If nothing happens to us I don't think we should sue. But I would advocate a few things:

- we dump The Age as a sponsor and make it clear to the members and fans why.

- impose a club boycott of the paper, not necessarily buy but comments and stories. If at a press conference and it is an age reporter asking a question (apart from Gary if he sticks with them), have a company line we use every time, "I'm sorry but our club will not answer questions from connections to The Age".

- give every exclusive to the HS and the AFL website. The Age will have to get all their info second hand.

We do this for one season, reassess and then make a decision to continue or rescind the boycott. If CW and The Age issue a formal apology we stop the boycott.

The club won't sue, because it legally can't.

.............

Maybe.

If MacDonalds gets slagged in the press, do you mean to tell me they will role over? BS.

Protect the brand.

Eg. the HUN on Friday used the MFC logo in an article about tanking. FFS. Go for them! Protect the trade mark!

We should just ignore the COAT and tell them never to send it to our club for a story .

Inform security she is never to enter the building .

Force the Age to retract.

Make them up their sponsordhip or drop them.

I think we need to put all our attention onto winning our next flag.

As soon as is possible.

I have little to no knowledge of law but if we are cleared by the afl etc is it possible to take Wilson and co to court for defamation?

Maybe.

If MacDonalds gets slagged in the press, do you mean to tell me they will role over? BS.

Protect the brand.

Eg. the HUN on Friday used the MFC logo in an article about tanking. FFS. Go for them! Protect the trade mark!

Good example. I can't remember how long the McLibel case in the UK took, but it was years.

Don't boycott The Age, just Caroline Wilson.

I would love to see the Age whipped in court.

If it is a winnable case. Bring it on. It won't effect the team. But it will give us better Journo's.

I daresay you have never run a case against someone in court. It is draining, expensive, time consuming and incredibly emotional and difficult. And we have no case. I repeat again - a company cannot sue for defamation any more. The law was changed about 6 years ago. Connolly possibly could but he shouldn't touch it with a barge pole. As for Schwab he was outed as a party to salary cap cheating under Gutnick so arguably would be pretty difficult to defame him over this as his reputation is already somewhat 'sullied'.

The court of public opinion will side with Caro because most people think we tanked. There is nothing to be gained.

Forget it and move on. And quickly. The best revenge is to win games. Make them fear playing us. It has never happened in my lifetime and I would love to follow a team where that was the case. Our meagre energies are much better spent doing that.

I daresay you have never run a case against someone in court. It is draining and incredibly emotional and difficult. And we have no case. I repeat again - a company cannot sue for defamation any more. The law was changed about 6 years ago. Connolly possibly could but he shouldn't touch it with a barge pole. As for Schwab he was outed as a party to salary cap cheating under Gutnick so arguably would be pretty difficult to defame him over this as his reputation is already somewhat 'sullied'.

The court of public opinion will side with Caro because most people think we tanked. There is nothing to be gained.

Forget it and move on. The best revenge is to win games. Make them fear playing us. It has never happened in my lifetime and I would love to follow a team where that was the case. Our meagre energies are much better spent doing that.

Thank god there is someone on here that understands the real world.

Thanks jnr

You are 100% correct winning games is the only way forward for the MFC.

I daresay you have never run a case against someone in court. It is draining, expensive, time consuming and incredibly emotional and difficult. And we have no case. I repeat again - a company cannot sue for defamation any more. The law was changed about 6 years ago. Connolly possibly could but he shouldn't touch it with a barge pole. As for Schwab he was outed as a party to salary cap cheating under Gutnick so arguably would be pretty difficult to defame him over this as his reputation is already somewhat 'sullied'.

The court of public opinion will side with Caro because most people think we tanked. There is nothing to be gained.

Forget it and move on. And quickly. The best revenge is to win games. Make them fear playing us. It has never happened in my lifetime and I would love to follow a team where that was the case. Our meagre energies are much better spent doing that.

Jnrmac, I agree with most of what you have to say in your post, however I must take you to task on one point. Schwab was not party or responsible for the salary cap breaches which were uncovered in 1999. The breaches took place between 1993 & 1996 and were actually uncovered by Schwab after Gutnick enquired if there were issues. We then reported these inconsistencies to the AFL ourselves in the hope of less severe sanctions ( which did not turn out as planned). Schwab was not involved in player payments in the time the breaches occurred. He was Richmond CEO from 1989 - 1994 and came back to the demons to work in recruiting before taking over as CEO from Hassa Mann in 1997. I'm sorry for hijacking the thread but I think this misconception should be cleared up. No matter Schwab's shortcomings, he was a scapegoat of the Gutnick board.

Jnrmac, I agree with most of what you have to say in your post, however I must take you to task on one point. Schwab was not party or responsible for the salary cap breaches which were uncovered in 1999. The breaches took place between 1993 & 1996 and were actually uncovered by Schwab after Gutnick enquired if there were issues. We then reported these inconsistencies to the AFL ourselves in the hope of less severe sanctions ( which did not turn out as planned). Schwab was not involved in player payments in the time the breaches occurred. He was Richmond CEO from 1989 - 1994 and came back to the demons to work in recruiting before taking over as CEO from Hassa Mann in 1997. I'm sorry for hijacking the thread but I think this misconception should be cleared up. No matter Schwab's shortcomings, he was a scapegoat of the Gutnick board.

Hi CS how is life going ?

only joking!

Hi OD, I'm obviously not CS but despite any mistakes he has made in the past, he shouldn't get blamed for indiscrections that were the fault of others. I prefer to deal in facts where possible.

Hi OD, I'm obviously not CS but despite any mistakes he has made in the past, he shouldn't get blamed for indiscrections that were the fault of others. I prefer to deal in facts where possible.

Glad you saw the humour DW

A lack of that around DL at present

I daresay you have never run a case against someone in court. It is draining, expensive, time consuming and incredibly emotional and difficult. And we have no case. I repeat again - a company cannot sue for defamation any more. The law was changed about 6 years ago. Connolly possibly could but he shouldn't touch it with a barge pole. As for Schwab he was outed as a party to salary cap cheating under Gutnick so arguably would be pretty difficult to defame him over this as his reputation is already somewhat 'sullied'.

The court of public opinion will side with Caro because most people think we tanked. There is nothing to be gained.

Forget it and move on. And quickly. The best revenge is to win games. Make them fear playing us. It has never happened in my lifetime and I would love to follow a team where that was the case. Our meagre energies are much better spent doing that.

Agree totally jnr. Let our footy do the talking!

I daresay you have never run a case against someone in court. It is draining, expensive, time consuming and incredibly emotional and difficult. And we have no case. I repeat again - a company cannot sue for defamation any more. The law was changed about 6 years ago. Connolly possibly could but he shouldn't touch it with a barge pole. As for Schwab he was outed as a party to salary cap cheating under Gutnick so arguably would be pretty difficult to defame him over this as his reputation is already somewhat 'sullied'.

The court of public opinion will side with Caro because most people think we tanked. There is nothing to be gained.

Forget it and move on. And quickly. The best revenge is to win games. Make them fear playing us. It has never happened in my lifetime and I would love to follow a team where that was the case. Our meagre energies are much better spent doing that.

Not that I'm particularly in favour of any defamation action on the part of the club, but did that change occur in all jurisdictions? If not, all that would matter is where the Age is sold/circulated.

If there is no case to answer to from the AFL do we really want to give this more oxygen by either CS or CC sueing the Age/CW. All that will succeed in doing is keeping it in the headlines.

Let this story line the bottom of the canary cage as it rightly deserves.

If there is no case to answer to from the AFL do we really want to give this more oxygen by either CS or CC sueing the Age/CW. All that will succeed in doing is keeping it in the headlines.

Let this story line the bottom of the canary cage as it rightly deserves.

I understand what you're saying and I doubt there'll be any suing, but that question is for the individual. It's not up to the club, or anyone else, to tell them what to do in this regard. It's a very personal matter.

I had an interesting conversation this morning. I was told that a melbourne board member had a conversation with Wilson before the first article by her. After the conversation he (stupidly) mistakenly sent a text to her instead of the intended recipient mclardy. The text basically ridiculed her and mentioned that she didn't know [censored]. This I am being told is the reason she is going so hard at us.

Interesting if true. Perhaps this explains her (seemingly) completely disproportionate and vitriolic over-reaction to the new evidence of MFC 'tanking', which essentially consisted of nothing more than Chris Connolly cracking a gag in the 'Vault' a few years ago.

That 'new' evidence appears to have formed the basis of her week long tirade against the club.

Unbelievable.

Still waiting to read her article on Richmond.

I understand what you're saying and I doubt there'll be any suing, but that question is for the individual. It's not up to the club, or anyone else, to tell them what to do in this regard. It's a very personal matter.

And if CS or CC decide to move on, prospective employers would certainly take into account these goings on - no matter how innocent they may be proven to be, this will not help future prospects. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.

I wouldn't be spending time and money on a defamation action against Wilson. Our major focus after this "tanking" issue plays itself out should be the team we put on the field and getting it to a point where it can compete with the better clubs and aim to play finals football again as soon as possible. Suing Wilson would be a distraction our club doesn't need.

Whilst I agree there is not much to be gained by the Club pursuing legal action, I believe that individuals named may have a case worthy of litigation. If the investigations finds no case to answer in particular regards to the conduct of CC and CS then I for one would encourage them to purse defamation action against both the AGE and Wilson if they feel suitably aggrieved. I say this only because Wilson in particular needs to bought to account. The vendetta that she has waged against the club and the individuals involved should not go unchecked. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to further confrontations with her down the track. I believe that individual defamation would not overly distract the club on field. In an ideal world I would like to see a court order preventing Wilson from writing articles about the MFC and it's employees.

If the MFC or employees end up with "no case to answer" i would expect some legal action to follow toward those who hurled the mud.

This story won't go away for a few years yet.

Not that I'm particularly in favour of any defamation action on the part of the club, but did that change occur in all jurisdictions? If not, all that would matter is where the Age is sold/circulated.

It's National I believe (but stand to be corrected on that point).

Jnrmac, I agree with most of what you have to say in your post, however I must take you to task on one point. Schwab was not party or responsible for the salary cap breaches which were uncovered in 1999. The breaches took place between 1993 & 1996 and were actually uncovered by Schwab after Gutnick enquired if there were issues. We then reported these inconsistencies to the AFL ourselves in the hope of less severe sanctions ( which did not turn out as planned). Schwab was not involved in player payments in the time the breaches occurred. He was Richmond CEO from 1989 - 1994 and came back to the demons to work in recruiting before taking over as CEO from Hassa Mann in 1997. I'm sorry for hijacking the thread but I think this misconception should be cleared up. No matter Schwab's shortcomings, he was a scapegoat of the Gutnick board.

You are probably right. However my understanding that is Schwab while not actually responsible for the payments allowed them to continue hence his termination from Melbourne.

In any case in regard to defamation proceedings I think it would be very difficult for him given those circumstances.

Barrister: 'Sir you knew about illegal payments and allowed them to continue?"

Man in dock: "yes Sir"

Barrister: "then what kind of reputation do you think you have sir?"

etc etc

Having been in a dock its not pleasant (as a witness mind you)

You are probably right. However my understanding that is Schwab while not actually responsible for the payments allowed them to continue hence his termination from Melbourne.

In any case in regard to defamation proceedings I think it would be very difficult for him given those circumstances.

Barrister: 'Sir you knew about illegal payments and allowed them to continue?"

Man in dock: "yes Sir"

Barrister: "then what kind of reputation do you think you have sir?"

etc etc

Having been in a dock its not pleasant (as a witness mind you)

so Jnr am i right in saying that as a club the MFC just has to stand there and cop the shite that Wilson & co throw at them?

There must be a point of cut off.