Slartibartfast

Do you really think I have any influence over what happens at the MFC? Wow, I thought that was Dandy domain.

You're a very good poster BH. One of the few. I always read what you say, I giggle at some, I learn from some and I enjoy it all. But it's interesting that of the 20 or so people who post on Demonland and who know me personally and know my background you are the only one who finds it necessary to mention it regularly. Keep posting mate, I enjoy it; although for obvious reasons I can't respond as you've asked. If it's any consolation I also feel like I'm stalked by RPFC. It's pretty inoffensive really. I put it in the category of "comic relief" and just attend to it as necessary. Not obvious to me Dandeeman. The last time we exchanged posts you resigned in embarrassment at your groundless allegations but I see the lure of Demonland was too strong. I don't mind what you think of my motives or me. You've no idea who I am or what my motives are but for some reason you think that you are the protector of the MFC defending it from the real and present danger of "Fan" of Demonland who is waging a vendetta of destruction upon the Club you love by posting dangerous propaganda at least 6 times a year. But thankfully we have you to save us from almost certain destruction if "Fan" were left unchecked. Have you any idea how silly that is?? Do you realise that by my posting most of Demonland has mainly galvanized itself in support of the very targets of my comments and against me? Have a look at the support I've garnered. MFC must be shaking in its boots. Anyway enjoy your crusade. What a wonderful comment. Thanks TimD. The most worrying thing in this thread for me is the panic that a single reporter has struck into the hearts of many who think our whole club is so exposed that it could be seriously damaged by her articles and then don't ask themselves "why am I worried". I've enjoyed the banter, I like Caro and hope she continues her career and I hope most of all we fail to give her any ammunition to put us to the sword. It's actually up to us and it's about time we took responsibility.

If you don't rate her why are you upset if she attacks Schwab? For all your outrage she's not really hurting us is she. She's been after Schwab for years with no success. And Bub, I think that Schwab is below "best practice". I want what's best and think we can do better. But really, so what because the majority here seem to be happy with what he and others are doing but I must say they seem, as you do, to be very worried about one voice of decent. And just for the record AAMI was initiated by Gardner and Harris. Robbie don't worry, I've no intention of standing for the Board. You can maintain your rage with me and think I'm "anti MFC" with confidence.

I think I said that what Carroll did and what Edwards did was different enough to warrant the different approach. But I agree, she doesn't go for all clubs in the same way.

Do you really want to get into a subjective debate? I'm not going to change your view and I'm not interested in explaining my position time and time again. We differ, it won't change the world or hurt the club.

You're a terrific supporter of the club Robbie both financially (which you've told us many times) and by your participation. You're entitled to your view but I'm quite comfortable with what I've offered the club over the years and my level of support. I do think that there should be changes in the administration which I've argued on occasions but surely I'm entitled to have and express that opinion. Believe me there have been plenty of chances to pot the admin this year where I haven't. Just look at the "Due Diligence" thread.

CW is highlighting an issue and giving an opinion on what she thinks should happen. I think the AFL have so much more to think about than one journalists opinion on this issue. As has been stated many times we are being targeted for what was pretty much accepted AFL practice. Sadly we made it all too easy to identify and prove. Whether we like it or not the issue is a real one and has now thankfully been addressed by the AFL so we have largely moved past the Kreuzer cup. Wilson is part of that and I think it's a good thing. When I talk to my friends who support other clubs they are very dismissive of Wilson. They think the tanking issue is a non issue in that it's been around for years, everybody knew and nobody really cared. They are not calling for MFC blood over the issue and in fact many have said that if MFC didn't do what it did we'd have been an even greater laughing stock. Wilson isn't swaying them and I doubt her opinions mean much to the AFL. They will be much more interested in the image of footy and the health of the competition. If Wilson was pursuing Carlton and not Melbourne we'd all be cheering. Fortunately this issue is so complex and far reaching that the AFL will be able to fashion a result they want. But that is another issue and not related to Wilson. Unlike you Nutbean I don't think Wilson has the influence you do. Outside Fifty I'm not commenting on what CW is not writing. I like what she offers and whilst she doesn't go the Tigers that doesn't diminish what she does say. Most are aware of CW's bias, they just adjust their "take" on the offering. I also think that what Nathan Carroll did was significantly different to the Aaron Edwards situation. Racial vilification to a fellow workmate in a public place is a serious issue.

Nice to see you've recognized the errors in your relevant post. Thanks.

I've said I don't like what she's doing to us, it hurts the Club. But the main point I wanted to make is that journalists who highlight issues that exist between the AFL and stakeholders and report on and find issue that wouldn't otherwise come to light will most probably advantage us if we can get our act together. She's terrific at it. When she takes on the AFL on an issue that hurts us everyone thinks she's terrific and a "must read". When she continues her modus operandi but the target is the MFC then she is a villain. Anyway if you don't like her don't read or listen to her. It's a pretty simple choice. Believe me, Demonlanders are taking much more notice of her than anyone else.

I said I hadn't read the whole thread. Seems accuracy isn't one of your strengths. Yes, I read that article with particular interest H_T. My view is that the emotive words like "The Vault" are journalistic puff and the real story was what CC had said. People who want to discount the story on descriptions like "the Vault" miss the point IMO. But each to their own.

Look I'm afraid I don't have time to answer everything. Couldn't agree more Sue, she clearly has it in for Schwab but so what? If the MFC were a competent organization managed efficiently then she'd have nothing to go at. We aren't so she has ammunition. I'm often accused of having an agenda, but that doesn't render a position incorrect. For the record I wish she'd get off our back but I wish even more we didn't give her the oxygen to continue to target us. Well let see. 1. It wasn't common knowledge that Schwab had taken a loan and wasn't an issue until she reported it. It became an issue because it was so totally inappropriate and had people be aware of it it would have been an issue earlier. It was a big issue because we'd gone to the membership to raise money to eliminate debt but still saw fit to give a substantial amount to Schwab. She made an issue of it, others didn't. And it was "an issue". 2. Nathan Carroll's delisting was a result of a "mad monday" in which he punched Ben Holland and racially abused a Jewish employee. She got the story. 3. Her article on Neeld's appointment wasn't an article against Neeld, it was an article highlighting the "unusual" employment process that was instituted by Lyon, McLardy and Schwab. It was part of her agenda to highlight Schwab and his practices. Sorry I've haven't responded to others, it's difficult to keep up.

How could she have reported something as a threat "before any of the bolded was know"?

R&B I said "in many of the things..". She's been terrible on occasions, specifically her comment on disabled Olympics. But she's very good for a lot of the time. And Misfud?? She knew of the Misfud/Davey issue well before it became public and didn't report it because she didn't think it held water. She, unlike Thomas, did her homework.

What are you suggesting? No, don't answer, I really don't care what you think.

You can nitpick all you like. The point is there was a meeting and CC did say some very provocative things at worse or cracked a very poor joke at best. My view on McLardy, Schwab and others is totally irrelevant to my view on Wilson but you'll struggle to see that as you do with so many issues that are not straightforward.

Caro has historically broken the big stories and has been accurate in her reporting. She has excellent contacts, particularly into the MFC. Schwab's loan from the Club, the Neeld appointment process ant the Nathan Carroll delisting issue in 2008 are just examples where she's broken stories and had that facts right. AFAIK she was the first to report the CC comments made to people in the Vault. Nobody has denied these comments were made and to date they are the most damning public information on our "processes". I strongly suspect the AFL have more. Her success over a long period is because she is right the vast majority of the time. I think she's right this time. I appreciate the "loyalty" of people denouncing her articles because they attack something we love. Sadly we've given her more than enough ammunition which is nobodies fault but our own.

Caro is surprisingly accurate in many of the things she says, she has exceptional sources and that is why she has been called in to the Tippett issue. She can find stuff out. Yes, she offers opinion, yes, it's often harsh and yes she takes the high moral ground. But I've not seen any "false facts" reported in her articles about us of a material nature or perhaps the odd typo. Everyone here is just making her great. She is there to report AFL footy for The Age and sell papers. She's done it wonderfully for years and is more interesting to read than any other reporter IMO. And if it was Collingwood or Carlton on the end of her attacks people here would be cheering her on. But of course they were too smart to get caught. It was MFC incompetance that has invited these critiques - blaming Wilson is just shooting the messenger. Fortunately, I'm confident the AFL is not as effected by her views as many here and I don't think her attacks will influence the outcome of their investigation.

I must confess to not having read this whole thread but I'd imagine there are few if any posts in support of Caro. Personally I think she is a must read and an important cog in the business of the AFL because she keeps everyone pretty honest. I have no issue with her treatment of MFC. She is sussing out the facts and reporting them and then just offering an opinion. I don't like what I hear but I can't see she's done anything wrong. I'm with her all the way on Adelaide. Without the likes of her clubs would be much freer to break rules and the larger clubs would hold the whip hand. She keeps them honest. She also reports on the part of the game I enjoy, the politics and the uneasy relationship that exists between the AFL and the Clubs. Without her we would be more ignorant of issues than we are now and there would be much greater reward and willingness for "bending the rules". What club now would risk being as blatant as MFC or Carlton in pursuit of draft picks? There is no doubt she has hurt our club with her attacks in the last few weeks but the only reason we are in this position is because we were incompetent in the execution of an AFL approved methodology and one that we probably all thought was "tacky" at best. She has been in part responsible for removing the PP which is a good thing. Keep up the good work Caro.

I'd correct "fist" before we get another English lesson.

I don't think our view counts for much, if anything in terms of real outcome.

My opinion has been expressed in a number of other threads of which you've been a participant. I've got no further insight really.

Hey Hannabal, are you comfortable that the people dealing with this now for us are the same one's that got us into this mess? I'm not but I don't see an option.

Because it was offensive.

We rate him and they don't. We don't rate Gysberts and they do. It's an opinion business. Let's hope it's a win win. If Petersen "works" we've done well because talls are much harder to find and develop than mids. Congrats to MFC footy department. They got the things done that they wanted and that's good. Now we'll see if they can do anything with what they've got.

Good to see some support for Cale after all this time.