La Dee-vina Comedia

Thought he was the slowest player I had ever seen last year. Runs like he's wading through wet concrete. But also thought he was one of the hardest triers in the side. I didn't think he was particularly skilled and I didn't believe he had enough leap to be a back-up ruckman. However, that was all last year and I have no idea how he might have improved since then. Is he faster this year, perhaps? does he have a bigger leap? I hope he has been able to add some skills to complement his willingness to work hard.

As we know the AFL has strict rules regarding "third party deals" and outside employment arrangements for players as part of its management and control of total player payments. But I assume there is no such restriction on non-footballers. So is it possible for Connolly to be employed for a year by a "friend" of the club? For example, could Opel engage him in a marketing role for 12 months (should they want to, of course)? While this thread continues to look backwards at the rights and wrongs of the various parties, I'm more interested in looking forward. In short, I hope Connolly is being looked after, even if he's not officially on the MFC payroll. How many of us could cope (financially and emotionally) with a twelve month suspension?

I disagree. I think all players are inherently courageous. Some are just more courageous than others and some to the extent of foolhardiness (eg, Jonathan Brown). I think it takes serious courage that most people don't have to play this high impact, body contact game. And that's just the physical side. I think they also need an element of courage to put up with the criticism which the media and we as supporters also heap on them. Having said that, I like your five points.

Maybe we could convince Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Richmond and West Coast to each kick in $100,000 to pay our fine in return for none of them being investigated. They wear a small amount each of financial pain rather than the possibility of something more substantial while we wear the ignominy of being called "tankers". (Note, I'm not re-opening the question of whether we tanked or not. I'm just stating that that is what we will be called).

I've just re-read the statement attributed to the VCGLR. It's not published on the VCGLR website, so there may be more than what has been published. The Herald Sun quotes the statement as, "The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation is currently undertaking its own inquiries into the tanking allegations raised against Melbourne Football Club and will be taking into account the findings handed down today by the AFL. The VCGLR will release a statement at the conclusion of its investigation." There is an alternative interpretation which is that the VCGLR is not looking into the suitability of the MFC but into the ongoing suitability of the AFL to be approved as a 'sports controlling body'. The importance to the AFL of being approved as a 'sports controlling body' is that once approved all betting operators are required to have agreements with the AFL before they can take bets on AFL product. Those agreements would likely include some sort of financial payments. For the AFL to be classified as a 'sports controlling body' it needs to satisfy the VCGLR that it has appropriate integrity procedures in place. So, is the VCGLR looking at the AFL's integrity procedures rather than the suitability of the MFC to hold poker machine licences? Or both? There's more information about sports controlling bodies on the VCGLR website here Reason for edit: added website link

Mind you, no statement on the VCGLR's website. Timms didn't just make this up - or perhaps pinched old 'intel' from Demonland, did he?

I didn't think much of Bailey as a coach and I felt his comments at his media conference when sacked were unhelpful (but for which I don't blame him - he'd just been sacked, after all). But, you know what? Today I feel more supportive of Bailey than I ever did when he coached us. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because he, like Connolly, may have fallen on his sword and made life easier for the MFC.

I'd rather you'd written "...not guilty and no draft picks lost"

Good point...and if that were the case, it's even more depressing.

The most troubling matter out of all this as far as I'm concerned is that the AFL leaks like a sieve to Caroline Wilson. She wasn't 100% correct, but she had enough correct information to satisfy me that she wasn't just guessing.

Really? Marijuana is proven to lead to depression and as entry point to other more harmful drugs. Alcohol is proven to lead to violence when consumed in excessive quantities. But I'm not sure there is conclusive proof to say that marijuana is "vastly less harmful" than alcohol. For what it's worth, as much as we would like it to be the case, zero tolerance rarely works in any regulated environment. I'm not sure whether the three strikes policy is good or not - but I'm confident zero tolerance would result in a bigger number than expected being forced out of the game.

Thanks for the clarification rpfc. And I think I just did what I complain about others doing - inventing a conspiracy theory when the better option is to assume that nothing out of the ordinary has happened.

So, just looking at your avatar, did you feel at home?

Reminds me of a story, possibly just urban myth, of two Aussies at Los Angeles airport discussing the footy. One asked the other who he supported and he said' "I'm a mad Bomber" which was overheard and promptly got the aforesaid Essendon supporter arrested. (If anyone can confirm the above, or not, please feel free to do so.)

It's called the "downhill skier gameplan". You could have been writing about Bailey's coaching, too (apart from the reference to playing in a Final).

I recall some comments at draft time questioning why M Jones was recruited in the main draft and not as a rookie. I wonder whether he nominated for the national draft only and not the rookie drat (can you do that?) on the basis that at his stage of life he can't afford to take the less certain and lower paid route. If so, good strategy.

Now I'm truly confused. Who are the "Casey Demons"? Would I be right in assuming they might be MFC supporters based in Casey? If so, good on 'em.

Clarification please WJ. Are you contributing to MFC or Casey Scorpions? Because if it's the latter, are you anticipating that Casey may be promoted to be the 18th team in the AFL should another team, perhaps one in red and black, is somehow unable to participate?

Without necessarily disagreeing with you, perhaps it might be better to start with surgeons, pilots, train drivers, judges and anyone else who makes critical decisions.

Nice work nutbean. Reminds me of this note Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly sent back to California lawmakers when he vetoed a bill.

Just curious. Since the commencement of the formal international rookie program, does anyone know how many have been selected and of that group, have any ever made it onto an AFL list? Of course, perhaps that's how Tadgh Kenneally got his start. He went OK.

My vague recollection of Freudian theory is that the mind chooses to forget bad memories and recall the ones we cherish. I think we're all forgetting how bad we were in 2009. I think our defence should simply be "We didn't tank, we stank".

Interesting...read this

On closer inspection you might find that the 9 clubs (or 7, reported elsewhere) are reported to have "vulnerabilities" to organised crime. That's not the same as those clubs being involved in the use of illegal substances. Without naming anyone (and I encourage all posters not to name anyone), I can think of two players who have (or have had) family members in gaol for drug trafficking offences, another who has been in gaol himself for a separate serious offence and a few players who have been reported as frequenting nightclubs with "colourful" identities. I could imagine that all those players would be considered by law enforcement agencies as "vulnerable" to organised crime - but it doesn't mean any of them are necessarily involved in anything illegal or untoward. In other words, the way it's being reported is a beat up, although those "vulnerabilities" would definitely exist.

I imagine some journalist somewhere has written on one day that Cameron Schwab is in serious trouble for having been somehow knowledgeable about Melbourne's list management (which will be called 'tanking' in the article) and that Essendon's CEO (Robson?) is in serious trouble for not being knowledgeable about what its sports scientists (term used loosely by me) were up to. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.