That's nice, pity the papers (which you are using as your evidence so I'll quote the same source) specifically stated that it was Bailey who said he took it as a joke that the Zulu's will get them. Interesting that you're accusing me of derailing the thread because I'm using the same source of info that you are, my guess is that it doesn't suit your agenda so you're trying to dismiss it.
Like I said, the Zulu thing isn't likely to be relevant because if the AFL are relying on that to back up their case they will lose. Assuming they have lawyers who aren't hacks they have something solid to back up their case otherwise they wouldn't have issues their ultimatum to the club officials ("tell us why we shouldn't charge you"). That is unless the AFL want the case to fall over, but what do they have to gain from that?
The investigation team are having to rely on this type of crud and other juicy evidence such as Jack Watts only playing a handful of games and the players fumbling because they have no rock solid evidence. There have found no smoking guns, nothing concrete to get the club on. No emails, no standing orders, just a couple of ex-employees who left the club on bad terms have made wishy washy accusations, sadly (for people like yourself) there is conflicting evidence from many others. Even the person who gave AA the very reason as to why the investigation took place in the first place made a massive backflip that an Olympic Gymnast would have been proud of.
For someone who is pretty keen on calling people out for posting speculative crap you sure are coming up with a lot of speculative crap. The Watts stuff was never linked to the 800/1000 (take your pick, the papers seem to use either number) page brief of evidence the club received, the news report simply said the AFL had looked into it and asked some questions. The key here is that not every line of questioning delivers worthwhile information. Just ask any cop. Ditto with the fumbling. As with the Zulu thing, if the AFL is relying on these to back up their case they will lose.
So far the only thing I have seen that has been definitively linked to the brief has been the 60 witness statements contradicting Connolly - based on the wording in that article no one can say for sure if Connolly's 'conspiracy' claims are included in the brief. I'm not trying to accuse the club of anything here, I'm just reading between the lines of the sensationalist crap that pervades our media.
So the questions are: can an entity as powerful and well staffed as the AFL really be dumb enough to be relying on those for evidence? Why would they bother setting up an investigation specifically to fail and what could they possibly have to gain from this? Why continue this charade when the investigation could conclude that there is none or not enough evidence to justify threatening the club officials with charges?
Of course AA lost his job as well, a casualty of a poorly lead investigation.
[
Citation needed]
We're now seeing in almost every article how poorly the investigation team handled it, stop/start recording, threats and heavy handed interrogations,
Maybe this is the case, we'll most likely find out after charges have been formally laid if questions about the collection of evidence is used in the defense.
the AFL's brand is being damaged thanks to AA.
[
Citation needed]
The MFC haters are going to be very disappointed when this is all finished, will you be one of them?
No, not really, but it depends on how it ends. I'd really like to read what was found out to be honest because if they are relying on shit like Watts not playing enough games then I'd hate to see charges stick. I'll stick my neck out for the AFL here because I honestly don't think they're that stupid though.