nutbean

Its in the Age in the article written by Jon Pierik. Seriously..three ruckman...Hille, Bellchambers and Ryder all in the same team. Jamar has been tried as a forward, Martin as a back and forward. I have maintained all along that the AFL is orchestrating this investigation to come to the conclusion that they did a thorough investigation and there is "insufficient or inconclusive evidence" to bring charges. Some of the evidence that journo's have put forward as being forwarded to the club is highly subjective and also well intrenched past practice ( list management and experimentation). There is a modicum of sense in them asking questions relating to Connolly's words and what Schwab may or may not have said and i can even stretch to low rotations or keeping players on the bench too long - but when the investigation is questioning 3 ruckmen being selected and players fumbling then the attempt to dress up this charade as thorough investigation has become a farce of the highest order.

I dont really agree with this - Because we are getting inundated with gargabe constantly I think we are running out of puff on being incensed regarding inaccurate, inflammatory and downright inane journalism. I also have stated elsewhere that I go harder on CW ( and would also do the same on Mike Sheahan) because I actually rate her as a journo but she has been horrible on a number fronts the last 12 months. I dont go off at Mark Robinson as he is a buffoon ( how does that old saying go " id rather you hate me than pity me")

I read in this mornings paper that they are also querying playing 3 ruckman ! Investigators " can you explain why you played 3 ruckman - jamar, Martin and spencer, all in the same side" mfc defence " because it is our belief that 3 crap ruckman equals one good ruckman."

Matthew Warnock "tanked" from the moment he came to the club to the moment he left. Once the ball hit the ground Bate was a notorious "tanker". Darren Bennett - OMG - I have never encountered a footballer who could get clearly in front on a lead so often- have the ball delivered lace out and then "tank" the mark. I thought Frawley had a bad case of the "tanks" all least year. I'll be here all week - thank you and good night

Dean Bailey will definately look after his own interests and whilst there is alignment with our interests I would suggest he may be a little less narrow in his approach if we look after him as well ?

I really hope it doesnt - I would like to see victory without humliation of the AFL. Whilst every fibre of me screams out to sue the bastards for muddying our name etc etc I think it would be more prudent to be humble victors as we should remember that this is the hand that feeds us and I would not like to see passive aggressiveness towards us from our lords and masters (do not read this as backing away from fighting if charges are laid - I say go to the privvy council if necessary)

I'll go one step further - they have no case to answer under this rule as it does not apply - it is not technical as you say - it is fact - end of story. ( the AFL are aware that we will go legal so they will not charge Schwab and Connolly under this rule)

I question the integrity of every single club playing in the AFL. As soon as a player kicks a goal he is rewarded by following the team instruction of "run off the ground and sit on the bench" - if that ain't tanking I dont know what is

Ummm - Brock is an imbecile ( and I apologise upfront to imbeciles for lumping Brock in with you lot) Umm - I dont think the AFL are trying to pressure us into a deal at all and there is fair bit of difference between Collingwood betting case ( Footballers are prohibited from betting, they bet, they were guilty - black and white) as opposed to airy fairy, half baked supposition contrevening nondescript rules.

and I agree that they AFL in their statement will come down a little harder than insufficient evidence - they will say something like "you've been bad, you've been terrible but not bad or terrible enough that we can actually charge with you anything". Let the charade continue.

This canting and recanting , then re-recanting proves that Mclean is just a cant.

I'll summarise the age article for anyone who hasnt read it. Headline - the age has presented their wad of evidence with potential rules breached - the MFC has vowed to fight it. The end. Referring to my earlier posts - this is still being played by the numbers. I still believe this is all nicely set up for an AFL presser at some stage - "after presenting 800 pages of research to the MFC and receiving back information and clarity around this information there is insufficient evidence for any charges to be laid"

And I believe the exact opposite. The AFL knows that there is too much at stake to actually do something other than stand up say that they did a thorough investigation and don't have enough evidence to lay charges.

I like the old to new banner

That other clubs havent been included in the investigation is why I think this is a sham and will end up with a "nothing to see here move on". The AFL didnt want this in the first place and in my opinion are working to a game plan to show the world at large that this is being taken seriously. If the AFL were really serious and wanted to charge a club with tanking then my belief is that they would widen this investigation to include all clubs. The AFL know we are going to go down kicking and screaming and will go legal. If we go legal and are found guilty there will be clarity around what constitutes tanking. Every reporter will then apply this to other clubs ( Carlton first and foremost) - that is not what the AFL wants. However I think the AFL are minimising the width of the investigation to us only with a certain amount of insight as to the outcome. 1/ investigate 2/ Find flimsy, non specific and UNPROVEABLE evidence 3/ ask MFC to explain 4/ MFC says - meh - tongue in cheek humor, ex players with axes to grind and list management 5/ AFL says - on the basis of the evidence and responses there is not sufficient hard evidence to charge 6/ AFL institutes a lottery system 7/ tanking is dead Why would you widen an investigation to include other clubs when the club that has been the most transparent in its activity ( and yes you could argue Carlton as well - but six to one half a dozen of the other) is going to wind up with no charge to answer - yes we are copping the pain and media attention but it will be yesterdays news shortly. If I am wrong and charges are laid then bring on the fink and let it get ugly.

My reason for my dislike of CW is 1/ she masks opinion as fact and fact as opinion 2/ she exaggerates and distorts opinion/fact and gives too much credence to the insignificant 3/ she chooses to completely ignore facts that are in the public arena or rearrange them if it doesnt suit her argument 4/ she is exceptionally good/talented at doing the first three She is a top class journalist who has a wide following and many cannot see past the 4 points I have stated and that makes her dangerous. She is no longer measured and thoughtful - she is agenda driven and flawed. Compare her to many other journalists who do much of the above ? In short, the likes of Mark Robinson are just not taken seriously like Carro is - I laugh at the likes of Greg Denham and Mark Robinson - I dislike Carro as she has the talent and smarts to do much better.

I agree with BH's line of thought on this and add that AD would privately admit this has been handled woefully and would be less than impressed with AA's performance. AD didnt want to investigate anyone. What i firmly believe is in our favour ( and that lots are dismissing) is that others have done similar. If the AFL comes down on us with sanctions or penalties and we challenge it in court, the courts will make it clear what does and doesnt constitute "tanking" under the existing AFL rules. The AFL will then be forced to apply the same litmus test against other clubs. It will not just go away. The commission knows this and that is why I believe there will be nothing to see here - move on. The AFL's whole investigation and "please explain" is for the sake of appearances and if the AFL do lay charges they will do it knowing that they will have to look at other clubs and judge them against a set of defined rules and standards that have been defined and refined by a court not by AFL - do you think they want that ? They well may go down this route but I do not buy for second that the "AFL is a dictatorship and it will start and stop with us". I like that they have not put the blowtorch under other clubs - it tells me that they are going to find no case to answer with us. Our best move to date has been - "we will make no comment at all but just so you know - we have the "fink" loaded and ready to go".

I disagree with this. Vlad didnt want ANY clubs under the blowtorch. It was not Fitzpatrick who stopped Carlton being heavied over tanking - it was Vlad with his carte blanche statement for all clubs " tanking does not exist" - thats what stopped Carlton and others having pressure applied. The one opinion I am very firm on - the last thing that AD wanted was this investigation.

Not that I am entertaining the above but it does raise a financial question - the contracts of our administrators must contain an AFL clause. Otherwise how can an administrator that is employed by the MFC, be banished by the AFL and yet the club has to pay out the contract ? If no clause exists you would be telling the AFL banish whoever they like but they have to pay out the contracts not us.

I think you said what i said or wanted to say.(but in 200 words less - I gotta learn to be a little more concise )

My thoughts exactly - I have no idea of the strategy the MFC will adopt but my strategy would be to ask the AFL that if they are provide to the MFC the findings of their investigation we require very pointed and clear direction as to the AFL's expectations and intentions. If the AFL require a reply (which I am sure they do) I would ensure the AFL. 1/ Specify what evidence/finding they require an explanation of 2/ If the AFL require an explanation it must be because there is a thought that the evidence breaches a rule - what rule do the AFL believe has been breached ( the reason for this is anything that Connolly/Schwab have said cannot be charged under the rule that is limited to coaches and players) If it was me - I would not accept the handing over of a whole report of findings with a covernote from the AFL saying - "any comments" ? - thats just another fishing exercise. Edit Or you could answer their questions with questions of our own. For example - if we are asked to respond regarding playing players out of position. "Dear AFL - I am not sure how to respond to this or why all of a sudden list managment and experimentation has become tanking ? Firstly, clubs that cannot make the finals have been experimenting with player positions since Jesus was moved from fullback to fullforward playing for the Crucified first XVIII - We experiment with players in different positions in hope of finding a better structure for the next season ( Lynden "bad mo" seems to finally have found a place running off half back after trying him there at the end of this year). We could list lots of clubs that have done exactly the same thing that you now seem to have problem with us doing ...cough Carlton...splutter Richmond...hic WCE - but we wont do that but it should be noted that the AFL has investigated the practice of expermentation and found that it is ummm experimentation . Secondly your CEO addressed this very action earlier and even sympathised with our club CEO. Thirdly, this experimentation happened again this year with our backline all playing forward yet there was no mention of us tanking. Why is it alright this year but not a few years back....ummm..what was the question again ?"

Maybe I am the only one here but I do follow the "ex-wives" - during the season I have a look after each match to see how they have fared. I cant let em go quite that easily just because they are no longer in the red and blue. I always hope they fare poorly against us but when it is not against the Dee's then I range from having wanted Brad Miller to kick on to Tom Scully getting kicked in the nuts.

Couldn't help myself. Brock McLean tweeted "new years eve is the biggest crock". I tweeted him back "second biggest crock just behind your comments about the Melbourne football club"

I will not count chickens before they have hatched nor am I the sort of person who would gloat or throw back opinions and statements into someones face who got it wrong but if we are cleared of any wrongdoing I hereby promise to be very vindictive and send an email to Caroline Wilson and Greg Denham.

Connolly cant be charged under this rule - he is not a player, coach or assistant coach.