hoopla

If you believe that the players were never told to lose - then you believe that we have done nothing wrong - and should say so. The fact that the supporters cheered McMahon's goal through is not evidence that the club committed a crime - but a demonstration of the fact that the supporters understood the AFL's incentives to bottom out ( just as Carlton supporters understood them after the Kruezer Cup) (Although I disagree with your take on the Richmond game in 2009,I reckon you are spot on putting "Hurricane" into the jester's top 5!) As I have said above , I believe that Anderson has dumped the AFL into a huge hole on this. The AFL needs this investigation out of the way as quickly as possible.The trouble is they don't how to conclude - because every which way they do it will make them look foolish. Whereas McLardy initially said we would fight for "natural justice" ,he is now saying that we will fight to "protect our integrity". I am probably reading to much into it but that sounds to me like a much stronger protest of innocence - and a much stronger warning to the AFL that it needs to get its findings right. As WJ has said - through the poison pen of people like the Wilson Woman - this saga has damaged our reputation - and Melbourne expects the AFL to help restore it. If the integrity issues of 2012 are drugs and gambling, the AFL shouldn't be tying up resources on priority pick incentives in 2009. Hurry up Mr Demetriou - Anderson has gone.

Fundamental point here. Whether or not he would have got the offer is neither here nor there because he closed the door by extending his contract. He committed himself to us straight up.End of story Absolutely. Please close it immediately

Anderson landed the AFL in a huge mess when - with Demetriou on leave- he took the self-serving whinges of McLean seriously. The priority pick has effectively gone - and the whole "tanking for picks debate" could have died a natural death. Anderson has spent timeand money putting a dead issue back on the table .Whack Melbourne and the AFL ( with good reason) will be beaten up for gross inconsistency - exonerate Melbourne and the AFL will be accused ( by Wilson at least) of softness and naivety.One of the reasons the investigation is still going is surely because the AFL is desperately trying to find something that will give them a way out of the mess they ( through Anderson) have got themselves into. They haven't finished it yet - because they don't know how to. Anderson said the two big integrity issues facing the AFL today are drugs and gambling - yet he has his staff digging through 2009 emails between the Melbourne boot studder and his wife looking for proof that Melbourne broke some sort of rule. If you were his chosen successoryou'd want in your contract that finalisation of the Melbourne investigation wouldn't be part of your brief. How significant was this monumental [censored] -up in Anderson's departure?

Given that everyone knew about the draft incentives, I struggle to understand how a few odd positional changes in a game brought the game into disrepute anyway. Now by publicly voicing his disillusionment with an incentive system which jeopardised his place in the first choice midfield of his former club,Brock McLean certainly damaged the reputation of the AFL. He could have expressed his concerns directly to Mr Anderson - but he chose to do it through the media instead. If every player who has left his first club with a grievance followed Mc Lean's lead, the reputation of the AFL would quickly be in tatters

It amuses me when people trot out the old " its no defence to argue that others have done the same thing" line. That analogy is appropriate when the crime is clearly defined and fully understood - but that is not the case here.What is the crime- except as defined by precedent? If we are found guilty it will be because the AFL for the very first time has decided that a particular set of normal behaviours have suddenly become illegal. I believe my in-principle comments about the preachings of Melbourne supporters are valid - even if they can be dismissed at the micro level. I am sure that in resolving to fight the charges the Board has gained strength from the support it has received from the overwhelming majority of Melbourne supporters (and Demonland posters)

Not sure why you are going out of your way to emphasise and re-emphasise the case for the prosecution. I may agree with you but - I'm certainly not going to broadcast it ahead of all the legitimate points we can raise in our defence. Caro has well and truly promoted the prosection case already - we need to restore the balance by putting the other side of the argument. Nutbean's five points below are compelling. These are the points we should be promoting - not just in support of the MFC but in the interests of natural justice! (PS Whatever else you might say about the Richmond game, we still put a team on the field that was good enough - and motivated enough- to be in front when the siren sounded) All good stuff No objective football follower who attended both the Kreuzer Cup and the McMahon Memorial could possibly conclude that Melbourne alone committed a crime

Yes Vincehotboy - except for the fact that Carlton didn't set up a President (Obama?) - I agree with you .................... but that doesn't make Old Dee a fool!!

Unfairfax News believes that the AFL must come down heavily on the club for breaching privacy laws in relation to McLean's condition. McLean is trying to rebuild his faith in the system after the pathetic and disgusting treatment he received from the Melbourne Football Club in 2009. If it is found that Melbourne CEO Cameron Schwab is involved in this latest slur, then he should be remanded in custody pending formal charges. Carlton captain Chris Judd whose fitness for the role McLean has questioned is reported to have told his wife Rebecca (pictured) that he doesn't place any credence on the views of VFL players.

AASB 1004 is controversial - and under review - because it runs contrary to the spirit of matching which underpins accounting as a whole Many profitable organisations fall over because they mismanage their cash flows - and many profitable organisations defer ( or avoid) tax because the concepts are different. Clearly you are at odds with the Foundation Heroes. IF they didn't believe we could muster sufficient financial firepower to win a premiership they wouldn't have put in $700k. Surely that's the point. For several years now our financial performance has been better than our on-field performance. Despite the drag of consistent on-field losses, we've broken even. Win some games - draw some crowds - give sponsors finals exposure - and the funds will start to flow.

She's determined to sustain her view that we "pathetic and disgusting". The word "tanking" has become a joke - so she's trying to coin a phrase that sounds "incriminating" - hence the term "deliberately forfeit" As you point out, that insinuation flies in the face of the facts ......... and highlights just how absurd the whole thing is!! Anderson called for this ridiculous investigation while Demetriou was away. Perhaps this demonstrated to "the powers that be " that Anderson hasn't got the judgment necessary to climb further up the AFL management ladder. Wishful thinking perhaps - but the timing is interesting. Let's face it, he's just dug the AFL into one heck of a hole

Good question!!! Balancing short term and long term priorities in accordance with the AFL's draft rules - and following the strategies of clubs above us on the ladder? ( You can't say we deliberately forfeited games we lost after the siren like Caro did this morning !!)

Under accrual accounting principles the date of receipt is not the critical event. However under controversial standard AASB 1004, the $700k will have to be taken up as 2012 revenue as long as the donations were not subject to the express condition that they be retained for use in 2013. If the donations were unconditional then I agree that they will be part of this year's comprehensive income ( and probably profit) By the way, don't confuse taxable income with accounting profit - there are two very different concepts which rarely ,if ever ,coincide. Absolutely. Given the struggles of last season - its a big plus For a myriad of reasons dating back to the late 60s and 70s through into the 80s , we are a relatively small club with a relatively small supporter base - that is a fact . However we are much stronger than we have been - and we have done well this year in the circumstances We cannot realistically hope to be as financially strong as Collingwood - but we can realistically hope to be strong enough financially toenjoy the ultimate success of a premiership as long as the draft and salary caps remain and the AFL's equalisation policies continue to improve - provided we stick together and think positively!!

Not strictly on topic - but you might note that the highly discreet Mr Brock McLean has come out today and suggested that Chris Judd should resign as captain to concentrate on his own game. Knows his place, doesn't he Brock? After all a lot of players on one year contracts who have spent the past few years in the reserves make public comments on the standing of their captains? Back to the vindictive lady - just had to refer to "the investigation into Melbourne's deliberate forfeiture of games" in her article on Adrian Anderson today didn't she? Not sure how you can say that a game lost after the siren was deliberately forfeited, Ms Wilson!!

They've committed themselves to a full investigation.Even from the time they present their preliminary findings it could take weeks to finish things off. First the parties have to agree the facts ie on this date he said this etc; then they have to agree or disagree on the conclusions from these facts ie this means/doesn't meantanking; then they've got to agree/disagree the penalty , if any. It won't be just a matter of the AFL saying we conclude x and us saying we don't accept x. Unfortunately even if we escape sanctions , the AFL are going to have to report in enough detail to justify all the time and effort they've put into it - and to justify all the years they let other teams take advantage of the rules. The AFL has created a monster ..... and its hard to see them tying it up without weeks and weeks of to'ing and fro'ing (with the media standing beside the shredder trying to pick up few scraps of info!) I'm just pleased we have signalled again that we are going to fight to preserve our integrity. Don't hold your breath for clean quick solution ( unless they've been feeding us drafts for weeks already - which seems unlikely)

There is no doubt that the balance sheet will be healthier than it has been in living memory - it was last year and - assuming that the quotedfigures include "Other Comprehensive Income and Expenses "this year's result will only improve that. Having demolished the debt, we have eliminated the hefty annual interest charge we used to have to absorb I have no problem with AFL special distributions being included - because I think they can properly be regarded as recurring.If the $700k raised from the Foundation Heroes was genuinely raised to assist with next year's salary bill, then under accounting standards there is a strong argument to say that the income should be deferred and brought to account next year. I will be interested to see if it has somehow been deemed revenue of 2011/12.[As if you hadn't guessed from all my boring posts , I suppose I'd better fess up to being an accountant!] Even if the $700k has somehow been included in this year's result,I am pleased that we have finished in front. With a relatively low membership, the early loss of a key sponsor and a dreadful year on the field - the club has done well to stay in the black - particularly in the tough economic conditions Victoria has experienced.The fact that we did so despite lifting football department expenditure makes it even better. If we improve on the field , we should be able to lift revenues next year - even if the $700k has already been taken up and is not repeated .............. as long as the AFL doesn't beat us up for tanking!!

Thankyou for this WJ - very interesting reading. Its not only Melbourne supporters who think "she is embittered" We tend to have forgotten her article on Sam Fisher which was in many ways nastier than the Swan dig. It will be interesting to see if heis removed from the leadership group as she seems to think. I wonder if she picked that up from a disgruntled former employee like Brock Goddard. You do wonder if White Winmar's point is right - that's she's under huge pressure to lift readership and that The Age's editorial policy is driving her muck raking. If so they'd do better to employ journos who are respected for their football knowledge rather than one whose understanding of the relationship between administrators coaches and players is looking more and more simplistic by the day.

Yes........... after much frustrations and numerous aborted attempts to contact the administrators...... I have success with Ctrl F5. THankyou

Where would you publish them? ........................The Big Issue?...................Woman's Weekly? ..................... Zoo? ......... Wikileaks?.............

If we are to be successful, both our captains are going to have to be at least B to B+ players - bearing in mind that last year Jonesy was probably B. Grimes is getting close - but on last year's form Trenners has a way to go. I'm not saying he won't get there - merely that he has to lift.

Interesting that not a sniff from the' peddlar of all things dirty' in today's paper. Just a sneakky little piece headed " Magpies keen to work with clubs, AFL to fight drugs" by a couple of no-names. The article included a picture of yesterday's Swan article implying somehow that Collingwood had picked up on CW's expose - when it fact it was Pert who first raised the broad question days ago. At the foot of the article Buckley's tweet was noted under the McGuire statement that Collingwood wasn't going into a blame game. If you've broken a winning story, you keep running with it.Three times in a row now she's lead with her chin - and then shut up ! First the "pathetic and disgusting" - then the " demote Sam Fisher" and now the "sack Swan" Must be close to full membership of the fiction writers' guild now Caro.

So someone out their has decided to win the Guinness Book Of Records' "Most abuses in one place Award" by opening a Twitter Account in the name of Caroline Wilson? Smart move if spelling mistakes, expletives and the odd decayed tooth are allowed.

Must say I found the suggestion that "Spencer is an athlete" nearly as amusing as the uncoordinated efforts of his namesake Frank on the vintage British comedy "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em" ( ..... Mister Spencer...) Credit where credit's due though - he is strong and determined - and he showed great improvement last year. He competes and I never thought I'd be saying this - but I agree that he might just be OK as a first ruck. In time though, I'm just hoping that Big Maxie will be the man.

Let's attribute that one game to a lack of confidence - and to despair - and leave Old Dee's post as the last statement on the matter!

I know you are right (but give me 2 lawyers and I'll give you 2 opinions!!) Still this is about the sentiments - on which we both agree