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

Thanks Jnr, that helps clear up a bit of the territory for speculating.

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!

Rah rah rah.

Thanks for reading what I wrote.

Legally, many, if not most, corporations cannot sue for defamation. As in, many corporations aren't allowed to go to court and say 'hey, I was defamed'. The law won't recognise defamation against a corporation.

Individuals, though, have their own right.

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

Different country, different law.

Also, it was 20 years, up until the end of the case in the European Court of Human Rights. Made a great doco, too.

Still waiting to read her article on Richmond.

Don't hold your breath WYL, we both know there is more hope or her writing a piece on the Dees 2013 Premiership win against all odds!

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.

Yep. You could say BHP are a bunch of thieving murderers and they couldn't do anything about it (in Australia).

Yep. You could say BHP are a bunch of thieving murderers and they couldn't do anything about it (in Australia).

....and the same of the AFL ???!!!

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

Think this spells it out in layman's terms.

http://thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html

Don't hold your breath WYL, we both know there is more hope or her writing a piece on the Dees 2013 Premiership win against all odds!

Imagine that. From 4 wins to a premiership in a season.

Might almost get accused of tanking.

Think this spells it out in layman's terms.

http://thenewsmanual...stralia_02.html

So MFC being not for profit means we still have the option to sue for defamation.

Imagine that. From 4 wins to a premiership in a season.

Might almost get accused of tanking.

Maybe Caro will next try digging up the ancient history of MFC's incredible jump from big time losers 1953 to Grand Finalists for the next seven years straight!! Surely must have tanked in '53. Maybe she thinks we should have all those Flags stripped from us.

(Oh, I guess she won't be interested: CS, the target of her very personal vendetta, wasn't involved).

Rah rah rah.

Different country, different law.

That, of course, would depend on when the laws were written; though Jnr's already cleared that one up.

Yep. You could say BHP are a bunch of thieving murderers and they couldn't do anything about it (in Australia).

so anything legal has to cone from a singular person? That is astounding!!

Not doubting your word at all. You are obviously above this spiders web.

Maybe Caro will next try digging up the ancient history of MFC's incredible jump from big time losers 1953 to Grand Finalists for the next seven years straight!! Surely must have tanked in '53. Maybe she thinks we should have all those Flags stripped from us.

(Oh, I guess she won't be interested: CS, the target of her very personal vendetta, wasn't involved).

It's rather sad and a little tragic, that a Journalist is prepared to sacrifice her integrity just to exact some revenge over a matter that is of little interest to anyone, outside the parties involved.

so anything legal has to cone from a singular person? That is astounding!!

Not doubting your word at all. You are obviously above this spiders web.

Yep. The Directors and Officers could in principle sue if they have been 'identified' - clearly Schwab and Connolly have been but it may be that Howcroft, McLardy etc could also prove they have been impugned and identified by virtue of their common knowledge role as officers of the corporation.

I would guess that any Barrister worth his salt would advise CS and CC though to shut up and move on.

Have I missed something.... other that CW being quiet for a couple of days and Bailey coming out saying he didn't tell players to tank. Is that it? Is this why people are getting a little cocky about the tanking outcome?

Not wanting to be a wet blanket but no one really know what Anderson and his cronies have actually discovered. It could very likely be nothing, and could be inclusive,.. but we don't know. It isn't over yet though.

... wish it was though

CW is on holidays in Noosa, and unsurprisingly there has been no "breaking news" on the subject, worthy of a front page in The Age, or for that matter even a short paragraph after the district cricket scores at the end of the sports section.

People are ignoring the fact that her copy was given the green light by the age's lawyers.

Although there are occasionally successful defamation actions against journalists / media outlets, they aren't common. I haven't read anything defamatory in her stories - I'm not a legal expert, but I have been defamed, and managed to elicit a front-page apology in the offending publication for my troubles.

Had she written outright that Connolly or Schwab or anyone else is a cheat, it would be a different matter entirely - you then start to have a more compelling case that your reputation has been damaged and sullied. So far it's association and innuendo and implication.

But I suspect Wilson has seen the statements / spoken to one or two of the less senior / fringe members of staff who were at the meeting that day, and that this forms the basis of her claims.

The stories have faltered on two fronts; passing off Connolly's gag as the raison d'etre of the so-called vault meeting, and mistaking the venue of the meeting for its supposed codename. Strip those two elements away, and on my reading you're left with four-fifths of nothing. The speculation about the investigators revisiting witnesses and trying to match up accounts suggests that all but a couple of rogues are singing from the song-sheet.

None of that will matter though if we are ultimately found guilty in the investigation; then you can expect CW to win a Walkley and possibly claim the scalp of an MFC official or two.

People are ignoring the fact that her copy was given the green light by the age's lawyers.

Although there are occasionally successful defamation actions against journalists / media outlets, I haven't read anything defamatory in her stories. I'm not a legal expert, but I have been defamed, and managed to receive a front-page apology in the offending publication for my troubles.

Had she written outright that Connolly or Schwab or anyone else is a cheat, it would be a different matter entirely - you then start to have a more compelling case that your reputation has been damaged and sullied. So far it's association and innuendo and implication.

But I suspect Wilson has seen the statements / spoken to one or two of the less senior / fringe members of staff who were at the meeting that day, and that this forms the basis of her claims.

The stories have faltered on two fronts; passing off Connolly's gag as the raison d'etre of the so-called vault meeting, and mistaking the venue of the meeting for it's supposed codename. Strip those two elements away, and on my reading you're left with four-fifths of nothing. The speculation about the investigators revisiting witnesses and trying to match up accounts suggests that all but a couple of rogues are singing from the song-sheet.

None of that will matter though if we are ultimately found guilty in the investigation; then you can expect CW to win a Walkley and possibly claim the scalp of an MFC official or two.

Does the Age still sponsor the Walkleys?

Yep, but all the news organisations do to some extent

http://www.walkleys.com/current-sponsors

Yep, but all the news organisations do to some extent

http://www.walkleys.com/current-sponsors

How are the winners selected?

At lest It makes the off season more interesting

Cute definition. Now who has she libelled or defamed and who is going to waste their money in Court on chasing such a flimsy case. And if there is any action it is gong to be defended by Fairfax that published it. You need to think through the hoopla.

Well calling for people to be sacked is a good start. Not sure I would favour that if we are not charged though. There are ways to skin a cat.

Its a well trodden 'journalistic' path. You get a snippet of info from an insider, use colourful language such as 'vault' instead of meeting room, allude to sinister actions and disgruntled ex-employees/senior players. Throw a few damning stats in there (65 interchanges well below season avg etc) and presto you have a story.

They have not quoted anyone anywhere saying they were told to lose. I cant believe anyone is that stupid that they would tell an AFL investigator or journo that. Even thick-as-a-brick Brock didn't say outright we were told to lose ('it was a vibe' - a bit like Denis Denuto from the castle).

There is no smoking gun. Hold fire support our club and remember revenge is a dish best served cold. And winning will cure a lot of ills.

Its a well trodden 'journalistic' path. You get a snippet of info from an insider, use colourful language such as 'vault' instead of meeting room, allude to sinister actions and disgruntled ex-employees/senior players. Throw a few damning stats in there (65 interchanges well below season avg etc) and presto you have a story.

They have not quoted anyone anywhere saying they were told to lose. I cant believe anyone is that stupid that they would tell an AFL investigator or journo that. Even thick-as-a-brick Brock didn't say outright we were told to lose ('it was a vibe' - a bit like Denis Denuto from the castle).

There is no smoking gun. Hold fire support our club and remember revenge is a dish best served cold. And winning will cure a lot of ills.

You may never speak words truer than those jnr

Particularly " winning will cure a lot of ills".

You may never speak words truer than those jnr

Particularly " winning will cure a lot of ills".

What do you reckon old dee are we on the right track this time? I just have a feeling that this time we might and yes, I know, I say that every year but this might be a little different.

How are the winners selected?

I'm pretty sure the judging panels are made up of former / senior / eminent journos (if there is such a thing lol) and writers, the likes of les carlyon et al

What do you reckon old dee are we on the right track this time? I just have a feeling that this time we might and yes, I know, I say that every year but this might be a little different.

I think I am too scared to make a prediction RobbieF

Or it may just be that after the last 48 years I am now total cynical.

I hope not.

I think my overall feeling is " can it possible be worse"?

God I hope not.

A decision you scream.

Yes we will improve.