hoopla

Cant help myself - Jay Clark just tweeted the same piece of HS footage on twitter with the following message

"Watch the faces of the Melbourne coaching staff when Ricky Petterd almost pinches the Dees the win over Richmond"

I tweeted back at him "by Jove - your right ! The smoking gun ! you've found it ! Go and collect your Walkley right now."

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

Since this investigation prompted all this to come to light, if we are found not guilty, can we charge the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute?

One could argue that even the investigation itself has done more harm than those it has been targeting.

(clearly sarcasm, just wanted to indicate that the whole 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge is extremely subjective and could be more damaging in of itself)

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

Putting aside any consideration of whether court costs are awarded one way or another, I wouldn't be surprised if the club and the AFL come to some sort of (secret) arrangement where the MFC is reimbursed a commensurate amount on what we have to fork out ( eg. financial penalties) through the league's annual handouts to the struggling clubs. So if we're $500,000 out-of-pocket we'll get an extra $500,000 through the special redistribution fund at the end of the year.

And the exorbitant cost of chips and a coke should be enough to dissuade you from ever buying anything at the footy anyway!

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)

Indeed.

The handling of the matter may not have contributed to DB's comments. But I have no doubt the disunity that went on from poor management and neglectfulness as far back as the elongated time it took to replace Leoncelli, contributed. Job sharing by trying to fill gaps, Jim's health, and failing to adhere to instruction all contributed to disunity and it was left to fester. Jim admitted as much.

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.

i get the feeling that if we are eventually cleared of any charges we will have been punished anyway

the cost of time, focus, bad publicity and legal fees will be substantial

the afl are also increasingly looking bad

db is likely to have a big hole in his pocket

looks like losers all round - thanks Angry, Kero et al

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.

My reason for my dislike of CW is

1/ she masks opinion as fact and fact as opinion

2/ she exaggerates and distorts opinion/fact and gives too much credence to the insignificant

3/ she chooses to completely ignore facts that are in the public arena or rearrange them if it doesnt suit her argument

4/ she is exceptionally good/talented at doing the first three

She is a top class journalist who has a wide following and many cannot see past the 4 points I have stated and that makes her dangerous. She is no longer measured and thoughtful - she is agenda driven and flawed. Compare her to many other journalists who do much of the above ? In short, the likes of Mark Robinson are just not taken seriously like Carro is - I laugh at the likes of Greg Denham and Mark Robinson - I dislike Carro as she has the talent and smarts to do much better.

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.

Is it true you are a moderator? (A genuine question, but if the answer is yes, then you can take it as a criticism.)

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 don't think we have any rights to know who said what and IMO it would be quite wrong for that information to be available."

Why would Fan say this? Let us not forget he is also a moderator of this site.

Is it because he has himself been interviewed in this sordid affair?

I do not know the answer, but it is a very strange statement to make...He is either taking the p!ss or beginning to get very worried about his own little world.

As a member of this club for many years i want to know who said what to whoever...i want it all out in the open

so this club can grow upright as it should..Jimma started the process but it is far from finished...

The people who wish to bring this club down will be smoked out....

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!)

Conveniently ignoring the fact the majority of it is misinformation?

The only question is: did she make it up, or is someone feeding her porkies to make her look silly..?

There is another question - what valid information does she miss and/or deliberately ignore?

I'm astonished that there hasn't been a prominent 'Journo' write an exposé on all the dodgy happenings over the years . Collectively the media have managed to keep the focus on our club . And many of the general public have fallen for it .

How Carlton have been kept out of things is mind boggling . If this goes to court there will be no more hiding though . A whole bunch of Clubs , Presidents and Coaches could easily be called to explain .

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.

"TANKER MORE-ANT"

Facing extinction in the face of the AFLS Bores,

An Australian platoon is forced to "take no prisoners" in the heat of combat in which it is hopelessly outgunned.

The resulting court martial is a mixture of rough justice and administrative disaster in which the Aussie Officers are crucified to appease a rabid news readership.

An iconic Aussie tale of a battling unit fighting imperial ineptitude.

Starring Bryan Brown-Nose (Adrian Anderson)

Peter Sellers as Inspector Haddad

and Jackie (Fairy -Tale) Weaver as Kero Wilson

This could be huge -if only it wasn't so far fetched.

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.

There was a meeting at Schwab's house.

Not only is that unsurprising, but it is all we know about it.

That "list management" was discussed as it was basically Bailey's job, is also unsurprising.

That JC lacks any further detail shows that he hasn't a clue what was discussed.

Been reading / hearing this for weeks now - where have you been?

Very fair comments

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

And that also includes our current Football Manager.

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!

The unfortunate thing about this "investigation" is how much it sings of McCarthyism - a disgraceful episode in US history, and one that I had hoped I wouldn't observe in any area in Australia in 2012/3.

Everything in this current "investigation" seems to be based on wholly unreliable innuendo. In my observation to date, the investigators and the commentators conducting this "show trial" are unsophisticated in the extreme and seem determined to achieve an outcome irrespective of whether the underlying evidence actually supports such a conclusion/outcome.

It's interesting to note the description of McCarthyism on Wikipedia to see the similarities to the way in which this "investigation" seems to have been conducted:

"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

I wouldn't mind going to court on this. I suspect it wouldn't be particularly pleasant for the likes of the "investigators" or Ms Wilson if we did take that step.

I like it

Is Anderson's middle initial "M"?

( Unfortunately some innocents did suffer through McCarthyism)

Tank probe: Dozen witness statements could cook careers in Melbourne investigation

"FIGURES connected to the Melbourne tanking investigation have been told up to a dozen people have "rolled over" about how the club has managed past lists. The statements potentially incriminate Demons administrators amid growing fears the club and individuals could face serious league sanctions."

Yes - we must stand up and fight. I certainly expect McLardy and the Board to roll out the Fink with all guns blazing.

My thoughts exactly - I have no idea of the strategy the MFC will adopt but my strategy would be to ask the AFL that if they are provide to the MFC the findings of their investigation we require very pointed and clear direction as to the AFL's expectations and intentions.

If the AFL require a reply (which I am sure they do) I would ensure the AFL.

1/ Specify what evidence/finding they require an explanation of

2/ If the AFL require an explanation it must be because there is a thought that the evidence breaches a rule - what rule do the AFL believe has been breached ( the reason for this is anything that Connolly/Schwab have said cannot be charged under the rule that is limited to coaches and players)

If it was me - I would not accept the handing over of a whole report of findings with a covernote from the AFL saying - "any comments" ? - thats just another fishing exercise.

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

Who's dumb BH?

Fan is not an anonymous poster somewhere out there in the ether who can disappear if he turns out to be wrong. Many of us know him and he's gone to great lengths to suggest that Wilson is usually right on the button with her source material (which is often the case) and he's done so to the point where he will be the subject of much ridicule if proven wrong.

So my money is on the fact that Fan reckons she's going to be proven right.

Of course, Wilson's editorial was largely an opinion piece in which she made known her poisonous views on one particular club, fully aware that others (including her beloved Tigers) were also involved in the same activities and in respect of which the AFL was doing nothing. Her very strong agenda against the club and two officials who she named was made clear and, though she would never divulge her sources, I have a feeling that these will be known in the fullness of time.

In any event, I wouldn't be proud of ever endorsing such a person, nor would I come back to gloat about it.

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

Positively knee slapping, side-splitting humour Fan. I hope you keep the standard as high as this throughout the season, even when Caro writes her next piece suggesting that everyone working in any administrative capacity at the MFC during 2009 should automatically be arrested and charged under Section 34( B) of the Summary Offences Act 1958. But don't worry. We'll send the brief to Redleg or Rumpole. They'll fix things!

So Fan was working at the club in 2009 was he?

Now I understand why it was such a shite year!

Seems to me from that B) symbol that you might know something about her return?

I miss her - like I miss Niccolò Machiavelli, Atilla the Hun, Hitler and Stalin . They were all regular folk in their own way but I wouldn't pee on any of them if they were on fire.

Is B) a symbol? I thought it was a photo of Caro without her make-up

.... i must say its poor form on Fans part.

Very measured mjt ... but "poor form" it certainly is!

Where's Caro? At least we'd know what was going on!! I miss her. Does anyone know if she's on holidays or is she gone forever.

HNY everyone.....

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

She comes back with the next full moon later in the month.

Sounds about right.

It beggars belief to think that the AFL wants to stick the boots into a club who clearly has not benefited from any alleged tanking of games.

What a waste of resources that could have been put to much better use.

It's little wonder Anderson has been moved on.

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.

I can understand why certain people may not like CS, family grudges, job losses etc, but what has CC done to anyone, other than try and get the best for the MFC at all times.

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 can see that something Connolly - or anyone else - allegedly said could be relevant to a charge of tanking, but if he/they said it privately (e.g. "in a vault!") or even texted it privately, does it in itself constitute any attack on the reputation of the AFL? If the reply is, yes, because of what it caused, you have returned it to a charge of tanking...

I am wondering whether the disrepute issue has any independent substance without the tanking charge. Surely going through someone's rubbish bin, or eavesdropping on their private conversations, isn't going to provide acceptable evidence of the victims of these invasions of privacy having brought anyone into disrepute? We're not living in some third-world dictatorship, subject to mind-police, where thinking is an offence... Though, as to those burgling their bins and computers, and then publishing edited versions of small scraps they found, we presumably could well think they were maliciously damaging all sorts of reputations.

So, what I am asking is, are we as at risk of going down for bringing the game into disrepute if tanking is not a charge the AFL is going to be able to stick - can the evidence about disrepute stand a challenge if the tanking charge in the end has been abandoned?

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.

That's the sort of interpretation that would make it a dead set certainty for the whole thing to end up in court. And you're assuming that Connolly said anything that could be taken to be a serious directive.

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"

The point that I struggle to understand is if in the scenario that none of our coaches or players are found guilty but Connolly is then how did we actually tank? Let's say that the comment he made was the evidence used to charge him, Connolly told everyone to tank, but if no one listened to him and the coaches just did what they had been doing all year then how did we physically tank?

I firmly believe that to get us they have to prove that Bailey was involved in the process for them to get us.

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.

Do you run chook raffles at your nunnery?

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

If it goes to court it will be in "Civil", not "Criminal" court. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard required in criminal cases only. Civil cases are decided upon the "preponderance of evidence," meaning if it appears more than 50% likely we did what we're accused of, then we lose, otherwise we win. Creating "reasonable doubt" is not enough to save us there, we must appear "more likely" not to have done it than to have done it. ......hence definitions of "tanking" (whatever that exactly means) etc. should become relevant.

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.

They will love it then. Why don't we suggest stripping a few flags from teams that cheated with the salary cap. That should go down well.

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

consistent + AFL ..... doesn't compute

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 !!

Where would that leave Terry Wallace, Fev and Libba?

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 !!