Norm Smith's Curse

Its more likely that GWS will risk an offie with their third pick. Wines will be available at pick 4. It wasnt that long ago when it was thought that Toumpas would also be. That now appears pretty unlikely.

Ive met Schwab and Ive met Don McLardy. Personally I really got a great impression from Don and he seems a warm, friendly and passionate bloke whereas Cameron came across as guarded. But both seemed like good people to me; smart, professional and passionate.

I wonder what G Lyon has had to say to her, assuming they speak outside the Footy Classified season.

The Jimmy fell out of bed comment - even in the context of how Caro has written it in a way to sound inflammatory - was just so obviously a joke.

No one else heard the rumour about us being charged with bringing the game into disrepute? Incidently a bloke at work plays golf with someone that was allegedly in the room. But that someone apparently rarely gives ANYTHING away unfortunately.

Well said and not beyond the realm of possibility. I think its particularly interesting that they chose Caro to leak if they were the source of the leak (and by F i doubt it was anyone in MFC! )

No one told the players to try and lose therefore we did not tank.

Fine on SEN said the same prettymuch. SO there are rational people who realise the way it really is.

Pretty much sums it up and Ive been saying similar for a few days.

Has Hell's gate or Nudge made any posts on this issue?

Is there any truth to the story that when Plouge took over at Richmond his first directive was to remove the bar (yes, that is right, the bar providing alcoholic drinks) that was located in their weights room?

neeld is on record as saying they believe they already have enough young players. hence the top up for this core group of youngsters. I dont think he will be overly phased if we lose access to one pick in 2013.

yeah very good post. Exactly what is being said in many quarters. Why not? Why leak so much? Who would gain by that?

Based on third party reports of a flippant comment made four years ago and of which various witnesses have varying recollections. Damning evidence that.

I wonder how close Paul Gardner and Mike Sheahen are?

As I said in another thread according to the AFL the worst draft-related penalty they can impose is the removal of all draft picks and then the allowance of the bottom four draft picks in the draft, meaning we would still get viney (and given our previous drafting might actually have more luck?). Here are some points that have been raised to me in the last 72 hours from various people: 1. In the media they know that reader's attention spans arent that long - they have milked the story in the last four days or so but if they had any damning evidence it would have come out by now because if it does in a fortnights time people have already gotten over the story. So her damning evidence when looked at the context of where it came from isnt really that damning. 2. There is a rumour circulating that the AFL have already told the MFC that we will be found to have brought the game into disrepute by allowing our actions to be interpretated as demeaning the integrity of the game. According to this rumour we will get full access to this draft but may lose access to our first rounder next season and some premiership points. We wont be found guilty of tanking according to this rumour. 3. Its interesting that the article that appeared today on the AFL website suggest that this investigation (purely into the demons) will finally 'put the issue of tanking to bed once and for all.' Does that mean that the AFL considers now that tanking does exist but only when MFC did it? 4. Why would theAFL allegedly leak this story? Why would they chose to leak it to Caro? Why did an AFL source allegedly leak the Misfud story and when it was proven baseless who looked stupid? Why have they chosen to leak the story now after four months of investigation at the same time that Adelaide is under investigation for serious issues and Israel has chosen to sneak out the back door? Why would the AFL compromise the 3rd-party perception that the investigation will be fair and honest by allegedly leaking small amounts of information or allegations? 5. I wonder if there is any truth to the rumour that the AFL view our current administration as being too big for its boots? But think about this whole scenario in the context of a criminal investigation. Flippant comments made four years ago to a room of people who allegedly have differing recollections of those comments is hardly damning evidence that those comments were endorsed, or that they constituted a directive to staff, players or coaches to lose at all costs or fix a match. MFC is clearly being made an example of by the media. it remains to be seen whether we will also be made an example of by the AFL.

great post.

Checkmate...

Why are so many people SOOO short sighted that they actually believe that what she has written - given her factual track record in other issues - is concrete evidence of what factually occured?

And a fair bit of stupidity. Do you have irrefutable evidence that Melbourne tolds its players not to play to their best in particular games? Does one or two statements that are alleged to have been made by one administrator at the club (reported in two newspapers without any source quoted) constitute irrefutable evidence that we tanked? Denial would suggest that there is clear evidence and that we are just ignoring that evidence. What we are actually seeing however is accusations being made about comments being made and then based on those alleged comments, conclusions being drawn that they are enough to convict us of 'match fixing' as one article suggested. An article on the AFL's own website suggests that the investigation will almost certainly extend beyond this year's pending draft. According to the AFL's website the worst draft-related penalty we can receive is our picks being reduced to four of the last picks in that draft - meaning we would still get Viney. However, if we take a step back and ask the follow questions I think the whole thing becomes a little clearer: 1. Why is the investigation allegedly being conducted so rigouressly this time and not last time? 2. If betting agencies are so concerned about having MFC held to account for tanking, why did they only suspend betting in the Kruezer Cup and why are they satisfied that that game was not thoroughly investigated? 3. Who are Greg Denham and Caroline Wilson's sources? Is it an AFL source as with the Misfid saga? If so, how does the AFL rationalise there possible leaking of two stories before all facts have been put on the table in the context of their claims for integrity? 4. Is there any truth to the rumour that the AFL believe MFC's current administration is 'too big for its boots' considering it relies on AFL handouts to survive and that it needs to knock it down a peg? 5. is there any truth to the rumour that the AFL have already told the club that we will be held for bringing the game into disrepute and that we must suffer for the sins of the many as a way to demonstrate that the AFL's integrity has not been compromised for some time? 6. if the investigation has been going on for four months, why is only now that revelations are being leaked?

A simplistic comment.

Its coming from the AFL I reckon. Unless its bloody scully!

balanced opinion in a footy section of a newspaper - wow. How unusual.

I plan to stand around waving my fists and frothing at the mouth and saying F$%^^ing AFL at the pub for the next 30 years.

Remember that MFC's board contains QCs.