binman

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!).

The video of training [now removed] showed some interesting centre square drills. By the by, why would the club care about videos? I mean it's not a closed session - far from it, the maggies were apparently on the adjacent ground and the dees don't go anywhere these days without TV film crew.

The Reality bus (sung to the tune of the Who's magic bus)

I like it Chook - just checked them out on Spotify and listening to the Diplo remix. Great stuff

Jay Clark in the Hun is worse than Pieirk. Highlighting potential for negative impact on sponsorship etc of tanking issue. Serious question: given , would Webjet and Opel be happy about the incredible amount of exposure their brands are getting at the moment. It seems there have been photos in the papers almost non stop since the end of the season and one of the key reasons orgs sponsor sporting clubs is brand (ie their symbol) exposure via the media. Yes perhaps there is a potential negative in terms of being associated with a club accused of tanking. However i really believe that's not such a big issue as most people think this is all a joke, the period being discussed is 2009 (and therefore somewhat disconnected from now) and the club is handling it all with a high degree of professionalism.

Good call i reckon. There has been an uncomfortable degree of sexism and misogyny on DL in many of the (frequently quite personal) attacks on CW.

No i won't

BH your constant negativity and insults of other posters is beyond tedious. And before you fire off an insulting reply suggesting i don't have to read your posts i'll add you to my exclusive list (4, including you) of posters i have used the ignore function on. By the by i apply a pretty high threshold (or low depending on how you define it) on who i ignore so given you seem to to revel in being boorish and rude i guess you'll be quite pleased that you have met, nay exceeded, the criteria. Bye Bye

On another note at least this whole episode has highlighted how far the standard of journalism has slipped (across the board). Each artilcle i've read inthe Hun and age about this topic has had several absolute laughable howlers. My favorites from today's 3 minutes that matter classic are: 1. 'The report, which fills two folders' - this has been noted several times; what possible relevance or meaning does the fact that report fills two folders have or for that matter the number of pages? Perhaps they are really small folders or super big font. 2. 'It is understood those interviewed have denied claims the players fumbled on purpose in the final minutes.' - What the? Who are making those claims? Can't be those interviewed as they apparently have denied it. Surely it can't be the investigators as their role is to investigate not 'make claims' ("I put it to you Dean that the usually super clean Warnock deliberately fumbled the ball as can be seen in this slo mo video clip"). Who does that leave? We should collect our favorite lines form this circus for posterity and for future humor (the secret vault meeting being the original classic, or perhaps the ashen face of CS, or the repeated use of the word forfeiting - comedy gold all of them)

Fumbling? If that is a punishable crime the dees have been guilty of it for the last decade or so. What's next - kicks form the back line missing targets on the way resulting in turnover goals? Geez we be stripped of our draft picks for the next 20 years!

I'll go with Nev too. I was very surprised to read that this has been his most complete pre season thus far

Oh please WYL, give me a spell with this other club palaver or indeed the suggestion this is slanderous. The whole footy world knows this is a joke - particularly rubbish about questioning positional moves. For gods sake Dunn is now a defender, Watts is down back full time and our best back played the second half of last season as a forward (helped out at times by Garland). Slanderous smanderous. Other clubs sleep tight? What emotive nonsense. I reckon the sponsors would be rapt - Opel and Webjet have had more air time in the last few months than they had all season. Relax - all will be well.

Sounds great sung to the tune of that Nine Inch Nails song!

Is MJT rangey?

Spot on in my book - and said in about 300 less words!

The anti Frank?

I didn't see the board mentioned in wither the Hun or age article. Did i miss it? As you note they would have plausible deniability, though if we have done nothing wrong there is nothing to deny. None the less as the governing body (and as the group that the CEO reports to) it would be standard practice for them to respond to any accusations related to management practices i would have thought.

I would have thought that the as the governing body it would be right and proper the board be given a please explain. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions the buck stops with them.

Somewhat changes the nature of the statement doesn't it! Have edited now

I partially agree with this. However i don't reckon they will be saying there is insufficient evidence for charges to be laid, more something like: 'we are very concerned by what the evidence suggest and believe it it indicates there were some very concerning practices by the MFC - and in particular by key personnel - in that period. Despite this we will not be sanctioning the MFC or individuals as there are grey areas and some contradictory evidence that make doing so problematical. We will tightening up our rules and drafting new ones to ensure it is crystal clear these sort of actions are not acceptable'. The approach the AFL have taken of giving the club some 800 pages of palaver and 5 weeks to digest and respond fits with the predictions i made last year of how this might proceed. I firmly believe the approach is to embarrass CC, CS and Bailey as a form of punishment and as a warning to others who might contemplate similar actions in the future. They will also being have discussions behind closed door with the dees putting pressure on them to acknowledge some wrong doing (they have plenty of levers - the redistribution fund and the draw being 2 obvious examples). At the least they will work something out that allows them (the AFL) to save some face and get out of it without having their authority challenged. That's because the AFL will, in my view, not allow this to go to court - way too much to lose and there seems to be sufficient procedural issues to make it hard for them to be successful at court. I reckon these procedural issues are behind Angry suddenly and quite abruptly leaving the AFL (and without another gig to go to as noted by Nutbean?). When its all said and done we won't want to go to court either so i reckon they will find a way out where we can also keep our honor intact, not specifically admit to tanking and not be forced to sack CC or CS (or cut Bailey loose - which would be a travesty if we went down that path). Perhaps something like a statement agreeing we pushed the boundaries of list management and will never do so again. A couple of other interesting points . One is that charges of draft tampering have been flagged. Lets hope any deal done to get Viney at pick 27 is all kosher. The other is the charge of bringing the game into disrepute. To me this makes no sense as all the so called suspect discussions we were held behind closed doors and only brought to light by an investigation that appears to leak like a sieve and has been carried out poorly. Perhaps it is about the the games we put on in this period somehow bringing the game into disrepute because of the suspicions that surrounded them? Again funny logic as there are at least two obvious examples where games were widely discussed as being funky. One is the so called Kruezer cup - i mean it was such a joke of a game that it has its own title. The other is the Freo Hawks game in Tassie a few seasons back where Freo rested up to half of their side (and of course were completely non competitive) to give them an advantage in the finals the following week (which they won - at home!). That game was a complete joke also. By compariosn the much discussed Melbourne - Richmond game was a thriller that was decide after the siren. Like so many other aspects of this issues we can point to heaps of other examples of dodgy stuff and contradictions in the AFL's position - and will if it ever goes to court

I agree with this (and for what its worth, personally i couldn't care less that Carlton or others have not been investigated). My view is that the dramas that have so regularly beset the club over the last 30 odd years are in large part due to the political infighting and rubbish at board level (which then flows to the FD and admin). This has left us exposed to being investigated for tanking in this instance. There appears to be a united front at board level at the moment and i for one hope it remains so. It is right and proper to transparently question the governance of an organisation, indeed robust critique is a vital component of good governance. But lets hope, as a club, we have moved past the sort of bickering and sly attempts to destabilize the board and FD personnel that has led to our club being regarded as a joke. And yes winning helps but clubs don't win regularly without quality, solid united governance systems. The board have elected to reappoint CS and good on them for doing so despite the flack that were always going to get from those who dislike CS (to decalre my hand i'm ambivalent about CS but a 3 year deal is a fair vote of confidence by a board who seems to have finally got its act together). The board also moved CC sideways over 12 months ago, a clever and prescient move that suggests they were more across things than some might have given them credit for.

I reckon with our draw we are an outside chance of a top 8 finish if we get on an early season roll and do ok with injuries. Could be worth a sneaky bet at around $10.

Exactly, this is my point also. As i have said previously in this thread if all or most of the players rejected don't make it at other clubs that doesn't make Neeld a genius any more than if a slew of them do super well make him a clutz. What if 3 play reasonable footy but struggle to cement a regular game? Does that make Neeld a partial clutz, or perhaps 48% on the clutzometer. Or if all bar one player disappear without a trace and one becomes a star (and realistically only Gysberts or perhaps at a stretch Martin has the potential for that) does that put him at 83% on the geniusmeter? What we can measure him on is how he develops the list he has now and ultimately how many games we win.

BP: Lucas? LC: Hello, is it me you're looking for? Cos BP I wonder who you are and I wonder what you do, are you somewhere feeling lonely, will you become a blue? Tell me how to win Bailey's heart,But I worry you don't have a clue, But let me start by saying,I love you (for the chance to play AFL)

A project player then.