hoopla

Good one Nut That's disgraceful pot stirring by Clark. Did you ask about his mind reading qualifications? Anyway , as Jimmy wrote in his book - the AFL rules themselves created a conflict of emotions

Sarcasm it may be ............. but true it is nonetheless. The investigation has pointed to the inconsistency of the AFL and drawn attention to the fact that it has used a former "terrorist interrogator" to obtain football information!!Now ( through the work of media) the investigation is calling into question the integrity of one of the game's greatest ambassadors Jim Stynes I'm not sure they will be quite as understanding as that. Down the track -indirectly with strings attached -we may get our money back - but they are not going to encourage us to push them into court by saying " don't worry , we'll pay at the end of the season" Directly and indirectly this investigation has hit us financially - and it is that which really hurts ( even if at the end of the day we are exonerated)

Every club has its dirty linen. Ours may have been dirtier than most - but we have worked hard to clean it up .......... and now we are digging it up all over again. Its in our interests to put Bailey and events of the Bailey era behind us. We need him exonerated from these charges full stop.

This is right on the mark. To say we will eventually be cleared is beside the point- the direct and indirect costs of this ill-conceived fiasco have already been substantial.Put 4-5 senior lawyers in room for a day - and you won't get much change out $10K. But that's only the tip of the iceberg.Let's summarise to date 1. Direct legal costs of $200k plus 2. Opportunity cost of distraction to Community Relations Manager. How much goodwill ( and potential monies)will CC have been able to generate in the last 5 months? 3. Opportunity cost of distraction to CEO . How much has this distraction affected Casey negotiations, the development of strategic alliances etc? 4. Loss of Members Fees including interest for delays while concern over draft picks etc 5. Potential loss of sponsorship through doubts on club integrity etc The AFL has adversely affected our ability to compete in the ruthless financial and PR market that it has created. If it finds us not guilty then it is morally obliged to compensate us. The club is not in a position to say this - but someone with clout has to if any justice is to be served.

Pretty right I reckon. However, she is beginning to lose respect. Suggestions that Collingwood might get rid of Swan - and that Sam Fisher won't be a leader at St Kilda haven't helped her reputation.

She's got you there Fan. A moderator who has just written some sort of editorial about the right to respect and free speech has no businessdropping in a one-liner like "You are so stupid it's mind-boggling" Seriously Fan you owe him an apology .........( seriously!) Subsequent note: OK so you are not a moderator ..... but I'd be careful before jumping back on to my high horse!

I'm surprised I am writing this because just about everything WYL has posted over the past few months I have agreed with - and everything Fan has said has made me angry - very angry.But as effectively all of those who have - apparently - "dobbed us in" are now outside the club, I see little point stressing over who said what to whom during the investigation. So on Tuesday 99th July Fred told the investigators that "the selectors were more interested in developing next year's list than in winning last weeks game " . Does that make Fred a white ant? Do we need to know that he said that on the Tuesday? What if on the Wednesday, he told the investigators not to take his comment out of context? What if the Coordinator of Shredding at the AFL told Caro that Fred's testimony was significant? Should Fred be smoked out? "Tanking" is an ambiguous term............. We need to put this detail behind us - and move on ( which is fairly close to what Fan said!)

There is another question - what valid information does she miss and/or deliberately ignore? At the end of the day , this is what irks all of us. Would Connolly have even joked about losing games if he hadn't seen Carlton celebrating their victory in the Kreuzer Cup? Would the whole Melbourne investigation have been necessary if Wilson had picked up Libba's ( or Fev's) statement and started a media campaign to discredit Carlton for its list management practices? After all these years of struggle, the media still enjoys feeding on us as if we are the tall poppies of 1964.

Come on Biff........... give Jackie Weaver a break. I'd try Andy Serkis as Kero. If he can do Gollam, he is in the ballpark.

Very fair comments ( Of course there is a very real chance that Caro has bugged Schwab's house)

Yes .... but what did he actually say? Perhaps it was : " I confirm that 2009 was about developing our young players for the future - it wasn't about winning as many games as we possibly could". Hardly a disloyal admission of guilt! I like it Is Anderson's middle initial "M"? ( Unfortunately some innocents did suffer through McCarthyism)

This is one of the strongest media quote for some time - and it suggests the damaging evidence is stronger than many of us hoped..........(though it is no more serious than 5 a month investigation of other clubs would have revealed about them!)Yes - we must stand up and fight. I certainly expect McLardy and the Board to roll out the Fink with all guns blazing.

Agree. You'd expect the AFL documents to contain tentative conclusions to be accepted or challenged. Otherwise its just more random information gathering

Yes - if there were a few throw away lines from Connolly in a weekly meeting - and if a few disgruntled former employees did make some incriminating statements - then she will be able to say that she was right ...................and Fan will feel vindicated.The key questions are whether or not these statements were taken out of context - and whether or not she happily reported on a biased selection of unrepresentative [censored]-bits which suited her agenda. Her keenness to draw premature conclusions is indefensible. From what you say about him , Fan ought to be big enough to admit that his obvious desire to antagonise his fellow supporters does him no credit

So Fan was working at the club in 2009 was he? Now I understand why it was such a shite year!

Is B) a symbol? I thought it was a photo of Caro without her make-up Very measured mjt ... but "poor form" it certainly is!

I don't know who you are Fan - but I do know what you are - a damn stirrer with an irrational appetite for gutter journalism Sounds about right.

Couldn't agree more.I really think this was Anderson's baby. Demetriou has probably taken a whack too - for being complacent enough to take leave mid season. Connolly has enemies too. I know that at least some members of the former Board felt that he was instrumental in orchestrating the Stynes take over behind their backs. It has also been reported that it was Connolly's sharp tongue that soured Junior MacDonald's departure

I don't see how they can possibly sustain a charge of "bringing the game into disrepute". "Bottoming out" was normal behaviour consistent with the AFL's own incentives. Nothing remotely disreputable about moving players around - even if you are motivated by a desire to expose your weaknesses. The fans see an exciting game decided by a kick after the siren. Where is the "disrepute"? The AFL's best chance of pinging us may for breaching Regulation 19 .For this purpose it is beside the point whether you win or lose. The key question may revolve around Connolly's job description.On the face of it , his reported comments in the "vault" fall outside Reg 19 - because he was not a coach. However if his role included "mentoring or guiding coaches" - or lending "coaching assistance from time to time" - the AFL may try to argue that Reg 19 applies..... enter our lawyers! As noted above, I'm not sure that the word "tanking" is relevant to any of the AFL's options If the AFL's image has suffered through all this - then it has only been because of the ham-fisted way it has handled the situation.

I agree - and it is reasonable to conclude the AFL won't want it to go to court. I'm just pointing out that the AFL could take action without mentioning the word "tanking" As I noted above, under this Reg its not necessary to prove "tanking". Just need to prove that a person being a "coach" encouraged coaches or assistant coaches "not to perform to the merits". Whether or not the coaches listened - or passed it on to the players - is irrelevant - and it is not necessary that a game or games be lost. Encouragement of itself is enough. As Connolly - as Craig does now - may have "coached" from time to time, the AFL may try to argue that his "encouragement" breaches Reg 19. But as others have said, this would draw our lawyers like bees to a honey pot! The AFL's fear of being challenged in the courts is probably the bottom line. We'll get off - but Connolly will be given a fright.

He tried .......... but the nuns weren't interested in the prize. They all said that McLean could go to hell.

Depends how the AFL structures their case. If they take action under 19 (A5) the word "tanking" won't arise - "A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' Under this reg., the question will be whether or not Connolly as Football Manager responsible for coaching can be deemed a "coach" for purposes of the regulation.

Hasn't happened yet has it? Perhaps Carlton in 1995? - McLean's employer!

True - but I'm desperately trying to justify sanctioning McLean. Maybe I should go back to Redleg - and point out that it is inconsistent with treatment of Libba, Fev and Wallace !!

In the clear - as far as the AFL is concerned they said nothing ! They've already picked McLean out of the pack once - they should be consistent and do it again !!