diesel

She was asked about that a couple of days ago and said "you've gotta laugh". Her exact words, not misquoting or applying context as she evidently does.

You are delusional if your hope is to somehow demonstrate complicity through the fact they haven't responded. 1) McLardy has previously stated the club rejected allegations of deliberately loosing games and would defend itself. 2) The AFL investigation is incomplete. and no 'facts' have been presented. 3) Responding to any media allegations would simply feed their frenzy and serves only their interest. One very basic understanding of being a board member or CEO is to follow a proper process. Once an allegation or charge is presented then the club needs to present it's side. If you don't have that basic understanding you really are unqualified to comment on anyone at the clubs approach to this matter.

She's actually clueless. Thinking about context, joking or otherwise it was quite reasonable to discuss the implications of winning more games because the AFL put in place rules that would have a major impact on the club and it's drafting at the end of the year. He was Footy Manager FFS!

That and essentially she is just a mouthpiece of the AFL, hence her being spoon feed these leaks on the investigation. This is designed to build pressure on those who are being investigated. Tonight she brushed off and was dismissive of the actions of other clubs in similar circumstances to Melbourne. She was also dismissive of the the AFL taking any responsibility for putting the MFC in the invidious position of having the priority pick dangled in front of us. Background this against having Carlton role over in front of us only 12 months earlier and the extreme pressure from the football world to get the priority pick, her position is just selective. It is a worry that she has formed such strong opinions on this and given she is being drip fed information it is easy to think her views may be those of the AFL.

Pull your head in FFS. The club has said it won't comment during an ongoing investigation. Why do we have to respond to Witch Wilson's trumpeting? McLardy has said previously that the club will "vigorously" defend itself. Take a couple a couple of Bex and lie down. I know it's hard to accept but the Wilson thread on this has already gone on with umpteen pages of carp between WYL & America de Cali, do we need another?

I listened to Caroline Wilson tonight and she is running a hard agenda against the MFC on this. She was flippant about other clubs doing the similar or same thing. Evidently no one has been investigated as thoroughly as Melbourne I find her position unbelievably hypocritical. Good investigative journalist she might be but she also needs to pull her head in on giving her opinion. Hopefully the AFL can act independent of such shrillness.

I don't think people are grasping the issue that the AFL cannot have an adverse finding against Melbourne without ending up in Court, either by Melbourne or more significantly with the betting agencies. Another point, the concept that a club (which is a business) cannot act on strategies to improve its position over its own time frame is also perhaps a legal matter to be argued. It is totally reasonable that an FD would sit down and discuss its position in the broad context of playing list personnel and draft picks. It only becomes an issue in realtion to bettig if that information was acted on through placing bets. This is the WHOLE issue as I see it. Not tanking per se, whatever the AFL or legal worlds definition of that is? Of course given the caliber of the investigators I don't doubt that some of the people involved may have shot themselves in the foot. Also given The Age has also chosen to humiliate Demetriou as part of this story I don't discount that he may want to extract some sort of revenge against us, somehow?

It's bulltish. The players were trying to win that day. tanking would have to prove corroboration at all levels. I was there that day, not cheering at the siren but rather incredulous at the ridiculous position we were in (i.e. you loose, you win). In essence the AFL and their inaction on teams that went before us is to blame.

What had me rolling my eyes last week was Damian Barrett who said in relation to Melbourne's trade and FA period "I just don't get it" and then proceeded to mark us an E. If you don't get it Dammo how can you mark it? Bit like having your Art Teacher mark your Physics Exam. Instead of giving Melbourne an E he should have given himself an uppercut. His hysteria over Jesse Hogan picks we traded without even mentioning Barry as a gain also smelt like a guy running an agenda.

I would equate your Suzuki to Kelvin Lawrence.

You don't get it? He was a rookie. Complaining about him being a "wasted pick" is like complaining that your Kia doesn't drive like a Ferrari. How many rookies have clubs drafted over the years that never played a senior game? We only hear about the successful ones. I consider the real wasted picks to be those under 40 that don't go one with it. Players drafted after 50 play and average of 5 games! My statement that he delivered is really just to acknowledge that I actually rated some of his games in the ruck. Top 10 finish in the B & F in 2011 shows he wasn't as entirely hopeless as you believe. Given responsibility and a settled position he performed OK. He was also able to build an AFL body unlike Morton & Gysberts who remain too light to ever compete at the top level.

As a rookie and therefore speculative draft pick Martin delivered compared to Morton & Gysberts or half a dozen other 1st round picks we've had in the last 5 years and most of those were rated genuine a-grade footballers.

As usual an over supply of armchair experts wanting to get their 2 cents in on why The reason Martin was let go was simply because the FD didn't require him. The rucks they have covered though Jamar would want to pull his finger out and stop dining on his AA selection. Gawn seems the logical successor but I no idea why Spencer would be preferred over Martin? Defensively I think we're set and offensively Stef just wasn't making enough impact and this trade period therefore sealed it for him to go.

Injury would have has SFA to do with Gysberts delisting. Taggert is a first year player who has evidently come to us with an injury and some interrelated problems as I understand it.

You're right the proof will be in the pudding for Neeld's tenure but there is no historical revision in BBB's assessment of the Bailey era.

Pretty hard to draw any other conclusion. Would have thought Gillies was a walk up with Scarlett gone but he's gone from being promised extra games last year to being pushed out the door this year.

Gumbleton is the name given to the dried deposits on the sauce bottle lid & neck

No disrespect to you DL7 but I find that ridiculous and I'm surprised you think it worthy of repeating here. It could well be the private thoughts of the bloke but I prefer to think someone has made it up. How do YOU reckon you'd go as an 18 YO standing up in front of a senior AFL coach and s room full of recruiters and fo all intents saying F*** Off! Doesn't sound very plausible does it? At the same time ppl on these boards will rightfully slag off a journo for repeating any "rumour" as if it is fact

No Way. Not even if we don't have to use pick 3 on Viney. if we do this I'll be mad as hell. It does smell of desperation.

The title of this thread and Age story are misleading. The names Wellingham & Dawes should not be associated with the phrase "super trade". Sounds like something straight out of Collingwood's media dept. I understand the pies will want to boost the stock of these blokes but as others have mentioned they are spare parts hence that's why Collingwood are willing to part with them. We should walk away now and let it pan out between Collingwood & West Coast and just keep a mild interest in Dawes. Keeping in mind that the bloke they've just recruited to replace Dawes walked from his club and was picked up as an FA tells me Dawes has stuff all value despite Eddie's B & F pillow fluffing of his value. Pick 13 is way over the odds, though I accept we will pay a higher price given our mediocre list he's a late 2nd round max.

Well Jack doesn't appear in any of the physical or skills top 10's so If he gave the line in interviews that his preference is to play for Melbourne his stocks should have fallen over the last few days.

Have to say I'm surprised how many of supporters are completely missing the point of why we'd recruit Shannon Byrnes. Don't be distracted by his shortcomings or the fact he spent time this year in Geelong's reserves. If fit, he's a starter at the MFC. Byrnes is a good fit. Like Clarke before him he could go straight into our leadership group, especially if Rivers departs.

Sauce? Why would Harrington meet the Pies now? We don't know what we're paying for Viney yet. That is massive in terms of what we do with pick 4. There is no way we'll be trading out pick 4 if we are forced to use 3 on Viney. Besides which and as others have said 4 is too way high. We should easily be able to package someone off to Collingwood to move this back to pick 13.

I don't see this 'meeting' as totally unbelievable. 'IF' he did I would expect (I hope?) Jack told them that he would seek a trade back to Victoria as soon as he did his 2 years up there. If GC still draft him after he said that they'd be morons? You don't build a club & culture by bringing in blokes who don't want to be there. It is a huge risk for GC. We shouldn't think they have all the cards to play in this.

If the Pies had lodged papers it would have been announced based on what's happened with the other FA's so far. Tells me Lynch is weighing up his options.