nutbean

"Now you're just arguing semantics" The last roll of the dice for a lost argument. No Caro, not semantics...Facts...

I'm with you..an "its all too hard" will do just fine

Firstly the difference between Adelaide and us is that our case is subjective and open to interpretation - I am expecting a please explain first and allow us to respond to allegations/claims/charges before considering a penalty. If the AFL do bring down a penalty of loss of picks prior to this years draft then I would suggest we would argue that the rules are clear and we have to use our next live pick on Viney - you either let us keep Viney with 26 or take 26 off us and let us use our next live pick - you cant have it both ways - take pick 26 and Viney. This is so muddy I just cant see the AFL taking action.

nutbean... I keep sending the club my youtube highlights with my phone number but not a return call....nuttin

Further to RPFC's comments you are selectively picking moves to suit your argument. Why didnt you also mention other moves that have been questioned ? Why didnt you mention Frawley and Warnock going forward as many in the media have ? because we did the same this year with Garland and Rivers Why didnt you mention Brad Miller being a CHF in the midfield as many in the media have ? because we did the same this year with Bate It has been mentioned players being benched after threatening to take the game apart - like every footballer who gets taken off when he has jsut kicked a goal - go figure. The definition of tanking needs by necessity to be narrow - "telling players not perform" - otherwise it becomes murky and difficult to be definitive and conclusions are too subjective.

really not sure - whilst there maybe an individual leaking I still feel that AFL would love this to all go away but the media refuses to stop beating the drums. Whilst people have rightly commented that just because others before us "list managed" it doesnt make it right for us to do the same, I think the AFL would be worried that if they come down with an ugly finding against us, then they are obliged to look closely at past actions of other clubs.

I had to write a comment to the paper - what we have is a comment about going easy on a penalty to our club from someone who is out of the game before the investigation is finished, before the finding is handed down, before the MFC has had a chance to defend itself of any charges - if indeed charges will be laid at all. Does my head in that it needs to be published at all.

**sigh** - you do know that Moloney was a mad Melbourne supporter as well ?

I was a supporter as a kid too and I bleed red and blue - but I havent got a right foot

I did 4 days in Broadbeach over the cup - they get right into the cup up here. Sat for two hours at a cafe drinking fabulous coffee and watching horrifically dressed women off to parties balanced on feet torturing 9" heels - it was amusing if not a little grotesque.

And if CS or CC decide to move on, prospective employers would certainly take into account these goings on - no matter how innocent they may be proven to be, this will not help future prospects. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

If there is no case to answer to from the AFL do we really want to give this more oxygen by either CS or CC sueing the Age/CW. All that will succeed in doing is keeping it in the headlines. Let this story line the bottom of the canary cage as it rightly deserves.

misinformed views - interesting choice of words. Please respond as to exactly what the AFL (not the media scrum) has informed us of ? That they are doing an investigation - thats all. Our Presidents words were carefully crafted and I am sure reponses will follow when there is something that AFL requires us to respond to.

IF we are penalised (if) I cannot see it being a retrospective punishment. Having said that I would have no problem if pick 20 was stripped from the Pies.( and can they strip GWS of pick 3 as well ?)

I hope so - I'm getting RSI.....

I agree that it is not a defense at all but the AFL must be aware that they cannot stop at prosecuting only the MFC. It is like the gun amnesty. If there were only 3 illegal firmarms out there the police would have prosecuted the crap out of the culprits but there were tens of thousands so what was the approach ? Hand them in and nothing more will be done but if you are caught next time ....ohhhh.....there will be trouble young man. I would think that the last thing AD would want is to have to prosecute MFC followed by the baying of the media pack to take on Carlton, StKilda, Collingwood, WCE and Hawthorn....Understand that to find Melbourne guilty they will have to cite firm and concrete examples and then the AFL will be forced to apply the same test to others.

This has been rattling around in my pea brain as well.........

99% agree - the one thing that scares me is that this story is so big that Caro wont run out steam and will keep digging - and it worries me that someone has been foolish enough to print a memo entitled "priority pick ? you bet...tanks alot !" and the whole football department has signed off on it

I will ask you for an answer to one single question - what if the investigation by the AFL turns up concrete evidence of a formulated plan to lose games ? (our defense and attack of the media = lies, legal action = waste of money because we are guilty). I am not sure anyone will dispute that winning was not our first priority - thats not against the spirit of the game but I will suggest that a concrete formulated plan to lose games of football is against the spirit of game. Before we start gunning for media and commencing legal action I would like the investigation to be completed and know that there isnt a hard copy of such a plan.

I will postulate and suggest as follows. If before the findings are handed down, CS and CC resign on the pretence of not wanting further destablisation of the club and certain actions they took previously could have various negative interpretation then I am tipping that the AFL has shown us enough evidence that they have got us cold and a minimisation deal ( probably fines) has been done. Just me postulating...nothing more.

ummm guilty of what. 1/ point me out the law has been broken - that has been done to death by the media 2/ show me the HARD evidence that we have broken the law It is one thing having a firm opinion on us tanking and it is an entirely different thing have proof that will stand up to scrutiny that we tanked within the confines of how the law reads. So what you want to do is defend ourselves against the media who can print what they like, embellish, speculate, postulate and plain make stuff up. Defend ourselves against the media who have also have no concrete idea what evidence the investigator has. ( this is the same media - Robbo - who tweeted that the Dawes to Bulldogs deal was done.) We need to defend ourselves vigorously against charges from the AFL and to date the charges are ...hmmm....well there arent any. The AFL will act against EVIDENCE...so when the AFL tables all its EVIDENCE then it is time to come out swinging. It is not proscrastinating - it is allowing us to see EVIDENCE of wrong doing so we can defend against it. I do see that Adelaide followed your advice of coming out swinging against constant media barrages on the Tippett affair and vehemently denied that any side deal had been done on either transfer to club of choice for a nominated draft pick or money outside the cap and then the AFL investigated and a little thing called EVIDENCE appeared which basically showed that Adelaide had been doing exactly what they had been previously denying. So cool your jets and vigourously defend against AFL charges when there are charges with EVIDENCE to defend against. ( not media hyperbole)

If the investigator asked Connolly if he said the line about sacking everyone if we didnt get the priority pick ( and lets assume for a minute he said it) then Connolly should stare straight back and say of course I said it because everyone outside Dean Bailey has such power as to make us able to lose games - I told the boot studder to give them the wrong boots, I told the orange boy to spike the oranges and I told the entire marketing department to make a video of Don Mclardy saying "is tank...is good". Should the question not be asked that if Connolly did indeed say that, did one of the people who are apparently cheeping away now that his comments were directed at ask him "ummm Chris, I am an assistant coach...(or a recruiting manager who was reportedly there as well) .....exactly how would expect me to affect the outcome of the game ?????" If it isnt a joke then ....I... he..... stuff it....I give up....

After the Scully episode I have learned to neither believe or disbelieve - But I would be gobsmacked if he did say those things and he would deserve to be sacked - not for tanking but sheer stupidity. If you wanted to issue stern warnings on the consequences of winning you would have a quiet word in Bailey's ear and thats it. Not sure how the boot studder can have an impact on whether we win or lose ( unless they were making sure that none of the footy boots fit properly)

Sharp advice - not. Do NOT come out swinging until all is revealed and you know exactly what you are swinging at. How would your advice look, coming out and deny deny deny and then when the investigation is completed a piece of rock solid damning evidence is put in front of the MFC ???????? It is a good statement from Don as it implies that there are certain standards of justice we require whilst denying or admitting nothing. Let all the evidence be presented by the investigator - then you know EXACTLY what you are denying and know exactly how to defend.

touche - but a very funny touche