rumpole

Does MFC membership automatically entitle you to membership of your affiliated VFL club these days?

The story is a beat up. As has been pointed out more than once, if there was an element of truth in the inference that Dank and his activities were indeed associated with the MFC on a professional basis, she would have written about players claiming to have been treated by him and not just seen by them. She's not only spiteful; she's dumb.

Who do you think fed Wilson the story about Schwab looking ashen faced after the team beat Port Adelaide? Who gave Robinson the story with alleged details about the Swans game at Manuka? Certainly not people friendly to the cause of the incumbent board.

By what measure is this not prima facie evidence that Carlton and Richmond acted to prejudice the interests of the AFL? If Demetriou is not prepared to institute an investigation then he and the commissioners should resign forthwith. Fitzpatrick is conflicted on this one anyway.

I think 2013 will be the year when Jack Watts will shake off his detractors and come of age as a top level AFL footballer.

My guess is that if there is a $500k fine a significant part of it could be suspended.

No worries.I know your point and consider it to be poorly thought out and illogical. I was answering your silly question, but that's OK.

The article says he was intoxicated on the night which is interesting. Does anyone know if he has a problem with alcohol? I'm not suggesting he was Franz Liszt at the time but one would be horrified if he was even a bit tipsy when he appeared on On The Couch. And the AFL launched a 6 month investigation on the strength of words uttered by this person?

Melbourne and many other teams (including Carlton over a three year period) list managed and selected their teams and placed their players without having a great amount of regard for the outcome of games. Carlton took Fevola off the ground against Collingwood for long periods of time when he was "on fire" and would have won the game for them had he stayed on the ground. The Blues led Essendon by 5 goals at half time at the MCG, changed what was a winning combination and fell apart and lost and in the Kreuzer Cup nobody tagged Travis on his way to a career high 42 (dangerous) possessions. They went wide and to the flanks way to often that day. Everyone knew what was going on and a fat, overweight and unfit Whitnall was a joke at FF while Fev was hospitalised a month early to keep him out of this game in particular. The Blues were boasting about how smart they were at the time. Collingwood lost eight in a row at the end of 2005 and put in some shockers courtesy of some deft list management. I remember turning the TV off during a Friday night game when they were so obviously trying not to win that I couldn't watch any more. I don't expect any of that to be investigated the way they did with our game at Manuka when our players tried their guts out against the Swans. They were undermanned, were never going to win. Once you allow what the AFL did when Freo dropped half its team for a meaningless final round game, intention and morality aren't relevant. The AFL set the precedent and they should take responsibility for the tanking controversy.

At least the desk isn't as old as your jokebook.

For a club that has, in recent years, been perpetually near the bottom of the ladder and a constant target of the vultures in the media, Melbourne has done extremely well in attracting lucrative new sponsorship deals, something it was less able to do before Cameron Schwab took on the role of CEO.

Was he really Voldemort's manager too?

So the answer to the question is that we tanked in those years or we didn't tank in those years?

We understand the point you're trying to make about who constitutes the body which will ultimately decide the AFL's position on whether to lay charges but WJ makes an entirely different point in connection to the rule against tanking.That is, Melbourne's understanding of what was meritorious was based on advice given in and prior to 2009 by the AFL's CEO. Further, as Redleg pointed out, on any prosecution of a breach of the rule, the AFL would be held to accept that interpretation. One would expect the Commissioners to have legal advice to that effect and act accordingly on that advice and not on anyone's personal views as to what constitutes tanking.

The AFL will only act if there is a recommendation from the CEO to lay charges. If he does so, then Mike Fitzpatrick has a problem since he heads the commission and, to date, his former club Carlton which would, if it has reached that stage, also be open to a charge. Questions might be asked as to why he hasn't excused himself and why the Blues haven't been investigated. This scenario could lead to a situation where the AFL has a lame duck chairman and a lame duck CEO. Oh dear!

Try reading AFL Regulation 19 (A5) and then read the article quoted by WJ. All of those things which Vlad approved in the article are not included in the AFL's definition of tanking. The rest remains the AFL's interpretation of the law on the matter.

My question is whether the club has made provision in next year's budget for income derived from the proceeds of defamation actions against members of the media and other individuals and, if so, how much is it expecting to receive (to the nearest $100k)?

If you weren't so full of yourself and read the relevant parts of the thread you'd learn that WJ wasn't derailing the thread but they he mentioned you in response to another poster. You embarrass yourself every time you appear on Land.

You have proof of what you're alleging? You mean we should get rid of the blokes who turned the club that stood for nothing and was $5m in debt into a club that now has an excess of assets over liabilities to the tune of $7m? Who would you replace them with? Any ideas?

To bring the game into disrepute means there has to be a very public act committed by people that damages the game's reputation. If people have private discussions within club which aren't acted upon then it can hardly be said that the game has been brought into disrepute. If Bailey is not guilty of anything (and I don't believe that he is) them the disrepute claim must fail as must the draft tampering claim. If the case against Bailey rises or falls because of three minutes at the end of the Jordan McMahon, then where would the case be had McMahon missed the shot after the siren? The AFL has no case. This farce needs to be put to an end ASAP.

mjt - as a sh!t stirrer, I mark you an E- but if you hang around long enough you might improve your ranking a little because some of the best of them hang around here pretending they have the club's interests at heart. In short, you're way out of your depth.

I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as a "normal parking inspector"!

The knee stood up in 2012. It was the heart that wasn't there.

That's the sort of interpretation that would make it a dead set certainty for the whole thing to end up in court. And you're assuming that Connolly said anything that could be taken to be a serious directive.

... but basically what we've all assumed to be the case from the time the information was first leaked to Caroline Wilson. The question is what weight one puts on the word of disgruntled ex-employees who left the club on bad terms. If one of them is who I think he is, then he was involved in plenty of spats even before he left and his credibility will be in tatters before the Fink finishes up with him.