sue

Pleas suggest an alternative for the coach which is not match fixing. Seems to me that if Bailey is charged it can't be for some wishy-washy 'disrepute' reason.

Some posters assert we will be charged with bringing the game into disrepute, not match fixing. They seem to base this on saying the AFL is hitting CC for comments likely to embarrass the AFL (requiring the AFL to give them publicity by running a 7 month witch-hunt, but we'll let that pass). But how do you justify a penalty for Bailey in that case - did he say any such thing? And $500K seems a lot for MFC not reigning-in CC when he started to make such remarks. I'd be interested to see those posters address that. Of course it is easy to say CW is wrong re Bailey, but $500K for not controlling CC seems rich. Either CW is wrong about a lot or there is more info than we have seen so far. In any case, I'd be very interested to see what possible wording there could be which says guilty but innocent at the same time. I think it may be achievable if the AFL includes a statement about tanking broader than just the MFC and the AFL takes a share of the blame for it.

First sentence - agreed. Second sentence - do you really care how outraged opposition supporters would be? After all, half of them know their own club's did the same (though why you and CW think doing it 'better' absolves them of investigation is beyond me).

My god, a balanced article. I liked David S's comments, particulary: "This is such a hard decision for the AFL. This would have gone to court. Melbourne doesn't have to pay for legal representatives, because it has more lawyers than supporters."

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.

Interested to hear what you would say if the AFL confirmed those penalties and announced it was beginning an investigation into other clubs who are under suspicion of similar behaviour?

No, she just says that when she wants to avoid using the perpendicular pronoun.

CW again http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/no-draft-penalties-likely-for-melbourne-20130215-2eia4.html

Just watched it. Dunno how she lives with herself. BTW, today's the day according to her. Surely she can't be wrong. Or maybe it is the day for the AFL's unofficial response.

Eddie joins the groupthink: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/eddie-mcguire-says-the-afl-should-take-some-blame-for-melbourne-tanking/story-e6frf9jf-1226578529477

Crikey - of course I and I expect everyone think that the main thing is what the AFL does, not what some cretin writes in a newspaper whose editor seems to have gone missing. But what that cretin writes, and the failure of the paper to report Don's statement does reflect on our club's reputation.. And is therefore worth comment and discussion and the hope that the club will take them on when appropriate The 'bubble reputation' is important. I too don't care much what supporters of other clubs call us, but there is sadly something called sponsorship. Also, the AFL might take the public perception on board when determining things like fixtures. This is the official/unofficial position of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Hell.

After their briefing yesterday I see that the State Premiers are saying that the problem is worse than they imagined. Since most of them are Liberals, I think that blows a hole in the theory that this is a Federal govt stunt.

I don't 'get it' because despite you saying you don't care, you posted on this issue. I presume that you are personally in favour of newspapers giving both sides of a story, but you don't want to appear to be backing away from your support of grapeviney for being against the 'groupthink' when he said the opposite. This is not the first time you got asked a question which undermines your position so you take the "I'm not interested" line. Better not to reply at all.

I've an idea. Someone should write some completely loopy comment (loopier than usual) and then all us groupthinkers should criticise it. In no time BH will come to the rescue of the original poster. BH old chum, yes, groupthink can be dangerous, but sometimes the majority is correct. Sometimes the contrarian is wrong. Are you seriously defending the view that it is more than OK for the Age to have ignored Don's response?

Sounds like you are the Pravda reader - they didn't publish the counter view the next day. You think it is OKt hat the Age didn't. Your capacity for missing the point is remarkable.

Yes, I didn't expect to see Don's stuff in CW's article as you suggest. If someone writes an opinion piece laced with facts that are disputed in a statement later in the day, you publish the counter statement the next day I am bewildered why anyone, let alone a Demon's supporter would take the line you have.

Whatever weight you give your second sentence (seems irrelevant to me) I am amazed that you can't see that any newspaper of quality should not have been expected to publish or have a news item about Don's response. Staggered.

just delete the words 'a club would tank so badly'. Cheer up BH - you almost revel in the thought that we are the pits. Perhaps understandable in a passionate supporter disappointed for so long.

it should have been pretty obvious to these highly paid execs that they might.

which one are you Dee-luded?

You forgot yourself mjt.

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.

Did the Age print Don M's statement today? I couldn't spot it on their website (but with my eyesight...)

re the sentence in bold: Why do you have no doubt? If she has spoken to such a person, the evidence suggests that person fed her a pile of rubbish. (Unless you think Don M is lying.) So either she has been conned or she has not spoken to anyone who as seen it,

I didn't hear the radio so I'm confused by this discussion of who is lying. How is it credible that Don M is lying in saying the MC's response does not include the stuff she alleged? The AFL has the document. It is either in i or not - no grey areas. What could he gain by lying? Or is this discussion about something else? Please explain.