binman

Choosing to barrack for the dees is not the most compelling way to prove that!

Perhaps, but lets see how he goes this season. I suspect he will find things a whole lot more difficult with other sides targeting him a bit more.

Besides which if we looking for a KPF in that particular draft who should/could we have selected rather than Watts?

I beg to differ on both these points. Watts disposal skills are so far in advance of anyone else at the club (and Scully for that matter) its not funny. He will make AA before Scully will. My AA tip? Watts starts to build a case this year, reinforces in next season and makes AA at the end of 2015. As a mid Scully will have tonnes of opposition for AA spots and may never make it. I hope i'm wtong though, i for one would happy to see him make it to the elite A grade level.

Good call. As i've noted before i get the feeling the penny has dropped and we will see Watts step up a level this season. If he doesn't my confidence in him becoming a star will be severely dented.

An excellent and well considered post. A few points in response. First i totally agree that we should learn from this whole mess and that the club leader should be held to account. I definitely don't think we should ignore the circumstances that lead us to being charged. What i meant was that someone like CW who just wants to see that back of CS is likely just to trot out the line that we've been really luck - which implies of course that we should have been found guilty of charges - and provide no other useful analysis. This will suit the AFL's agenda. The same goes for any demon fan who likewise bangs on about us being lucky in a way designed to further damage the standing of CS. To be clear Hazy i'm not putting you in that category - your position is clear and transparently argued. But less say there is someone who shares your view that CS and MClardy should be replaced and decides to drip feed CW more gossip highlighting a position that we have been in lucky and that they are incompetent. This would not be helpful to the club. So i'm not so sure we are different camps. To be honest i'm not in a pro CS or anti CS camp - just the dees one. What i do know is that no charges or a not guilty finding will strengthen the board and CS's position. As i understand it has bee re - contracted for 3 years so in the normal course of events he will remain at the dees - unless, perhaps there is a change at board level. So yes by all means lest question and hold board and CEO to account but they're in place for the foreseeable future so i don't think it is helpful for the club for anyone to be agitating for a dismissal. The other thing is that CC hasn't publicly claimed the existence of a conspiracy. The comments attributed to him were from a presumably private conversation he had with the investigators. And besides who knows if they are even accurate.

And by the way i thought it was a very creative and witty way to make it. Good work. I wondered though if perhaps a clip of Bradbury's Olympic gold medal might have more effectively illustrated your point (though perhaps not illustrating as well how the dees being cleared might divide opinion)?

Point taken. But to be honest if we come out of this with no charges to answer (or found not guilty of charges) any arguments by people who have an axe to grind with CS, such as CW, that suggest we were just lucky to escape charges (as opposed to acknowledging a successful strategy) would be very hard to take seriously. Interestingly my take on the AFL's approach is that they won't charge but want to punish by embarrassing Bailey et al and therefore provide some deterrent factor for any other club that wants to list manage to maximise draft position in the future. The AFL would consequently be more than happy for the 'dees were very lucky to escape any penalties' line to be pushed. Anyone pushing that line would therefore be assisting the AFL's in its attempt to run the dees down - a stooge for the AFL (and anti CS forces) if you will. Lets hope that if i'm correct and we are not charged or found not guilty (ie cleared of any wrongdoing) that there isn't then an ongoing debate in the media (perhaps fed by people with axes to grind) - or on DL for that matter - about whether we were lucky, should we have been charged etc etc. Unfortunately I think that is rather wishful thinking.

"Can you believe it - that was brilliant, he didn't panic in the slightest" - Richie Benaud, one of Australia's greatest captains and arguably the most respected cricket commentator the game has known (and not a bad fielder either). Perhaps he was talking about how the dees have handled the tanking allegations rather than Mark Taylor's terrific catch (by the by as a pretty average spin bowler my definition of a poor catch was one that was dropped).

Exactly. Who actually believes his decision to 'quit' was not related to the disaster that the investigation has been . IMO we will not be charged with anything, This will mean that despite whatever spin is put on it by the AFL, the media or anyone with an axe to grind against CS or DM (eg 'no charges can be laid but.....") it will amount to an exoneration. The same applies to the scenario of charges being laid and we are found not guilty by the commission (though i reckon if they decide to lay charges it is very unlikely we will found not guilty). And funnily enough it will strengthen the position of the board and by extension CS as not only will they have been exonerated their response to the investigation and threat of charges will have proven successful. I really hope that if no charges are laid or they are and we are found not guilty that credit is given where it is due and the anti DM and CS factions recognise that both the war and the battle is over.

I think Fan has an anti Rodan agenda

I tend to agree Fan. It would be folly to talk up the significance of these forums. However in social media terms 2001 is an eon ago and very hard to compare now and then. Can't imagine many back then would have foreseen how ubiquitous social media would become in terms of being a legitimate source of information dissemination

The thread was started by Deegirl. Must be some sort of record number of posts by a very infrequent poster! Her post to thread start ration will never be equaled.

Only if your reading of CCs comments in the now infamous so called Vault meeting is that they were serious not jokes. Even then none of the comments attributed him indicate him detailing any 'plan' (ie how to go about getting a priority draft pick). Even the most critical reading of his comments only suggest he was making it clear the club hoped to gain a priority pick and there would be fall out if they didn't. Yes this could be perceived as a threat (but it also could have been a joke as apparently claimed by Bat least CC and Bailey) but it certainly isn't detailing any plan. Perhaps also CC foolishly never considered that some people in the room (his colleagues) might repeat his comments or perhaps even use them aginst him (eg BC Do you think he was joking Friend: yes of course as opposed to BC Do you think he was joking Foe/disgruntled ex employee who in the Melbourne tradition wants to have a parting shot as opposed to working out issues in house and for the good of the club: No he was deadly serious, you could see it in his eyes, i woz really scared) What other examples are there of the club telling too many people the plan to tank?

This is what i find a bit strange. One assumes the AFL has handed over all relevant info from the investigation to the various parties. Therefore there is nothing up their sleeves so to speak. If there was something more damaging than the CC comments, a meeting at DB's house and some curious positional moves it would have come out. Where's the fuel, or indeed fire. How does this evidence suggest we were indiscreet or handled the list management poorly? Perhaps CC's comments were a bit silly but by the same token he and Bailey have both said they were a joke and there is no suggestion he (or anyone else) directly instructed a coach or player to not perform to their potential. One assumes we won't be exonerated but there is a real chance we will end up having no case to answer, which is really exoneration with an asterix. Whilst i can't see the CWs of this world acknowledging that perhaps the board, CC and CS id not handle the list management poorly tin reality this is what a no case to answer means. If that's how it pans out the board and CS's will be rock solid and to a lesser extent CC's (i say that because he was clearly moved sideways and i wonder ho long he will remain at the club - either because he wants out or he is asked to go. Nb i have no view on how well or otherwise he has performed in the past)

Chip was 12 when that photo was taken

Scary but i'm turning into a Watts fan boy. Watts will be a star and become as good a player as Cotchin. Comparing the two is like a Rolls Royce versus top of the range Holden. I'll take the Roller. If a player is committed to the club i hate to see them being traded. I know in the real world trades happen but for mine a big price is paid for cutting players who have ebeen loyal servants and that price has to be factored into any trade. I wonder the impact on Collingwood of trading out a popular and loyal player in Dawes. In terms of where Watts sits at the dees as i have said previously i really believe that this year he will prove to be close to our most important and influential player.

I agree with the bolded part. In terms of the importance of keeping things in house this applies to those that have left the club as much as those still at the club. Once someone has left the organisation obviously the board or CEO are not responsible for managing them. In this scenario it would appear that much of the stuff that has been damaging has potentially been leaked by people who have left the club.

My comment was in response to Hazy saying the board, CS and CC 'did the wrong thing - not tanking, but getting caught out and letting things get to where they stand now'. In my view the poisonous politics is why we alone are in the gun and why things have got to where they stand now. Too many axes, too much grinding and too many people prepared to go after each other to the detriment of the club. The politics didn't have anything to do with the choice to maximise our draft position (not tanking). Taking that path was standard practice across the league. What CS and the board can be criticised for is not taking the road less travelled and decide to not go for the carrot. For me this would be hindsight I was ambivalent at the time but can see the strength of the arguments that the path we took negatively impacted on our culture. However if they had not chosen to prioritise draft picks they would have been criticise by many and as Eddie McGuire noted it was considered to be good business practice (and still is - as evidenced by GWS's decision to maximise the likelihood of getting the number 1 draft pick by fielding an uncompetitive side against GC) Interesting to compare us to Carlton. There will be a handful of very angry people leaving the club with MM coming on board and people staying who were upset with how Ratten were treated. There will no doubt be fall out but i suspect we won't hear about much about it and they will keep in house, something the dees seems incapable of doing

All in all a reasonable argument, particularly in regard to the AFL holding the cards. It isn't in our interest to go to war with the AFL. We've got 15 games at the G this year. How many will we get if this ends up in court and deal can't be sorted? However i disagree with a couple of points. One the idea that that the people you have named are responsible for how this has played out. In my opinion this saga is a direct result of the poisonous politics that have wrecked the dees over the last 30 years and the inability to keep things in house. All clubs have politics at board and rich supporter levels but most are better at keeping things from getting out into the public. The second is your premise that the club and others need to come out smelling of roses to have a win. In my opinion the AFL will be unable to prove we tanked and therefore the proposed charges cannot be laid. The goals of embarrassing the club will have been met, the suggestion will have been made we did something wrong but it will all go away and no one will be charged. We won't smell like roses but nor will we be forced to sack anyone. Interestingly if that tramspires it will happen immediately before the AGM meaning Mclardy will go to it in a pretty strong position as will CS.

Yeah i was thinking about that too. I don't know he is good enough to be a pure mid but i'm also not 100% convinced he has the tank and speed to go with the real elite mids. I'm thinking Ablett, Pendles, Swan etc who seem to just run opponents into submission. Though they could rotate them through a run with role

To me this thread is like an episode of Moonlighting. You just know that despite the apparent dislike of each other and oh so humourous back and forth the chemistry is undeniable and ADC and Hazy will get together with RF and WYL. Classic American comedy trope

Another Jack would be good

Good call i reckon. He has the tank and speed to go with the best midfielders and with Barty retiring we need that sort of player.

My guess? Sin binned and come back as MJT