hoopla

Spot on. At a time when the AFL is supposedly fundamentally concerned about the gap between the rich and poor , it is appalling that one of the weaker clubs has been subjected to this extraordinary witch-hunt. Priority picks have gone - our FD has been completely restructured - and we've had to endure 7 months pouring back over the events of 2009!! The day they gave us an 800 page report- they effectively penalised us $500k (in legal costs) ............. and then there is the damage to our brand! How much effective community relations activity has Chris Connolly been able to mange over the past 7 months? In a sense they have to find us guilty to justify the hefty direct and indirect penalty they have already meted out. How stupid will the AFL look if they turnaround now and say "no case to answer" Won't the Coaches Association say " Fine - give us our money back then!" ? The AFL will do something to justify themselves - I reckon Connolly will charged - and Bailey Schwab and the Club will be told that they have been given the benefit of the doubt. "Don't say a word about the cost and disruption you have suffered - just count your lucky stars that it wasn't worse"

Yeah .... and her looks improve every time.

A lot of this is about getting the full cooperation of the AFLPA. Go too hard on in-season testing- name and shame on the second strike - and the players will arc up on out-of-season testing. Its about compromise and negotiation

I'm not surprised they took every second they had - and that the photocopier over heated at the last minute. With 4 separate responses and so many alternative approaches for each, I'm sure they put in big big hours. No wonder Don's press release was short - he wouldn't have had much sleep in the preceding 72 hours. Fees will be huge. I agree. To me , these were the most significant parts of his statement. Straight to the point - 4 or 5 clubs have tanked and the AFL gave it tacit approval. This is exactly what every media outlet should have been headlining all along. "Hey AFL you can't reasonably put the future of one club at risk - for behaviour you effectively supported"

Although I was a little disappointed that he gave us nothing, the more I think about it, the more I think that he said all he could say. The only glimmer for the supporters was the promise that we would be kept informed - which hints at a change in tack as soon as the AFL shows its hand. He has already said we will fight it - and to re-state that would be to imply that there is something to fight. It might also have inflamed the AFL - "we are not going to be pushed around by threats".He also had to be careful not to give us false hope, We've had to suffer all this time - a few more weeks isn;t going to hurt given what is at stake.He has done the right thing.

I am sure you are right - and because the footy world ( partly because of Caro) believes we are not squeaky clean, I think we are kidding ourselves to think that the charges will disappear. Remember we have been reinforcing each others views for months now. I think the club will get off - and probably Schwab as well - but the AFL will look weak if they don't chase Connolly as evidence that they have the power and are prepared to use it. Scapegoat - pure and simple. Although some might like us to distance ourselves from him and move on - I don't think we can. A stain on the name of one our officials is a stain on the name of the club. Either we say that he acted as an individual and doesn't deserve club support - or we say that he is a true blue Melbourne man who has been misunderstood ........... and back him to the hilt. I think the latter. Seriously because the footy public as a whole will think the AFL is a joke if it just lets us all go .... I reckon Connolly is in trouble. Peirik's garbage this morning pointed out that there are separate cases running here - and that some of the legal reps are more worried than others.

And what public statements will we make on Tuesday? Unfortunately as we can't risk upsetting the AFL with any public condemnation of the whole fiasco, I am betting that it will be a very vanilla " The MFC has today lodged its formal response to the AFL's investigation into the club's list management strategies during season 2009. The response reaffirms the directors' insistence that the club at all times acted in accordance with rules and regulations of the competition as applied in the years immediately preceding and immediately following the year in question. The club will not be commenting further on the matter until it receives an official response from the AFL" Wilson must just about have used up all her leave by now - and I'd love to see a little dig tacked on the end of our presser, like -"In the meantime, the club expects the media to allow the club and its officials to prepare for the season 2013 season free of further prejudicial speculation" But I think we probably have to remain dignified until the AFL shows its final hand.

Sounds like the sort of thing that will bring Caro racing back from holidays. She'll write exactly the same article whether its true or not!! Player's father the source? Might not be a Melbourne player.............could be Brock McLean's father

The contrast between the Age's approach to Melbourne and Carlton is scandalous.The fact that Carlton were allowed a salary cap premium to get Judd is just another of Pierik's neat omissions. Club after club is getting its annual pre-season boost while Melbourne gets its daily beat up. The Age's spell checker now automatically replaces the phrase ' Melbourne coaches meeting' with the phrase 'the now infamous "vault" meeting'.The only thing infamous about the routine coaches meeting held in the Vault after the Port Adelaide game is that the Age has insisted on giving it a code name ! How or why the Age sponsors the club defies logic. Their editorial policy suggests a determination to bury us - and all our sponsorship dollars- in a very deep - dark - hole.

It is most certainly an absolute crock - like just about every other article on the MFC over the last six months!

I think Fan has effectively dealt with your first point. Besides it is hardly realistic to presume that the CEO and the Commission have widely differing views. Any Board worth its salt will quickly pull a CEO into line if they believe he is misrepresenting the rules of the organisation! On the face of it your second point is correct - but so what? Where is the clear evidence that we actively tried to orchestrate losses from the coaches box? You are not talking about the game we lead until the final siren are you? Bailey wants the tapes of his instructions that day - because they will prove his innocence.

No doubt a lawyer will be able to quote a case which challenges this - but surely if a CEO/ Commissioner makes the same statement several times AND acts accordingly , it is reasonable for a third party to assume that he is accurately representing the rules? We are not talking about a glib interview or two here - we are talking about considered statements consistent with full tolerance of the behaviours involved. If a third party cannot accept the CEO's interpretation of the rules, then who's interpretation can he accept? When seeking to interpret rules, the law places fundamental importance on the views of the "reasonable man" Having regard to established behaviours, the reasonable man would not conclude Melbourne's action clearly constituted illegal tanking or illegal draft tampering. If the game has been brought into disrepute through this - then it is the contrary and inconsistent behaviour of the AFL that has done it - not a few coaching moves in a close game between a couple of lowly teams sometime in 2009. It would seem to me that the only charge that can "validly" be laid is the charge against Dean Bailey under Regulation 19 A5 - and Bailey is adamant that - as a matter of fact - he is innocent of that charge The Age article this morning questioning the AFL's role in all this was welcome relief from the beat up it usually gives us. But in starkcontrast to the Wilson/Pierik Poison, it was buried deep behind the tennis coverage under a cartoon which suggested it wasn't a serious piece.

Yes.... good name. But his dimwittedness was going on holiday mid season - and handing the keys to Anderson. Fortunately there's been that much mud around him that he's been buried already.

This points to the utter sham this investigation has become. The AFL has supported a set of rules which encourage teams to "bottom out" . If you want to get ahead , its been said, you have to "bottom out". And what is "bottoming out"? - its losing pure and simple ............ what else can it be ? I wonder if this unprecedented victimization of one team will be remembered as "Anderson's Folly"

Not nearly as much of a disgrace as the Clothesline- Saddam Report !

I wonder if we could all agree on two things for this thread moving forward 1. We will not move off topic by discussing who appointed what coach when 2. We will adopt the Vlad definition of tanking i.e systematic match fixing over and above accepted list management practices

VFL alignment is an excellent question - not that they are likely to say anything In terms of facilities, I'd like to know how we propose to deal with the need for closed sessions during the season moving forward. The separation of admin from the football dept isn't necessarily a bad thing! I reckon you'd get some cheers from the floor if you asked that one Fair question which they shouldn't try to avoid

Our response to the tanking charges is due on 29th January. The AFL are going to spend at least a week behind closed doors before drawing any conclusions on the charges/potential charges. The Commissioners are then going to have to ratify whatever the executive recommends. At the start of our AGM on 6th February someone is therefore going to advise us that the club is bound by a confidentiality agreement and that the Board won't be able to entertain any questions about the charges or the investigation. Having to ignore the elephant in the room, the meeting might be fairly uneventful then (assuming that Neeld or Craig give us a clear summary of their on field expectations etc) Given the likely limits on our questions, what sorts of things would you like to see raised that night?

"Don't shoot the messenger" says Rohan " He was only reporting the facts" But Rohan, that is not the Age's way. The Age's way - perfected by its Chief Football Writer - is to grab a single isolated fact and extrapolate from there. Why not point out that it seems like a strange question? Why not say that if it is representative then the AFL investigation has been "pathetic and disgusting". Why not a headline like " AFL Investigators show their Ignorance" ? Consistency please!

At least get your facts right. We can't boot out the whole 2009 football department - because we don't employ them anymore. As for Schwab and the salary cap - it is by no means clear that we breached anything. Gutnick grabbed a discussion paper jumped on his white horse and raced off to the AFL without checking the facts.Don't believe everything you read in the papers! Move on

Nonsense. This rivals your "great post" - as the biggest load of cobblers I have read for a long time. The club has faced its problems - and is working damn hard to get itself off the bottom. Get into a time machine - and stay aboard until you reach January 2013.

Absolutely correct ........ unless of course they put Jack's Mum on to a polygraph

Nothing against Denis - who makes a fair point in this article but I find any suggestion that Jim was connected with the AFL's sick obsession with the events of 2009 quite obscene. The AFL witch-hunt - for that is what it is - is a disgrace as it stands. How much lower can the media take it?

It would be comical if it wasn't so serious? What about this Pierik moron? Clothesline and Saddam have an excuse - they have never been near the game before. But Pinprick is holding himself out to be an "AFL expert" After all the flack Melbourne has taken for recruiting, promoting , playing and retaining Jack Watts , how can a journalist possibly writes a serious article suggesting that if Melbourne was committed to doing its best in 2009 , it would have arranged for the school bus to take Jack Watts to every senior game fully kitted out ready to play ? Well Mr Pinprick the person who leaked that little gem to the media has effectively discredited the whole investigation - and you were too dumb to see it ! ( Apologies if years of indoctrination from Wilson has destroyed your ability to think objectively about matters involving the MFC)

What an utter farce this has become. "It all boils down to three minutes of footy" we are told. Well the AFL was at the game- the whole footy world was able to watch it- 3 and a half years ago!! If a crime was committed in those 3 minutes why didn't the AFL do something about it then? The reason - a clear-cut crime was not committed. It wasn't clear at the time - and it certainly isn't clear the best part of 4 years later. For goodness sake AFL you owe us big time - for the damage your incompetence has caused