hoopla

The journos are prepared to have a stab at our likely penalties - but none of got to the nub of the matter - what charges are behind the penalties? Don has said that the clubs "official" don't include any of Caro's "unofficial defences". What do they include then? I'd like to bet that they directly to the charges themselves. 1. "bringing the game into disrepute" - no charge to answer because the concept of tanking in the AFL was well accepted prior to 2009 - and had been factored into the "reputation of the AFL" well before Melbourne lost a few late season games 2. " tampering with the draft" - no charges to answer because their is no condition on games won and lost in the draft rules - their is no provision for the AFL to review the nature of wins and losses - a win is a win and a loss is a loss ............ no tampering there! Nothing Wilson has written - or presumably the investigators have researched - explains - let alone proves - that Melbourne's actions had one iota of an effect on the reputation of the AFL competition. I reckon a court would throw out that charge in less than 30 minutes. The tampering charge might take a little more time - but the AFL can't clearly prove we lost on purpose - much less how that constitutes tampering with a draft - the details of which had not been finalised at the time Deejammin's post is a great summary of the mainstream situation - but I reckon the two points above - which Caro hasn't even thought about - kill the whole thing stone dead - regardless of any sympathy for a weak club What absolutely stinks is the fact that Car's poison pen has done enormous damage to our brand - even though ( as I have explained) we have no case to answer!

This would bring the direct financial penalty ( including legal fees) to over $1m. In our financial situation , that is a huge penalty which threatens our FD spend ( including our TPP). How dare she imply that this would be a light penalty !! For what - the disrepute thing that defies logic - or draft tampering after the siren? Yeah - whatever way they do it - up or down - let's hope the AFL come up with something different( even if that means changing it over the weekend!)

Sorry Doc - I don;t see how you can possibly hold the CEO responsible for a decline in sponsorship when our image is being dragged through the mud every day by Caro and her unofficial sources. Sponsors look at the brand - they don't want to be associated with "pathetic and disgusting" organisations. Sponsors look at access to members - they don't want access to a low member base if larger member bases are on offer. Do you seriously believe that a capable CEO will be able to keep the flow of sponsors rolling in to an organisation under the pressure we have been under lately - and on the back of 4 wins ? If you have it in for CS - you are going to have to find a better reason that the shortage of willing cashed up sponsors - to justify a call for moving him on. "I'm the new gun CEO of the MFC replacing Schwabby - can you get your $2m cheque to me this week? Same club - but I'm here now ..... actually make that $2.5m." "OK ...who's next?" Gold Quick ,sign up to the little paper one and all!!

No way, I'd take this How can you tarnish the reputation of the AFL with a few statements behind closed doors. I bagged the AFL over dinner last night ......... if they had the restaurant bugged, I might be up for $50k!! Given that legal fees must be near enough to $500k, that makes a total fine of $800 - or do you mean that they'll give us $200k. (No fine thankyou!) Well he would be............. Extraordinary I guess it will take a few days after agreeing on the outcome - to come up with an agreed set of words I can't even think about the NAB Cup while this is dragging. I'm thinking long-term ........... does that mean I'm tanking?

I reckon the lawyers will have this covered. Even if you commit a crime, you cant damage reputation by doing what everybody else already understood - and did. Actions consistent with standard practice can't possibly damage reputation. There will be so many "tanking" articles out their prior to 2009 that the AFL won't be able establish that our actions damaged peoples perceptions of the AFL competition.

Wilson last night maintained she had her 5 "unofficial reasons" were based on discussions with people inside the club including a director Either she lied - or a director has been leading her up the garden path ( which is pretty funny). If the former (which I suspect) DM should issue another message to the supporters today assuring the supporters that no director has leaked to the press - and that Caroline's assertions are again - "just plain wrong" If Gary questions her again next week - will she maintain that she speaks regularly with a Melbourne Director at the water cooler in the office ..... Beverley O'Connor ?" Come on Gary, you have no credibility when it comes to Melbourne, I didn't say it was a current director!"

Correct - we are part of the landlord with permanent access rights We've it all over a tenant It still narks me that Gutnick's Committee allowed McGuire to walk straight past them into the Olympic Park precinct - but Gardiner and Jimmy got us back into bed with the MCC in a way that stands atop any tenancy.

He didn't land a killer blow - but he made her look very stupid The way she tried to distinguish between the "official" and "unofficial" defence ( "water cooler talk" as Gary called it) was pathetic.Questioning Gary's credibility didn't help her case - because all Gary was doing at the time was reading Don's message ! All it did was make her look a bit rattled. Gary was clearly fed up with her. At least once later in the show the camera caught him looking angrily at her - and the instant she show finished he turned his back on her and threw his arms in the air. She took a bit of a beating in the Essendon segment as well - all to quick to sink the boots in. She is a disgrace.

I agree absolutely Sue I'm not sure why I haven't raised your precise point - perhaps its because I can't quite believe that not one media outlet has picked up the story. I'd like to think that Caro's habit of representing her own bias as fact is too much of a hot topic for them to handle - or perhaps its the calm before the storm. One way or another Don's note gave every journo the chance to start reversing 7 months of poisonous publicity ..... and not one of them took it up ! Its outrageous ! What if the producers of FC - and Gary Lyon - ignore it in favour of the drug beat up again tonight?

In the past she may have been able to sell papers with big headlines - but once she becomes known as someone who compromises the truth ( as is happening with Melbourne right now) sales will dry up We wouldn't have grounds for complaint if her columns were headed "Opinion" or " My View" or "Comment" but she persists in holding herself out to be an investigative journalist presenting facts that she has managed ( through her contacts) to unearth. But she oscillates between fact ( occasionally), supposition, hearsay - and opinion - in a manner which must surely fall outside the ethics of her ( increasingly grubby) profession Interesting that the Age are no longer sponsors - our initiative or theirs? If they don't ( esp Gary) throw the book at her on F Classified tonight .............. I won't watch it again.

I reckon this is the key to continuing negotiations If the AFL has decided to base its case on the Richmond game - then it has go for Bailey under Reg 19. This puts Bailey's future as Adelaide Asst Coach in jeopardy - in fact his whole livelihood will be on the line. If the AFL refuse to accept his denials, he'll have no choice but to argue that he was only doing what he was asked to do ..... which will put Connolly ( and Schwab and the club) in the gun. Bailey has to fight for the sake of his family ............. and that could drag things out even if CC,CS and the Club are happy to settle.

I know nothing about defamation law - but whether or not an organisation is "not for profit" is dependent on its objectives etc not its legal form. As the MFC does not contemplate returning any funds to shareholders I think you will find that it still qualifies as "not for profit". That is why, for instance, it is not subject to income tax. It is absurd to suggest Don is lying.There is absolutely no way he would make a false statement today knowing that the truth will be in the public arena within days. Caro is losing her grip - and I will be really disappointed if Gary Lyon doesn't put her back in her box ( perish the thought!) on F Classified tomorrow night.She may be right in that we will be charged - but that wouldn't make Don a liar. Once she says something she keeps repeating it - no matter how the facts unfold. Notice how the "vault meeting" got another mention this morning. It's great news that the Age is no longer a sponsor - and that the HUN has taken over. Another dip in Age readership on the way!

Well done Don!!! Brilliant

This is such a key point particularly in the context of bringing the game into disrepute - which is what Wilson believes the charges will be Even if you commit a clear-cut crime ( which we haven't) you can't possibly damage the reputation of an organisation by doing what everybody else has done. The action is known understood and accepted - you can't possibly damage the reputation of anything by following the status quo. Let's put aside our loathing of Wilson for the moment .......... and ask seriously 1. Does she understand the concept of reputation - and does she understand the key characteristics of actions which bring something into disrepute? 2. Does she understand the difficult balance between short-term and long-term list management. in competitive team sport. At what point does it become reasonable to rest a player for next week - and at what point does it become reasonable to see how your players handle pressure situations in positions outside their comfort zones? To her it is so ridiculously simple that you really have to ask whether she properly understands what she is talking about.She closed her mind on this months ago - and doesn't have the intelligence to recognize that its a very complex matter at best Since when does following the leader damage reputation?

Even if she isn't categorically dishonest - she certainly isn't honest, She hasn't seen Melbourne's defence - so how can she go on about it being "childish". Her utter refusal to acknowledge that the sanctioned practices of other clubs is relevant demonstrates a simplistic black and white view of a complex matter. The childishness here - is all hers! I know its a bit tough on Gollam - but it might be worth checking on ancestry.com that he didn't fall off the Wison family tree.

For the AFL's benefit of course. To show that "they have teeth" - and that they knew what they were doing when they decided to concentrate their attention on the events of 2009 instead of the supposed influx of drugs in 2012. Who would they be fooling? Probably only themselves - but that's all they need You are right - but there is a point beyond which we cannot ignore the cost of a fight. Can we afford to take another million dollars out of the FD budget to pay legal fees. We don't want to be ridiculed for shooting ourselves in the foot. If our FD spend falls - and our on-field performance suffers as a result - I'm not sure a court victory will all of a sudden strengthen our standing with the AFL and the public as a whole. Fight yes - don't just roll over - but keep things in perspective. It all depends on the charge and the severity of the penalties ( if any?)

A couple of years ago ,the AFL stopped Brisbane from intravenously rehydating players at half time I don't actually know - but I thought that injections and intravenous feeding were frowned upon ............. perhaps because they were seen as part of a slippery slope to illegal substances. Perhaps not strictly illegal - but certainly not to be encouraged. Essendon are in trouble because - even if there is no evidence of illegal drugs - they pushed players into taking substances which may have contained traces of marginal substances or substances they didn't fully understand. In some ways getting someone to inject an untested substance is worse than getting them to take a tested but illegal substance. At least there is research on (some) illegal drugs demonstrating that they won't have serious long-term side effects. But nobody knows the full side effects of untested substances..................

I've already said that - realistically- this is the only way it can go The AFL won't throw the book at the club - because they are afraid that we'll win a legal battle. On the other hand the AFL won't let us off altogether - because they won't admit they spent 7 months writing 800 pages about nothing while drugs were flying around under their noses. I reckon a slap on the risk for Connolly will be the compromise solution. Not a "just" outcome - but unfortunately the AFL forgot about justice when they decided to confine their investigation to one club. With the Commission meeting on Monday, you'd reckon that there will be an announcement today or tomorrow Just get it over with - its hard to get excited about the season with this fiasco hanging over everything.

Not as such WJ................ but unfortunately,- unjustly - wrongly - the AFL's decision will be influenced by its desire to preserve its credibility..... and to do that it has to justify the time and cost of the investigation. I am not saying it is right .. I just think we have to face the reality - and the reality is that the desire of the AFL to show itself an efficient and effective organisation will fundamentally influence its decision. We all agree that the AFL will not want to be taken to court .......but equally neither will we . The AFL's strategy will be to find a sanction that is not sufficient to justify the disruption (and cost) of court action eg a six month suspension for Connolly. Its all very well to say that we should fight something like that on principle - but could the Board justify knocking $500k off its FD budget to pay for it? Absolutely agree - but I am not talking about what should happen - I am talking about what I think will happen. Let's not kid ourselves - "not looking silly" will just about be the AFL's main consideration

A couple of posts on the tanking thread suggest that Betezy, Drake and Metro Energy have just withdrawn their financial support ....presumably because our integrity has been called into question. I note that none of these names appear on the homepage of our website any more - and that there is a conspicuous empty space in the sponsors box in the bottom right corner.At the AGM we were told that we were budgeting for an operating profit for the coming year.I wonder if these sponsors were factored into that result ( and if operating profit is before or after legal fees) Does anyone know the status of our discussions with current and future sponsors?

If anyone in this whole debacle has brought the game into disrepute - it is Brock McLean I cringe when I see his name on the list of Foundation Heroes. The club ought to give his money back - and remove his name from the list - seriously!! Oh I hope Malthouse doesn't have a role for him!

You make an important point here. Unfortunately it is a very good reason for the AFL to press the charges. As McLardy has pointed out the investigation has damaged our club.To justify that damage the AFL are going to have to at least charge us with something The AFL can't afford to throw the book at us - but they can't afford to say that their 800 page document amounts to nothing either. The answer lies somewhere in between. The simplest solution for the AFL is to charge Connolly - and let the club, CS and DB go. I'm not saying that is the proper outcome - or even a fair outcome. But its the outcome that best suits the AFL. It will allow the AFL to justify the investigation and demonstrate that you test the limits of its rules etc at your peril. At the other end of the scale they will conclude that -as neither the club nor a member of footy department is directly implicated,- it is an outcome that will allow them move on relatively quickly IMO we are kidding ourselves if we think the AFL is going to admit that it forced a club to endure a 7 month enquiry - only to produce an 800 page report which didn't justify even one charge being laid!! Connolly will be the scapegoat. We can all be outraged by this - but the AFL will see it as the only way it can escape this fiasco with any credibility.

Agree that there is a difference between being charged and being found guilty - and that a hearing must be involved But surely if we are charged the AFL will want to make at least some of the charges stick. The AFL would look a heck of a lot more stupid rolling over after laying charges than they would by cutting their losses and withdrawing the charges now. If Caro thinks it will be a negotiated settlement, then she thinks that - after seeing the evidence - the club won't proceed with its resolve to fight this all the way. That's a bit of a change in tune

Tim - you are a spud. So without a formal meeting of the Commission, the AFL are going to make an announcement which will directly lead to court action.? Who gave you that tip Tim? One of the Essendon drug cheats was it ? Correct

Unfortunately the tanking investigation has effectively killed off any sponsorship negotiations for the last 7 months. Why commit money to an organisation with crippling penalties hanging over its head and associating yourself with an organisation that is "pathetic and disgusting".? We can only hope that we can quickly build a positive image with strong on-field performances when this thing is done ... so that potential sponsors start talking to us . The AFL - and the media- have hurt us badly.