Dr John Dee

Taking a leaf out of the Collingwood book, we can make the gracious concession of describing the away jumper as Blue and Red.

Run out of arguments then have you?

Again, the present tense. What are you talking about? Anyway, I referred you to a list already mentioned. And I added Barassi. Try and tell anyone who saw Barassi play that Franklin influences a game the way RDB did.

Produces? Bit of a problem there. You said the last 150 years. Names already suggested above anyway. Add Ronald Dale to that list ...

Been around that long, have you? What a dumb statement.

I'd be happy to oblige but I have to maintain my distrust of anyone under 50.

Oh, of course, now I understand.

Only 15 years. Looxury.

Personally, i think I'd I'd prefer 2 in that a full Commission decision ought to add enough weight to the thing to bury it forever. A decision by Demetriou alone will leave it open to suspicions of coverups etc, although if the only evidence they've got really comes down to incidents of fumbling and so on then he might think he's on fairly safe ground in closing things himself.

In terms of the first, I think it's unlikely that there hasn't been any discussion in the AFL and probably the Commission about a general position on tanking, which Demetriou has then represented in his various pronouncements as CEO. But anything he's said to date involves only tanking in the commonly understood version of 'list management' (playing inexperienced players, playing players out of position for the experience etc). Hence the shift in the investigation towards an emphasis on the second point and the coaches box since that directly engages 19 (A5). There's no way the Commission is going to make a decision that hangs Demetriou out to dry (that is, contradicts his statements on list management). But you're right, he hasn't said anything about Jack Watts, fumbling, interchanges and so on. The two issues are separate and the second is all the investigation has been able to cling to. That's how I'd understand it, but the evidence is going to have to be very flimsy indeed for Demetriou not to choose the Pontius Pilate option that's been mentioned already and pass this on to the Commission.

As far as the processes from here on are concerned, it's true that Demetriou will only be one voice on the Commission which, I'd agree, is necessarily where the decision to do anything is going to fall. That doesn't stop Demetriou, as CEO, providing a recommendation to the Commission when he forwards the Clothier report/MFC etc responses to the Commission. At that stage the 'arms length' shortens considerably and, whether he does or doesn't make any recommendations, one of the issues the Commission is going to have to take on board is the effect of Demetriou's pronouncements in the past. So I doubt whether this is an either/or debate, it's much more both/and.

oh dear, excuse me ... didn't realise this was a private conversation.

In this case the AFL is the law. I don't think WJ was referring to anything issued by a court or enshrined in legislation (19 (5A) is the only 'legislation' that matters and it's what any actions of the club or individuals will have to be tested against).

AFL Regulation 19 (A5).

That captures the paradox perfectly. It's the AFL's problem now, of course, and no charges issued against anyone will resolve it.

Or a Melbourne 1954. Well, some of us are old enough to have that dream, even if it's in scratchy black and white.

Happy to see anyone anytime putting their hands in their pockets for the club, but this would be more or less what used to be called barratry; in effect, buying a position on the board. Board members ought to see being board members as enough to confer a vested interest on them.

Not just the photo, but the caption. Perhaps MN is talking to his lawyer already, but I'd hope the club strides into this one with size 14 Doc Martens.

I wasn't referring to your (elsewhere stated) political views, BH, just the observation in your post that you're 'usually the first to state that every man is the architect of his own destiny'. Since that was an obvious acknowledgment of a shift in your own position, your one-liner came across as a bit supercilious as well as self-contradictory. But I was only addressing the one liner to Sue, not questioning your flexibility in thinking, which I'd prefer to hope we're all capable of, even if we don't always agree on what to be flexible about.

Um ... since you admit to shifting from your usual assumption, whose breakthrough is it really?

Does this 'mob' (whoever they are) indulge in sweeping generalisations like this as well? Of course there's only a 'mob' if you ignore individual differences in the first place. But even if an opinion or attitude is broadly shared, that doesn't make it wrong, just as it doesn't make it right. You'd need a bit more than that.

Maybe it was a banana lounge and Redleg ate it.

How do you know that? Who have you been talking to?

The reinterview scenario seems a bit fanciful (or should that be Fan-ciful?) in this case because all the article offers is 60 supposed statements opposing Connolly's purported claim that no vault meeting took place ... a claim which then slides into a much vaguer one of Connolly's having only a hazy recollection of FD meetings. The usual shonky journalism.

Entirely understandable sentiments. The problem with the 'don't shoot the messenger' defence is that the media aren't messengers. They're the media, they mediate messages, which runs the gamut from interpreting them in wise and helpful ways (rare now, I admit) to interfering with them in all sorts of other ways.'I'm only the messenger' mightn't be the first refuge of the scoundrel, but it's pretty close.