nutbean

I'm in !

Any journo I read :-. ( and this applies across the board - not only on MFC articles) 1/ We the reader need to be savvy enough to distinguish between opinion and fact however I will judge the journo's standing in my eyes based on their presentation and whether they forward their opinions masqueraded as fact. CW has let herself down on this issue badly by her constant forwarding of her opinion and stating it as fact 2/ Accuracy - I (we) are probably more sensative on MFC issue to accuracy as we have more insight but it is simple journalist philosophy - "check your facts before publishing" 3/ Opinion - I seek balanced opinions from journalists I read. I have no idea whether some of the journalists on this issue are agenda driven or not but there has been an appalling lack of balance by most journalists. A good example of balance in my eyes is the last Gerard Healy piece - he states we tanked ( I disagree as there is no clear definition of tanking in my eyes) , he also comments on AFL induced incentive to do so and a practice that other clubs have done with tacit approval from the AFL. Compare this to Denham ( who i dont consider to be a journo's shoelace) - he has labelled us cheats, which in essence is an opinion that he can forward as in his eyes we have tanked yet goes one step further and suggests we forfeited games and fails to give any background on past histories of other clubs and the tacit approval of the AFL to this kind of behavior. 4/ conclusion - (and logic) - I have been astounded that hardly one journo has taken this whole debate to its logical conclusion. There are a lot of ifs but if Melbourne are charged and if Melbourne, true to their word, take the AFL on in court there is little chance that other clubs who have done much the same will not be dragged into this. Whilst some may not agree with this, it is a very valid line of thought and I am again astounded that so few journo's have at least forwarded this scenario. So many on here have commented on here that the last thing the AFL wants is to have to have a tanking investigation into another 5 clubs yet the majority of journo's have not ventured into this at all. ( I believe if we were the only club to have "tanked" then the AFL would have little hesitation in going us boots and all)

There is a difference between an easy answer and the real answer Easy answer " i went to a club that wanted me to take the pressure off Juddy and promised me lots of time in the middle. Carlton were going places and wanted me to be part of the success - I cant really comment on what happened before i got there because i wasnt there" Now the real answer " Carlton unexpectedly offered me more money and Melbourne didnt really want me. I would have joined Lance Armstrongs team if he would have offered"

I suspect that a quiet word in private may be said but I have strongly supported the direction that the club has taken in depriving the media of oxygen by saying nothing. We have once and only once stated clearly and unemotionally that we will fight for the integrity of our club. In the absense of anything coming from the club the media has created its own stories and if all goes to plan there will be journo's with large amounts of omlette on their faces. If Greg is asked by the media on his opinion on his brothers comments - straight bat - "he is entitled like everyone else to his opinion and as our president has said, we wont be commenting on opinions, articles or comments from journalists". If Greg makes one comment distancing himself from Gerard you can bet that next day the headline will read "Healy's at War"

And if my brother came to me and said to me " stop doing your job, you are hurting my club" I would say suffer in your jocks. Greg cannot and should not have to answer for his brother. I have never liked the swarthy cocksure Gerard but i think you are off the mark asking for Greg to be quizzed about the opinions of his brother.

Because he was unabashed Terry Wallace fan and after taking ribbing for many a long month about his lovechild I guess he "outed" himself by putting his pic up as his avatar. I enjoy reading TGR's post - whilst i dont always agree with them they are always well thought out and well constructed. Some are quite outstanding - truly - just ask him, he'll tell you. pure nutbean

The one thing I feel certain of - the one person that the MFC will not be appearing in court against is Caroline Wilson. If there is a "no charge to answer" finding I think the MFC will breathe a big sigh of relief and wont be inflaming the issue by dragging a reporters sorry arse into court. As aggrieved as many people are by her scribblings if the AFL comes down with a no charges to answer the MFC will want to move on as quickly and quietly as possible.

You honestly believe that if we are hit with losing "a draft pick or two" that it wont end up in court ???? Anything that is aimed directly at the club itself, be it a fine or draft picks and I would think they will fight it in court - if the club doesnt then it is admitting guilt. I would be disappointed if we didnt defend CC an/or CS, but I could see the possibility of them being jettisoned and the MFC taking no further action but I would suspect that we would require wriggle room - ie CC comments were injudicious or CS's meeting was open to misinterpretation. Again, if the two were charged with draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute and there actions described as "tanking" then I would expect vigorous defense.

It really is a double edged sword. On the one hand I dont mind the AFL having a voice in social issues that do indeed touch on the game. I wish it was unneccessary to have to do a bit of "rooftop shouting" when it comes to the issue of gay rights. I wish it was a bore and and everyone just got on with it. Unfortunately that is not the case so some publicity is necessary to put the issue clearly in the spotlight and hopeful bring about the change to make the issue a bore. The other side of the "sword" is trade unions in the 80's and 90's. Whilst I had no issue with union dues being used to promote causes that directly affected their members, certain unions ran political campaigns on issues and made contributions to causes that I strongly disagreed with and felt were well outside the sphere of what unions needed to be involving themselves with ( specifically certain countries and their policies). So the AFL has limited itself to drugs and indigenous issues and now we are discussing involvement in the gay debate. These are all mainstream issues which affect the players and the society at large. There does need to be some care taken by the AFL as to what issues it chooses to champion.

This comment in the article relating to Dean Bailey, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly "Each of the parties has different legal representation. At least two are set to claim the five-month AFL investigation, compiled in an 800-page dossier, has no hard evidence, but one party still believes there will be at least one casualty when the issue is settled." I agree - I am tipping that at the end of this investigation Dean Bailey will no longer be at our club. ( call it a hunch)

Don Whitford ( can still remember Slug Jordan screaming out from the coaches box to an empty G during the first quarter of a ressies game "Whitford, you're a bloody jib")

I want the above every each way Yes - you could argue we "tanked" more blatantly than any other club - but I think it is a photo finish with some other fine exponents Yes - I want to claim victimization as the media has gone hard into us and ignored all other clubs and the AFL has focused their investigation solely on the MFC No - at the time and now I never suggested that the book be thrown at Carlton - I'm too pragmatic for that A BIG YES - I want to argue the definition of tanking as that is what this is all about. As stated previously, the current tanking law is like a traffic law saying that speeding is wrong yet offers no insight to what constitutes speeding. There is such blurring of the line between list managment and tanking that there has to be definitive statements as to what actions constitute tanking. AD who does speak as head of the AFL has condoned some practices that could be called tanking and labelled them list management. If the AFL is doing a retrospective investigation, if other clubs have done similar/same as we have, if the likes of Carlton have got an all clear for their actions in the Kruezer cup, then certain actions that we may think are tanking, do not constitute tanking in the AFL's eyes. There needs to be clarity.

LY more DC and BBO - there's a lot of L in the room

me dead

Reverse engineering. Take the outcome and then make the preceding process fit to come up with a conclusion that aligns with that outcome.

good luck with that - heres your rules "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) The likes of CC and CS are being hit with draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute. The problem is the interpretation - there are no actions defined that tell us what contravenes these rules.

Should we tank this year - matter of definitions. Aaron Davey and Frawley are two good examples. If the season is completely gone,shot and horrible by mid year ( as opposed to us having improved and whilst not winning every game being competitive and in good positions to beat most) and Aaron Davey is going just ok - I have no problem with Neeld marking his card that he wont be around next year so get a kid into play instead. If the season is shot and we cant buy a goal, Clark and Dawes are out injured - I have no problem with trying Frawley as a one out full forward. In a season when we are on the rise and "in" most matches, would you drop Davey or play Frawley at full forward - probably not. But when the season is shot we might unearth a kid by playing him earlier in Aarons spot and Frawley might turn out to be our next 100 goal full forward. Is this tanking ? Is winning every game paramount - absolutely, but by doing the above moves you would have to think that this is not conservative coaching and is higher risk/high reward but probably lessens our chances of winning. Whilst our team is developing I would still opt for the above - rather than have an average Aaron Davey running around. Note - I am only using Aaron as an example and would love him to tear it up this year

You are welcome to your opinion on JW but you are really re-writing history on Tom Hawkins. First 2-3 seasons he was horrible in most games - in and out of the team and there were more than a few media rumblings regarding trading him.

alright !!

yeah- it still doesnt take new members -sorta like the MCC

yup - still no new members facitilty- there are some highly intelligent poster who i agree with or disagree with - and then there are some that i am sure have never been to a game of football ever. On here there are still enough posters i dont know to make it interesting.

The only issue I have is with ology is the non addition of new members I can almost predict what each member is going to post on any given subject and who will start to punch on with who.

there can be an over reliance on stats - they are black and white figures on paper with no colour. There are free kicks and free kicks and Bail does tend to get clumsy and "bull at a gate" Edit - I havent looked at Scott Thompson's free kick stats but he is another that goes in too quickly and without thought and gives away "dumb" free kicks

I asked a friend of mine who is an avid EPL supporter " what are the goals for the teams outside the like of Man U, Chelsea etc - who are the only ones who can realistically take out the big prizes" He suggested that they aim to stay in the premier league, make profits, increase merchandising and they do this by hoping to sneak into Europe or staying in the hunt in the big cups long enough to increase revenue. If they start to look shaky financially they will sell off their stars to balance the books" Must make defining "tanking" a [censored]

well then, you have come to the right place !