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.

You'll have also heard her say almost straight off the bat that she has "no idea". Thought that summed up her arguments well, too bad she didn't stop right there.

MFC and Essendon should get together and have a chat to the Editor of the Age.

She mad.

She very very mad.

Seems also some silence from her biggest "fan".

Well done Don. It has now come down to football Clubs having to defend themselves from opportunistic, ground hugging sporting "journalists".

Reading too much into it.

Am I? What makes you say that? I have given a clear explanation of what I thought of that part of the statement.

Given that it is a structured, open letter to members, I am doubtful that this is a slip up from Don.

Hi all, long time lurker, but I had had to say that the first real reference I have seen by McLardy about what is (or isn't!) in the brief from the AFL also containing a shot at Caro has made my evening!

Cheers

Love it the club is showing strength.

I too listened to this so called investigative journalist on the radio tonight. In the space of three sentences that came out of her mouth she stated the words "I think" on six occasions. This was later followed up with a "I don't know" and then the big barb that the President, the actual person who I would assume was a signatory on the MFC submission to AFL "was wrong".

She hasn't seen the submission that MFC did. She just "thinks" she has!.

The loser out of this could in fact be the radio station that is employing her. "I think" she is in fairy land.

Hi all, long time lurker, but I had had to say that the first real reference I have seen by McLardy about what is (or isn't!) in the brief from the AFL also containing a shot at Caro has made my evening!

Cheers

Welcome aboard Eelesie.

I echo your thoughts, well said !

How's that egg on your face working out cw?????

I too listened to this so called investigative journalist on the radio tonight. In the space of three sentences that came out of her mouth she stated the words "I think" on six occasions. This was later followed up with a "I don't know" and then the big barb that the President, the actual person who I would assume was a signatory on the MFC submission to AFL "was wrong".

She hasn't seen the submission that MFC did. She just "thinks" she has!.

The loser out of this could in fact be the radio station that is employing her. "I think" she is in fairy land.

I heard her too franga

I concure with your thoughts.

IMO what really happened tonight was she was saying I know what was in the submission and DM is a liar.

Hmm that is going to look interesting in a few days ( god I hope a few )

Am I? What makes you say that? I have given a clear explanation of what I thought of that part of the statement.

Given that it is a structured, open letter to members, I am doubtful that this is a slip up from Don.

He says "in any hearing..." - this is like saying "if there does happen to be a hearing...", so he is just covering all possibilities and is stating our position in regards to how the club would respond if they were required to.

The thing that concerns me about Caro's appearance on AW is her "sources inside Melbourne". Can we please plug these leaks and get rid of those "supporters" who would prefer to settle their vendettas at the expense of their club.

I heard her too franga

I concure with your thoughts.

IMO what really happened tonight was she was saying I know what was in the submission and DM is a liar.

Hmm that is going to look interesting in a few days ( god I hope a few )

Old, I didn't hear it, and due to the expected (and worthy) biased reports on here, I have got no idea what she said.

The thing I will say is that between today's article, and getting on the radio tonight and calling McLardy a liar (taking your word there!), she is putting her reputation right on the line. Would she be so idiotic to do that if she didn't have some facts? If she is wrong, she will lose not only respect from within the AFL community, but she will lose gigs on TV, on radio, and most likely her job.

That's why the minority on here are listening to her comments. I still have absolutely no doubt that she knows Schwab will be cleared, and that Connolly will get done.

He says "in any hearing..." - this is like saying "if there does happen to be a hearing...", so he is just covering all possibilities and is stating our position in regards to how the club would respond if they were required to.

In the unlikely event that we are required to attend a hearing, of course we would not use that as our defence.

I trust you can see the difference. Let's not forget, McLardy has read the 800 pages, not us.

The thing that concerns me about Caro's appearance on AW is her "sources inside Melbourne". Can we please plug these leaks and get rid of those "supporters" who would prefer to settle their vendettas at the expense of their club.

has it occurred to you that perhaps we have been leaking incorrect things on purpose to weed out the rats? or to throw everyone off the scent of our real argument? perhaps the club realised that caro would chase hard until she got something, so threw her something she would believe but was also wrong? nothing wrong with a bit of misinformation every now and then

has it occurred to you that perhaps we have been leaking incorrect things on purpose to weed out the rats? or to throw everyone off the scent of our real argument? perhaps the club realised that caro would chase hard until she got something, so threw her something she would believe but was also wrong? nothing wrong with a bit of misinformation every now and then

Interesting. Doubtful, but I'm interested!

In the unlikely event that we are required to attend a hearing, of course we would not use that as our defence.

I trust you can see the difference. Let's not forget, McLardy has read the 800 pages, not us.

?? I was pointing out that you were, in effect, reading too much into DM's words... I made no mention at all that we would use those excuses as part of our defence, but attempted to explain what his statement probably meant (you seemed to think he was intimating that there would be a hearing to attend).

Old, I didn't hear it, and due to the expected (and worthy) biased reports on here, I have got no idea what she said.

The thing I will say is that between today's article, and getting on the radio tonight and calling McLardy a liar (taking your word there!), she is putting her reputation right on the line. Would she be so idiotic to do that if she didn't have some facts? If she is wrong, she will lose not only respect from within the AFL community, but she will lose gigs on TV, on radio, and most likely her job.

That's why the minority on here are listening to her comments. I still have absolutely no doubt that she knows Schwab will be cleared, and that Connolly will get done.

Billy she did noy say "he is a liar"

But from her comments there can only now be one of them that is telling the truth.

You will notice I did not say who was wrong her or DM

But IMO from what has been said since 5pm today someone is wrong.

I expect we will know by the time our first Nab cup game is played

The thick plottens yet again.

More going on here than a Christie novel.

Nice quick response and will hopefully be picked up by the Age's competitors!

Memo: Herald-Sun

Stick this up The Age big time!

Yay!!!

The thick plottens yet again.

More going on here than a Christie novel.

I hadn't realised Linford Christie had written anything.

Billy she did noy say "he is a liar"

But from her comments there can only now be one of them that is telling the truth.

You will notice I did not say who was wrong her or DM

But IMO from what has been said since 5pm today someone is wrong.

I expect we will know by the time our first Nab cup game is played

Old, agree with your summary - that one of the two is lying. I hope to Chirst it is the one that isn't our president. I wish I wasn't, but I'm on the fence. Normally I'd believe blood before water, but the water has put doubt in my mind due to the two things she has put on the line.

?? I was pointing out that you were, in effect, reading too much into DM's words... I made no mention at all that we would use those excuses as part of our defence, but attempted to explain what his statement probably meant (you seemed to think he was intimating that there would be a hearing to attend).

There is that element of doubt that should not be there.

It's not a bloody slip up!

FMD, it's a simple bloody language, and the sentence does NOT indicate there WILL be a hearing.

There is a qualifier.

Old, agree with your summary - that one of the two is lying. I hope to Chirst it is the one that isn't our president. I wish I wasn't, but I'm on the fence. Normally I'd believe blood before water, but the water has put doubt in my mind due to the two things she has put on the line.

There is that element of doubt that should not be there.

Billy I am so over the whole thing.

I just wish I that I get up tomorrow and there will be some result but alas I think it has got a few days yet.

I keep promising myself I will stay away from these threads but here I am.

This has more episodes than " blue Hills"

I didn't hear the radio so I'm confused by this discussion of who is lying. How is it credible that Don M is lying in saying the MC's response does not include the stuff she alleged? The AFL has the document. It is either in i or not - no grey areas. What could he gain by lying? Or is this discussion about something else?

Please explain.