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.

I'm simply saying a fair degree of self reflection is also needed in this whole issue, instead of the widely prevailing attitude of blaming everyone else for the clubs latest debacle.

It's Caro, it's the former players with axes to grind, it's Bailey, it's the AFL, it's the media's agenda to ruin the club...................no, it's the MFC who put itself in this position.

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

But Burnouts McLean is?

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.

Recall Libba. No wont happen.

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

it is hearsay. It is a meeting. No directive was ever given to the players to lose games. case closed. Can we get on with trying to not have a stressful freaking time supporting this club?

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

We should let Caro run out her own rope as far as she wants. Let her make as many unfounded allegations, misquote's, bold assumptions stated as facts and back it up with hysteria and bluff. Then hang her with her own bloody noose that's called defamation. We could own The Age, which isn't worth much these days, but would still allow us to stop drivel being pressed into print and slowly but surely raise the standards of journalism again. She is a terrible excuse for a journalist and will be held to account!

Interestingly, after round 12 of 2007 "Caro" made an incredible statement on Footy Classified. It was simple and well informed, "Carlton will not win another game this season." With 10 weeks still to play in the year, Caro stated with as much certainty as the sun would rise in the morning that Carlton won't win. What the AFL should do is interview Caro to get her statement, then follow up with Brett Ratten and then Melbourne coah and former Carlton assistant Mark Riley to gather facts and roll-over on their now former employer. Afterwards, charge Caro for perjury for stating false fact and ban her from any AFL game for life.

Keep in mind that after the 2007 season, Tony Libratore came out against his former employer Carlton and stated his case for an investigation. Reinterview HIM! Mark Riley was rewarded for his win over Carlton in the Kreuzer cup with an Assured Assistant Coaches role with Carlton. Get to the bottom of THAT! Interview former players, because it was a game where the players were clearly complicit.

It's time to even the score Ladies and Gentleman. Gloves are off and that's right... "The truth hurts!"

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?

And the integrity of the MFC isn't in question is it?

"They did it, and didn't get caught, why can't we?"

I love that line of thought and reasoning...................it takes me back to being a child, and arguing with my parents.

Does the founding club of the AFL need to be told not to conspire to lose matches?

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

It was interesting to read that Dumbitriou once again invoked "integrity" in his statement today, yet failed to mention the widely questioned 3 strike drug policy, sanctioning of the $cully double dealing etc etc.

Nor did he of course refer to the game that really put tanking on the map, when Brock McLean's chosen club won the Kruzer Cup in laughable circumstances. Had we managed to lose that one would we have been investigated for tanking earlier? Nor Collingwood, or Hawthorn.

Did he mention that only one club has actually won the hated fifth game when four would have resulted in a priority pick.....and that club did it twice? Now who was that? Melbourne of course.

Did Bailey, Schwab, Connolly or was it the ailing Jimmy who kicked the after siren goal to get the Toiges over the line?

Jimmy said in his book that we didn't tank, though had mixed feelings about results, but of course he can't be cross examined. Are the AFL questioning his integrity? I recall that Junior said the same. But, no, they choose to follow up on the oblique accusations of a rather dimwitted disgruntled ex player.

His selective reference to integrity absolutely stinks, but is nothing new.

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

I heard two minutes of Patrick Smith in the car. The two things he said was that MFC only worked a system that the AFL themselves put in place. The other thing he said was in response to a caller and he said if the AFL went the MFC they cannot stop there and must then do the same to other clubs.

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

The one thing that annoys me about the current administration is their reticence to get on the front foot and defend the honour of the club. Now that the article is in print and its contents are being discussed on the airwaves I want them to categorically deny that tanking ever took place and that Melbourne will vigourously defend any suggestion to the contrary. Some will say that they can't comment because it's a current investigation, or that it won't matter anyway, but they can most certainly declare the club's innocence and willingness to fight these suggestions.

I'm absolutely certain that Kennett or Maguire would be denying these suggestions and defending thie club to the hilt in the same circumstances. Get on the front foot and defend your club. And do it now.

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.

.

Is the evidence against other clubs as strong as the apparent evidence against MFC?

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

There is no way we should feel the brunt of any 'statements' being made by the AFL without not only undeniable solid evidence that we were guilty, but also that we are alone in the past decade of similar actions.

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

1. Caro enjoys throwing dirt at the MFC ( especially Cameron Schwab);
   
2. 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

How is he spending it unwisely?

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

What did we just do?

We got rid of those that don't train or play to the standard that will push the club to the standard it is required to be at to win a premiership.

We got rid of those that do not possess the build or hunger for the contest required to win a premiership.

We gained experience of players that do know what is required of a premiership.

We gained mature bodies that can withstand the rigours and contests required of a premiership.

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

Sorry guys couldn't disagree more. The coach has selected discards who may win him enough games to keep his job at years end. What do Rodan and Byrnes offer beyond 1 or 2 seasons. It is outrageous to expect Viney and Wines (if selected) to come in and make an instant impact.........

The older players have been brought in ease the pressure on Viney, Wines , Barry etc precisely so they can develop !

I am amazed that so many people believe there was so much potential in the players that we traded, yet very little if no potential in those we got. At some point in time you have to say you have put enough time and effort into these players waiting for them to show their value. Truth is most of those that performing after a couple of years never will. I for one are pretty happy with who we got, I dont recall anyone talking about any of those that we picked up as being lazy, not putting in, etc... I wish Gys and Cale, etc all the best in their new teams, and hope for themselves they can do better.

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

The systemic failure of top end draft picks to meet the minumum standards required to stay on our list. This is serious stuff and the club owes at minium an explanation to the members. This shouldn't be swept under the carpet.

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 !!

But that's the whole point. These trades were not made for draft picks. They were made in order to move contracted players to free space on the list. They were obviously shopped around over the trade period and when no serious offers were made, they were swapped for low picks simply to get rid of them.

Personally, I would have liked to see more from them under the new FD, especially after a full preseason. But if the FD would prefer not to see them at preseason, then fine. The FD will live or die based on the list they have assembled, which is how it should be.

Correct

Apart from Rivers, Moloney and Jurrah leaving of their own accord.

All we have lost here is potential.

Yet we have gained hardened experienced players of whom 3 have played in grand finals.

.............. and the potential we have lost was doubtful potential anyway

Some people are really just insanely stupid.

To read someone's 'logic' as: 'Cale Morton was drafted at pick 4 in 2007. We have moved him on in 2012. I shall now end my membership of the club in disgrace' is just baffling.

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]

I thought he had shown he was quite good when fit robbie, he is an injury risk but if no better forward options come through i think we could do alot worse than partnering him with Clark. Can Mark and has a good size body. I thoguht he was getting the best run in recent memory this season at the Dons also. worth a thought if nothing else.

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

I think some on here think we can wait 3-4 years to show massive improvement, we can't, our club can't, we need to start winning games and adding 6-7 18yo kids to our list will not help us win games in 2013/14. We need afl footballers 23 to 28 that cab improve our time whilst the kids learn and improve. The club can't have another season like 2012 and dawes wellingham will make is better

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

I think what people are concerned about is that reports apparently suggested that we went to Collingwood with the offer of pick 4.

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?

He didn't seem all that happy at the B&F when accepting his award, mentioned that he was having a good year until sent to the forward line, or words to that effect.

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?

Wellingham for Martin?

Steal of the century! (If it happens)

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]