Dr. Gonzo

Norm's home now, the curse is dead. B)

A champion team over a team of champions. Champion players are only anointed retrospectively (for the most part) anyway it is because they won flags people consider them champions (rare exceptions like Buckley or Ablett Snr for example). If Geelong lost all 4 GF's how many champions would you name in their side? If they won the 2 or 3 in the early 90's how many champs would their side boast compared to how they are viewed now? Just worry about working together as one cohesive unit and winning games/flags and let the media worry about subjective terms like "champions".

Yeah not quite the same though.

Was very good early, dropped a little in the second half of the North game (conditioning?) but still did some nice things. As others have said though the fact he showed strength, poise, positioning and goal smarts bodes well. I very much don't want to get ahead of myself considering the amount of "next big things" we seem to have that never come on but you get the feeling if he can work on lowering his field kicking and not having such an up-and-under technique he would have all the tools to be a "complete package" type player if he can put it together. Having the tools and actually doing it are two different things but the signs from his first practice match hit out are good. Just spewing we have to wait another year to see him again (not on TV next two weeks).

Which is why the club were not given any more significant sanctions other than a fine for the conduct of one of their managers. Although they were not aware of it they are still accountable for the actions of their managers to an extent especially if some/one staff member felt threatened/bullied to the extent that they undertook actions prejudicial to the interests of the AFL although not to the extent that it could be said their misconduct specifically violated one of the laws of the game.

Relax, we've got this. B)

A person in a managerial position at a club making comments to employees that, although taken out of context, were perceived to have been of a bullying/threatening nature. That is the crux of it. Regardless of the intent of Connolly's comments someone in a managerial position needs to take ownership for them regardless of the intent. If a manager at a bank, for example, makes a light-hearted comment in a meeting that staff should charge extra fees in order to meet monthly targets or face the sack and a couple of people in the meeting take it seriously the manager will be held to account because being in a position of authority they need to be aware that their comments, although of a joking nature, could be misinterpreted or taken out of context and acted upon by people who may feel threatened or bullied by those comments. It's pretty simple yet the media and the public seem unable to comprehend this concept which is unsurprising considering the way McLachlin butchered his press conference yesterday.

Well, no - the outcome was conduct prejudicial to the interests of the AFL but don't let that stop the Henny Penny's around here.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!" But seriously not too fussed about this except that I hope it blows over before the season starts so we don't have more off-field distractions - and does anyone else see the irony in the VCGLR inquiring into suspected rigging of matches in order to take away a licence to have pokie machines which every man and his dog knows are rigged by a computer chip to only pay out 83% of the time?

They also probably wanted to avoid some difficult conversations with betting agencies which provide them with some decent cash.

Playing the devils advocate - a football club, or any professional sporting organisation, is now seen as a workplace. OH&S includes bullying or threats to your job etc Whether those were made in a joking manner or not is irrelevant as it is not the intent of the comments but the perception that is important. Therefore if Connolly did make comments which others perceived as threats or bullying then the club takes responsibility for that as he held a senior position within the club. This is all semantics anyway - we tanked, others have as well but we got caught, we got let off with a slap on the wrist after an investigation no-one else wanted was initiated by a cowboy looking to make a name for himself while the chief was overseas and the outcome was worded in a way to ensure the integrity of the club was kept intact. Bloody good outcome all things considered if you ask me even if it does make little sense once you start poking at it. We got the good end of it though (could have been much much worse if the AFL really wanted to whack us) so lets just let sleeping dogs lie and get behind the MFC, Neeld, the FD and the players and lets hope we can start winning games of footy. Of course the outcome makes little sense but not much that comes from positions of authority does these days because they are talking complete [censored] in order to cover their arses.

If anyone has an AFL Membership I strongly advise you to cancel it and take up a Premium Membership with the MFC - I did it 5 years ago and it's the best thing I've done relating to footy.

Don't be daft - he is the fall guy you really think all that happened during that period was a comment made by Connolly? If we didn't get the PP in 2009 the supporters would have rioted.

IT'S OVER!!! Can we get on with playing footy now?

There's an article on him in the HS which indicates he'll liky miss round 1 but worst case scenario is seen to be out unt round 6. We have a couple of winnable games early so hopefully we can manage withou him until then. Would be close to our most valuable player now which is a credit to him.

Oh really? How about you let us know what the AFL's findings/charges/verdict is then considering it is yet to be publicly released.

Haha "dee-luded" how very apt.

They didn't say anything except to reiterate what was in Caro's article and Robinson said he called Demetriou who said he didn't know anything. Robinson then said most people would think that is a very light penalty for MFC and Whately said MFC have thought for several weeks they wouldn't lose any draft picks.

Prepare to be disappointed. The club will only be fractured if people decide to put themselves before the club. You want to talk about principles and integrity? Then back the club when it needs it the most, back the people making the decisions and back the coaches/FD/players with the clubs and supporters full support. Don't have a whinge and quit on the club because you're not happy that the club won't cut off their nose to spite their face so that you (and others) can feel vindication and some short-term gratification that taking on the big bad AFL will give you.

Tune into Fox Footy if you're not already, apparently they're gonna discuss some "breaking news" after this game. Though the media being what it is I wouldn't hold my breath it's more than what was in Caro's article.

We'll see. If those are the penalties I guarantee you we won't take it to court. Ironic how you talk about fighting to the end and then say you won't buy another membership if they make a decision you disagree with... Have you seen/read the investigation report given to the club? If not I'd like to know how you know "fumbling the ball" made up a key, if any, component of the AFL's findings against us. I'm not having a go at you WYL, you're a loyal Demon and we need plenty more like you. I'm just trying to show that, while not preferable, being pragmatic about the situation the club would do well to just put this behind us with minimal penalties and get on with focusing the entire club on winning games of footy.

It does nothing of the sort - you don't even know what the specifics of the findings might be but I can guarantee the club would not be found guilty of "tanking" or "match-fixing". Kill the club is hyperbole to the extreme - what would kill the club is taking on city hall in a protracted court case when we would be trying to get off on technicalities. This outcome will have minimal to no effect on sponsorship but continued negative publicity due to a court case definitely would. Do you think our President's words could have been chosen to have the effect of ensuring the penalties on the club and individuals would be minimal? It's bluster to scare the AFL into thinking we will do it - it's no use having nuclear bombs if no-one thinks you will use them but you'd be utterly insane to.

You blokes need to take your blinkers off and realise that if that is the outcome 1) we would have negotiated for it and 2) we should take it and run. It might make you feel good short-term but it would be utterly irresponsible of the club to waste resources fighting that and if the current admin did (which I do not believe they will at all) they should be out on their arses. Realise you need to take a pragmatic approach and all the huffing and puffing about court action would have been for the sole purpose of getting this outcome (should it eventuate). Suspended sentences and a short time in the sin bin for DB & CC and a small fine for the club (we could knock it off in one night of fundraising) would be an outstanding outcome compared to what might have been (banishment from early rounds of multiple drafts). It's not ideal, of course we'd all like to get off completely, but given the circumstances I would mark that outcome down as a win and get on with moving the club forward and letting Neeld get on with the footy.

On the one hand that would seem like a good outcome, that we are going to come out of this relatively unscathed with receiving a negotiated slap on the wrist type punishment. On the other hand I hate the "death row" feeling; execute or exonerate just get it over with already!

If the AFL don't come out with something today it is just another reason why they are one of the most inept managers of a professional sporting organisation on the planet. As Mac7 said they are lucky the product sells itself or the competition would be bankrupt with this congregation of buffoons in charge.