binman

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

Hell hath no fury liked a board member scorned

Both of us know it - love is a battlefield.

Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

To punish Melbourne and in particular key individuals (DB, CC, CS) with the only tool available - public embarrassment. At the same time provide a deterrent to any coaches, boards, FD staffers, admin staffers etc who might consider list management etc as a way of maximising their draft position. As an example one wonders if GWS might have taken a different approach to their final game against GC last season if this investigation had all come to a head before that game. At the least they did not maximise their chances of a winning that game by resting so many key players. In isolation that would be strange given the importance of winning games to build a culture of success and get support in Sydney, especially given it was a very winnable game for them (and they had precious few of them). However, like many people i never gave them any chance of winning that game. Their 'reward' for not winning? The prized number 1 pick and the chance to select the player every pundit had marked down as the best young player in Whitfield. Who knows what conversation proceeded that game but I suspect that all involved would have been more focused on what and how things were discussed and any public statements. IIRC Sheedy was pretty flippant about that game in the lead up to it. If in a similar scenario this year i wonder if he would cracking jokes.

Added to that is who knows the context for the alleged (as that is what it is) quote. We know people were interviewed multiple times and as a key player CC was probably re-interviewed more than most. Perhaps his alleged quote about not recalling a meeting came from his first interview. Perhaps in later interviews he does recall the meeting after having his memory jogged by investigators. As for the alleged comments about being white anted perhaps he was simply joking: BC: Chris 10 other people have said you specifically told them the Zulus would get them if we won more games CC: C'mon Brett i know you read Demonland and therefore must know that people within the club are always out to get me - look at my current job ha, ha, ha

At the risk of triggering a debate about Watts i'm really confident he will have a big year and prove to be close to our most important player. The article about Watts in the book that came with the membership was fascinating. I haven't seen it mentioned on DL. In it Watts sounds super focused, fired up and talks about the development time being over and it now being time to deliver. He notes that he is loving being part of the backline team and grew in confidence down there after initially being 'hammered in player reviews and meetings because i was not doing what the back-line expects'. He then goes on to say that this season he will be one of the backline leader 'instead of of being taught was is required'. The issue of his ferocity at the ball was also discussed. Peter Ryan (the author) noted that his basketball background meant that he was conditioned to stay wide and low rather than go straight at opponents, meaning he would 'stop and prop as he hit a pack rather than through the line of the ball'. Ryan notes that Watts worked on shaking off this instinct last year and 'tackling sessions have helped him keep his feet underneath him to retain momentum through congestion'. I reckon these things resulted in a big improvement in his one on one stuff last season. Sounds as if this will continue to be a focus and wrestling has been added to the training mix to further improve his one on one work. I've always thought Watts is a confidence player and that his game was not helped by playing different positions. With time to settle down back and taking on a leadership role i am confident he will really grow as a player and take the next step. In his first 2-3 seasons i was very critical of his ferocity and attack on the ball but i saw a major improvement last year. If he can take that up a level and build his strength he will be a very dangerous player down back with his pace, judgement and skill. I reckon by mid season it will be standard for opposition coaches to put a player on him whose main focus is to take Watts out of the game, such will be his influence and ability to turn defence into attack. I think Watts has steadily improved as a player. This incremental development has perhaps been a little frustrating as we all want to see the star we had hoped for when getting a number 1 pick. Dare i say it but i reckon this could be the year he goes to the next level (his breakout year?) and become that star.

I think it's a mountain range in California that Jack Kerouac wrote about

Shouldn't that be re interviewed, and re-interviewed, and re re interviewed..... Seriously though it does further highlight what a nonsense this investigation seems to have been. I would assume re interviewing people multiple times would be problematical as there is every chance that even without trying to be disingenuous someone asked the same question several times might give slightly different answers each time, particularly if things were suggested to them - eg 'well Barry, we've just spoke to to bugalugs who said that CC said the Zulus were coming, you didn't mention that. Do you remember him saying that? No? Sure? Oh you do remember him saying that now i have jogged your memory. Look, we'll be back next week to check if you've remembered something else' There is another interesting element to the witness statements being given to all the lawyers. Gives everyone a pretty good look at at who said what I have no doubt Angrys current unemployment is related to this [censored] poor investigation.

Mu oath that's alot of statements. The article seemed to suggest the 60 statements were from the people at the alleged vault meeting. Given there were around 12 people there that's about 5 interview statements each! Talk about digging.

Points well made, particularly in terms of the assistant coaches. I assume though that the board could be credited with getting Misson and Craig on board, even if CS and Neeld probably did the grunt work in terms of convincing them why they would want to come to a struggling club. At the least they would have had to authorize the increase in FD spend that made it possible If they are going to get brickbats they should get bouquets. One thing though i would say is that whilst we had off field dramas year i don't reckon we "stumbled" from one t'other. This implies the dramas were not well handled, a suggestion i disagree with. I think Neeld was a little unpolished early doors but after that the club handled some difficult things very professionally i reckon.

Your argument about the process of getting Neeld has merit, though as both you and i are (conditional) fans of Neeld we could agree that there are indications that despite the process they may have got this call right. (Interestingly the club seems to have put a big priority on getting a coach who would hold the line and directly - and robustly - address the culture issues in the playing group that some posters blame the current board for - so far so good in that regard). But leaving aside the process to appoint Neeld what is your view on how the board has gone about building the supports around him? In particular i'd be interested on your views on the the appointments of Craig, Misson, Leigh Brown, the other assistant coaches and the sideways move of CC out of the FD ?

Absolutely spot on and a point i have previously made. If the issue of bragging the game into disrepute relates to the discussions held by CC, well they were private until revealed by the AFL. If about games of footy tanking would need to be proved. Again the Freo game against the Hawks in Tassie comes to mind. That was a complete farce of a game and whilst Freo didn't tank per se by resting so many players, in reality they conceded the game (also sending a bloody funny message to the players who did play i would have thought - i mean hard for them to fire up given the club didn't care about winning). That game was treated as a joke. As evidence of this the bookies didn't bet on the match IIRC. I remember Wheatley was scathing (though other commentators said all fair in love in war) and there was heaps of negative media about it. The fans in Tassie were duded and whoever broadcast the game were duded. The Tigers - dees game was a thriller and the Freo game was a no contest. I know which match it could be said bought the game into direpute

I've been edited! Looks neater but funny how the edit isn't noted at the bottom of the post as it usually would be when a change is made (as per post above and now this one!).