nutbean

I think there is so much argueing at cross purposes ( and I am party to that as well) 1/ The broad intentions of the club during the later part of 2009 - pretty obvious what went down and your point, BH ( and one I dont disagree with) 2/ What we did in the later 2009 put into context against poorly drafted rules with no defined actions against a backdrop of similar/same tacitly approved precedents ? nothing to see here - move on . Where i sit Would you not agree with the above BH ?

Red... I have sensed that this trauma has made you somewhat religious. If praying for the outcome will help, I'm with you !!

Umm - what if we lose ? I suspect the reason we have employed the likes of an ex supreme court judge and top legal firms is to advise exactly on that. None of us are experts in law but common concensus by commentators is the AFL would get their butts kicked in court. ( again - the disclaimer is that those commenting arent legal experts and havent been privvy to the evidence). You went to the Richmond game expecting a win and so did thousands of others - really ? is that why Richmond started favourite for that game ? We were horrible in 2009 and the best I went in with was HOPING for a win. Expecting a win ? i dont think so. And CS and CC are running jokes - I have a sense of humour - fill me in. You may not like some of their actions but I suspect if you asked 99% of the football public who was the CEO and football manager back in 2009 ( or now) they wouldnt be able to tell you.

So little idea. So because the AFL is a billion dollar corporation you think that gives them a monopoly within the legal system. For a perfect example of how wrong you are try checking the record of the Australian Customs Service in court - their record on cases against small companies that have been taken to court is appalling.

And not only are there 5 identical crimes - the police have the name and address of the criminals and in the case of Richmond - a signed confession.

Specifically bringing the game into disrepute is defined as "nutbean in the foetal position, sucking his thumb and crying like a girlie girl after the 186 point Geelong walloping and being wrong about Tom Scully" edit - pardon my facetiousness but "bringing the game into disrepute" is as well defined as "tanking"

We dont get a lot of that from our journo's ( aplogies) - I am still giggling at Mark Robinsons tweet during last years trade period - "Dawes to the dogs - a done deal.". He was 100% right except for the part he got 100% wrong.

Its actually not last year that concerned me - it was his B&F year. The gulf between Beamers contributions and non contributions ( against better teams) was noticeable. Jones on the other hand goes hard at it every single week.

This is something we all agree on. (both comments)

I watched Robbie Flower famously play fullback on Malcolm Blight and failed - never to play fullback again.

A grey area created by the AFL ? "The MFC are cleared of any and all wrongdoings in a situation that was created by us and other clubs exploited" said the AFL never.

I would deem acceptable that the quicker and quieter that this book is closed and forgotten the better. ( it wont stop me, however, sending a "suffer in ya jocks" email to Caro)

I'd clearly forgetten the venom of her first articles. Fan, - still a fan ?

Always been my take. 1/ there is a fuzzy rule in place with no clear actions defined as to what constitutes tanking 2/ there has been clear actions in the past by AFL teams ( including ourselves) which would fall under a broad definition of "tanking" however in the absense of a clear definition and with past actions tacitly approved by the AFL, this further muddies the water. It has never been an issue of whether in a broad sense, we tanked or not. It is proving tanking against the absense of a definition ( with demonstrable actions) and in light of accepted precedents. In the absense of clarity of the definition it is a matter of what can proven definitive vs subjective.

Making a Mario Milano analogy is a bit of stretch - dare I say an abdominal stretch ? (thats the one thing this forum really lacks - a good world championship wrestling thread)

Neither of my ex wives admitted they were wrong. With the benefit of hindsight, maybe I did contribute a little to the wrongness

I am in again. I won the comp last year ( and so did my wife)

Well....did the verdict come through? The levels of reporting (and fiction/fantasy) have reached dizzying lows.

I am taking this as a tongue in cheek comment but "good authorities" have been sadly lacking in reporting on this issue so far

So is it the AFL who said it will be done this week or the Herald Sun have reported that AFL will have it done this week. There is a big difference and a diffference that has been occuring all through this investigation. Two reporters tweeted yesterday that charges will be laid by the AFL today and that all charges will be dropped by today. I'm sure they didnt get this from AFL or maybe from two different AFL's.

Where did i say i had knowledge - I am comparing her imbalanced opinions and inaccuracies that have been outed against other reports that seem to take a more balanced and historical view of this issue For a more balanced opinion - have a look at Gerard Healy's article . There have been numerous reports of clubs "tanking" for picks over the past decade ? correct or incorrect ? AD has constantly stated that tanking does not exist. correct or incorrect ? The AFL has stated that other "tanking" incidents such as Carlton and Terry Wallaces comments regarding not coaching because of the Cotchin pick were looked at and nothing further needed to be done.correct or incorrect. A balanced view, a logical view, a view that looks at the whole landscape would at least put forward the proposal as Healy and others have done that these incidents have tacit approval from the AFL and what the MFC has done is not out of step with the other incidents. I have no problem with a journalist suggesting that we are twice as bad because CC put pressure on staff to lose and we purposely fumbled and didnt play Jack Watts enough but Caro's reporting has been completely devoid of even the slightest reference to the tacit approval by the AFL of historical practices which would leave the investigation with very little to hang its hat on. Its a bit like reporting in history books that American's killed lots of Japanese in world war two and dropped to A bombs on mainland Japan - all true and all horrific and completely omittiing a little thing called Pearl Harbour..

I cant follow the logic - Caro and others have been out there on this subject in a very inflammatory way. You claim that they may know better than we who just read the papers. But what Caro and the like have published ( albeit full of inaccuracies) to date doesnt add up to a hill of beans. Unless the likes of Caro are holding back on information which makes no sense to me as she has been willing to publish stuff that isnt factual, then it is fair for us to make the judgement on what she has published that club hasnt broken rules or accepted practices as they stand.

Who is "they" ?

And to top off the inaccuracies there is angst on here ( quite rightly) on not only her inaccuracies, but the imbalance of her opinion and the complete failure to report the complete landscape. When I want balance and wider coverage of issues on American Politics, analysis on both good and bad of all sides of the landscape I do not watch Fox News. Unfortunately too many footy journalists, Caro included have shown themselves to be the Fox news of football journalism ( did anyone notice how unhappy Bails was when Petterd kicked the goal against Richmond - FMD !)

I dont believe it was the AFL that said they would respond by the end of the week - I think it was reporters who said the AFL would respond by the end of the week. The "papers" have been so wrong so frequently that thismay well be another report that will not be all that accurate. (when I heard that the AFL had handed the MFC a 600 800 1000 page document and gave us a month to respond and then it was reported that the AFL was going to make a decision on our response within 4 days ??? I thought WTF ????). Anyways I am confident that this will come to a head in the next day week month year decade millenium.