La Dee-vina Comedia

The transcripts. Up until now it's all been conjecture. The Herald Sun (somehow - and that's something that the AFL should be worried about) has got transcripts which definitively tell us what Bailey and others said in their interviews.

Robbo is the chief football writer. I don't believe he has a management role. It would be the Sports Editor in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief (or whatever title the day-to-day editor has) who would make this decision. I would expect Robbo and Warner had no say in it at all.

Good food for thought in Jack Russell's post above. There is a broad question here about the media's role and the public's right to know. Is it any more or less newsworthy because it's sport? Is it newsworthy ten years after the events it refers to? With respect to the first question, I think being sports-related, rather than politics, business or crime, still means it's newsworthy. As to the ten year issue, I don't see how that reduces its news value, as long as there is something new, which in this case, there is. The bullying and harassment question is also worth considering, but I wouldn't like to see the media prevented from publishing for that reason. That would lead to the media being prevented from publishing many things that hurt other people's feelings. It would be used as a blunt censorship tool. (The better answer is to stop buying rubbish newspapers!) In short, I think it's newsworthy and while I don't work in the media, if I were editing the Herald Sun, I'd publish it.

I've just seen the Herald Sun. I think it's worth mentioning that contrary to some comments earlier today, none of the story was written by Mark Robinson (unless he's contributed to something online). It's all the work of Mick Warner, a Richmond supporter. So all that conspiracy stuff about Robbo, his being an Essendon supporter and that's why it was published today is way off the mark. In fact, it's so far off I'd suggest the mods should delete all those comments.

...and then we'll be accused of tanking deliberately to get the media to apply the blowtorch to get our season up and running. Then in 2029, the Herald Sun (should it still exist) will have a front page story about the Demons tanking in 2019, which will get our 2029 season up and running...

This is the key point. The AFL (as it was then) is fundamentally to blame. It established the system which encouraged tanking and then turned a blind eye to the practice. If I recall, it was only when the Victorian gambling regulator said it was going to investigate that the AFL reacted. A quick Google search found this - see page 7

And I assume you know the HUN is owned by someone who has a pathological dislike of Bill Shorten and is known for instructing his editors to use the paper for political purposes. I think the owner's political interests trump the editor's football interest! Coincidentally, The Age today has a fascinating story about the Murdochs with a reference to their willingness to use their media assets in this way.

There are a number of posts in this thread suggesting that the article was published today because Mark Robinson is an Essendon supporter. I very much doubt that Robbo had any say as to when it was published. I think the first comment I've copied above is far more likely - that the editor of the Herald Sun needed a story to avoid having to put Bill Shorten's budget reply on page 1. As to the story itself. Ho-hum. By name it's the same club, but a decade on it is essentially a completely different organisation with a different Board, admin and almost a completely different playing list. And don't forget, many of the players on the list today would have been too young to even be aware of the "tanking issue" when it happened. To them, it's ancient history.

He composed beautiful music, but he was a terrible human being*. [*This comment may be subject to a fact check in a different thread]

Whose?

Let me take a run at it: Your question: "how does ANB. PETRACCA, and to a lesser extent HUNT hold places??" Possible answers: Because they are doing what the Match Committee asks of them, even if they don't do it often enough or because the coach wants them to stay in the side because he believes there best chance of improving is to stay in the seniors or because even when not playing well they're better than the alternatives. Your question: "Why Recruit Pruess if ya not gonna play him?" Possible answers: Because he's not fit enough or because he wasn't recruited to play this year, except in an emergency (ie, Gawn injured) or because he was recruited to learn how to play the role to become Gawn's eventual replacement. Your question: "If Jeffy is fit sheeeeeit surely a 150 gamer is better than C Wagner???" Possible answers: Because he's not fit enough or because he's not match fit or because the Match Committee want to be sure he's fully committed to doing all the hard work, such as pressuring and tackling, which he seemed not to be doing last season. Your question: "Billy Stretch whilst not a great fan surely deserves a run at front runner ANBs expense??" Possible answers: Because he's not doing what the coach asks him to do. I don't know what that is, but maybe he doesn't apply sufficient pressure.

Try to think of it as a strategy of under-promising with the intention of over-delivering. Then it's much more palatable.

But if that were true, what do we make of this very post? Does that mean this post is not factual, so therefore there is a place on Demonland for "facts"? Then that would mean your post is correct. I'm beyond confused.

She doesn't. She's the CEO of AFL Tasmania and goes by her new married name of Trisha Squires.

I can't imagine footballers even notice there are words on the banner let alone read it before they run through it.

I can't agree. If it was a pre-ordained outcome that he'd get off, why was he found guilty in the first place?

I barely remember Neeld finally winning.

In this case, wearing the clash strip...

Contention: The MRO/AFL Appeals process is corrupt and favours the big teams such as Collingwood. If you're wondering why I've added this, have a look at the Michael Christian thread, particularly today (after Mason Cox was successful on appeal). As I keep saying, if you ever have a choice between conspiracy or incompetence, go with incompetence every time.

I've never been in favour of co-captains, so when Jones retires or relinquishes the captaincy, I'd rather have a single captain. Assuming he stays fit enough, I'm happy for it be Viney, although I'm not yet truly convinced that he's got all the necessary attributes. And to jump in before anyone asks, while I can't fault his on-field endeavour my concerns with Viney are (1) a counter-intuitive concern that he may not be properly team oriented by trying to play when he's not fully fit and (2) he doesn't strike me as being particularly articulate (which I think is significant when the Captain is required to be the voice of the playing group.)

And I'd rather still have hair on the top of my head. There's not much use in wanting something that couldn't be kept.

The better question, which we know will remain unanswered, is why?

Welcome to Demonland. Hopefully, you'll find it a worthwhile experience.

I would assume an AFL coach is like any other person. Job security makes it much easier to do a better job. Any coach worrying about his or her future, may make short-term decisions to win a few games without considering what's best in the longer term.

And on Demonland in about 2035 someone will say Trello is as old fashioned an idea as a SWOT analysis. Yet the fundamental purpose is still the same.