hoopla

You praise her as a journalist and then agree that she is motivated by a personal agenda against Schwab. Sure, a journalist often needs motivation to uncover the nasties (eg. Matt Peacock and Hardies). So one can sometimes say 'so what' with which you dismissed criticism of her. But before saying that, you have to examine if the motivation is distorting the journalism. Her factualizing (love the word Nutbean) and vendetta have distorted her journalism. As I said, a hatchet-job. You don't have to to a hatchet-job on a "Hitler" - the facts speak for themselves.

Very good Sue !

Look I'm afraid I don't have time to answer everything.

Couldn't agree more Sue, she clearly has it in for Schwab but so what? If the MFC were a competent organization managed efficiently then she'd have nothing to go at. We aren't so she has ammunition. I'm often accused of having an agenda, but that doesn't render a position incorrect. For the record I wish she'd get off our back but I wish even more we didn't give her the oxygen to continue to target us.

Well let see.

1. It wasn't common knowledge that Schwab had taken a loan and wasn't an issue until she reported it. It became an issue because it was so totally inappropriate and had people be aware of it it would have been an issue earlier. It was a big issue because we'd gone to the membership to raise money to eliminate debt but still saw fit to give a substantial amount to Schwab. She made an issue of it, others didn't. And it was "an issue".

2. Nathan Carroll's delisting was a result of a "mad monday" in which he punched Ben Holland and racially abused a Jewish employee. She got the story.

3. Her article on Neeld's appointment wasn't an article against Neeld, it was an article highlighting the "unusual" employment process that was instituted by Lyon, McLardy and Schwab. It was part of her agenda to highlight Schwab and his practices.

Sorry I've haven't responded to others, it's difficult to keep up.

Just for the record

1. It was common knowledge to anyone with sufficient interest in the finances of the MFC to have read the Annual Report. It wasn't a big story because the debt was relatively small, and fully secured - and had been substantially repaid before the article was published.

2. The fact that Mad Monday was the straw that broke the camel's back doesn't invalidate my point. It was no big deal. The point about McLean remains

3. Yes - it wasn't a direct criticism of Neeld - but it was a criticism of Melbourne and of Cameron Schwab in particular - which as you point out clearly supports my contention.

You seem to agree that she has an agenda to undermine Schwab. Why is that ? Do you have any inside knowledge of Wilson - Schwab family tensions?

I don't think Fan gives a rip about Wilson.

I think it is, and this is just my journalistic instincts at work here, more about a stance that is anti the current admin as he can see the pressure being lessened after the the last few weeks.

I believe, and this is just my right as a person who is often right and knows his stuff, that Fan has an agenda and loves to be the enlightened minority harrassed by the unthinking mob.

The fact that he began by saying that he hadn't read the thread suggests you are right

HIs lack of familiarity with the balance of Wilson's "writing" adds more weight to your view

Caro has historically broken the big stories and has been accurate in her reporting. She has excellent contacts, particularly into the MFC. Schwab's loan from the Club, the Neeld appointment process ant the Nathan Carroll delisting issue in 2008 are just examples where she's broken stories and had that facts right.

Oh dear - you really are scratching for justification here.

She broke the Schwab loan story did she? Well firstly it wasn't a story in any sense let alone in a football sense - and secondly she didn't break it - it was fully disclosed to the members by the club itself 4 months prior !!

What about the Neeld appointment process? She selected an incomplete set of "facts" to support her own criticisms of Neeld. That;s a point against yourself.

Nathan Carroll's delisting - huge story that one !! Am I right in saying that Nathan Carroll was hauled over the coals for an incident overseas which also involved that bastion of integrity - Brock McLean? Perhaps he was the source.... perhaps the Richmond link through Uncle Ricky is more important than we thought.

Sorry Fan - you'll have to do better than that

QED

I must confess to not having read this whole thread but I'd imagine there are few if any posts in support of Caro. Personally I think she is a must read and an important cog in the business of the AFL because she keeps everyone pretty honest.

I have no issue with her treatment of MFC. She is sussing out the facts and reporting them and then just offering an opinion. I don't like what I hear but I can't see she's done anything wrong.

I'm with her all the way on Adelaide. Without the likes of her clubs would be much freer to break rules and the larger clubs would hold the whip hand. She keeps them honest.

She also reports on the part of the game I enjoy, the politics and the uneasy relationship that exists between the AFL and the Clubs. Without her we would be more ignorant of issues than we are now and there would be much greater reward and willingness for "bending the rules". What club now would risk being as blatant as MFC or Carlton in pursuit of draft picks?

There is no doubt she has hurt our club with her attacks in the last few weeks but the only reason we are in this position is because we were incompetent in the execution of an AFL approved methodology and one that we probably all thought was "tacky" at best. She has been in part responsible for removing the PP which is a good thing.

Keep up the good work Caro.

Fan - I suggest you do read this thread - because it contains a great deal of evidence of a journalist's determination to damage one club - and one executive. Before you defend her I suggest you familiarise yourself with the facts.

A quality journalist focusing on tensions between the clubs and the AFL - would give equal considerations to all clubs. Why hasn't Wilson insisted on a full enquiry into the Kreuzer Cup? Why hasn;'t she described the actions of the Adelaide Football Club as "disgusting and pathetic"? Yes- I guess she has called for Steven Triggs's resignation - but then she has more evidence of that than merely his facial expression after one game ? Has she looked at the Adelaide Annual Report for evidence of executive loans as she has for Melbourne ? Why hasn't she considered that Brock McLean disillusionment with the MFC stemmed from the fact that he was relegated to starting on the bench - and saw Scully and Trengove pushing him down to the VFL?

The only work Caro can keep up is prejudiced work

This is an example of someone not lying but knowing very well they are misleading.

He put in $2.7m.

Can we just stop bringing up this crap?

We are a divided club at the minute (as an anonymous few are trying to bring down Schwab) and I know that you yourself, jnrmac, have riled at my suggestions we are divided but what do you think your views are?

They are divisive.

Just move on.

The Merger ©, Gutnick, Szondy, Gardner...

We all need to move the F___ on.

I'm not sure we are a divided club at the moment ........ but I agree we do need to move on

Unfortunately Wilson just keeps throwing up the past - not just 2009 but now the "salary cap breach"

I'll keep my views on Gutnick to myself - but I will say that - in this context - his knee-jerk admission was most unfortunate for it has muddied on our record of compliance with AFL rules. As Ridley's book explains in detail, it is by no means clear that we did actually breach the salary cap that year.

Back to topic it is amazing how regularly Wilson manages to have a dig at CS and the MFC . Let's not follow her lead by digging up divisions of the past

He would always give 100 percent. Did he play in any of the alleged tanking games? He should be called as a star witness - no way he wouldn't go out to do his best, every game.

Great ambassador for the club....................... like to interview him, Wilson - or would he give far too much positive copy for you to handle ?

Can't be hypocritical - I never thought he was really up to it - and I'm sure I criticised him more than once on this forum. But the more you hear about his injury problems the more you have to respect him for what he was able to produce - and the more you understand those soft little kicks!

100 games for the MFC is a great achievement. Obviously a highly respected member of the leadership group. Well done, Barts .... and good luck

From the shock and awful article. W. Wilson.

Some really terrible things said in there about OUR club which was jumped on by ravenous leeches all over the place. No real substance just some venom. This mud will stick in some way.

"But even if Stynes' legacy is spared because we might never truly know how much he knew, the game must cast aside concerns about legacies and images and football myths and concentrate on repairing the collateral damage.

Melbourne will be harshly punished. Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly will be finished at the club. But football lives, young men who played no real active part in the treacherous football facade which took place at the club in 2009 were ruined or at the very least tarnished by their association with it.

It is nonsense to suggest the AFL must carry the can for Melbourne because it created a system which encouraged tanking. That is rot. The AFL was not complicit in this. At best it was naive and at worst the commission and its chief executive incompetent in failing to see what was being unveiled in front of them."

"What Melbourne did in manipulating results was disgusting. The result of the fix was pathetic. To think that so many reputations could be destroyed and so many playing careers hurt all for one ambitious young footballer who began looking for a way out of the place after only one year.

If what some former players and coaches say is true, then the tanking was only the half of it. But to put in the fix for Tom Scully and not to create a training and development laboratory for all similarly-talented young men to improve and retain them is just so glaringly short-sighted."

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2C58UEwLz

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2C57wlqh1

Thanks for the reminder. What an extraordinarily poisonous pen that woman wields. How can anyone who supposedly followed football through the noughties possibly attack one club so viciously? As for her shameful reference to Jim.............. and then there's her pitiful sympathy for "poor Brock" .

Seriously she shouldn't survive this

Maybe that was their intention in an effort to make it go away.

"Yes we did this poorly. Going forward, measures x, y and z have put in place to eliminate any confusion or conjecture about......."

I reckon it wouldn't have started in the first place if Demetriou hadn't been on London. Having played the game he knew tanking wasn't provable - which is why he kept saying it wasn't happening

This lead investigator has come out of a war zone. He's an army man cum-policeman.Yes Sir .... Name Rank and Serial Number Sir ....... Name Rank and Serial Number.

How can this guy understand the nuances of debate around a footy club - when humour, anger, emotion etc influence what things are said and how things are interpreted. How can this guy be an effective investigator when there is no black letter law. He is an expert grilling confessions out of sex offenders.Law and Order SVU !!

Talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut

The AFL have really botched this whole thing

AKA backing down while attempting to minimise loss of face.

She even seems to be casting doubt on the most compelling piece of evidence of all - Schwab's look of disappointment after the Port Adelaide game. Not long ago she thought he should be sacked for that !!!

Its crazy that the AFL are still trawling through emails. The proof of the pudding is in the eating ............ all our eminent QC needs to do to defend us is to ask the Commission to compare two last quarters

• The last quarter of the Kreuzer Cup in 2007 when Carlton took off Fev and stood back while Melbourne ( note!) ran over them;
  
• The last quarter of the Melb v Rich game in 2009 when Melbourne came from behind (note!) to hit the front in time on - only to be pipped by a kick after the siren
  

Now forget the hot air and vaults and contradictory statements and whinges from former players Mr Commissioner - look at the evidence that matters - and tell me that Melbourne tanked!

I don't understand how it's a good idea to fight the afl in court. They are sitting on bags of cash and every club relies on them for their distribution of wealth. And the mfc gets additional support being one of the smaller clubs. So we take them to court and win then the afl simply decide mfc dont need the extra assistance we are currently receiving or we lose and we waste a whole lot of money anyway. The problem is that the afl has way too much power these days.

Obviously its a last resort. But if we're hammered with penalties ( even draft penalties which will hit sponsorship and membership monies) - the money's gone anyway. To keep us viable in an 18-team competition the AFL will have to give us back the money........... which makes the whole thing ludicrous in any event.

We have to stand up for our rights

smacks of desperation to me. The AFL Heavies are not getting the answers they had hoped for thus far.

smacks of bullying to me.....

We just upped the ante with the selection of Representation. The AFL will not want to see this in the courts, and won't want to lose. Solution: have it go away.....

As it must for all concerned including the AFL ( At the end of the day Wilson will the only one disappointed by that result!)

The Paragraph talking about "turning on & off interview tapes" is not a good look for the heavies.

Editing these interviews is a big no no

That;'s just about enough to discredit their whole case - or - with Wilson involved - should we say instead their whole "witch hunt"

And what's this interview and re-interview about. If we don't get the tape right we'll try again?

This is already a dreadful waste of time and money

Let's not forget Barassi's key point : if you penalise Melbourne you have to look at other clubs ........ more time - more money

What level of "proof" has to be met if we are to be found guilty of anything. Is it "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probabilities" or simply in the opinion of the investigators. I have never seen anything which says what the hurdle is.

Or do the AFL just make it up as they go along?

That's one of the reasons we've already already raised the question of natural justice ................ and why the lawyers are waiting in the wings

That's journalist speak for 'we don't know what's happening but it might be big'.

If we are found guilty of an offence, the idea that the punishment will be severe is nothing new. It's what everyone's been saying, or at least thinking.

Fact is, he's speculating on what might happen, but as per usual, no one actually knows, so let's all calm down.

Agree - no cause for despair here

Unprecedented = never happened before............might mean penalties for individuals rather than the club.?

The fact that we are clear for this draft is a good start !!

It's gone quiet because there's nothing new to say.

MIlestone #1 is close ie the AFL Commission Meeting one week today.

Will this meeting impose a penalty on Adelaide for next week's draft - and if it does how will they justify further deferral of the Melbourne judgment?

At the very least you would expect the Commissioners to get a progress/interim report on findings to date - and to endorse a course of action ie obtain Melbourne's response to draft report - extend enquiry to other clubs - wrap it up by Christmas etc.. Surely something will be leaked Wilson's way beforehand.

Victory #1 will be to get through this meeting without any limitation on our participation in this year's draft and psd. I'm sure Wilson will be most annoyed if we do

I won't defend CW or any of the other journo's but I also cant help thinking that part of this is nothing more than journo's desperate desires to keep the flames burning ( and to fan flames where none exist) to give them something to write about.

Well the history of tanking prior to 2009 would give them several juicy articles.........

I think it is the latter, CB.

Went way too early. With the evidence being the amount of times they have had to correct her pieces (Gysberts delist, The Vault Codename Bullsh!t, etc).

The issue seems to me is that she thinks it is a 'slam dunk' because we minimised our chances of winning, and if she is right that the investigators believe the same, I hope the Comission says to Clothier: "Your point being?"

I don't think Wilson understands footy as much as she thinks she does - especially perfectly legal 'bottoming out' that every team does in truly awful seasons.

If reports are correct about the pressure placed on 'witnesses' to CC's admission of a 'Losing Strategy' and his 'Threatening Behaviour' by Clothier then I doubt his expertise on footy matters.

That isn't to say that he is wrong on the ethics - we tried to minimise the chances of winning. But it does mean he would be wrong on the rules - we did not cross the 'water's edge' of telling players to lose. Everything up to that point is perfectly legal.

I believe Clothier's mindset can be seen in the report a few days ago that Bailey had to reiterate recently to Clothier that he never told players to lose; if they are asking that question or intimating to Bailey that that is what is being investigated then they don't know what they are looking for - and if they do, then they won't find that...

I still think there is nothing in this.

You make a lot of good points here - I just hope your final conclusion is correct.

She certainly seems to think that "tanking" is far more of a "black and white" issue than it is. You could certainly argue that if we were totally committed to losing the Richmond match we wouldn't have let the outcome rest on a 50 metre kick after the siren.

As to Clothier's questioning I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was more like a terrorist inquisition than a civil enquiry. If he has shone a spotlight in the eyes of some unsuspecting (former) players under threats of de-registration (our) lawyers will be chafing at the bit - things will get nasty.

The AFL should cut their losses - accept Wilson's criticisms - and move on.

Interesting that in the face of overwhelming argument - Wilson never suggests that the AFL should do the job properly by looking at the clubs who bottomed out so effectively that their access to early draft picks didn't turn on the last kick of a match. To her the whole thing is about the Melbourne Football Club ! She wants to see us on our knees

The fact that for all her looking she hasn't turned up more evidence against us is a good sign

"A player" FMD....... I guess Fevola mustn't have ever played for Carlton, yet he has been quite open on their tactics for Kruezer and Judd. This is a one woman war against the MFC

Wish we could get someone to trawl back into the relationship between the Schwabs and the Wilsons. Must be Australia's Hatfields and McCoys !!

Interesting to see a decidedly jaded CW on the ABC's Offsiders program yesterday. Both Roy Masters and Francis Leach virtually told CW how wrong she was and that the AFL was to blame for putting in place a system which promoted less than 100% efforts. Masters - understanding he is a NRL hack - was particularly caustic in his criticism of the AFL.

Once again, in her meek defence of herself, CW said, but the difference here is that a "player" has provided evidence. A player or ex-player Caroline? Who is that player Caroline? Sorry, I forgot, you have to protect your source. Ever heard of disgruntled former employees?

If this goes to Court, your protected source will no longer be protected and may well wilt under close examination of that "Player's" testimony. As you said yesterday Caroline, the only ones likely to win here will be the Lawyers. So why the sensationalist diatribe?

If a player's view is so pivotal Ms Wilson - why have you conveniently dismissed the views of a player who spent a large chunk of the Kreuzer Cup on the bench - Brendan Fevola? Oh - that's right - Fev is a mug - while "Burn Out/Tweets" McLean is a model citizen ( whose Uncle Ricky's frequent visits to the tribunal were totally unfair)

So you think it is about to get nasty do you Ms Wilson? There was nothing nasty about your "pathetic and disgusting" article or about your assertion that CC and CS ought to be sacked for rumoured actions 3 years ago ?

Shouldn't have watched that show - didn't need a reminder of her utter determination to kick the MFC !!

"MELBOURNE legend Ron Barassi says the AFL must turn its tanking investigation to other clubs if the Demons are found guilty of deliberately underperforming."

http://www.heraldsun...o-1226514305211

Good on you Ron for coming out and saying it ( even if your point is obvious)

Let's be honest, we deserve to have picks taken off us. We've had high draft picks for most of a decade. How many more do we need??

Personally, I'd rather we just take our whack and get on with it. The reality is that taking pick 4 away would be getting off lightly considering we gained 1 or 2 (depending on how you look at it) by intentionally losing matches. The AFL should take pick 4 off us and move onto the next club. Having this thing hanging over our heads no good for a club that is finally starting to get itself together.

I can't believe that a committed Melbourne supporter could make a statement like this.

So you are happy to sit back while other teams take advantage of the draft rules by tanking away to their hearts content - only to accept a beat-up when we decide its our turn to put future development ahead of short term goals?

I gather that you didn't.sit through the Kreuzer Cup

Certainly things on Crikey are read with a grain of salt ...... but Caro's attitudes are getting out there .... so bravo Crikey - cynicism and all!!

This post demonstrates everything that's frustrating about this sordid episode. The club is, despite what the media is saying, not guilty of anything. It may or may not be found guilty in the future of something it may or may not be charged with but for the time being the presumption of innocence applies.

And for your information, in the event that some court, tribunal or other body hears charges and makes a finding that the "weight of evidence is not sufficient to prove tanking" then it will be a finding of "not guilty".

This I advise.

My brief fee is £250.

Thank you.

Thankyou Rumpole. I am aware of that - but this is neither a court nor a tribunal - but rather an investigation initiated by she who must be obeyed