binman

Great post. The best i have read thus far on this tawdry topic. I had no issue with her first couple of articles though they lacked any in depth analysis (in particular of the technicalities of the relevant AFL rules and the possible legal responses MFC might be able to pursue if sanction are applied - issues that i for one would be really interested in seeing intelligently explored by a journalist) , but the last one is a remarkably poor piece of journalism. CW's gender is completely irrelevant and without getting holier than thou the tone of some of the posts i have read over the last couple of days is quite disturbing, particularly the number of rank personal insults. For me the focus should be on the standard of journalism (not on her gender). And her last piece has broken all the basic rules of reporting - it mixes op ed with fuzzy facts, it uses word such as fixing which have quite specific meaning completely incorrectly, it is poorly structured (with some basic grammatical errors) etc etc. But most of all she allows her own emotion to completely seep through and taint any argument she is trying to make. Who is the editor? They're the one who should be held responsible because it should never have been allowed to go to print.

CW mustn't have got the memo from her boss.

Misson said around 10 pbs and generally players met their target times. A damn sight better than this time last year.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T - find out what it means to Neeld

Two more words. What ever.

Yes, a strong vibe of legal action in the presidents statement. And if legal action eventuated the investigation would be examined as would all the relevant regulations the AFL would be using as the basis of a claim we had broken the rules. As has been pointed out many times in this thread it is unclear what rule or rules we might be in breach off if there was proof that tanked, and for that matter as far as i can tell no specific AFL definition of tanking. This is not the case say in the Crows case. If they have made payments outside the sary cap it contravenes a specific, clearly articulated rule as does making agreements (eg letting Tippet go to the club of his choice) that are not communicated and cleared by the AFL For me this is something CW's articles completely miss. There seems to be no analysis at all of the legal aspect of this issue. Not once as far as i can recall has it mentioned what we would actually be charged with if the tanking allegations were proved. Which makes the comments and speculation in the media about possible sanctions all the more ridiculous. For pete's sake on SEN news yesterday the news reader said we are likely to lose our number 4 pick as if it was a fact.

Two words: Boll ocks

That's exactly how i read it as well - a veiled threat of of legal action should we be shafted. Hence the need for the AFL to have something more black and white than a bunch of testimony from ex employees with axes to grind - searching for an email trail being an example of this need.

I've got no truck against CW, as some one has said on this thread she is just doing her job. What i really don't like is how crap sport journalism in general is now. This is in large part due to the internet i reckon - both in terms of it slashing profits which in turn impacts on editorial standards and the need for new daily updates. Almost like a serialization of stories, drip, drip, drip. This latest article is absolutely woeful though i have to say. Rubbish. Like others i'd like to know where she is getting her info from one assumes it is ex players and employees not the AFL. One interesting part is this though: As the AFL continues its exhaustive and potentially explosive inquiry it has emerged that league-appointed IT experts moved into the Demons' headquarters last month to investigate club email trails dating back to 2009 and possibly earlier. This to me reinforces that they need more than just a bunch of hearsay and comments from aggrieved ex employees. They need some solid proof. Lets hope CC wasn't silly enough to fire off a tongue in cheek email that could be misconstrued!

Again i ask - are you serious? Of course people being interviewed could say i don't remember but they have been warned that they will be heavily sanctioned (including not being able to work in the industry) for misleading testimony. But yes they could try to plead ignorance. But that is not the point! Based on a television interview with BM the AFL launched what is clearly (and contrary to expectations) a very robust investigation. Surely for consistency they are compelled to at the least formally interview Fevola on the back of his comments and fully investigate the matter. And by the by if they do it won't be just current Carlton boys they interview. Ex employees will also be interviewed. And thanks to Malthouse they now have a raft of seriously disgruntled ex employees (at least one of which who is threatening legal action) who may well be more than happy to tip a bucket or two

Many have come forward since? What are you talking about? The AFL commenced a formal investigation on the back of McLean's comments. No one one 'came forward'- they were compelled under threat of sanctions to agree to be interviewed. By the by the comments by Fevola are very similar to BMs

Are you for real? One suspects that you might be in for a suspension. Bye Bye

I'm not talking about natural justice. What i'm saying is that we would have legal redress if any sanction is manifestly unfair or based on poor evidence. That's to say we could sue them or seek a court injunction. This one of the reasons the AFL has been so wary of issues such as restraint of trade when it comes to the draft.

Sorry, that is is absolute rubbish. Of course they can't do whatever they like. They could try but they, like any other organisation are required to operate within a raft of industrial, civil and legal frameworks. If they sanctioned melbourne and we sued them they would have to demonstrate their actions were reasonable

The key sentences i reckon of Wilson's article are: 'THE AFL has uncovered a secret meeting involving at least 10 members of the Melbourne football department in which coaches were reminded of the importance of forfeiting matches in order to gain early draft picks.' 'The club is now receiving legal advice after at least four witnesses were recalled by the AFL and admitted the club planned to deliberately lose games of football.' Forfeiting and deliberately losing? Why has she used these words? Is she quoting someone who was at the meeting or an AFL official (either way if the leak is a problem)? Or has she used these word for dramatic effect? As Pennant St dee said (good post btw) what if other at the meeting contradict statements that there was an explicit decision reached to deliberately lose games. Surely the say so of four people would not be sufficient given the potential commercial ramifications of draft penalties. And to penalise us they would have to solid proof, such as a memo or something in writing. They do hold the whip hand given the money we receive from them but if there is any grey in their findings they would run the risk of us fighting them in court if they slam us with sanctions - even if they have sworn statements Look at the investigation of the Crows. They are forensically going thorough bank records,contracts and they have something in writing (the email). They will be 100% confident they have proof of the breach of rules before penalising the crows. Lets hope and prey there is nothing in writing in our case.

I'd have to know what you're talking about to mention it.

I don't want to be a panic merchant and the article is a little sensationalist however the talk of meetings worries me. I agree with Rhino on this one. If at least 2 relatively senior people are prepared to sign stat decs that we deliberately set out out to maximise the chances of losing we are in trouble. It would have to be at least 2 because they have to be confident any evidence could be corroborated. I don't think it will have to even be a blatant we set out to lose scenario either. Now forget the players as they would never have been privy to such discussions - you'd hope!- and therefore any testimony they might provide is unlikely to have traction. The senior people will be the coaches, CEO and board representatives. Lets say there was a meeting to discuss the situation (maximising the chances of losing - I simply can't believe they would discuss deliberately trying to lose) - you'd assume nothing would have been committed to writing. So any evidence would come down to participants being prepared to go on the record and clearly articulating what was discussed and agreed to. Then proof would have to be found to show that any decisions made (eg playing players out of position) were carried out by the coaching staff. Still, in that scenario it wouldn't be deliberately trying to lose which is how the AFL seems to be defining tanking so there is some grey there. None the less i could see if proved us receiving sanctions and the logical ones are draft penalties. If that happens lets hoe it is next year not this draft asit would potentiall throw a major spanner in the works in terms of getting Viney ant 26 and Hogan.

They are training in Darwin next week. I assume the boys are flying........ They are training in Darwin next week. I assume the boys are flying........

Neeld makes me nervous just looking at him. Even in a still photo his eyes seems to twitch!

Hall fo shame - is that a list of the worst Vietnamese soup restaurants?

Spot on. The one thing i'd say though that of course we need to learn from out past and one of the key lessons is that a disunited board is poison. The key to good governance is a united, solid board and from my perspective the current board appears more united than anytime in the last 2 decades. This is evidenced by the the preparedness to give the FD the required resources and backing Neeld to do what is required to turn things around and make the really hard calls (eg sacking the LG, making Grimes and Trenners skippers, cutting players etc etc). To that list i'd reappointing CS for 3 years. Whatever your view of CS this showed courage and unity from the board (how easy would it have been to let him go or only give him a 12 month extension . Not easy things to do and in the past the board would have not been able to get it together to do them.

Now i have you attention can i say that i support the current administration and think for the first time in a long time the board seems to be united and the FD is kicking goals. So why did i start this thread? Simple. I am sick of every other thread being hijacked by all the naysayers and posters with crystal clear agendas. So for those posters (you know who you are) please post all your angst here. Talk to each other. Bat it around. Others can come on and engage if they wish - or perhaps simply for a chuckle. But it would be great if other threads were not hijacked. Go for it on this thread, let the bile flow!

Simple. He works hard as evidenced by the Respect Earner award he won this year with Casey.

Spot on Robbie. The really good players leaving clubs as FA will be those desperate to snare a flag before they retire. If we're in with a shot at one at some point FAs will want to be part of it. Of course to get there we have to get the culture and development infrastructure right, which is what the power clubs have over us (and most of the small clubs like North and Bullies - at least in terms of infrastructure). If we do get those things right more of the smaller fish in the FA pool will be interested in coming to the dees.

So to be clear the brother of a GWS player has told you the GWS player's manager has said we are the worst run sporting club in oz. The players manager? Are you serious - what credence does the comments of player manager have? I mean get real - who gives a flying continental about the opinions of a two bit player manager when it comes to the the management of a sporting club? If you do then i assume you give credence to the fact that Dawes chose Melbourne rather than say the dogs. One assumes his manager would have given him some advice about how the club was run? And i heard his manager say how professional Melbourne had been throughout the negotiations. The doggies would have offered the same amount as would have the lions - and yet he chose the dees. The same goes for Clarke last year. Strange if we are so poorly run. At least you have the good grace of not hiding your agenda - i'll give you points for that edit: see the Velocity sports thread for examples of why it is ridiculous to put any weight on a players managers view of how to manage a sporting club