mauriesy

Maybe you should be sheeting home some of the responsibility to Bailey, Connolly and the club.

You would have to think from the outcome that this is not correct. People keep referring to Connolly's input as a 'joke', but I think it was more than that. It seems to me that the 'staying the course' comment was indicative of a more concerted course of action over time than one flippant remark in a single meeting.

Caroline Wilson owes the club as an entity, and Cameron Schwab in particular, an apology. Here's her statements on the issue: In the article 'Secrets from the Vault' (Oct 31, 2012): Cameron Schwab was ultimately resurrected at Melbourne despite his past association with salary-cap cheating. The belief is he did not attend the pivotal meeting addressed by Chris Connolly but could still be incriminated, as could both Jim Stynes and Don McLardy, who - it could yet be established - knew and approved of the blatant strategy. In 'Senior Demons drove tanking' (Oct 31, 2012): Chief executive Cameron Schwab, who was not present at the Connolly meeting in question, is also being investigated for alleged incriminating conversations with coaches. In 'Demons: Shock and Awful' (Nov 3, 2012): The indication is still that Melbourne will fight this, but it looks shocking for all concerned ... Melbourne will be harshly punished. Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly will be finished at the club. In 'Demon's lame duck excuses' (Feb 13, 2013) Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009 ... To let the club off the hook now would be as damaging to the game's image as Melbourne was back in that clumsy, divided and unhappy time four seasons ago.

Maybe all along it wasn't a joke.

How do you know it's not Melbourne that leaks like a sieve? They would have known the result and sanctions last week just when CW started reporting them.

Gild the lily all you like, the basics of it is that there is strong evidence that Chris Connolly pressured people not to win, and Dean Bailey succumbed to the pressure. In regard to the club fine, it is imposed because of the actions of these two, as employees of the club. I'd liken it to, say, a manager of a business breaking Workplace safety laws that resulted in an accident and injury, for example. The business would still get fined because of the actions of its employees. The finding that Melbourne FC as an entity, or the board, did not direct to lose games keeps the gaming licences issue off the boiler and is no doubt part of the negotiated settlement.

Please keep reporting on bananas. We can't let this thread be overtaken for total pages by the "Tanking" one.

The result of the AJA investigation into Wilson is coming out tomorrow Wednesday Friday Next week March April May 2013

I don't know. The official charge hasn't been made yet.

Of course I would see a charge of 'match fixing' as a problem, but I disagree on the probability (I think it's remote) and the long-term consequences. The club and the AFL will work around it to make sure none of our gambling assets are jeopardised. Are you Why You Little or Chicken Little? You seem to think the sky is about to fall in, and I'm just providing a more optimistic view.

It could be for draft tampering.

I don't know what Bailey will be charged with, or whether he'll be charged at all. I'm waiting for the official report.

By no means did I make any 'black and white' proposals. On the contrary, I used quite a number of 'ifs'.

So the Gaming Commission will withdraw our licences because Bailey 'didn't do his job'? I see now. Applied universally, there wouldn't be any licences left in Victoria.

Missed the point again. Banned for what?

You miss the point. Implicated for what is the issue.

The 'unofficial versus official' distinction will do to Wilson's reputation as a journalist what 'core and non-core promises' did to Howard as a politician.

They're not 'free'. They still have to work within the gaming laws (and the political system probably). And they'd face litigation if they made a unilateral decision without any evidence. Are you (and WYL) seriously suggesting they'd impose a penalty (e.g. licence withdrawal) based on 'match fixing', if the (contrived) AFL report findings were that we'd done no such thing?

You're accepting Wilson's reported figure as gospel? I thought she was 100% wrong in everything. No we're not. 'Bringing the game into disrepute' (or some such charge) is by no means 'match fixing'. You need a reality check from all the gloom and pessimism. Either that or you're just continually plain wrong.

If the charges do not relate in any way to match fixing, then the club's gambling licences are not at risk from the Gaming Commission.You don't think the MFC and AFL wouldn't agree to carefully word any report or charge to exclude that possibility?

Not if the AFL report, as McLardy says, contains no evidence or charge that Melbourne "worked hard to lose games of football in 2009" or that "Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009".

Not according to WYL. We'll be bankrupt by the end of 2013.

It's just amusing that Caro's piece on Friday turns into a 'report' on Saturday (and, surprisingly, on the AFL website). She endows her own opinion with a degree of official authority. But what's the real, official report? We still don't know.

The unofficial finding sounds flimsy, childish and schoolyard to me.

Jeez you can crap on and over-exaggerate.