nutbean

for the same reason that New idea still sells its little head off

She pulls the salary because of masochists like me. I find most things she has written over the past two years, negative in the extreme and cleverly ( and in many cases not so cleverly) parading opinion and imagination as fact. It makes my blood boil yet I must religiously read her next article to see what it is this time that will send my blood pressure through the roof. ( she is the car accidents of journalism - I know I shouldnt but I always slow down to have a look) edit - and those who think Caro has a vendetta against CS , I think James Brayshaw must have kicked her dog to death.

I dont know where he gets off posting that hogwash.....

You are averaging 150 posts per month since joining. Welcome to the club

For the last 4 years I believe we have been a "not for pleasure" organisation

If CC went to all and sundry and kept beating the same drum then it is hard to say he was "joking". But the example you give below, if action was taken against the boss for a singular occurance, in all likelyhood he would be required to do exactly as CC should do. - apologise for not making it clear it was a joke and being misinterpreted. and causing employees to feel threatened - and then everyone moves on . ( we had this exact case at our workplace) - edit - not in law - CEO'd a fashion company and the company was bought out by private equity. moved into the head office managing 6 purchased companies and do everything from integration to logistics but i need to be well versed in HR due to the sometimes ugly nature of what i need to do.

My issue with all you are saying is that if he is found guilty for his "comments" he will be the first to be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by use of word rather than by his actions. And apart from words that villify which are black and white, all he has said is things which are open to interpretation. "That Billy is such a dick" - said with a smile on my face it's a term of endearment - said expressionlessly then you should rightly get offended. If the one person who was best positioned to alter courses of games ( outside the players) being Dean Bailey said he didnt take CC seriously ,a big joke then I find it galling that investigators who weren't there to hear the context or manner of delivery and have not been exposed to lengthy periods of CC taking the pizz as he tends to do can profer a different conclusion with any certainty. Dean Bailey may be lying through his teeth but his comments and the investigators reporting of it is simply a matter of he said she said. Hardly a hanging offence.

Toned down !!! Yikes - i would have loved to seen what the non toned down version looked like (not).

You either want to be a person who comments and whose opinions are respected or you want to be Jason Akermanis - you cant have it both ways. ( in answer to your last line - yes...yes they have)

Eww

A few on here have been constant on here regarding the clubs strategy - simply put, say nothing as the club does not know what the AFL/ investigators have turned up. Why the change ? The club now has the report in its hand so knows exactly the extent of the evidence against it. We are playing poker and we know what cards our opponents have in their hand. Therefore the club sensing its position feels free to give a bit of trash talk back. Well played Don and the club.

And on the flipside - imagine how pizzed he would be at the club. His first press conference " if I am going down then I am going have some company on the trip" (hell hath no fury like a cuddles scorned)

Herein lies the problem - the law reads find up until the time of application - it is not about OUR actual merits as you can be crap and through your actions still tank - rather than be pretty sure you wont win - you can guarantee it ...(GC has little chance of winning with the team they field but you can guarantee a loss if you pull Ablett out). To my mind defining ANY teams actual merit and goes back to the 1800 posts here debating over list management, positional changes, rotations and earlier surgeries. A perfect example is teams playing for a finals berths nurse good players who are injured to get something out of them and hopefully contribute to a premiership. A team out of contention puts them in for early surgery. So clearly you have two choices dependant on ladder positioning - one is doing the best for this season and the other is doing the best for the next season. The second option means that you have made a choice not to put the best team on the field this season - you are actively lowering your chances of winning, What a minefield.

Catch up time for me - did the below law not exist in 2009 as to my understanding this is the tanking law ? "A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5) ( note they can only try and get Bailey on this - not CC or CS)

Wow.....you have got really nasty now. I am not sure that there is a worse insult that you can throw at someone.

The problem with his definition is that it as airy fairy as the word tanking. What does "we didnt try to win" mean ? To draw an AFL analogy - at the beginning of each season the umpiring fraternity hand out a DVD with rules on it - say dropping the ball and then give 10 video examples of what is dropping and 10 examples of what will be considered play on. Thats a definition. Thats showing specific actions to give clarity to a rule. You friends definition is not a definition - its a synonym of tanking. ( i regret my umpiring analogy because even with the clarity to the rules they cant get it right on the field !)

+1 - its either all or none

I'm with you - the only agenda I am confident that Caro has is the agenda to be as controversial and inflammatory as possible ( as she is doing in the Essendon drug probe) to keep herself relevant. It is much easier for her to write inflammatory articles attacking all and sundry for not acting on or dismissing articles she has previously written rather than be known as journalist that is off the pace and not relevant.

I dont know how a court would see it but i do see it differently. The ASC would suggest that they are doing everything with their limited manpower to catch insider traders. Breaching insider trading laws is very wide and may be committed by many. To say you can investigage all insider traders isnt logical. On the other hand, with the AFL we are looking at a very narrow field of "perps" with clearly articulated examples of similar behaviours by them that warrant investigation. You could level the charges of the AFL investigation being blinkered where it would be more difficult to do this on insider trading.

absolutely He kicked well by exception

Caro to me is like the below - She is a loathesome offensive brute, yet I cannot look away"

It is interesting how 5 of the all time greatest Blues thought specifically about tanking and the positioning for draft picks re the Kruezer cup yet it never crossed the mind of the Carlton coaching staff that day.....obviously they were far too busy coaching to win to worry about silly little draft picks.

I dont see it as a defense - I see it more that if the AFL want to go us for our behaviors then no problem but dont be selective and look at other clubs that participated in similar behaviour. Whack us all or whack nobody. (I just emailed Caro - I feel much better now)

We had the debate with fan/bob regarding her influence and I suggested my dislike for her work isbecause she is widely read,respected and noticed (as opposed to that giant [censored] Denham). After reading some of Bomberblitz and their indignation at her work I will say that her influence is even worse as 400 odd pags (of which I only read a sampling) there is not a mention of her work elsewhere - ie on the tanking probe. This tells me that unless her writings directly affect your club her articles would be read digested and hardly questioned by a large cross section of supporters of other clubs. I am not sure that other supporters would be dissecting her writing like we do and seeing the very obvious lack of quality - this is the most worrying part of her writing IMO.

She does read Demonland - unfortunately like everything else she does - she reads demonland selectively Tomorrows headline Exactly what I was thinking. She reads Demonland. So improve your writing people or the Age's standards will fall even further.