Fantastic response from Don and the club.

I despise this woman.

So why isn't she being sued?

To use an Americanism: "That will be the cherry on top. "

Actually, Caro's mental descent is all part of Cameron Schwab's plan to fix our low membership by engineering an MFC baby boom nine months after we finally get off this farcical investigation without charge.

not a bad plan at all! I like it. I will be cracking a quiet half dozen when she gets summoned. Having thought about for half an hour today was the day Don had to stand tall after that article this morning.

He got the Green Light...

Ha ha ha!

She really has no clue....gutter journo at best.

Go Donny boy!!

Excellent, timely and measured response by the President

So why isn't she being sued?

I expect she, and the Age, will be after this is all over.

Well done, Don. VERY pleased to see the Club did not let that piece of uninformed, gutter journalism pass without the contempt that it deserved.

There is a time to say "enough is enough!". This is that time.

Go Dees!

Actually, Caro's mental descent is all part of Cameron Schwab's plan to fix our low membership by engineering an MFC baby boom nine months after we finally get off this farcical investigation without charge.

Sorry Cameron I've already holstered the pistol. Nicely said DON and much appreciated by the faithful

The Age is no longer a sponsor going by the MFC website. they seem to have been replaced by The Sun

So why isn't she being sued?

By who? I cbf going back and reading all her articles again but has she ever accused anybody individually of throwing games? She's mentioned all the big hitters but generally under the cloak of what's being investigated. The club can't sue for damage done to our reputation, so unless one of Connolly/Schwab/Bailey is going to have a pop at her under their own name it's not going happen.

Having said that I'd love it if she had, but not sure anybody involved with this would take the oath and testify under penalty of perjury. Let's just take (hopefully) getting off and leave it there.

I buy the Age only because they are a Melbourne sponsor and get a good deal.

I must say that I would prefer to get the HUN if I got a similar deal.

You're in luck!

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/the-club/sponsors

The Age are no longer a sponsor of the club. The Herald Sun has taken their place.

I'd hope once this is all over that several different parties sue the pants off Caro and The Age for the rubbish they've printed.

Edited February 13, 201312 yr by Lord Travis

maybe the hun would bankroll us to take kero to court?

Good response from Don, professional and to the point!! However this is what he really ment:

LANGUAGE WARNING!!!!

Looks like the suing has already started.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-02-12/croad-to-sue-fairfax-for-defamation

Here's hoping that Fairfax cop it from all angles and get absolutely destroyed in court. It's only fair they get comprehensively shat on, so their reputation gets destroyed just as they have destroyed the reputations of others.

I'm pleased he's gone on the front foot, but I'd keep your excitement in check until any official ruling.

Laughs were had, and they were hearty.

I wonder if we'll get a retraction?

Laughs were had, and they were hearty.

I wonder if we'll get a retraction?

Considering she said that Don was "wrong" and that "I don't care what he says" and that she still has "contacts within Melbourne" and that his comments were "absolute bulltish" and that charges WILL be laid, although she's not sure how it will be worded, I don't think so.

Courtesy 3AW tonight.

Great reply from Don McLardy.......I would suggest all of us write a 'letter to the editor' asking that firstly the Age print a retraction and apology, and secondly that Caroline Wilson be relieved of her position at The Age. They won't publish the letters of course, but an inundation of like sentiments

will most certainly reach the ears of those who matter at the newspaper.

Considering she said that Don was "wrong" and that "I don't care what he says" and that she still has "contacts within Melbourne" and that his comments were "absolute bulltish" and that charges WILL be laid, although she's not sure how it will be worded, I don't think so.

Courtesy 3AW tonight.

So in summary:

She mad.

So in summary:

She mad.

Possibly, although her state of mind has little interest for me.

Will we be charged ? That's the question. Her opinion is that we will, but the charges will be relatively light.

All Don said was, he does not agree with CW. A very defensive response and with no chest thumping assertation of inocence. A nothing statement which is worrying.

In her opinion piece in today’s Age, Caroline Wilson states that “Melbourne worked hard to lose games of football that year” (being 2009), and that “Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009”. The information provided by the AFL to Melbourne Football Club after its 7 month investigation does not support either of these allegations.

Wilson also lists 5 points that she says forms part of MFC’s “unofficial defence”, and concludes these “stated excuses” are “flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish”. In fact not one of these points has been raised in the submission made by the MFC to the AFL, and in any hearing before the AFL Commission none will form part of our defence.

So the key points of Wilson’s opinion piece are just plain wrong - but as we all know in football, everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

We will continue to keep our members and supporters updated of developments.

Don McLardy

President

Would this line indicate that we are expecting to be asked to meet with the AFL commission for an official hearing? I ask this based on that Don said "will not" rather than "would not".

So why isn't she being sued?

I asked this question in the tanking thread.

It, to me as a layman, appears to be libellous or slanderous or whatever.

And well done Don.

Edited February 13, 201312 yr by monoccular

Good response from Don, professional and to the point!! However this is what he really ment:

LANGUAGE WARNING!!!!

I particularly like the 1.24 one !!!

All Don said was, he does not agree with CW. A very defensive response and with no chest thumping assertation of inocence. A nothing statement which is worrying.

Don stated we didnt manipulate or deliberately lose any games in 2009 which is what CW has stated as fact. That is a statement of innocence.

Would this line indicate that we are expecting to be asked to meet with the AFL commission for an official hearing? I ask this based on that Don said "will not" rather than "would not".

Reading too much into it.