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!

I know this is getting ahead of the facts, but what the hell I only have CW to inspire me:

but I can imagine a $500K fine which is quietly compensated by an extra $500K from the AFL's save-the-poorer-club fund. Anyway, here's hoping that if there is such a fine and it is accepted by the club, something like that occurs.

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?

The worst thing to come out of that scenario is the fact that CW will be able to gloat over our misfortune and her impeccable sources and unquestionable worth as a sports journo... please don't let it be so!

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!)

The fact is this has been a theme of the current admins tenure though. I think it's fair to hold the CEO to account for that. I'm not a Schwab "hater" by any means but there has to be some accountability for the role. Whether he is directly involved in sourcing sponsors is irrelevant as the buck stops with him as the CEO. It's not about just wanting to see him gone for the sake of it but how long does he get when we continue to face the same issues year in, year out.

Our on-field situation doesn't help of course but you can't keep using that as a cop-out.

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?"

If you have a look at the web site. We have sponsors I haven't seen before.

The Age has gone and been replaced by The HUN.

No wonder Don let Caro have it with both barrels

Gold

Quick ,sign up to the little paper one and all!!

I'll take:

Schwab: no charge

Bailey: irregular activities, no firm evidence, no charge

Connolly: Bringing game into disrepute with threats relating to tanking - 6 months and $50K

MFC: Bringing game into disrepute for not reining Connolly in - fine $300K

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!)

I walked passed DM earlier, he looked a bit stressed.

Well he would be.............

yay..

Mark Stevens‏@Stevo7AFL

Do not expect any Demons tanking announcement today .. Will roll into another week

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'm sure the AFL will be able to manufacture a charge to bring against us, bet it won't be tanking though.

One of the problems we face is the charge of "bringing the AFL in to disrepute", is so vague it is almost impossible to define.

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!"

It means They are just a tenant, while we are a sporting section of the MCC!

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.

Garry got too heated and emotional and couldn't nail her. I understood the point he was trying to make as caro flip flopped about the MFC defence. - what nonsense - we have an official and unofficial defence.......plllleeeaassseeee.

He did call her out on the players being questioned about them fumbling and her response........ She didn't know that they were accused of that.....

She is extremely clever... Garry didnt land a telling blow on her.

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.

No one has posted that the Age did publish Don M's statement today, so I now assume they did not.

I amazed at the apologists for CW. But I'm even more amazed that there has been so little reaction to the failure of the Age to publish Don M's refutation of her article. Whatever you think of her opinions/facts/tone, the smallest modicum of balance would require the Age to publish Don's statement. It seems only the ABC is required by charter to be balanced.

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?

Sadly, her job is to make money for The Age, they will be getting a lot more hits on their website and selling a lot more papers by her writing this.

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.

Fifty 5 and others have said that any negotiated settlement between the AFL and the MFC will also need the approval of any individuals charged (Schwab, Bailey and Connolly).

Its recognised that the negotiated settlement would be a waste of time if it scapegoats any one of them.

The first thing they would do would be to bring down MFC and the AFL and the integrity of the whole issue would be beyond repair.

But FWIW, I dont think Connolly needs to be glorified for his role at the Club. A dying Stynes took control of the FD from him in 2010. And the Club have moved him out of the FD in 2011 in preference for others. In the LT, he is hardly a must keep based on role performance.

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.

It's tricky but I believe where once MFC would have been an unincorporated association, now it's an incorporated company and hence does not qualify as a "not for profit" organisation.

Are there any examples of a footy club suing for defamation? It was certainly possible under the old Vic defamation laws (i.e. common law) which is now superceded.

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.

I refuse to believe for one moment that Don McLardy would lie to the members in such brazen fashion, OD.

What's his record like in terms of telling the truth and not misleading the public?

What's Caro's record like?

Has she really come out and labelled Don's response as "total [censored]" or is that Ben's unique spin on things? If true then wow, she has seriously painted herself into a corner on this one.

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

The defence that "everyone was doing it" is valid; I doubt the AFL would want a situation where 5 or 6 clubs are all excluded from

the first two rounds of the draft for two years or more, especially if they include Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond and West Coast. Despite what

some on here might believe, there are times when the old adage applies about "safety in numbers". This has got nothing to do with robbing banks, or

breaking the speed limit, or running red lights, this is about the interpretation of a competition’s rules that are somewhat confusing, and lacking in clarity.

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.

Do they?

I thought the statement had been made by their very investigation into the allegations, and the removal of priority picks.

I don't see why a lot of people think the AFL need to show something.

For whose benefit?

Who on earth would they be fooling?

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

This is a fight for our honor. We are fighting for our past, present and future- our name and our dignity. Any admission of guilt from us with no hard proof would be the ultimate roll over and a catalyst for future bullying and ridicule from the football world. We snuff that out now and make sure they think twice about picking on us again.

We don't fight and it can very well lead to the death of us, and that is just not an option!

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?)

There's a limit to the amount of vitamin c that a person can take at any one time. And only a small percentage of that will make it's way into the blood stream. For a sports person, who's body is under an enormous amount of stress, I would imagine IV would be the most effective way of getting vitamin c into their systems.

I don't think there's anything sinister about this practice, the issue is if and what else was administered.

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..................

Exactly Redleg.

Neither party wants to go to Court. Both know its a lose-lose situation.

A negotiated settlement which allows the AFL to hold some veneer of integrity and elements at the Club to get a mere slap on the wrist with overall a no further case to answer.

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.

So now we're guilty because the AFL took a long time to complete an investigation?

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?

Looking silly should not be a consideration for the AFL.

It's about truth, fairness and justice!

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!

Do you know if they have gone to other football clubs? If not maybe they did not consider football sponsorship a priority this year. Were they lost as a result of the tanking inquiry? If so we have a claim against the AFL if we beat tanking charges.

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.

If people and/or the club are charged, then there must be a hearing, if they want to contest the charges. Maybe the AFL wants us to defend ourselves and if we beat the charges, all is sweet. Then there would be no need for Court intervention.

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 Watson on SEN this morning believes that there will be announcement by the AFL either today or tomorrow. He also believes that the AFL will announce penalties and that the whole matter is going to court.

Just what we need for this to go on another 7 months (at least) and hang over the Club like a stench.

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 ?

Go to the top of the class Scoop Junior.

Indeed, it goes further than that. The AFL is acting as the administrative body dealing with the rights of all constituent clubs. It can't apply its rules in one way with one club and refuse to apply them to others without good reason.

Correct

i reckon sponsorship is our biggest issue atm....if the club is asking foundation heroes for help and anyone else

a million or 2 is a big hole to go back into

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.