DirtyDees DDC

I think the Tapster is actually right footed, but he can use his left ok.

To anyone at the game on friday night, did you hear the crowd go 'Toump' (as in toomp) when he kicked the ball? Shades of 'Ooze' with Yze.

That's the closest we've got to North in years. The forward line worked well with Dawes as a target, and Howe coming thru as the 3rd tall. I thought Pederson offered something to the club. He wasn't outstanding (apart from one great pack mark against North) but he was a better 2nd ruck option than Sellar. The side that plays the first two halfs (of this odd 3 team round robin) will struggle in the second against a fresh team, and Richmond were very fresh. I thought they were very impressive in that first quarter; they were quick, they moved the ball well and hit targets. I didn't think there was much we could do, and we were lucky they deliberately slowed their game in the second quarter (saving themselves for North). The big downsides were our general kicking, and getting smashed in the clearances. Watt to like: - Howe kicking 2 straight from set shots (just Howe kicking straight for goal was a bonus). - Watts may have to get used to being tagged this year. I can't see other teams allowing him to run free on the backline. He's too dangerous. How was that run and carry from him in the second quarter? His accelleration and disposal was fabulous, and he can come over the pack and play the spoiler - like Rivers. - Hogan. He new what to do as a forward how to find space and present a target . That goal in the first quarter where he was on the boundary from a set shot where he bent the ball through - very classy. Someone called Reiwoldt tried the same thing for Richmond - from the same spot - and not even close.

Yes - it's a carefully worded decision that finds the club not guilty of charges that - if proved - would have threatened our gaming licence. That's as big a win as the retention of our draft picks. I think the omission of Cameron Schwab's name from the charges was a key here. I doubt the club would have achieved the not guilty verdict if CS had been implicated. The media claimed CS was hardly mentioned in the 800-1000 page report. At least that proves CW didn't write it.

I hope you are right. Comments on Bigfooty suggest otherwise. Be interesting to hear what the tiger supporters have to say this Friday night at Etihad.

I think her job..her mission...was to single us out as the worst culprit in this saga. Better still, let's make us the only culprit. Think tanking, think Melbourne.

Surely she must have more evidence than this (the CC 'zulus' comment). She would have spoken to former players and officials; a source appeared to give her the inside story on the investigation, and she seems to have a contact with someone currently at the club, as she commented that the club is divided on fighting the charges in court. She is even getting frustrated at her inability to 'reveal all' (quote to Gary Lyon on Footy Classified - 'do you want me to name names?'). Whatever the outcome of the inquiry, she has done her job. Win, lose or draw, we will be scarred with this for a long time. CW, Dwayne Russell, Greg Denham and others will keep reminding us.

It will be , if it threatens our gaming and liquor licences with our two pokie venues.

Can anyone remember last year's intraclub match at Casey? We ended with about 26 guys on the ground, and our game tactic consisted of getting the ball and kicking it along the boundary line. This year we had enough for two full teams of 18, and there was a little more sophistication about our ball movement. The defence was working hard free up the kicker with a series of handpasses. There was more emphasis on Team, with players spreading and providing backup. They did cross the ball too, but mostly in conservative mode (from half back or pocket to the other half back, using a free man as the link). The moonball kick out of defence wasn't as prevalent, but is still used if you've got a boot like Dunn and Strauss. Neeld said at the GM that supporters will notice the players running harder for longer, and that seemed the case. The guys were working hard to offer the kicker a target - usually a target that only required a short safe delivery. Both sides were limited by the absence of our two key forwards, but at least we had a good small option in Byrnes. Out disposal is still a bit iffy and Jones (not Matt) was one of the offenders, although in fairness he does get the ball a lot. I don't think he will have the 'post-Bluey Truscott medal' blues, unlike the previous 3 winners. A special note about Jetta. He's fit and did some good things on the flanks. Good to see the support there. And hello to Rob, the chiropractor from San Francisco, who was watching his first ever practice match yesterday. He's an ex Aussie and long time supporter who watches all the matches on cable. Great to see you there.

CS might.

Initially I agreed. I thought she's nailed us. And she didn't attempt to define tanking. Instead she cleverly said that Melbourne 'worked to lose games of football that year' - a hard charge to disprove. She knows that all the things we did at the time - resting players, playing them out of position, playing kids etc - were all condoned by the CEO. It's just that we were so stupidly obvious about it. What she didn't mention in this article was Bailey's 'admission' after he was sacked in 2011. She was vitriolic in her articles at the time and since, that his admission of guilt was clear evidence that Melbourne tanked that year. But she now fails to mention he is denying the charges, and that his statements at that time were investigated by Anderson and he was cleared. Bailey is the key here. The investigators needed a Terry Wallace type of admission from the coach that he tanked, and i don't think Bailey complied. If rumours are true that he is fighting any compromise outcome, then I can't see how this will not end up in court.

If there is a possibility the gaming and drinking licences for our two venues could be at risk, would you fight it? In reality we will have no choice. Unless Mcloughlin can manufacture a compromise in the next couple of days, get ready for jury selection.

If we are punished by the Commission, would you still be happy not to go to court, if that punishment also forced the Gaming Commission to take away the gambling and alcohol licences for the Bentleigh and Leighoak clubs? Definitely not. If we are found guilty there are much bigger consequences than just a fine or loss of draft picks. We don't just have a moral right to protect the integrity of the club and its employees. We may have to fight for our financial survival; potentially suffering losses that far outweigh the legal costs of a court hearing. We are not clearly guilty either. The coach is the key, and he denies it. That's why we will go to court.

What is your version of her comment 'DM was preaching to the converted. No-one was saying the Melbourne players didn't try' considering the report concentrated on whether Melbourne fumbled in the last 3 minutes of the Richmond game.

She was also unsure if they would be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. She seemed to agree with Damien Barrett that the charges would be very difficult to prove, esp if it goes before a court (as they think it will as Melbourne fight the charges).

* We learned that the MFC has the highest rate of conversion of supporters to members in the AFL. Knowing this will help me win a trivia competition one of these days. This was probably the only faux pas of the night. the actual text in the presentation read 'highest rate of conversion of members to supporters'. ha. I should hope so! * Board member John Trotter (also an accountant with Deloittes?) went through the accounts. We made a modest profit, had a positive cash flow and our balance sheet looks healthy. Our level of expenditure is trending upward from the bottom two or three to the middle of the pack but still well behind the big spenders. The audience was so bedazzled by the presentation that there were no questions. This is usual at football club AGMs - we all sit around like stunned mullets waiting for the footy stuff. So many charts by CS, but i believe they showed we had higher revenue than the Swans, but spent a bit less on the football department. This is possibly due to the cost-of-living concessions received by Sydney, but it's an area we need to address. * Mark Neeld was interviewed and wasn't keen to give much away but he did say we were doing things faster and longer at training this year and the intensity was 15% greater. There was more purpose in the way we trained. He said that we were still well behind the leading clubs in terms of vital games played. Swans averaged 130 in the grand final, Hawks 113 - we're not even close to that. Neeld said he's not selling fairy tales but is looking at getting better. He explained that the club put in significant research before deciding on Darwin for the training camp. The camp tested the players both physically and mentally. An interesting stat from Mark 'we sent out our most experienced team against the Swans, and suffered our biggest defeat.' Now we know why we have 14 new players. He also said we still have the 3rd youngest list in the AFL.

Yes correction needed here. Don said "We will continue to defend the rights of all our past and present club employees where we believe it is necessary to do so."

It was good to see a full house of members there...but where was the club song at the end of the meeting?

Neeld mentioned that supporters going to training would notice that the team is now doing things faster for longer. He noted that the players are now challenging themselves at training, instead of merely hoping to get through the session. He said the workload for the players had increased by 15% this year (and another good result is the low number of players in the rehab group. The club seems to be managing their workloads better). As usual no predictions were made re number of wins per year, but the club is in contact with Liam Jurrah to provide support (not necessarily financial). One observation re Don's comment 'for anyone to suggest that our players did not give their all every time they ran onto the field is not acceptable to us'. He used the word 'players'. He did not refer to coaches or administrators. I think it was CS who mentioned that the club was also supporting former players and officials in the investigation.

The problem with this statement is that: 1. Anderson contacted Bailey shortly after he made this statement at the press conference, and Anderson was satisfied with the response. No case to answer at that time. She never mentions this in all her articles. 2. Bailey is now denying that he went out to lose matches. I wonder who the young player was who got moved to the back pocket. Bennell perhaps? I remember Brock Mclean starting in the forward pocket in a lot of matches. Probably one of the main reasons he left.

B-H can you just clarify here. I presume you mean the drugs investigation?

I read that the decision whether to lay charges rests with Gil Mcloughlin and Brett Clothier, and that Demetriou has stood aside from this decision as he is also a commission member (to avoid a conflict of interest). There was also a news report yesterday that McLoughlin is currently acting CEO. There appears to be another conflict of interest here. Clothier was also the investigating officer, and now he will decide if charges are to be laid. Clothier spent 5 months putting this report together. It would be in his best interests to see some results from those 5 months, at least to justify his role as investigations officer. He's also playing the role of sherriff and judge in this matter. My gut feeling is that charges will be laid and the matter referred to the Commission, where Melbourne will vigorously defend the charges. I have no inside knowledge, but i suspect the main evidence will be statements made to the investigators by certain individuals who had key MFC roles in 2009 and are no longer connected with the club. I feel these statements will carry far more weight than a dodgy frame-by-frame analysis of the last 3 minutes of one match in 2009.

The problem here is in the definition of tanking. It is not clearly defined by the rules or the CEO, so we end up with grossly different interpretations. My definition would include the coach specifically ordering the players to hold back, to not chase, and to miss targets ( a bit like the [censored] football played by Richmond that day). Someone else might define it as deliberately missing shots at goal, or purposely giving away free kicks. However if this is tanking, then we need to revisit the 1987 preliminary final (as painful as that can be). 2 guys missing open goals in the last Q; a third misses a set shot from 10 yards out; and two free kicks given away to help Buckenara kick THAT goal after the siren. Imagine if Melbourne had done that in the Richmond match in 2009. Our problem in 2009 is - we expected to lose. We had a perception that the club should to tank to lose matches ( i plead very guilty here), and we went along and applied that perception - that pre-judgement - to the actions on the field. In any match other than 2009, trying Paul Johnson on the flank would have been accepted as a part of the game. But because of the discussion about winning no more than 4 games, such a move was regarded as clear evidence of tanking. Perceptions can be funny things. I watched Miller in the Swans match in round 17 in Canberra 2009. He had a set shot from 10 years out - couldn't miss. So he missed, and i thought - aha - clear evidence of tanking. The next week against Richmond he has a running shot from 50metres - on the boundary line. And he dobs it through!. He wasn't tanking against the Swans. It was just Miller being Miller.

Actually it can be argued we did 'tank' successfully...back in 2003. The last game of the season against the Swans - they were 6th on the ladder, and we were on 4 wins. Staying on 4 wins would give us two draft picks in the top 5, but we would lose our priority pick if we ended with 5 victories. So at half time we were leading!! Not the desired result. Fortunately the swans took over in the 3rd, and we were able to lose the match and pick up Brock McLean as our priority pick. (There was no tanking investigation at the time..maybe the AFL thought we has suffered enough punishment in picking McLean).

It wasn't just that one game. He was probably in the red zone due to a number of issues. But he had a chance to change their minds in that game, and he missed his chance. And sometimes one bad game can be the deciding factor. Shades of Morton against Collingwood last year.