sue

Agree, except about Thomas. He is at fault. Any journo worth his pay must at least try to check a story before publishing. It is clear he did not. Others didn't publish what 'was already common knowledge' because they checked and found the 'common knowledge' was rubbish. But he's just a sports jpourno. Mifsud is an AFL employee of trust and is now not to be trusted.

two possible lines for a journo to write 1. 'Melbourne and the league both now consider the matter closed - although it still remains unclear how Mifsud came to the conclusions he did." 2. Davey and the MFC both now consider the matter closed -although it still remains unclear what motives Mifsud, Thomas and the AFL had for defaming Davey and Neeld.

It is appalling. Even though it may seem in the club's best interest to let this quietly die now, I fear some journo will raise it again later. But I guess we don't dare push it. If Davey (or player x) did say what Misud alleged, he should have checked it out and not blabbed it to Thomas. If it turned out that player x had lied to him, Mifsud had a 'story' but given his role in the AFL he shouldn't then publish it. Aaarrggh I'm sick of these ifs. Whatever actually happened, I cannot think of a circumstance where Mifsud should not be ashamed of his actions. And Thomas -unspeakable.

The AFL is big on protecting the head and are happy to fiddle the rules to achieve that. Why then do they allow free kicks to be paid to players who deliberately duck and put their heads at risk? Surely this is encouraging dangerous behaviour. Similarly though it happens less often, they seem to pay free kicks to players who throw their heads at opponents legs. If the player whose head is hit initiated the action, then there should be no free kick.

Sorry, I had used 'interim' in another thread and forgot I had omitted it here. But I think it was at least implied with my flood analogy where you don't send money to flood victims forever, just in the interim to tide victims over. Whoever funds comes from, it will be 'interim' - noone would be prepared to donate more than that needed to tide us over any gap in payments from EW. But even if I had suddenly added 'interim' - I don't see how that justifies an arrogant 'end of discussion' statement. That is just being rude. Geez, I never thought I'd be cast in the role of an EE defender…

Sure. That's why my preferred option is interim help from the AFL. It is not needed this week - presumably we can pay the bills, and maybe it will never be needed. I'd expect/hope the AFL would be embarrassed if it had to be left to EE to organize such help, so they'd step in. I'm no fan of EE at all, I just don't see a reason to bag him over this.

OK I'll drop the flood analogy, though please acknowledge there can be exceptional circumstances which can require external assistance and tell me why the current case doesn't qualify. But who cares if EE's motives are less than angelic - as long as no real 'evil' follows just take his loot (or loot he organises) and swallow your pride. I agree with other posters, get loot out of EW too if legally possible (though that seems unlikely to me). I think the AFL should come to the party - it's their reputation we have upheld.

Maybe a couple of you miss my point a bit. I'm saying that in exceptional circumstances a victim of a disaster may need help from outside. It is not demeaning or an indication of giving up the ghost to accept it. Otherwise half of Queensland should have been towed out to sea and sunk…. hmm maybe not such a bad idea…

Bu what if we 'are incapable of doing the business ourselves'? That may be the case no matter how competent we ourselves are, so where'e the insult? Do flood ravaged victims say no to help because unusual circumstances are overwhelming? I'd say dropping Energywatch to save the reputation of the club and AFL is such an unusual overwhelming circumstance. (No matter how stupid it may have been to engage them originally - that's a separate argument, not relevant now.)

Clearly it would be better for us if the AFL covered a temporary shortfall than charity organized by Eddie, but if the AFL won't come to the party what's wrong with Eddie's charity? As much as you might think he is a publicity-seeking ego-maniac, who cares if big-noting himself makes him happy. Not taking his money sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your own face unless there are other reasons not to do so, ie. 'evil' intentions. But I can't see how any 'evil' intentions he may have are furthered by having given us charity? If you think differently, please elaborate, I may be missing something here. He may expect something 'evil' in return, but surely it's up to us to take his cash and then resist the 'evil'. If that looks too difficult, then it has to be weighed up against having a shortfall.

Interesting that many of those slitting wrists as a result of a 100 point thumping had predicted it, yet post as if they were shocked by being thumped. Can any amateur physcologists out there explain this condition?

I don't know if that is the correct conspiracy, but the 'coincidence' surely means something was behind old Facebook crud suddenly becoming news.

The introduction of the speeding analogy is not relevant as all know they are breaking the law. Here's is a more relevant analogy: 10 people walk over a rope bridge in front of you, all of them first checking the strength of the bridge, and you also do the similar checks and then walk across and the bridge fails. But it can't be said that you were as negligent as you would be if you were the only bunny to check out the bridge. Surely if others have reached the same (but sadly erroneous) conclusion as you, you are not the complete fool you seem to want to paint the mfc as being. Yes, I agree you should have checked even more carefully than those other guys (and they should have done so too since they have all now fallen into the abyss). But that is hindsight. One learns from other people's experiences, sometimes it leads you into trouble, but that is life. I'll say it again. Yes there have been stuff ups. But some posters seem to be looking for more failings regardless of the evidence just so they can flagellate themselves and the club. Maybe supporting mfc since the 1960's attracts or develops such people….. It's understandable.

The guy's an idiot. If they reacted in 10 seconds as he wants he'd be into us for not taking time to check there were no legal concerns etc. Drongo.

Yes we have had quite a few problems and stuff ups. But by ignoring the diligence of the other clubs and big companies, you seem to be looking for more mfc failings even when there is contrary evidence. It can't make you or anyone happier to find faults which aren't there. There are enough without adding more unnecessarily.

What evidence do you have that we merely 'followed' the other clubs? It is perfectly reasonable to use the 'they did it too' line when someone singles us out for a whinge about our incompetence. Were all these other clubs and companies also incompetent and just saving their jobs?

Re the budget situation now: I can understand why the club is reluctant to draw down any of the 'standard' cash top-ups coming our way from the AFL because of the current shortfall. But I can't understand why the AFL doesn't have a separate contingency fund to support the club for doing the ethical thing. The Demons actions also protected and enhanced the AFL's reputation overall. Why not make a special grant to tide us over?

If MFC didn't do the level of due diligence some corporate captains posting here would have liked, neither did 2 other sporting clubs. The thing that Schwab clearly did wrong was even mentioning that Energywatch were (temporarily) behind in their payments. Better to have said nothing about that.

Don't these irresponsible journalists know the damage they do by making assertions based on nothing and then saying something else, also based on nothing. It is not a matter of 'fair comment' to say X is lying (or implying X is because you say Y is truthful ), it is libelous. Her only legal Defence might be that she didn't name Davey in the same article where she says Milsud was telling the truth. Until some of these so-called sports journos are sue they will get away with character assail action just to get attention.

She also states Milsfud is not lying which implies the Melbourne source is. But she gives no justification for this conclusion. She also implicitly rejects the quite real possibility that what was said was misinterpreted. Why?

I posted the following in a different thread, so please forgive me for re-posting here but I think some journos may be reading our stuff more than usual and I'd like them to know: I've always wondered what it means when people say our club doesn't stand for anything. Especially because I couldn't see what any other club stood for. But now I know out club does stand for something - decency.

yes. There were many cynical about the viability of Energywatch paying out over the full term. This may be a blessing in disguise - better to be ditcher than ditchee.

I've always wondered what it means when people say our club doesn't stand for anything. Especially because I couldn't see what any other club stood for. But now I know out club does stand for something - decency.

Do you seriously believe this guy is capable of a 'heartfelt apology'. his initial response would indicate that is about as likely as mfc winning the GF this year. We can't expect an immediate response from the mfc. They need to look at the legal situation, talk to the other Melbourne clubs whose lack of due diligence was apparently as bad as ours was (that we are not alone seems to be overlooked by a lot of posters here), talk to the afl about their possible support etc.

Surely if mfc dumps Energywaste to preserve our reputation we are also defending the afl's. so it would be reasonable to expect some interim financial support from the afl while a new sponsor is found.