Craig Thompson joins meltank as PR advisor, perhaps?Surely the ludicrous thread title should now be corrected?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Craig Thompson joins meltank as PR advisor, perhaps?Surely the ludicrous thread title should now be corrected?
Everyone knows there is evidence and is waiting for the AFL to bring down the hammer.
******* lol that you of all people would be making this kind of post suggesting the AFl can't proved Melbourne tanked. You being the one who was proud of his team tanking and all.
Can you email me your copy of the AFL report please?
They are hanging their hats on the term "the Vault" and how the meeting was NEVER codenamed that., whatever it was called 57 people say it occured.
They are hanging their hats on the term "the Vault" and how the meeting was NEVER codenamed that., whatever it was called 57 people say it occured.
You've been pretty confused throughout this thread, but you're confusing 57 witness statements with 57 witnesses. We all know that some (most?) witnesses have been interviewed more than once. We also know that a number (many?) of those witnesses have denied that such meeting(s) ever took place.
Not hanging our hats on anything of the sort ... if you'd bothered to actually inform yourself, The Vault referred to one of our temporary sheds. The name was an in-house joke, derived from our sponsorship deal with Volvo, and a comment on the parlous state of our FD infrastructure down at Junction Oval. There was never any specific meeting to discuss tanking (confirmed numerous times in the media and by those involved). On the other hand, there were regular match and FD meetings with around a dozen in attendance, and held at Junction Oval in ... The Vault.
Read my post
Wow I want Melbourne to get screwed up just for the sole reason of watching @Demonhearts meltdown, GIVE IT A REST MATE! You have seriously been here this whole thread, we know where you stand just shut the **** up and leave already!
The Age published an article after Caro's original allegations and after the results of the investigation were handed to the MFC for comment, saying that there were 57 witness statements and most of them contradicted Connolly's statement that no such meeting took place. .
Everything's possible in bizarro-world...Oh no, not this again.
How could there be 57 witnesses when the meeting only had about a dozen people attend?
What do you think was sent to Melbourne?
Oh no, not this again.
How could there be 57 witnesses when the meeting only had about a dozen people attend?
About 1000 pages of opinion, hearsay and speculation with some already known facts mixed in.
Saying "Everyone knows there is evidence." is not evidence. It's an opinion.
Opinion does not allow the AFL to lay charges.
I hope that helps you.
I did not say it was not evidence. Read my post properly.Opinion, hearsay and speculation is evidence. You can debate their evidentiary value (whether fully verifiable and genuine or baseless defamatory tripe), but it's certainly evidence.
I did not say what was certainly the contents of the dossier.It's very funny how you seem so certain as to the contents of the dossier sent to Melbourne, while dismissive of what others think may be in it.
Why does the AFL do anything?Both you and I have little clue about it but it's most assuredly not entirely irrelevant crap. Why would the AFL send 1000 pages of nothing?
LOL @ Troy McClure....
"Well, those are kinds of evidence!"
Of course there is evidence, the only thing in question is the quality of that evidence. As in, is it good enough for any charges laid to stick.
Who knows? I'm just reposting what has been reported in a newspaper, making that post a damn sight more credentialed than the speculative, un-referenced crud smeared all over the thread by you.
Right here: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/connolly-claims-conspiracy-20130114-2cpwu.htmlWhich article states that 57 people said that? I have yet to see it
Interesting there have been no leaks about evidence gained through the search of the office and computers etc. you would think if there was something at least something minor would have been leaked. Kind of makes me think they will be relying on the witness statements and interviews. No wonder investigators pushed Bailey and co so hard to roll.
LOL @ Troy McClure....
"Well, those are kinds of evidence!"
I did not say it was not evidence. Read my post properly.
I wrote that stating "Everyone knows there is evidence." is not evidence.
I did not say what was certainly the contents of the dossier.
I gave my opinion, as does everyone else here. My opinion stands - the report contains opinion, hearsay and speculation with some already known facts mixed in.
Why does the AFL do anything?
It has been a long time for documents to have been sitting around in filling cabinets or hard drives waiting to be found. I'd be pretty worried about the competence of those in charge if that sort of easy to destroy evidence had been left for the investigators.