Pates

I think those are fair questions to ask, but one of the reasons why reporters on legal cases aren't meant to report anything that can be prejudicial. How can the investigators be asked to deliver a completely unbiased finding when every single day CW is jamming down everyone's throats that we are guilty as sin and acting as executioner before they've come to the conclusion? Thinking to the future and possibilities isn't a bad thing, but we can't really control that, we've got to stay in the present and hope the club will fight to the (hopefully not) bitter end. You could go mad with the what ifs.

Of our 2012 crop I think both captains will take big steps in 2013, Grimes towards the end of this year was starting to remember how good he was if that year he played half a season and Trengove will be a third year player (incredible the criticism that's been leveled at him) and will start to realise it's not the role that defines him, he will define his role as captain and play naturally like he did in 2011. I really believe that Grimes could be an A-grader getting close to a star in 2013.

A very good read, thanks WJ.

I think it was important for the club to make a statement, but not go on the defensive at the issue that's being dealt with. The way it was used in The Age article is exactly why the club has been so silent, because you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you make a statement it can be manipulated to sound incriminating or defensive, if you don't then the media says stuff like "the silence is deafening". This made our position fairly clear that the club wants the investigation to be conducted by an independent and fair judiciary, not a trial by media as CW would like.

Yet again CW has written an editorial piece with no new information, just another opportunity to whack at low hanging fruit. I normally wouldn't be in for this, but honestly I would be happy for us to drop The Age as our sponsor. They are shaking us with one hand and (with Caro) stabbing us in the back with the other.

The comments from Sheedy are some if the most errelevant I have heard, it's up there with Caro using Gysberts when talking about exiting players connected to this debate. Who cares how Melbourne interviewed him, clearly he expected us to be gushing at the idea of getting him as our coach but instead we wanted to be thorough and ask him questions that included "how would you coach the team" (I would've thought an extremely important question to ask in the process). Perhaps if he hasn't gone in there with the idea that he was interviewing us he would've been given more consideration. The arrogance of the man is incredible.

I can't for the life of me understand why CC would have a meeting with all that staff to explain that. If it was a strategy the club wanted to go with turn why include so many people? DB was senior coach, he made the decisions with players at the end of the day, he didn't need to answer to any of the assistants.

"He would have won an extra five or six games and had at least another year of coaching if he wasn't forced to do it." That is the biggest joke I have heard in this whole saga. That HS article is [censored], nothing he said in that meeting says anything about tanking. Everything about it made perfect sense, I actually hope they use that as evidence as it works in our favour! As for the "quote" from Bailey, that is 3rd hand. Down from Bailey to one player, and paraphrased by another. I also like that after we won two in a row we then amazingly lost to Geelong and Sydney, who would've thought huh? Oh and since their using opposition teams as ammunition for proof of tanking, how many Melbourne players thought Carlton were out to win it in the Kruezer cup?

I think you might've missed the point of my post, I completely agree that if we get sanctioned others should as well. But if the AFL decide to punish us then it would make it an easier pill to swallow if they wait until after the draft because then we get the all important pick 4 and JV. That way the AFL save face by sanctioning us and we still get our two important picks. Fact is at this stage we are the only ones being investigated, I'm trying to think of a scenario where (if they want to) the AFL can punish us but leave our future in tact.

That would be smart on their part. If they wait until the draft and we get pick 4 and Viney into red and blue they can throw the book at us for next year (and the following if they want) but we still have the scope for improvement with the current crop.

Not great for the players but boycott attendance to away games. Anything that you pay for to do with football you do directly through the club (guernseys, apparel, merchandise, footballs) as that money goes to the club not the AFL. A general rally is always good for moral (if enough show up), but practically speaking wouldn't do much. Contrary to what was said above we should be buying more memberships to show support to the club, because if our membership drops the AFL will drop us in Tassie. An email bomb would always be nice as well, if 20,000 members send the AFL an email of protest that's 20,000 they have to sift through. For me my first idea would be the easiest, most obvious, and publicly hurt the AFL, but at the same time sad. I love going to see the boys play and going to support them, and would feel sorry for them playing in front of no supporters.

Always loved watching Todd Viney play, a double of him would be pretty handy.

Agree with all your points but this (at least some of it). Don McLardy was a board member and Vice President, Schwab is still our CEO, and Connolly is still here (although I'm not sure to what extent), sounds like the last two were key ring leaders in the direction the club wanted to take, thus far I haven't heard Don's name mentioned in anything. I agree that it doesn't seem fair to punish the current players and coaches for something done by a previous group, but unfortunately anything that is deemed to be done will surely come under the banner of the MFC. It was "list management" to help the MFC. IF something were to come out of this, if it were serious enough I would fully support the club fighting this in court and I would hope that most members would as well. Some of the sanctions talked about have the potential to undo everything that was done on a commercial level by Jim Stynes, and set the club back years (after being in the doldrums for so long). I hope the AFL would consider this and consider how valuable the MFC is to the competition in TV rights, and not do anything that could threaten our long term sustainability. My belief is that they will almost do an MRP style settlement, "we'll take pick 4, and your first round for 2013, take it or we will throw everything at you".

I've defended Caro but that last article reads a lot more like an editorial rather than reporting with cold hard facts. She makes a lot of speculative statements and as someone said above chose to twist Bailey's no comment to her advantage. Then using the departures of Brad Green (who left with honor and praise for the club), Cam Bruce (left because he was concerned about not getting a second year), Brad Miller (had no future with us), JMac (was retired BY US too early), and Jordie Gysberts (how he has anything to do with this is beyond me!) is just another example of fabricating links to this issue to fill the article. One thing I will defend her for is the headline, as far as I know that is written by someone else.

F#%$ me, another away game against Essendon at the G! Bloody ridiculous! They REALLY don't want to have to worry about the clash jumper, we should wear ours just to spite them (would never happen but I can dream!). A few opportunities to get some wins up early with games against Port, GWS, and GC at the G,. We've had the wood over them but the bombers start well, would've rathered seeing them later in the year. Good change up with a game in Victoria to finish the year. North @ Etihad as a home game could wellbe one of the lowest drawing Vic vs Vic games in a long time, is years game got not many and it was a north home game. Footballing wise it's a good draw, for crowds and gate receipts its crap.

I hope the club has been strategising about appealing and taking this to court, the next charity dinner could be the funding for it! I must admit this is the first time I've truley been worried about this, I thought for a while we could get in a bit of strife with perhaps a fine but now this have moved up a gear and the media want blood much like they want the blood of an under pressure coach. The worst part is the fact that other clubs have done it, but we are the only ones to stuff it up. The rifts that were caused during the 2011 season could have repercussions that prevent the club finally moving forward, Connolly and Schwab (despite them perhaps doing their job well now) will have to go if we are sanctioned. I wish someone could get some of the Carlton head honchos at the time on record saying they tanked as well, unfortunately it looks like something has to be said public to get an investigation going.

I don't actually have a huge amount of problems with the article and the way it's been written. Caro is always into this sort of scandal, and while I don't agree with her conclusions and opinions her sources do tend to hold up fairly well compared to other journos. My issue with this whole thing is the investigation. Bailey started the fire when he said he had no hesitation ensuring we were well placed for draft picks, and McLean's comments gave it the fuel it needed to gain momentum. BUT the AFL "investigated" us after Bailey's initial comments and cleared us, now clearly their investigation was zero and now their trying to save face by doing it all over again. The other problem is what defines tanking? Is it the deliberate action of trying to lose, or is it covered in not being concerned about winning? Does it have to involve collaboration with players? Does it need to be a directive from the top of the food chain? Are there levels of tanking? I really just want this to be over. If their going to sanction us then get it over with but this farce of an investigation needs to come to an end.

You know I was trying to work out who would be the new whipping boy, you've got it in one. At least we can say he gives it a crack and enjoys the body contact.

I heard something about our Hawthorn Friday night match this year that after half time the audience dropped by like 30%, Seven paid a lot for the rights so I don't blame them not giving us one. It sucks but we need to start showing we're worth it.

No idea why you put this in here, completely irrelevant (unless you disagree that much with the delistings). Anyway enjoy being a Tiger feral.

Bartram at his best is underrated in my books, he rarely gets beaten one on one and while his disposal can be suspect at times it's serviceable enough. The problem for me is whether he will get back to a good enough fitness to be good enough, his speed and agility (in the past) has been an important part of his game, and with his degenerative knee issues and can't see him getting that back. For me we are keeping him around as an almost playing coach, and because he is such a highly regarded clubman. He'll be good for the kids (especially the ones that don't know how hard some have to work to get up there) and if we could somehow bottle up his guts and determination it would make some players on the list much better. Amazing list turn over. Correct me if I'm wrong but 13 players out and so far 6 in, I could be wrong but I wouldn't think Hulk Hogan is included on the list. So we've still got seven more to bring in, although I think we're upgrading a couple of rookies. It's a brave new world.

Yeah because that has worked out so well for us in the past. We will no longer be able to use the young rebuilding team excuse, most of the players in our best 25 will have a minimum of 3-4 years of footy under their belts and now some of them have played in premierships. It's time to go up.

In the grand scheme of things I give us a pass mark. We had very clear intentions going into the trade period to get players that would make some on the list redundant. Perhaps the biggest mistake we made was not playing our cards closer to our chest, we made our intentions and targets so obvious that other teams were able to make us pay overs for them. The big win (despite what others may say) is definitely the Dawes deal, we have got a proven player who comes into fill a role straight away. If both he and Clark play most of the season it will put us in a very good position to kick winning scores. Overall I'm happy with what we've done, the commentators and "experts" can have their opinion but I expect good improvement in 2013.

Pederson seems to be an upgrade of Seller for me, some of the things I've seen of him he appears to have some skill about him and a good mark. Rucking abilities aside, he could be a handy 3rd tall and depending on how mobile he could play as a hit up half forward with Dawes and Clark as deep forwards. Whatever, welcome to the club Pedro.

I'm not jumping off the walls with excitement about his one, but he's a Demon now, let's support him. Welcome to the club, good luck in the Red and Blue.