The Chazz

I never had a problem with the late, great Sean Wight wearing them - wasn't he one of the first that introduced wearing gloves which then saw Tony Campbell bring out his own range and made craploads of $, but probably not as much as Easton. Gloves were so late 80's - early 90's. Players that wear them now remind me of guys that still wear corduroy jackets, one day they will be back in fashion, but today isn't that day.

Didn't they eventually shift Rivers to Dawes and Frawley to Cloke, only for Dawes to expose Rivers one-out in the goal square and kick a couple quick on him as well? We are a better backline for Jared's departure, as does out leadership group.

So now would be even more time to believe the MFC website. Interesting to see he (BH) hasn't posted on this thread since this was apparently changed on the MFC site.

So, what's the definition of "players being instructed to lose" (or what ever the wording is)? Let's say CC at the infamous Vault meeting, indicated that people will lose their jobs if we win more than we should, and some of those people attending that meeting took him seriously, then mentioned to members of the playing group that the CC wants them to lose. Is this going to be the AFL's sly way of saying that the players were instructed to lose, albeit during an informal conversation? From memory, wasn't it at the 3/4 time huddle that some players said along the lines of "stuff the Club wanting us to lose, let's win"? Christ, next week can't come quick enough. As I have since day 1, I'm expecting the best, but preparing for the worst. I didn't do the latter when $cumbag left, and as a result, 12 months later I no longer believe in voodoo dolls.

A typo of 92 instead of 82 is understandable as the 8 & 9 are next to each other on the numeric keybad on a keyboard. As the 8 and the 0 are at opposite ends, I'm quietly confident (as are you by the sounds of it), that the MFC haven't made another typo and that Barry is closer to 70kgs rather than 78kg.

From the MelbourneFC's own website BH; 183cm 70kg. Who would be most likely to know the height and weight of a Demons player, Big Footy, Fan Footy, the AFL or the Melbourne Football Club? #[censored] (Nb. I put that last word there because I'm on his ignore list so he won't know what I've written.) I'm with Bibg (above), FFS can someone ask the kid when they are at training next please.

Neeld has achieved this already by allowing Rivers to depart.

Apologies Nutbean, should've read "reported BY the media". The rest of your post I'm not to fussed with, as I am posting my opinions. I may be right, I may not be. The AFL can't afford this to go to trial? Did that stop them when they suspended Cousins for 12 months on the back of a charge that was actually dropped?

Am I the only one that is hoping this is incorrect? No matter what player you are, you DO NOT worry about next year. Play your arse off in the seniors all year, and contracts will take care of themselves. You're on an AFL list, work hard, do what's asked and repay the club by playing well. Most times they will repay you the favour by giving you a contract extension.

We = ? Players? They didn't (well, not that day, 186 is a different story). Coach? Hard to prove, rotations down, but we have injuries/medical records to back that up, positional changes/list management is bloody hard to prove. The Football Manager? Making comments about getting sacked if we won more games than we need to, assuring some groups that we have things in place the see picks 1 & 2 at the end of the season, that's probably not giving the game a very good look is it? Pretty sure Sue if you asked a couple of posters on here that attended supporter functions that CC was a speaker at, they could enlighten you. I'm not speaking any more on it (I think I said that on about page 3 of this thread, or one with a similar sound).

Harass (pronunced herass), broken in to 2 words - Har Ass (ie. Her Ass).

Saying to multiple audiences that we will get picks 1 & 2 in the draft, with at least one of those audiences being outside the club, probably ticks that box. Your point, and most others (mine included), about those 3 minutes, is 100% correct. How can we be charged based on that? We can't, it's impossible to prove. But that's the tanking charge. That has nothing to do with the disrpute charge that CC could face. So many on this thread have the blinkers on. Yes, it is a tanking investigation, and yes, it is near impossible to prove. What about the other allegations that have been raised - do you think the AFL will turn a blind eye to those? Absolutely not, given they will be a lot easier to prove, and given that the AFL know they won't get us for tanking and will need to get us for something. Again, it's not the onfield performance that will get us in trouble. It's the offield performance of individuals that the AFL will be zooming in on. Iv'a, I know what you're saying, but to be honest, at this point in time, I want to get our sh!t sorted before I worry about what other clubs have done.

Break up the word "harass", between the "r" and "a" giving you 2 seperate words, and pronunce those 2 words how you would if you were saying "harass". Wow, that works so much better in real life!

So do you think the MFC website would have an increase in unique visitors due to a 6 month tanking investigation? C'mon now B59. How many press conferences have we had recently? There was one a couple of days ago, when was the one before that? In particular, when was the last one shown/reported in the media? The media aren't going down to the club, because the club are giving them nothing. They (the media) are "getting better information" from "a source close to the MFC". That's it. Of course they were happy to extend their contracts. They aren't paying huge dollars as it is, so why not get another 12 months of cheap sponsorship? Hopefully our onfield performances are better in 2013, and generate more exposure than our performances of 2009, so that we can offer them an extension at the end of this season, with a fairly significant increase to what they are currently paying. But, no doubt you will over-inflate what they are paying now.

As much as we need to look out for DB in this, DB is in it to cover his own arse. Again, this is trying to clear our tanking name, which I expect to happen. But I do expect CC to lose his job over his continual comments about staying the course. I'll throw one blokes name out there that seems to be very quiet in all this, and isn't mentioned on here at all (individually that is). Josh Mahoney. A copy of his transcript you would think, would be an interesting read.

The funniest jokes are those that aren't repeated over and over again. I believe members of DL have witnessed this same "joke" that CC used in The Vault. But sadly, we do need God's help with this sort of stuff these days. Something that one person can take the wrong way can be taken quite highly, regardless of it being humour or not. I personally wish we could go back to the days when "harass" was 2 words. Such is the society we now reside.

Think it was mentioned earlier, but this is my suggestion; Watched that Liverpool clip in an earlier post. Wouldn't it be great to have enough supporters at the 'G where we can all stand and give the "Melbourne" chant, holding our scraves above our head. Oh, that's right, 2 problems - we don't get enough people to the 'G, and those that do turn up want to scrap the idea of getting scarves as part of the membership. The bugler it is.

What is there to disagree on? How many times have you seen 2012/2013 footage proudly showing the Opel/Webjet logos, especially compared to the amount of times you have seen Dean Bailey's picture, or footage of the 2009 Richmond game? The exposure those 2 companies have had during this investigation is minimal, that's fact, not sure what there is to disagree on? Not rolling over at all WYL, just being realistic. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight, I'm saying that if the AFL go down the "game in to disrepute" track, it makes a fight bloody hard. If they charge us with tanking, I would be a lot more confident that we will win. As I said, I'm not saying don't fight, and I'm certainly not rolling over.

Ben, was this during the quality time you spent with Bitter, or are you talking about the players out on the field? Nb. I know I'm on your "Ignore List" so you won't reply, couldn't GAF to be honest.

B59 - you talk about this sponsorship stuff, and how Webjet/Opel would be loving hte exposure, etc. The amount of times the media (print or tv) have reported on this investigation, there is minimal times that they are using current day footage. Most photos I have seen attached to articles have Bailey's face, CC's face or footage from the 2009 season. The amount of times the Webjet or Opel logo would have appeared would be 1 in every 10, if not 20. You and I have had heated conversations about sponsorship in the past, and I think this is another example that it is a topic you may not know that much about. Back on topic, isn't it clear to everyone that we will not be charged with tanking? It's already been reported to the media that the charges will be draft tampering, bringing the game in to disrepute, and for Bailey, not coaching to his best (or whatever the wording is). There is no mention that we will be charged with tanking, as, what a majority on here are saying, it is too hard to prove, and there are no clear rules that define tanking. Bringing the game in to disrepute is the killer for us, as the AFL will define that in a way that will be backed by the evidence that they have. It would have to be one of the hardest charges to fight, as it is basically the AFL saying "this person did this, we don't like it and think it's not a good look for OUR game, therefore, we will charge them". That's why I will continue to believe that CC will be made the scapegoat out of all this, as it will show that the AFL have not failed in their investigations. It will show that tanking, in terms of teams losing on purpose, does not exist, and that if any club offical even jokingly tries to suggest that their team considers it, that this will not be tolerated, and will cost jobs. The CC case - if the AFL have spoken to so many witnesses who attended the meetings held at "The Vault", and if those witnesses are all saying the same thing (in regards to CC's comments), and if they are willing to sign a stat dec and/or tell that story in a courtroom, then it will be near impossible for the MFC to convince the judge that they were tonuge-in-cheek comments. The whole thing is simple, we tanked. I know it, Ben Hur knows it (should be enough for everyone?!), the media know it, the AFL know it. It should never be proved, and from what we have learnt from the media, the AFL are struggling to do so. But, if you think that's the only thing the AFL are going to throw at us, you truly are living in fantasyland. Tanking; Not Guilty. Bringing the game in to disrepute; Guilty. Individual/s will be punished. It will happen.

Could he have? It could be possible that what he said was all he could say. But, I tend to share the same opinion as you! I have no doubt the club, or individuals within, did the wrong thing (as have clubs before us). I just hope we weren't THAT stupid and left a paper trail.

Hey WYL, I'm normally on your side, but I think this point could be challenged. The investigators will have statements from DB as to the events "that" year of 2009. Depending on what he told them, which you would imagine being the truth, he may or may not have been able to go much harder during that last press conference. We are all guessing!

Jose, I'm not saying you are wrong, as I really have no idea, but how can you be so sure? It has to be wishful thinking to some degree as you have no idea what evidence the AFL may or may not have, you are basing it on what the media is feeding us. I for one am glad that the media continually report stuff that they have been reporting since it all started. The last thing this Club would need is for the AFL to start releasing transcripts of conversations they had with officials from the club, especially if some of those are still at the club, and in fact, were part of the whistle-blowing brigade. While we have been fed a story from the media, and based on what they are telling us, it appears that the evidence the AFL has got is very thin, I'm still not going to get too excited until this is finished. I just can't see the AFL going through all this and the MFC, whether as a club or individuals, will come out of this with no charges that will stick.

Choko - people have come forward and said that CC made remarks about people losing their job if we win more games than we are aiming to. I think the Club has responded somewhere (I think I remember reading it, could be wrong) that they were tounge-in-cheek comments from CC. Do you really think the AFL commission will accept that as part of our response? Everything else though I think you're close. Not sure how CS will go in this, but I think enough people have come forward with a similar chain of events to see CC cop a big hit here.

I can't see it going any other way B59! The AFL don't want to find tanking exists/existed, so if they can say that, after extensive investigations, the MFC didn't tank, it will shut the tanking deabte for good, because let's face it, while other clubs have done it too, if the AFL "couldn't find" any evidence on us, the biggest and dumbest culprits, then why would they waste time looking at other clubs? The CC alledged remarks are the ones that I can't see anything other than him losing his job, in my opinion. Even if we took it to court saying they were tounge-in-cheek remarks, I think the judge and jury will laugh us at of the courtroom, not the AFL. If an (ex)employee took the comments CC alledgedly made seriously, the courts will be all over that. The reports that mulitple witnesses have made the same accusation will only give them (the jury) more confidence in finding him guilty. Think about a sexual harrassment case, a boss said to his female employee, "you've got great boobs", she takes it personally, even though he was "only joking". These kind of comments generally don't work in the favour of the person saying them, our legal system favours those that are told, not the tellers!