hoopla

Fair comment !! (............ though what would you do if the AFL said - "Ban from next two drafts or X's dismissal?") PS: Best not go there: need to keep hoping we'll be OK

I take your point but you could argue that it is not a policy if it hasn't come from the Board - or the CEO. I'm not suggesting it is right - or that it isn't open to criticism - but it might be a little area of grey the AFL ( with the club's agreement) might be able to use to get itself out of a jam As Connolly is not part of the footy department anymore, his potential to damage the club is limited- particularly if he gets a healthy pay out

As noted above (b with penalties imposed on individuals might be it?

If - as we are saying - we are not going to lay down - they have placed themselves in an impossible position. You can't all achieve all those aims simultaneously.... hence the delay - it's all too hard. But the longer it goes - and the more time and effort they put into it - the harder it will be for them to justify doing nothing. They might decide that they they will be less likely to confront an earth shattering court challenge if they ping an individual - say Connolly. In all honesty I would be happy with anything that leaves the club untouched - but I'm not sure the club should abandon any loyal employee. As far as I am concerned no penalty will be fair if they are imposed without a detailed investigation of other clubs.

Got to say that this puts me on edge too. It would be amazing if something potentially incriminating hasn't hit the airwaves - even if only as an extension of Connolly's sense of humour. Surely the AFL wouldn't still be going ( with no completion date in sight) if they didn't think they had a chance of nailing us.

Its difficult to argue that there is nothing wrong with bagging your players from the other side of the fence - yet most of us do it from time to time. I know I am guilty of bagging Clint Bartram - and recent disclosures about Clint's knee problems have demonstrated just how unfair I was. Col has been such a frustrating player - because he has the talent to win us games of football - yet so often fails to deliver. I think he has probably suffered more from injury than we realize - but that doesn't make his ordinary performances any less frustrating I just reckon we all ought to wipe the slate clean and start again ( yes I know we do it every year!) Perhaps it will be ninth time lucky!!

I don't know who Fan is - or indeed who anyone is on this site ........ so I don't relate to these discussions about hidden agendas. I do know that individuals get hurt in the cutthroat world of AFL football - and that it is human nature to try exact some form of retribution against those who have hurt us. But at the end of the day the club is bigger than the individual - and I would expect that all of us on this site would want to see us climb the on-field and financial ladders as soon as possible. The facts are that our club - at the instigation of a disgruntled former player - is currently the subject of an unprecedented investigation - and that a prominent journalist s using it to try to trash our brand. Whether or not we alone committed a crime in placing long-term needs ahead of short-term needs is problematical at best - yet we face penalties which could destroy the hopes of all of us. We should all be putting aside our personal animosities and shouting from the rooftops the one incontrovertible fact in play here - that the future success of our club is under threat because the AFL is considering using a scapegoat to justify the fact that it built a process designed to encourage clubs to bottom out. Do you want Wilson to be able to say in her next article that a number of Melbourne supporters agree with her, Do you agree that we should be that scapegoat? We are the ONLY club being investigated at the moment - we should ALL be protesting

So the question is whether or not we choose to take the AFL to court - which would be a huge call - which we could only really justify if the penalties are draconian.......... Hopefully the AFL see it that way ..... and come up with a nice little "No case to answer" conclusion

Yes ............. and perhaps a (small) outside chance - whereas Buddy is no chance at all - absolutely no chance at all

If you're after an allround athlete with a good body shape who can really run- Matthew Haynes is your man. AIS graduate who figured prominently in several draft combine events . Good bloke too. Has fallen down the pecking order because he is very much an outside player - who is not a great kick. Could easily be available at pick 53. Goes to school with Jack Viney so we will know what he can do

Would you care to re-write this conciliatory note - without the demeaning little dig at the end (unless you are acknowledging that all our posts represent such wise utterings that they could be attributed to a footy-wise owl)

Correct .......... straight to the bottom line ( especially as we kicked the previous goal!)

You sum it up very well. Wilson's article this morning - whether she intended it or not - highlights the investigator's extraordinary reliance on the views of disgruntled former personnel - whether or not those people are in a position to provide any meaningful evidence ( doctors on the bench!) You'd think that the journalist herself might actually make that the headline. But she can't help herself - her "if statement" about Schwab is a classic giveaway - a nice little link back to her long-term obsession I hope you are right. The other view is that they won't leave us alone until they find enough to hang someone - even if its the boot studder. It's possible that the AFL has decided that someone has to be punished for this - to justify the tens /thousands of dollars they have spent on it already. Perversely we might get more support from the general football public if we are punished : "poor Melbourne - talk about a scapegoat" . If we "get off" , they'll cry "blxxdy Melbourne - how lucky are they" Surely, you'll concede this Fan. You seem to assume that the market is comprised those already immersed in the detail of who's who. Our market is the broader community of young people , business people, immigrants who don't know Chris Connolly from a bar of soap - they know the Melbourne Demons. And headlines like " pathetic and disgusting Demons" and (down the track , perhaps) " disgraced Demons sack officials " damage that name !!

Rodan, Byrnes ( don't forget) Viney and Gillies are all quicker than the blokes they have replaced - Morton, Gysberts, Moloney, Rivers. Then there's Barry ..... and there's a few picks to go. Seems to me that they haven't overlooked the need for speed in this year's recruiting

Well they haven't investigated their tanking in any depth - why investigate their 3rd parties? Yes........ sets a precedent for us

Surely one of the features of Wilson's latest campaign is that it is based on information obtained from people who have left the club. - McLean and the infamous unnamed former player. In times past we leaked like a sieve - from the inside !! We need to take care to ensure that we don't fall back into aggressive debate about divisions the club - of today - is desperately trying to heal. CS has survived because he has worked assiduously outside the footy department to ensure that the debt we demolished doesn't reappear and CC is trying to rebuild his career in the marketing/community relations space. You can't change a culture and establish unity overnight - but it seems to me that today's board, admin and footy departments are having a pretty good crack at it.Just as the club's own efforts to clean things up are gaining traction - along come a few bitter outsiders - out comes Wilson's personal agenda - and then in go a couple of investigators with no understanding of the workings of a footy club - and bang Melbourne is "pathetic and disgusting". We are having this little debate on the concept of dissent because - with the heat now on Adelaide - we've forgotten the fact that today's hardworking club might just get blown out of water - because of a biased investigation into the actions of a different organisation over three full seasons ago. If we get hit with draft restrictions - and/or financial penalties - because of the bitterness of Wilson's sources - I trust I won't see any posters arguing that it serves Craig, Neeld and Misson right!

Sorry mate. Apart from your superficial assessment of the man, Gutnick has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'd suggest that your head is the one that ought to be pulled in

Careful...... one of the 15 appears to have been one of Caro's unmamed sources..................

THankyou for checking my facts, WJ .......................... and for an excellent summation of the key weaknesses in Ms Wilson's analysis and in the AFL's approach.

The fact that Schwab is still our CEO is hardly evidence that Wilson isn't hurting our brand. Please ..................

Nicely said belzebub. Because of that - one of Melbourne's dailys ran a front page article condemning the "pathetic and disgusting MFC". Potential sponsors who mightn't bother with the detail of the sports page - and wouldn't know Caroline Wilson from a bar of ( sour) soap - see that .... and remember it. It hurts our brand - that's what!!

Unfortunately I share your experiences - and hence your concerns. We can't have Melbourne supporters giving credence to this woman's destructive bias. For what is at worst a very fine line of difference between our list management strategies and those of other teams - she is advocating sanctions which could cost us millions and set us back years. Thanks to her hyperbole the football public does think we are ripe for punishment. As I have said before the proof of the pudding must be on the field - and the salient facts are Carlton's fade out ( with Fev on the bench ) against our hard-finish in the Kruezer Cup - and our effort to come-from- behind and hit the front in time -on against Richmond in Round 18 2009. "Tanking" has never been clearly defined. It can only ever be relative. Somehow - despite on-field evidence to the contrary - Wilson seems to have isolated us on the wrong side of what she seems to think is a very clear line Defend journalistic rights if you must, Fan - but please don't defend the way they have been abused in this case.

Ditto ..............please moderators I went to this thread for info on yesterday's training!!

Now I like your last sentence - and I hope you are right. If you are right - then the general footy public knows the difference between gutter journalism and fact - which is good to know

In matters of substance , I'm not sure I've recognised anything - I certainly haven't conceded anything Any answer to my question ? Your response to Sue's question doesn't exactly vindicate the good lady Wilson.