excellent or great. Mitchell is excellent but normally over short distances only. You've missed Sewell who is their most consistent performer other than Mitchell. The others? Xavier Ellis? Isaac Smith? Really? Give it a rest captain sanctimony. Your pulpit in front of the mirror is geting lonely.

Does his comment go into the mixed metaphor thread? I thought it was 'skin off one's nose' and 'shirt off one's back'?

"I hope they surprise us..." Champ, it is not our job to surprise you. Clown! Your job is to understand why we are doing what we are doing. Who the hell do you think you are? So far, you are nothing but someone who wants to get paid for generating an opinion about something you don't know that much about. Get a job.

I presume that details matter. Natural justice implies to me (and i am not a lawyer) that not only will we get an opportunity to defend accusations and charges but that the process we have been subjected to should apply to all clubs. Kinda important detail as procedural fairness might well become relevant for all those interviewed as well as the manner in which the club has been treated by the AFL. So to call my point "semantics" might well miss the idea that the details and meaning are, in fact, an issue for us and the AFL. And one that they might not want to be questioned or cross-examined over. And yes, I'm excitable.

Bulldust. These claims had been made previously in the media. Claims had been made by more reputable sources about another club. A previous investigation sparked by Dean Bailey had wrapped up quickly. Why this now? Why a differerent process? To claim that there was more evidence does not stand up to any scrutiny. It would be interesting to question the AFL on that, why such poor quality of "evidence" sparked such a major investigation and how information from this new investigation was leaked.

BH, as you'd appreciate, this investigation was kicked off by a bogan making spurious comments on a chat show...not some formal complaint. When libba made comments that were much more serious (for their clarity and given his position) that investigation was a comparative sham. Not sure where the "rules" were then; not sure why there is such a disparity of effort. I'd also understand that, if the process of this investigation is fundamentally different (in terms of resources or time for example) that this fact alone would be biting in to question the 'independence' and nature of the processes enacted against Melbourne. This needs to 'go legal', our best chance to get the afl to think of an alternative solution.

I also assume that it means that they will need to see charges and have the opportunity to defend the club. That implies a formal legal process. That can take a lot of time...and the AFL will then have the investigation process (this one and the last one) formally examined in public. I'm sure they are happy about that.

Firefly. Too perfect for this gruuby world. Oh, what might have been....

It's not the whole story but it helps to understand just how potentially disillusioned and alienated the players were before and after 186. It also demonstrates how concerning the board were and are. They had no idea, or worse, knew about it and did nothing effective. They kept connolly and schwab and sacked bailey in a distasteful way. They kept blokes that the playing group saw as poisonous and fired the player's mate. And they did so in a way that was humiliating - for someone who knew waaaay too much about previous years. The next year the entire learship group gets it in the neck and the new coach has a thinly veiled contempt for the group. After years of losing, being coached against and then effectively betrayed by the stand in president and board. No wonder the leaders found this year a bridge too far. I think I owe that group a big apology. No, not think. I really do owe that group a big apology. Something has been stinking at the mfc for a long long time.

Seriously, talk about baby and bathwater. Hazy has an ageda - wow, you noticed - and what he intimates still deserves consideration. It is intellectual short-stepping to 'go' hazy and fail to consider that issues he raises about coporate governance and performance on the board and admin at the club. It allows you a rhetorical tool to avoid thinking. It is also inconsistent and hypocritical. So NOW you can state that the board look bad or have acted poorly, but if I suggest so (as I did about Jimmmy and the board last year), I have an 'axe to grind'? I'm a cheerleader? Only people with no 'agenda' can comment? Really? Hazy could well suggest that I'm a cheerleader for you, given the number of your post's i've endorsed. Hazy is one the few people who speak about this issue and I'm glad for it. He could back up what he is saying a bit, or actually be honest. That would help too. And H, don't tell me what I think as part of a rhetorical exercise in order to support attacking hazy or anyone else. It irritates me and if you want to attack hazy, you can do so without it.

Great post.

Welcome to the family. Poor little blighter.

Has mooney not thought that the older blokes have been brought in to help create an atmosphere & team that will develop the kids... Nope, too many variables in that equation for ole' moons.

Go and read what you wrote. I'm not going to go into the rest of it - it is pointless. i too write stuff when I am angry and it is never a good idea.