La Dee-vina Comedia

People often assume great photos come from great cameras. Actually, they come from talented photographers such a Six6Six. Well done. And Jack Watts has really bulked up in the upper arms (although I'd like, also, to see a bigger chest...hopefully that will follow). And Aaron Davey seems to have returned to the hairstyle of his earlier days. Let's hope his football follows.

As I've posted before, I think the concern about 18 teams playing 22 rounds (that is, the issue of some teams playing each other twice and others once) is a bit over-stated. The best teams will always end up in the top 6 spots on the ladder. The fight for 7th to, say 12th, will always happen and perhaps the teams that get into 7th or 8th might have a softer draw than the teams 9th to 12th - but so what? Teams 7 and 8 aren't realistically going to challenge for the flag anyway. The evidence shows that almost always the premier comes from teams finishing 1st to 4th - and usually, 1st or 2nd. For them to get there they must have beaten a mix of good and bad teams. Of greater concern to me is the inequality of the draw in terms of commercial benefit rather than position on the ladder. We shouldn't play home games at Etihad and all teams should have a better distribution across premium times. However, a lot of that is within our control. If we play better, we'll be rewarded. And I'll support Jose - I think the AFL does a pretty good job overall at developing the fixture, even though it isn't perfect.

Dunn looks soiled? Like a brick outhouse, perhaps?

Maybe we need this lawyer

I fear you might be correct. But "inconclusive and insufficient evidence" doesn't really kill the issue. It just leaves an opening for "new evidence" to be provided sometime in the future...and the investigation can start all over again. Which makes me think...would we be better off with a "no case to answer" and therefore no forwarding of the matter to the Commission for its consideration or for the matter to be considered by the Commission and finally and conclusively put to rest in our favour (assuming the Commission forms that view)? If I were a Director of the MFC and absolutely certain that we did not tank, it might be better to take the latter option.

Looking again at the question asked, it could still be Brock. Just not with us.

And Jack Watts will still be blamed for something.

But also a source of mis-information. It's the mixture of gold and the dross that makes social media both exhilirating and exasperating.

The Melbourne FC is the licensed operator of both venues. Both have liquor licences and both have poker machines. In fact, you can only have poker machines in venues licensed to serve liquor. Look here at the VCGLR website.

I think there are two separate issues. The issue raised above about betting is covered by sports betting rules which, in essence, state that bets are finalised when the result of the game is confirmed by the AFL. So all results in the past are now concluded and the betting results stand. The issue raised in rfpc's initial post is, I think, about licences for poker machine venues run by the MFC. The VCGLR has to be satisfied that an operator of a gaming venue is suitable to hold a licence.

Although he won his B&F primarily playing on ball, I wonder whether the physical efforts required (crunching tackles, endurance running) caused Davey's decline. If so, that was another mistake by the footy department at the time (although admittedly easier to recognise in hindsight). Perhaps playing small forward with just an occasional turn on ball might rejuvenate his body and his career.

Hmmm. I heard some of Rohan Connolly on SEN yesterday and I interpreted what he said about the Fremantle game quite differently. I thought he was arguing that if Melbourne was so keen on tanking why would they have done so well against Fremantle when losing (if tanking was occurring) would be the 'better' option. In other words, I thought he was supporting the argument that Melbourne wasn't tanking. Certainly, everything else he said seemed to suggest he supported the argument that tanking wasn't happening. For example, in the Richmond game he pointed out that (1) Melbourne kicked 2 goals in the last minute or so - surely if they were tanking they would have missed (2) Melbourne were ahead on the final siren and (3) the suggestion that the Melbourne coach's box was unhappy after those goals were kicked (because they weren't overtly ecstatic when the TV cameras went on them) is nonsense because he doesn't recall seeing John Longmire being ecstatic after Malceski kicked the final goal in the 2012 grand final.

Is this thread cryptically and subliminally suggesting 'Swan Lake' as our song?

I think you'll find every professional sporting organisation now has an integrity department. The two greatest threats to each professional sports' existence are performance enhancing drugs and corruption linked to betting. Integrity departments are needed to ensure sports don't allow these misdeeds to damage their sport. They don't always do a good job (think professional cycling) but they are necessary.

1. A properly conducted investigation will produce a report which should include all material collated during the investigation. Whether the information helps or hinders the argument (from either perspective) is irrelevant. It should be included. 2. 800 to 1000 pages is not necessarily a long report if transcripts of each interview are included. 25 people by 30 pages per double spaced transcript equal 750 pages. 3. Any references to whether Jack Watts should or should not have been played may not have been raised by the investigators but by one of the individuals interviewed. As such, it should remain in the report whatever the investigators think. 4. Procedural fairness suggests that the investigators findings should be presented to the club before it is reviewed by the ultimate decision makers. In this way, there is less chance of bias (or perceived bias) in the final decision. I wouldn't want the AFL hierarchy reading anything that the investigators have collected until after the club has filed its response. In short, it all looks like it's being conducted properly to me. And nothing can be assumed to be right or wrong (by the AFL, the media or by us supporters) until the process has been completed.

I'll be very disappointed if Dunn is a regular this year. I believe he can't get any better than what we've already seen, so if he's getting a game we either have too many injuries or the new talent (newbies, recycled players and those who have been around for just a year or two, such as Tynan) aren't as good as we need them to be. And I suspect Jamar will be overtaken by Spencer by the end of the year. No disgrace there - the Russian is just nearing his use by date.

From a practical point of view this banner is easier to maintain than solely having current players who can fall out of favour surprisingly quickly. I think last year's banner included Jurrah, Green and perhaps Moloney - all logical inclusions at the beginning of the year. I think Demonland (Andy) has it just right balancing tradition with the here and now.

The National Draft used to be held earlier but was transferred to a later date to allow the year 12 students - which will be most of the likely picks - to finish their studies without the added distraction of the draft. Presumably all subsequent drafts are delayed by the National Draft.

Rod Keogh?

Carlton or Collingwood? And why would that be a problem?

I'm curious. Which ground?

Perhaps we could argue that CC was misquoted. Sort of like this: From The Australian: "Due to a production error, a quote attributed to Lieutenant Colonel Ghulam Jehlani Shafiq in a report in The Weekend Australian on Saturday (“Afghanistan battles scourge of corruption”, page 16) was altered to change its meaning. Colonel Jehlani did not say: “It’s not like 25 years ago. I was killing everybody.” In fact, he said: “It’s not like 25 years ago I was killing everybody. At that time too we tried not to have civilian casualties.” The Australian apologises for the error." Or maybe there was a spelling error, like this (ouch!) Seriously, we should stop looking for conspiracies at AFL House. If there is a case to answer, we answer it. If we did something that brought the game into disrepute, we face the consequences. But I can't see how we did. Or to put it another way, if we did, then the CEO of the AFL has a problem as he has already said we didn't when this issue was first raised a few years ago. reason for edit: added link which refers to Demetriou's comments in 2009

Plus we could offer up that 15 of the Melbourne players in the Richmond v Melbourne 2009 game will never play for Melbourne again. As long as we get to choose the 15 (Junior, Petterd, Bate, Newton, Bruce, Cheney, Valenti, Bartram, Rivers, Miller, Warnock, Whelan, P Johnson, Martin, Bennell). Actually, looking at that list, we should plead insanity that we played so many NQRs in the one game (apologies to a couple on that list).

I would have thought it's quite a common practice from plea bargaining in criminal jurisdictions to employers asking employees what they think is appropriate under the circumstances when an employee has stuffed up. Note, however, that I'm not commenting on whether it is or is not occurring in this particular instance.

You eloquently said in 17 words what I took three lines to say. Well done.