nutbean

So you are comfortable with the mighty big swipe that Gardner took at the club late last year ? In my mind it was neither dignified nor professional and reeked of sour grapes. The brownie points that Gardner scored for the manner of his departure ( and yes it was dignified and without rancour) was more than undone but his unneccessary shots taken at the club regarding tanking. A professional and dignified approach by Gardner would have been to shut up and say nothing.

I was thinking last night about the comments made that CS and CC have trashed the brand. I think it needs to be asked if that belief is because we "list managed" and in Baileys words " did what was best for the club" in 2009 or because of the current predicament we are in. The 2009 actions and the 2012/13 outcome needs to be viewed separately simply because the actions taken in 2009 were something that 6 other clubs did and their brands were not trashed. The outcome has inflicted damage on us and for this I cast the blame of the trashing directly at the AFL and the media and I base this specifically on one reason - "selectiveness". If the AFL and the attack dog media investigated and brutalised all clubs that have been party to these types of actions then I am happy for our administrators to cop a caning. If you believe that the MFC, WCE, Hawks, Collingwood, Stkilda and Richmond administrators were wrong in the actions they took in taking advantage of a flawed system that the AFL put in the place then fair enough, lump CS and CC in with all of the above and cane them.

Robbie13 asked a question and I answered it. I had one opinion on T the dog S thread and got that well and truly wrong and I've one opinion here - here's hoping for a change in fortune.

seriously though - I'm with RPFC. I am happy for journo's to be a little controversial, I even expect them to "beat up" certain aspects of story and give them more credence than they should rightly be given but not one journalist took the AFL/investigators/whoever to task on linking fumbling and the non playing of Jack Watts to tanking. This has me firmly pointing to certain arses with certain heads crammed well and truly up them.

In my opinion, because the AFL want this go away it is imperative that they ask us to respond to the evidence so the AFL can say - "we asked, they explained - no further action" - they do not want to lay any charges - it will be too ugly for everyone - especially the AFL if charges are laid. They want this investigation to look 100% kosher ( thats a laugh - fumbling pffft, Jack Watts pfft) so they are going to extraordinary lengths on this charade before signing off on "nothing to see here - move on" I will state outright that the way we have been singled out for investigation in the first place is selectiveness of the highest order but I believe this was a rather large Adrian Anderson boo boo and had Vlad been on deck Brocks comments would have been contained. Now this run away train is hurtling towards the station the AFL will be able to stand up and say "the investigators brought up certain evidence to the MFC and after their explanations we find there is insufficient/inconclusive grounds for any charges to be laid" . I would dearly love the AFL to come out and unambiguously exonerate of us of any wrongdoing - " .....we find that there has been no wrongdoing on the MFC or its employee's part" but that aint gonna happen.

This is their modus operandi and the same procedure was followed in the Tippet case even though that was cut and dried - the AFL gets the club to explain/clarify/defend or enlighten them with a response to evidence or concerns put to them.

My major issue with some posters, and I do take them to task (without vitriol) is where their opinion is so forcefully put that the poster is masquerading opinion as fact. "there is no doubt that Tom Scully signed with GWS in November of 2010." as opposed to " I believe that Tom Scully signed...". I know this is semantics and I am being pedantic but when a poster passes off opinion as fact I will call for proof. I am the master of writing " i feel, I think, I believe and in my opinion" because I get zero facts from the inside or others so all I have is my opinions ( hopefully they are logically reasoned) FYI - this is my number one problem with Caroline Wilson - she is highly respected and well read but she has continually passed off opinion as fact.

correct - there has been a raft of "tanking" issues that have bubbled away not only with us but other clubs and AD has deadbatted every one away. AD has investigated each one of these claims in his own style - " I hear what you say, no such thing as tanking, everyone move on" - now thats what i call an investigation ! (albeit a 5 second investigation) I think Bailey's parting shot was far worse than what Brock had to say (" I did what was in the best interests of the club") - yet AD again deadbatted it away. If AD has a Voodoo doll he is sticking pins into something that looks like Adrian Anderson not Brock.

I think we are playing in poker game and had a Ten Jack Queen King in our hand and called for one card and just got dealt an Ace.

I think the big disclaimer is that just as he was starting to shine before he got cruelled by a knee injury. I vaguely remember Brian Wilson being out injured and Connolly went into the centre - his form was so good that he relegated Brian Wilson from the centre to the HFF (Brian Wilson had won the Brownlow playing in the centre). He shone only briefly so my comment following is only about the time just prior to his knee going on where he was looking the goods - he reminded me of a current Bartel ( except he was not a good overhead mark like Bartel) - not fast, not flashy but he constantly got in good positions and not only delivered well but opened up the game with his possessions. I had really high hopes for him.

Fair enough - re the first point - I guess what has transpired is no different to betting on cricket matches in the sub continent and South Africa only to learn some years later that they were fixed - there was no comeback on the cricket problems ( I am drawing the comparison rather than stating we "fixed" games). As to the second point - it is a bad look for the AFL to have one of their children have a "unsuitable to hold a licence" tag associated with it. In light of the above I have slightly changed my stance in that the VCGLR have no downside in slapping an "unsuitable to hold a licence on us" as there is no retrospective comeback on past bets. I still think this places more pressure on the AFL to bring in a nothing verdict.

I reckon there are now two organisations who dont want this to go any further. I have already given my belief that the AFL wants this mess to go away. However the VCGLR must be getting stomach cramps as well - if Melbourne is found guilty of tanking then they have a problem with the punters who placed bets, and it goes further by setting up a "tanking standard" and implicates, for example, Carlton and bets placed on them during their "tanking". I am reading between the lines and the statements about removal of licences is more about giving the AFL a message - and the message i am hearing is "make this go away" (wow - I have become a "read between the lines" person - whodda thunk ?)

Am I naive as to think that board members don't post here ? I can understand a board member reading these forums to get a feel for what the membership is feeling about different issues but do you think they post and subtly campaign ?

thats a really bad gag DC.

I had Ox penis in the Sichuan Province . They served it finely sliced in a firey hot sauce as an entree but it is a versatile dish because if you talk to it dirty it becomes a main meal.

Disagree completely - we shouldnt read ANYTHING into ANYTHING that is published at this stage.

In China i ate the cartilige from behind the goats knee done in a sweet sauce - it was like chewing on rubber ( rubber done in a sweet sauce)

with my Jewish heritage i only have one thing to say - "oy ge-vault"

this is my problem - take the article at face value and I am worried and not happy. take any article written on this subject at face value and you have to have rocks in your head.

Is it just me or I am alone in not being very happy with the CC's article from this morning ? The disclaimer is that it is a journo writing - not necessarily what CC has said. Taking the article at face value, I would have much rather that if he said something to say, get on the front foot and say - "absolutely i said it, I also said in the same meeting that pigs can fly and Justin Beiber is straight". He has been quoted by many people for his tongue in cheek humour and many have also reported the comments about sackings - why deny it ? What apparently he has done is pot elements in the club for trying to "get him" in this investigation - not a good look. All MFC parties to this investigation should be pushing back against the AFL not finger point inside the club. Is this a united front against the AFL ? Nope

I think that there is general agreement on what we did back in 2009. The muddying of the waters is because there is no definition of the dreaded "t" word and there are actions we took which were accepted practice at the time that had been done by at least 5 other clubs previously and condoned by the AFL. I am not going to get caught up in the semantics of tanking. - Do I believe that players were told not to perform ? no. - Without concrete evidence ( in writing or an unambiguous conversation verbally transmitted to reliable witness) that a coach acted in a way that was not allowing the team to perform to its fullest then we shouldnt be charged with anything - If the AFL wishes to charge us with a "crime" based on their interpretation of positional changes, changes or ommissions at the selection table or rotations without concrete evidence that links this to directly to the coach acting in a way that was not allowing the team to perform to its fullest then due to this being a retrospective investigation, the same retrospective standard must be applied to other clubs who have done similar - investigations into fumbling and Jack Watts should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Tanking, schmanking - i dont give a rats - the above is all that matters.

I want to shoot some messengers for the following simple reasons. Where there has been some evidence or actions that has rightly been open to interpretation ( rotations, comments made and even some player positioning) the "messengers" have gone in boots and all with opinions that have cast the MFC as villains of the highest order. When there has been some evidence or actions that defy logic and common sense such as fumbling or Jack Watts there has been a complete absense of any opinion attached to what can only be described as farcical lines of enquiry.

if it is about match day moves rather than meetings or comments then in my mind we have gone from 99% nothing to worry about to the full 100%

You are having 50 cents each way with your line of thought. So you first commented that sportsclubs that dont try and win end up with calamatous results down the track - in short, it would affect their ability to have a winning culture. After pointing out how it affected other clubs ( finals and premierships after tanking) you suggest that they had a better culture when they did exactly the same as us so maybe you are trying to say that those teams could withstand a touch of "tanking" ?.. So following your reasoning I would suggest that we didnt get a bad culture because we tanked, we had a bad culture of close enugh good enough and players just happy to be on an AFL list to start with ! The reason we got rid of Johnstone, Bruce and others is exactly because of the above culture and lack of leadership . ( Junior is a different argument - age and injury was the reason for his departure - whether you agree with his actual "retirement" is another issue again). That you believe we tanked has nothing to do with the removal of these players. (as to players that play finals - meh - Mario Bortolotto played finals - Steven Armstrong has a premiership medallion - I rate finals experience but I dont rate players simply because the have played a final)

I don't know why I am responding - ill humour you for a moment and say our actions constituted tanking. If so, is it your belief that Hawthorn, Collingwood , WCE and Carltons actions were not the same and were not tanking. (That question is rhetorical as the only answer is that if what we did is tanking then they are also tankers). please point to the catastrophic implications that the above teams have encountered - all in the finals and 3 premierships