The Chazz

This is the bit that in unknown. BUt it's not only about telling someone they will be sacked, the AFL will be arguing that it's not about an employee being threatened with being sacked, it's what they would be sacked for...ensuring we don't win too many games (the whole point of their argument). That's why I'm expecting CC to be done. That there are 2 seperate issues in the "joke" will make it hard to prove our innocence in court. Potential workplace bullying, on top of discussing delibrately losing games. I'm appreciating and respecting the genuine responses to my concerns, bubt I'm yet to see something come back at me that has convinced me otherwise, and I want to be convinced!!! I honestly don't hate CC...yet!

I am staggered that some can be so sure of this comment. Who will be the ones sitting back saying "I told you so"? The minority, or the majority. While I'm not in the majority, my money is on them - I was in the minority camp for $cumdog, so my form isn't great!!!

You won't get an argument on that part.

Nutbean, you are obviously an employee/er in an area of law, so I do take your posts seriously. The other example that you used is obviously to make your point, however, I think it at the extreme. I will throw this one at you, and again, I respect your views. If a boss said to his employee "if you don't do this, you will be sacked", where does that sit? Oh yes, the boss was only joking, but what about the employee what felt threatened by the remark? Even though the boss had a smile on his face, that doesn't mean it's a joke.

What if he's the only one to be found guilty? What if his "comments" are the only thing the AFL have managed to discover in this process, and becuase of them, we have had to put up with this investigation for near 8 months? In this time, how many potential sponsors have told us to pi$$ off? I would love to get off his case Daisy, I honestly would (as much as that may be hard to believe).

Thanks LFR, you are a star!

It's not paranoia, WYL, and I think it's far from baseless. Cuddles may be a great bloke and a hard worker, but if he has said on numerous occasions in numerous forums that our aim for the year is to win less than a certain amount of games, then he is a fcuking idiot, and should take the blame for this whole saga if found guilty, given that I'm in no doubt that the Club will not be charged with tanking, and that Schwab is cleared. I'm continually amazed at the amount of people saying "he said it as a joke, it's just others misunderstood it". Why did he say it at all? Why did he say it in multiple forums? Why not keep it between he, Schwab, Stynes and Bailey? This is my issue - we all knew what we had to do, we all knew what we wanted to achieve, we all knew what we were doing was a grey area, why not just STFU and let people do the job they know they are expected to do. Why tell groups of supporters/sponsors what the plan is? This is part of the reason that we are in the sh!t and all the others aren't. I would be blown away if our legal team think CC will get off. I hope for his sake that they do, and that he is, and will happily apologise.

What did she say that was new? It was what she didn't say that was new, the fact that the entire article makes no allegations, assumptions or personal comments regarding Cameron Schwab. When was the last time she did that when writing about this topic? She may not have seen our submission, if you know, you obviously have a source, but I will give you the respect you deserve and not ask for it. I have no doubt she has spoken to someone that has seen our submission. I agree, we need to fight, but if what the MFC has seen regarding CC would not win in court, and especially if their legal advice is to not challenge it, then shouldn't we act on that advice? Taking something to court that we have no hope of winning, I'm not sure if that is the smartest of your ideas. Again, this is based on my suspicions and opinion that CC has a case to answer.

BS WYL, I have always put in the disclaimer that I have not seen any evidence and that I am basing my opinion on what the media reports. CW articles aren't the only articles I read. It's just her one today made me take notice due to the galring admission on her not going after Schwab at the usual pace that she does. I'm amazed you don't at least agree with that part. Edit - changed the bit in bold. Orinally said "are". Apologies for the error!

If he is found guilty of bringing the game in to disrepute because of his comments regarding us doing whatever we had to to ensure we didn't win too many games, regardless of the manner in which he intended, then that's probably about it. At the end of the day RP, it doesn't matter a fcuk what you think, what I think or what CC thinks, it's what the AFL commission thinks, or potentially what a judge thinks.

I posted this in a different thread, but it is probably more relevant here. It is in relation to Old Dee saying he is over the whole thing... this is why I fail to understand the love toward CC. There is more chance than not that he will be charged. Going by Kero's article, she has obviously had word that Schwab is clear. Bailey, I don't know how I feel toward DB, I think I feel sorry for him. But if the AFL decide that there is enough evidence to charge CC, and don't think for one minute that they wouldn't do it without their own legal advice, then it will potentially get to the point that CC is the reason for this investigation. My recent posts on here (mostly the tanking thread) are probably written with the expectation that CC is in strife. I am basing my level of support for him on nothing other than what I have read in the media. If I am wrong, then I have no hesitation eating humble pie, and will apologise to the man given the chance. For a long time I have had concerns about CC's involvement in all of this. There has been nothing reported that should make me question my level of concern, if anything, the more I read just confirms why I think this way.

I do believe that is what I said.

Old, this is why I fail to understand the love toward CC. There is more chance than not that he will be charged. Going by Kero's article, she has obviously had word that Schwab is clear. Bailey, I don't know how I feel toward DB, I think I feel sorry for him. But if the AFL decide that there is enough evidence to charge CC, and don't think for one minute that they wouldn't do it without their own legal advice, then it will potentially get to the point that CC is the reason for this investigation. My recent posts on here (mostly the tanking thread) are probably written with the expectation that CC is in strife. I am basing my level of support for him on nothing other than what I have read in the media. If I am wrong, then I have no hesitation eating humble pie, and will apologise to the man given the chance. For a long time I have had concerns about CC's involvement in all of this. There has been nothing reported that should make me question my level of concern, if anything, the more I read just confirms why I think this way.

Old, agree with your summary - that one of the two is lying. I hope to Chirst it is the one that isn't our president. I wish I wasn't, but I'm on the fence. Normally I'd believe blood before water, but the water has put doubt in my mind due to the two things she has put on the line. There is that element of doubt that should not be there.

I hope at the end of this saga that you are incorrect...!!!

Interesting. Doubtful, but I'm interested!

In the unlikely event that we are required to attend a hearing, of course we would not use that as our defence. I trust you can see the difference. Let's not forget, McLardy has read the 800 pages, not us.

Old, I didn't hear it, and due to the expected (and worthy) biased reports on here, I have got no idea what she said. The thing I will say is that between today's article, and getting on the radio tonight and calling McLardy a liar (taking your word there!), she is putting her reputation right on the line. Would she be so idiotic to do that if she didn't have some facts? If she is wrong, she will lose not only respect from within the AFL community, but she will lose gigs on TV, on radio, and most likely her job. That's why the minority on here are listening to her comments. I still have absolutely no doubt that she knows Schwab will be cleared, and that Connolly will get done.

Am I? What makes you say that? I have given a clear explanation of what I thought of that part of the statement. Given that it is a structured, open letter to members, I am doubtful that this is a slip up from Don.

Would this line indicate that we are expecting to be asked to meet with the AFL commission for an official hearing? I ask this based on that Don said "will not" rather than "would not".

Apologies HT, didn't see anyting of the kind, but there are 1797 posts so it is possible I missed it.

It's clearly a combination of the two rjay. I believe their is some fact in it due to her lack of personal insults toward Cameron Schwab. If there was any chance of him stil lbeing charged, she would've based 90% of that article on him. The fact that he gets barely a line makes me beleive she knows he is in the clear. But, this is about the third time I have posted this, and not one person on here has shot me down, so that's a fairly good indication that some don't want to believe it could be true.

RP - can you please give me your opinion on the piece I wrote early (as posted above). I would love Ben Hur's view on it, but I'm on his ignore list (maybe someone can copy and paste it on my behalf and get BH to comment). I personally think I'm on the money.

Nutbean - Since the start of this investigation (could be argued that it was well before that), CW has had a personal goal of sinking Cameron Schwab. She has written some pretty bloody ordinary things about him, and at any chance, she has tried to catch him out. This recent article has absolutely minimal on Schwab. Why has she stopped now? If this was an opinion article based on nothing other than her personal disliking for the MFC, why wouldn't she be getting up Schwab again? She wrote; "Connolly will be charged as will former coach Dean Bailey, but Fairfax Media could not confirm whether CEO Cameron Schwab would also be charged." This is the only mention of Schwab in her article. The only mention of the man that she has individualised in many articles for well over 2 years. What has changed in the last week or so that has made her take her foot of his throat? The only logical response is that she knows something, which is most likely that CS is in the clear, therefore anything she tries to pin on him could be used when the AFL announces its next move. The fact that her focus seems to be solely on Chris Connolly, in my honest opinion, speaks volumes. We may still get told we have no case to answer, and Wilson is covering her ar$e in that article, just in case this eventuates (much to her disgust). But the thing that I took out of this article is not what she has written, it's more about what she hasn't (or who she hasn't written about).