hoopla

Not sure all these historical Board comparisons are particularly relevant - much less helpful

Strangely the Age has also published articles by Bev O'Connor and Martin Flanigan defending the MFC.

Yes it did - but that doesn't mean the AFL hasn't got an obligation to oversee the competition with an even hand Just as you might wish to judge the MFC harshly - I think you have to judge the AFL just as harshly for its inconsistent and selective approach to this matter

At last this issue is starting to move beyond one club - which it must if the AFL is to have any credibility at all. If there is one person who has clearly bought the game into disrepute through all this it is Brock McLean. By holding his tongue until now ,Fev. has acted far more responsibly than Brock has. Imagine if every player who left a club was free to air the dirty linen of his former club as Brock has done. It must happen - and we - as Melbourne supporters - must do what we can to make it happen. Libba was a coach. His comments were ignored because he was perceived to have been bitter after his sacking. How can the AFL take that line with him - and the opposite line with Bailey and Prendegast.? Come on Caro.....prove you haven't got a deep-seated bias against the MFC - and Cameron Schwab in particular. How about interviewing LIbba and Fev? As for Anderson, Clothier and Co - do your job. Chase down the tanking issue to its source

Caro herself has said that some players actually refused to tank Is it tanking if it can be proved (!) that one or two players didn't try - or does it have to be 6 .... or 11 ....or.... So what if Connolly reminded the coaches that some stakeholders would be pee'd off if we didn't get a priority pick.?After all a lot of Carlton supporters would have been pee'd off if their team had blown the Kreuzer Cup. Connolly is a bit of a feisty little bloke with a cryptic turn of phrase and a sardonic sense of humour. The club has since taken him out of the Footy Department Is Brock McLean ( who said at the time that he left the club because he got tired of driving to Casey) a credible witness. The captain of the day has clearly said that the team was never instructed to lose. The lawyers will have a field day

Happy Birthday Queenie!!! You are spot on - all fair minded journos and football supporters - much less Melbourne supporters - must scream it from rooftops:- "To get to the bottom of the tanking issue - the AFL MUST get to the bottom of Carlton's victory in the Kreuzer Cup" How can the AFL allow an employee of the Carlton football club to throw muck at another club for following the precedent Carlton itself created?

I'm not sure what you are saying here - unless you are saying that we should have known better - and that we should be punished. Perhaps you are right - but such an inconsistent and selective ruling would not reflect well on the AFL. The AFL should not have given credence to Brock McLean's bitter self-serving comments. Now that they have done so they owe it to the competition to either admit their own mistakes and withdraw - or to fully investigate the Kreuzer Cup as well ..... and etc Try as they might the AFL can't credibly pretend that this is just about one club

The selectivity of the whole thing is the real story This is what every Melbourne supporter - and every fair-minded journo - should be shouting about. Oh ... and something else - is the AFL happy for delisted / transferred players and coaches to publicly slander their former clubs?

The AFL cannot properly confine its tanking investigation to the last in a long line of clubs which recognized that the AFL rules rewarded teams who lost games I was one of thousands of Melbourne supporters goaded by Carlton supporters for losing the Kreuzer Cup. Make no mistake the football public ridiculed poor old Melbourne because it was outmanoevred by Carlton - even though the scoreboard had Melbourne in front when the siren sounded, Carlton supporters were the ones who went home happy. An Assistant Carlton Coach Tony Liberatore came out and said that Carlton had tanked. The AFL turned a blind eye - just as it had done when Collingwood rested half its list a few years before - and when Hawthorn experimented with a losing handball-handball-handball game plan a couple of years after that. Melbourne decided it wasn't going to be dudded again - it was going to follow the path of the power clubs. The AFL had developed a system that encouraged teams to bottom out - now it was going to be Melbourne's turn. Melbourne followed the leaders. Now on the back of an outburst by a disgruntled former player reinforced by a sacked coach and a discredited recruiter the AFL has decided to dig back into the past. ............. selectively................ not to the heart of the issue let alone to those who first seized on it - but just far enough to catch out the last club in the line. It would be unconscionable for the AFL Commission (under the Chairmanship of a former Carlton Captain) to strike at the heart of one club having stood by while others ( demonstrably Carlton) who wrote the book - stand back and laugh. Melbourne supporters would not have cheered home Jordan McMahon's kick if the AFL hadn't effectively sanctioned Carlton's victory in the Kreuzer cup two years before It is the integrity of the AFL that is really on the line here

The 3 whose testimonies have apparently incriminated us are Bailey, Prendegast and Mahoney. Bailey and Prendegast have been sacked. They have axes to grind - but what is Mahoney saying? Surely he is defending us - if not he should stand aside until the enquiry has concluded. Do AFL rules include whistleblower provisions?. The only way the AFL can conclude this enquiry with any credibility is by broadening the terms of reference to include - at the very least - the Kreuzer Cup

How about that. Spot on Mr Smith. I'll never entertain criticism of you again

In many ways I agree with you .But we need to be very careful before putting the AFL off-side. There is no doubt that Eddie and Co would making all sorts of statements about legal challenges etc etc.Perhaps this just another example of a competition increasingly dominated by the power clubs? The fact is that our survival depends on the continued goodwill of the AFL - and Collingwood's does not.

If there isn't then it is at least partly due to the fact that no-one has seriously looked at it. The fact that Fevola was taken off in uninjured in the last quarter of the Kreuzer Cup and that he himself has said that Carlton tanked is sufficient evidence to warrant an enquiry It is undeniable that from time to time clubs put development / future planning ahead of short-term victory. How often is a player who "would have played if it was a final" given a rest? Did Freo tank in Round 22 of 2010? Did Collingwood tank a decade ago when they sent all their first choice players for season ending surgery half a sason in advance? All that - and the Kreuzer Cup!! Why are we the only club being investigated? Perhaps its because we have more disgruntled ex-employees than anyone else

Two things are very clear Caro enjoys throwing dirt at the MFC ( especially Cameron Schwab); Whatever we did or didn't do in 2009 to help our draft picks - other clubs had done in prior years It would be a stunning injustice if we were singled out for a penalty

Good question ( for which there is no answer!!)

Yes - and we got two young guns with pick #4 still to come.............

The older players have been brought in ease the pressure on Viney, Wines , Barry etc precisely so they can develop ! Agree We've picked up 3 top five picks ( Viney, Hogan and #4) and 2 premiership players in the one year. We've added both size ( Dawes and Pederson) and speed ( Byrnes and Rodan) .............. and for good measure we've moved on players who were struggling with the work ethic required The proof will be in the pudding - but the mix is looking stronger

Owe us an explanation? You're kidding............. they owed us more than that - and they have delivered ......... at last! They've sacked the recruiter , revamped the development program, and now they've got rid of the players who haven't performed !! Correct .............. and the potential we have lost was doubtful potential anyway Agree. The baffling bit was in 2007. Why chuck it in the minute the club admits its mistake and takes action to correct it!

Trenners is the key Will he be the dynamic attacking midfielder he first promised to be - or the slowish defensive player he was last year? Viney, Pick 4, Evans Taggart and co may be part of an elite midfield group going forward - but I'm not sure we can realistically expect them to play key roles next year. I have seen Viney play - and he will make an impact from day 1 - but whether he can do it week in /week out in his first year is problematical. He is an extraordinarily physical player - and his young body will take time to get used to bumping into mature bodies. Whether or not Trenners is able to lift will be pivotal to the performance of our midfield next year [ Viney has exams until mid November. I wonder if he'll join his mates on schoollies after that]

Agreed. He has shown he can play ................ its a question of fitness - and price! To accommodate Goddard, Essendon will have salary cap issues going forward. With Daniher, Hurley Crameri and Ryder, they may regard Gumbleton as expendable

Sad but true! We must climb up the ladder in the next 2 years to give our supporters hope - and to make us attractive to free agents. Dawes and Wellingham were important players in a premiership side. They would improve us immediately.Two top 20 picks plus Viney plus two mid age premiership players would be a very balanced response to our present predicament. If we can get Viney without using pick 3, then I'd do the deal. Even if we can't I'd think about it hard..................... particularly if the medicos believe that Dawes can get over the injuries he's carried during the last couple of years Yes................. you'd like to think we went in with an offer based on Pick 13 .............................. unless of course we expect to steal Viney with a pick in the 20s?

I think it was fairly obvious at the end of the season that he wasn't in our plans going forward. Effectively we began to build a defence without him - Tommy Mac, Frawley, Garland,Watts, Dunn, Nicho etc. Neeld wants a hard running long-kicking back-line. Rivers - for all his qualities- is not in the mould

Can we ban Jack Watts threads ................... at least until he plays his next game?

No ... not a steal - a good deal for both parties. I wouldn't trade Martin for less than a Wellingham

It is generally accepted that Junior was a fine leader ..... who set an impeccable example on/off the field - and whose views were always respected. Whether or not he would have more kicks and more tackles than the options should have been beside the point. He would have helped build the work ethic that Neeld has (so rightly) concentrated on this year. He should have been allowed to continue - perhaps not as captain - but as someone who represented the intangible qualities the club needs to lock in. [by the way I didn't want to lose Bruce either - but the club did the right thing sticking to the principle of a one year contract for 30 year olds. I suspect that with the benefit of hindsight Bruce might now regret that he didn't accept it]