hoopla

I'm not sure any of Caro's muck was leaked by anyone still in the club. She kept referring to unnamed former officials and former players who didn't want to be named - but I'm not sure any of her information came from current insiders. For our embittered former players and officials this is the last hurrah. Let's get this out of the way and move on.If the AFL really want to clean things up they'll charge McLean with bringing the game into disrepute. They need to get the message out that players and officials who have problems with their former clubs should go to the AFL - and not to the media. Whatever they conclude about our behaviours etc., they should definitely sanction McLean.

As a member of the leadership group, Frawley in particular, should have shown more commonsense. If you are going to have a few beers at the cricket you don't set yourself up for negative publicity by doing it in Bay 13.

OK - I have no respect for Barrett- and the term "match fixing" is out of line - but for him to come out and call the investigation ' a joke' is actually quite gratifying. Just hope that is his ongoing theme from here !!

It was an extraordinary decision - and Anderson has paid for it with his job.

I reckon you are right on the money Mono. He tried to embarrass his boss - and left the Commission in a hole.It was very clear that he didn't have the judgment for a senior executive role. Why would anyone with half a brain launch an all-out attack on anyone or anything on the basis of the huffing and puffing of a weasil like McLean ? Gillon McLachlan's promotion is like Steve Bradbury's gold medal

So after all this time, Bailey admits that he withheld damning evidence against the club for over 3 years. - and expects them to believe that he has finally decided to tell the truth? Won't happen.

Just so you get a full impression of the young man's all round ability, he pulled a cool 48 ( out of 50) for Business Mgt in his VCE exams. I don't know what his full ATAR score was - but that's not a bad start!!

Very smart move by McLardy As others have pointed out the bottom line in all this may be the AFL's fear of having its rules tested in the court. The only downside is that even at mates rates, legal fees incurred over the next month could wipe out several years' profits.

Not quite right. McLean's comments would have gone nowhere if Adrian "Gotcha" Anderson hadn't seen the chance to take points off his boss while Demetriou was on leave. With Caro there to stir the pot - Anderson was going in anyway. I am afraid your inference that the investigation was our fault because our termination procedures were less professional than other clubs doesn't wash. You can try to buy the goodwill of a sacked coach with a massive terminate payment - but he's never going to thank you for the public humiliation of a sacking mid- contract. As for McLean , his dissatisfaction stemmed directly from the fact that -correctly- Bailey took him out of our first choice midfield and let him know that - with Scully and Trengove in the pipeline -he couldn't count on getting a regular game. You certainly can't say that we left a stronger trail to tanking than other clubs. For all we know Kernahan, Ratten and Co sent dozens of pro-tanking emails to each other in the lead up to the Kreuzer Cup. Clothier and Haddad ( and their racks , thumb screws etc) haven't even been asked to knock on the door. Back on topic Bailey is now very much an ally. He and the MFC are fighting a common enemy - the AFL. It can only help us if he swears that he didn't tell the players to tank - and , more importantly - accuses the interrogators of unfair tactics.

Good one bb. As much as I find the AFL difficult to read at the best of times - you've probably hit right on the bottom line. McLardy has been smart to leak our determination to fight this

Not if you take a literal approach to the rules. But as I have said the AFL might argue that in a substantive sense the Football Department head as "manager/boss of the coaches" is effectively a coach. As I recall Connolly sat on the bench sometimes presumably to "coach" the players on the interchange.It is definitely something we should use to defend him - but some judges are known to look more at the "substance" of the law than at the precise form / wording of the law. I suspect the rule was intended to zero in on "encouragement" from those with direct on field influence - why else would they confine it to particular roles? The way organisations play with job titles nowadays, I think a lot of judges will look beyond the name on the business card. Would Neil Craig fall outside the regulation because the word "coach" doesn't appear in his job title. Again I'm not saying that the AFL could sustain the charges - merely that they could make them if they wished to.Imagine Wilson's attack on the AFL if they don't charge Connolly under this regulation?

At the risk of getting my head blown off here, I find the wording of this rule a little worrying. Thanks for bringing it to my attention S_T, you send me off to Xmas worried !! Surely the AFL does have a prima facie case against Connolly "for inducing or encouraging the coaches not to perform on their merits". Connolly has a defence - that his comment was "tongue in cheek". But can he prove that he did not intend his words to be taken at face value - and can he prove that everyone knew that he didn't mean what he said? If three people in the room claim that they believed that he expected the words to be taken seriously, then he's in big trouble. The club could try to escape liability by argueing that the clause only applies to players , coaches and assistant coaches - but it would be open for the AFL to claim that as Football Manager at that time , Connolly was effectively director of the coaches and hence a "coach" in the broad sense the rule intended. If this interpretation was to prevail,we would have trouble - for it is difficult to deny that a suggestion that we must lose constitutes an encouragement "not to perform on your merits". By narrowly focussing on this one clause, the AFL could argue that the relative performance of other clubs is beside the point. Moving forward - is there anything linking Connolly's statement to Schwab? And then the big question - at what point do the actions of a senior official be deemed to be the actions of the club? There is a lot here for the Finkster to work on - and we can realistically hope to mount an effective defence. But I think we are being unrealistic if we just say : "he was joking- no case" The whole thing stinks - it is inconsistent and etc. But AFL Regulations 19(A5)is a worry.

No mate ...... she wants to use up every second of her annual leave picking the wings off flies or whatever she does for relaxation. Over a period of time Barrett has struggled to understand the difference between old news and new news - let alone the difference between fact and fiction. If we have to go to the Supreme Court then so be it ................. as long as the judge has the power to decree that the AFL must never discriminate against us again.

I don't disagree . I just think ( being serious - and paranoid!) that they wouldn't have advertised this review period if everything was "sweetness and light". If they intend to exonerate us the quickest and easiest way to expedite the matter would have been to come out in January whenever and say that we've concluded our investigation and decided there is no case to answer. The MFC have given us satisfactory explanations for all of matters raised by our investigators ..... It will be a disgrace if McLean isn't hauled over the coals for " bringing the game into disrepute" . Even if the AFL finally agree with his allegations , they should penalise him for going through the media rather than directly to the AFL. McLean is a self-serving headline-seeking ( slow-moving) weasil. I find the fact that his name is listed as a Foundation Hero quite offensive - we should give him his money back As for the fact that they haven't investigated Carlton - that denies us the "natural justice" we were promised I don't see how Connolly can possibly be charged for bringing the game into disrepute if the club is not. Although he might now be expendable as a scapegoat / sacrificial lamb, I agree that we must defend him

I didn't really want to start a new thread for new this - but I could have. Factor a bit of intelligence and business nous into the equation - and I reckon our man is unquestionably at the the top of the tree. Check out the list of VCE High Achievers in the paper - and there sitting right up near the top for Business Management is a certain Jack Viney from Carey Grammar with a cool 48!! I don't know his ATAR score - but 48 for any subject ( 48 out of 50, that is) is damn good especially when you're heading off to Gosch's Paddock in the middle of "swot Vac" as Jack was. Smart as well...................future captain !! Well done Jack

I don't see how a senior official can be "guilty" and the club " not guilty". If the Operations Manager has acted illegally ,then surely the Club has acted illegally- unless it can prove that the Operations Manager deliberately went against the wishes of the Board and the CEO.On the one level I could live with Connolly being penalized if the club escapes sanction. But I don't think that would be a fair outcome ...... and I believe the Club should fight on Connolly's behalf if that is the way it is headed. That is correct - but Melbourne wouldn't need three weeks if they weren't putting forward some pretty strong evidence against us and/or our officials. It is reasonable to conclude that the AFL believes there is a case to answer. This is not the end of the world - because we have an opportunity to answer it. But if the AFL were heading in the direction of clearing us altogether - they wouldn't be flagging a 3 week review period.No need to panic - but brace for a fight. The fact that at the very least the club is being made to fight to clear its name is a travesty of justice - when you consider what other clubs have done - with little more than a 'please explain' phone call. We should all send Jnrmac's other post (quoting Fev and Libba) to all the AFL Commissioners and every media outlet !!

I might as well be provocative Grimes © Jones (VC) Trengove Frawley Clark Dawes Jamar T McDonald I expect the club will stick with the co-captains - but I would use the fact that he is missing a lot of the pre-season as am excuse to ease Trenners out of the top job to concentrate more on his own form. Jonesy deserves a promotion. Some might say that it is too early for Tommy Mac - but he is a very impressive young man clearly respected by the FD and the players.He and Dawes represent fresh blood .... which I think we need. I've dropped out Garland who had a very ordinary year last year. Rodan is an enthusiast - but I don't think he has shown himself yo be a leader in his career to date - not known for his work in the trenches.I'd be delighted to see Sylvia there if he wins the players vote - but I'd like to see him perform consistently first.I'd also be interested to know where Watts sits with the players

I guess neither of us know what part-time actually means in terms of hours on the job etc and - depending on the exact roles of our Development Coaches - it may be fine , but, yes, I am also concerned that we haven't got a full-time coach dedicated to our "reserves team" I'm not sure you can read much into this announcement. Anyone can make a diplomatic reference to young Melbourne- listed players - just asanyone else can make a diplomatic reference to the welfare of Scorpions listed players. The fact that a new coach has learnt the ropes with 17 and 18 year old kids doesn't mean that he is not going to coach with his eye firmly on the ladder for 2013. I am pleased we have a coach with a good record with young players. Whether or not the alignment is now stable with Melbourne in the driving seat is something else again. As I have said above, I would be more comfortable if he was full-time. Word is that last year we bent over backwards to persuade Brett Lovett to come on board full-time - presumably because we thought the role needed it. The fact that we have again had to settle for a part-timer suggests that the arrangement is less than ideal. It doesn't sit well with our stated aim of being "elite" in all that we do. Good luck Rohan. I trust that if anything has to give from time to time - it will be your other job!

Its good to get a bit of a reality check. The competition doesn't stand still. I get the feeling that in the Bailey years we recruited andtrained as if it would. The game plan we worked towards was out of date before we were half way there. It's scary to think that you have to improve just to stand still. But with bigger bodies on our list and a more competitive culture you'd have to believe that we'll improve more than most You'd expect the players to be as flat as tacks this week. Sounds like there is still life in the group ........... which is great Thanks to all the reporters

He is very well credentialled for a development coach - and to that extent appears to be a very positive appointment. I don't like the fact that he is part-time though. Is that Welsh's call - or the club's call ( presumably for financial reasons) ? The key question is who is he answerable to - Woodman and the Scorpions Board or Craig/Neeld and Viney? If the latter , let's hope he settles in for more than one year! If the former let's hope there's a change at season's end.

Agree Old Dee. As well as having a very good conversion rate,a fair proportion of our members are baby boomers who are going to "retire" from going to the footy in the next few years.We'll need some red hot form in the NAB Cup and in the early rounds to jump by the 15% necessary to hit 40,000. Having said that, 20145 today is a terrific number in the shadow of the tanking fiasco.

Apparently the best Santa on the day will be appointed interim Coach

We are contractually obligated and I think strategically committed to the Casey area and the Casey Fields facilities. At the end of the day, it's all about control. Brian Woodman - the GM - is on the Board of Casey Scorpions FC under President David Dillon .You can imagine that Dillon and Woodman are close to the club sponsors and to the supporter groups.If people sympathetic to Melbourne were in these two positions, then the present structure could be made to work. You can imagine Woodman fighting tooth and nail for the status quo - how many other senior sporting admin positions are there in the Casey region? No coach wants to serve two masters . Its a no win. Peter German and Brad Gotch got out - and as I recall Brett Lovett was late appointment last year on a part -time contract when they couldn't get a satisfactory full-time applicant. The fact they can't get a coach is a symptom of an unsatisfactory unworkable arrangement. This is a much bigger issue for the AFL - and for player pathways etc - than Jordan McMahon's goal in 2009. The resources of the AFL and the MFC should have concentrating on this for these past four months.

No coincidence that he's leaving without seeing it through. He dug the AFL into a huge hole - and they couldn't start climbing out of it while he was around.

Perhaps someone should remind them that Wilson won't let people forget it!