hoopla

Gee I'd hate to be with you in the trenches.......""Just walk out there and be shot will you....It will save all the rest of us"

The MFC would be mangled....Who would want to work for us if we just hang a bloke(who has done a lot for this club) to take a hit for the rest of us......

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

What if said employee is at the top and seen to have been implementing the policy?

It seems to me that unless the AFL bans a person the MFC have to stick to that person other wise the person could make life very difficult for accomplices

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

If they investigate the other clubs for 'tanking' just as intensely as the MFC the inquiries would go on for 5 or more years

So what is their strategy?

[a] no case to answer, change some draft rules (lottery) hope it blows away

case to answer, token agreed penalties

[c] case to answer, come down heavy, mfc lawyers get involved, [censored] fight ensues, media love it

[d] case to answer, inquiry expanded to any/all AFL clubs, bad for everyone (but at least fairer)

I'd like to believe [a] but it does seem to be escalating. Can't believe they would go for [d] at least not to same intensity

If it was would you like to bend over and cop it. I wouldn't

[c] would seem a lose/lose situation and disastrous for us even if we came through on top

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

I think they want to penalise us, to placate the rest of the AFL supporters re the priority pick, & to exonerate vlad & anderson in the eyes of the public.

But they don't want to open up a pandoras box, so are looking for enough dirt to get our admins to except a prescribed punishment, with out a fight.

They don't want us to take it to court & open up a wider investigation AFL wide.

They want us to Lay down, as I'm sure they expected us to do.

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.

I don't disagree with you binman.

Experience has shown me humans often do dumb things.

And the MFC is made up of humans

I will believe we are home free when the AFL comes out and says so until then I am on edge.

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.

I have been a member of the MFC for the past 50 years so the school holidays comment is immature and banal. I played this game at the 2nd highest level and even coached my own sides.

My opinion is different to yours....I hate people bagging there own players from the safety of their keyboards...you seem to have no problem with it...so be it.......Some players will make it, some won't but I won't stoop to bagging......Will leave it there...

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

Wilson today:

With investigator Brett Clothier returning to Adelaide in recent days to re-interview former Demons coach Dean Bailey, the inquiry has widened with the league now scrutinising the behaviour of coaches on the Melbourne bench during specific games in 2009.

Fairfax Media understands the AFL has summoned Adam Paulo, who was the club's fitness coach that year ...

What needs investigating is who at the AFL is leaking this stuff to Wilson? Is it Clothier their investigator or somebody close to him? What do they hope to gain? Is their investigation of MFC so weak that they need to resort to trial by media (with Wilson and her apparent hatred of MFC the willing bunny)?

In any case, by leaking the gist of their investigation and having Wilson pass her own biased judgements and even pronounce her own idea of sentences, they have totally stuffed the investigation (from the legal point at least).

So as long as this gets played out in a legal arena and not simply an internal AFL matter, the investigators have for whatever reason (incompetence, likely, considering the lack of natural justice in their methods) stuffed this one.

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

Dale Thomas is a more intersting prospect than Lance Franklin given our list.

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

Thanks for all the interest everyone but I'll bow out now. My intention was to suggest that Caro is a good journalist doing her job but the discussion is now based around other issues which I've no interest in discussing on this forum.

It was in part my fault for letting it go there but in the "heat of discussion" and the suggestions and comments that were made about me I felt the need to respond.

FWIW I think it's terrific that the general feeling is one of unity with the Club and there are some on here who are pivotal to that.

I hope that in the heat of battle next year if things get difficult you will all show the same unity. Remember, BH says not to kick the club when it's down, I hope we support our players the same way.

It's been a hoot!

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)

I was kidding last week when I wrote of Wilson rummaging around garbage bins and about the club bootstudder being interviewed but that seems to be where this is all going now. It's high farce and becoming more than embarrassing for her and the investigators feeding her this bilge.

Demetriou should be aware that the entire investigative process is heading towards complete derailment.

In all this, Lynden Dunn stands out as the likely hero. Wilson states that he is "one player several Melbourne officials and former officials believed to have staged an unofficial protest during ¾ time of the Richmond game ..."

Well that's odd because there's no evidence that any official or former official instructed Dunn or any player to try to lose the game. Further, Melbourne was IIRC in front at ¾ time of that game so what exactly was he unofficially protesting about?

The only answer is that he, like McLean and possibly others, might have been unhappy about the general perception out there among the fans that it wasn't in the interests of the club to win many more matches from that stage of the season onwards. That's fair enough but it's no crime or offence for supporters to want their club to get the best possible draft position at the end of the year. Nor for that matter is it an offence for club officials to feel that way. The AFL had, on several occasions, already stated its position on what was ultimately permissible and what was not.

The fact that we had players who were outwardly urging their teammates on to win a match and that, in the end, we would have won had Jordan McMahon missed from 50 metres after the siren is the proof that there is no case to answer.

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

This is where I have a problem. The events that we're discussing took place in 2009 and many of those involved in them have either gone or are now employed in different roles at the club and are indeed, by all accounts, doing well.

Should we upset the apple cart because certain malcontents have told their grubby little stories to an over zealous investigator who has in turn passed this information on to a person in the media who despises thes "senior personnel"?

This is the opposite of a democratic and fair result and, as a member I object strongly to such an outcome which would be tantamount to handing a victory to those who plotted against these personel and thereby jeopardised the interests of the club.

I can see how some consider that this is not really about tanking and breaking AFL rules (whatever they may be) but instead, its about doing a hatchet job on people at the club who might not be popular with their critics.

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

Exactly. It's the same as one of her initial articles where she said that Josh Mahoney had been interviewed on more than one occasion and may have changed his story. She then immediately follows up with "Mahoney was absent from today's training session." She constantly writes nothing of importance, yet wants an inference to be drawn from what are on face value innocuous comments. Those that already believe the club tanked put these pieces of information together and form the opinion that it's only a matter of time before that conclusion is taken to the AFL Commission. Industry group-think at its finest, because it reinforces long held beliefs. A seamless jigsaw that easily comes together.

Doctors, or fitness staff on a bench can't establish any intent on losing. They may have a gut feel, or even have raised eyebrows at certain instructions, but unless they've been included in sensitive conversations their opinions are about as important as mine. Bailey, or any decent defence counsel would be able to quickly explain decisions and cast enough doubt on any suggestion that they were designed to inhibit a player's output.

In the end, I suspect the AFL want to be seen to be doing as much due diligence as possible to send a clear message that any club that wants to entertain going down this path in the future would have rocks in their head. And if the findings ultimately state that the MFC have no case to answer then they can show that their investigation was exhaustive and that despite some people's interpretations no concrete evidence could be found. The AFL need irrefutable evidence, because circumstantial evidence won't be enough to heavily sanction a club that has the courts in mind.

The head coach denies it, the players deny they were ever told not to play on their merits, the former President denies it in print, and Chris Connolly joked about it. There's no smoking gun. Just speculation, innuendo, unusual moves on the back of experimentation, and some with a gut feel. As I said, nothing.

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"

I'd be curious to know why you think that changing the senior personnel would remove the taint.

I believe the taint is one of 'brand'. Even if we suffer no formal penalty, we are up for mocking by other supporters, hesitation by sponsors etc. I do not see how the names or history of senior personnel affect any of that. Sponsors know that 99.9% of supporters (ie. their market) don't know who is CEO of any club (though perhaps not true of posters to these sorts of boards), so how would changing the CEO or whatever affect their decision to sponsor a club? I doubt that they'd shy away just because the senior people had done something a bit off in the past - if business worked like that, how come <insert long list of prominent dodgey business people's names here> still be raking it in?

So please explain, or I may be tempted to think you might more motivated to replace the senior personnel than wash away the taint.

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 !!

Seems like the off-season recruiting has revolved around obtaining big, strong and mature bodies who can a create contest and not get bullied around the ball.

Melbourne sides over the past 5 years have too easily been pushed around.

Mark Neeld's philosophy of being 'hard to play against' has resulted in the recruiting of:

• Rodan
  
• Viney
  
• Dawes
  
• Gillies
  
• Pederson
  
• Seller
  
• Magner
  
• Couch
  
• Wines?
  

All of the above will definitely stand their ground but are not renowned for their speed.

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

Hopefully they will start investigating the Blueboys re 3rd parties & they're military paraphernalia.

Well they haven't investigated their tanking in any depth - why investigate their 3rd parties?

Surely they should be allowed time to prepare their defence.

Yes........ sets a precedent for us

What i dislike is that there are forces at work that are clearly attempting to have CS sacked, that is obvious. I'm not talking about DL - who cares about DL. I'm talking about the real world. People with an agenda have obviously leaked information to CW about the evidence they gave to the AFL investigators, in order i assume to make CS position untenable. To be honest i am ambivalent about CS, but i simply don't have enough knowledge to make a judgment. I assume the board do and they have reappointed him.

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!

Pull your head in pal. He saved the club, sank $2.7m of his own, or c$5m before tax. And plenty more effort besides. I was there, I saw.

You must have contributed more, I guess?

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

Fan,

I think the words that particularly grated many, and that were perhaps unnecessary, came in your first post in this thread where you concluded by saying, "Keep up the good work Caro". I accept it was an all encompassing "thank you" on your part, but it was also clearly designed to inflame. It served its purpose.

Btw, I noticed in the first Wilson article that got this tanking story back to the forefront they used an archive photo which showed yours truly seated in a large meeting room. As you worked voluntarily in the club's footy department in 2009 I suspect there's a fair chance you were one of the 15 in the room when Connolly made his 30 second "aside" of that year.

Your take on his comments and intent ?

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

We need to get our facts right.

Carlton did fade out inexplicably in the second half of 2007 but it did not do so in the Kreuzer Cup with Fev on the bench. Fev was benched against Collingwood some weeks earlier than that game but he was sent off for surgery and conveniently was missing for the Blues over the last few weeks of the season.

People can blame Melbourne officials like CS for supposedly being grim-faced after a win or CC for saying things which might three years after the event be taken out of context, but I don't regard that as being grounds for criticising their performance or justifying the utter visciousness of Wilson's attacks on them and the club.

Moreover, there is no justification for excluding Carlton and a number of other clubs from the same lengthy and rigorous scrutiny as that under which our club has been placed. I'm sure that given four or so months of KGB-like attention from over zealous investigators and media people with agendas, that stories can be embellished and anyone can be made to look incompetent if facts are twisted to suit a particular angle. In the case of Carlton, I know of at least one board member from that time who was careless enough to lay it on the line weeks before the Kreuzer Cup that his club's game was to tank in order to maximize its draft position. I know this because the (now former) board member told me so.

But apart from 15 minutes of questioning of Tony Liberatore that resulted in a dismissive outcome, the Blues remain untouched even after Fevola's revelations in his book. The fact of the matter is that the AFL in giving such a narrow interpretation to what it called "tanking" turned a blind eye to a practice that went on for the better part of a decade and which should have been nipped in the bud long before 2007 when Carlton turned it into an art form.

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.

If you don't rate her why are you upset if she attacks Schwab? For all your outrage she's not really hurting us is she. She's been after Schwab for years with no success.

.

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

That , if you dont mind me suggesting is a mighty big throw-away pass there..."but so what ?"

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!!

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the power of the press. There is nothing more dangerous than when agenda's, opinion, assumptions and postulating are presented as facts. Whilst what is going on is not exactly earth shattering compared to events on the world stage I am losing count of the conversations around footy and the tanking issue I am having where my friends are debating me with concrete FACTS - Caroline Wilson's version of concrete facts.

One word has been notoriously absent from all but her last article and that is the word "alleged/allegedly". Throws a completely different light on an article - it takes it out of the realms of fact and it becomes supposition.

Greg Denham is a goose and nobody takes him seriously - never have - never will. On the other hand Caroline Wilson is well read, is repsected and is taken notice of and it does not do justice to her or her profession for her writings to be opinions masquarading as facts.

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.

this is disgraceful! turning a training thread into a jack watts stick to the topic guys ffs!

Ditto

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

Anyway if you don't like her don't read or listen to her. It's a pretty simple choice. Believe me, Demonlanders are taking much more notice of her than anyone else.

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

Nice to see you've recognized the errors in your relevant post. Thanks.

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.