longsuffering.

Did you mean groudhugging or groundhogging? Everytime I read one of Carro's articles it feels like ground hog day.

666 just take it as being a low life (and I mean that in the nicest possible way RR) and yes reading most of the Age and Sun's articles is like having a ground hog moment.

A large picture of Wilson's head would go down a treat on the scoreboard during our Round 2 fixture.

Thoughts?

I am a traditionalist ... let's stick to burning an effigy or six in Yarra Park (but well away from the Norm Smith statue).

Kero is great because she lets us know what is going on...

It's tricky but I believe where once MFC would have been an unincorporated association, now it's an incorporated company and hence does not qualify as a "not for profit" organisation.

Are there any examples of a footy club suing for defamation? It was certainly possible under the old Vic defamation laws (i.e. common law) which is now superceded.

I know nothing about defamation law - but whether or not an organisation is "not for profit" is dependent on its objectives etc not its legal form. As the MFC does not contemplate returning any funds to shareholders I think you will find that it still qualifies as "not for profit". That is why, for instance, it is not subject to income tax.

I refuse to believe for one moment that Don McLardy would lie to the members in such brazen fashion, OD.

What's his record like in terms of telling the truth and not misleading the public?

What's Caro's record like?

Has she really come out and labelled Don's response as "total [censored]" or is that Ben's unique spin on things? If true then wow, she has seriously painted herself into a corner on this one.

It is absurd to suggest Don is lying.There is absolutely no way he would make a false statement today knowing that the truth will be in the public arena within days.

Caro is losing her grip - and I will be really disappointed if Gary Lyon doesn't put her back in her box ( perish the thought!) on F Classified tomorrow night.She may be right in that we will be charged - but that wouldn't make Don a liar. Once she says something she keeps repeating it - no matter how the facts unfold. Notice how the "vault meeting" got another mention this morning.

It's great news that the Age is no longer a sponsor - and that the HUN has taken over. Another dip in Age readership on the way!

Maybe it was all part of the plan...Wait for the right moment.

Exactly. Wait until the 'opponent' has crossed one too many lines, then hit hard and carefully at the outstretched neck.

Blue Hills? You are proving your name true with that reference, OD ...

I was wondering if anyone would pick up that one R and B.

You must have a few years up if you remember it!

I am surprised no one said Blue what?

Given the amount of lip biting the club has done throughout this saga, I suspect the club has taken the view enough is enough and responded to the Wilson article. It would be incredible to think a club president would come out and lie, and that the statement wasn't very carefully .

A few on here have been constant on here regarding the clubs strategy - simply put, say nothing as the club does not know what the AFL/ investigators have turned up.

Why the change ? The club now has the report in its hand so knows exactly the extent of the evidence against it. We are playing poker and we know what cards our opponents have in their hand. Therefore the club sensing its position feels free to give a bit of trash talk back.

Well played Don and the club.

So why isn't she being sued?

The club can't sue for defamation, although I expect some of the individuals concerned would be able to. Wilson's articles would've been 'legalled' though, and it's not easy for an individual to commence, and maintain, proceedings against a media outlet for defamation (ie, it's expensive and the ensuing knife fight can be very damaging to the individual concerned even if, ultimately, they obtain judgment in their favour).

I'd be interested to see if the club has some other claim against The Age for the economic and reputational loss it has suffered as a consequence of may ultimately turn out to be an entirely baseless and frenzied attack against the club. Novel claim perhaps, but worth exploring IMO.

As an aside, the timing of Don's announcement is interesting. Perhaps the club was concerned to ensure that all evidence had been obtained by the 'investigators', and then fully considered, before it issued public denials. It seems to me that the club would now be aware of the evidence obtained as a result of the 'investigation', and it now feels comfortable in issuing such denials.

Speculation perhaps, but IMO a good sign nonetheless.

A few on here have been constant on here regarding the clubs strategy - simply put, say nothing as the club does not know what the AFL/ investigators have turned up.

Why the change ? The club now has the report in its hand so knows exactly the extent of the evidence against it. We are playing poker and we know what cards our opponents have in their hand. Therefore the club sensing its position feels free to give a bit of trash talk back.

Well played Don and the club.

Guess what? We also know what our response to the report was. Two things Caro doesn't know.

Did the Age print Don M's statement today? I couldn't spot it on their website (but with my eyesight...)

Did the Age print Don M's statement today? I couldn't spot it on their website (but with my eyesight...)

Funny about that!

The release was at 5.01pm so they had plenty of time to take it up but no obviously couldn't find the space. Funny about that!

Edited February 13, 201312 yr by longsuffering

Kero is great because she lets us know what is going on...

.....between her ears, which is great if you're short on facts or happy to remove yourself from objectivity.

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.

And do you necessarily beleive her when she says she has inside sources, or at least inside MFC and not AFL??

I don't.

I've said it several times, under Australia's new uniform defamation law, corporations like MFC cannot sue for defamation, only individuals within the club.

DB possibly could over her suggestion about him "not coaching to his utmost", and statements like "Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009. Bailey knew it," could be looked at. At first glance, they appear defamatory of Bailey.

If she ever actually called McLardy a liar, he could.

The good thing is, she's wild as a cornered snake.

So.....IF I said that The Age was a despicable lowlife organization for employing an individual who played out her very personal vendettas by implicating a whole football club, would I be right in saying that The Age could not sue me? On the other hand IF I were to say that the Editor of said disorganization was a scumbag for employing such a vindictive person would I be liable?

Guess what? We also know what our response to the report was. Two things Caro doesn't know.

So you don't think that the sieve aka AFL didn't leak anything to her?

A large picture of Wilson's head would go down a treat on the scoreboard during our Round 2 fixture.

Thoughts?

They would have to hand out large quantities or emesis bags unless they wanted a major clean up bill afterwards.

So.....IF I said that The Age was a despicable lowlife organization for employing an individual who played out her very personal vendettas by implicating a whole football club, would I be right in saying that The Age could not sue me? On the other hand IF I were to say that the Editor of said disorganization was a scumbag for employing such a vindictive person would I be liable?

That is my understanding... altho the AGE might be considered not for profit ha ha ha

I HATE Caroline Wilson!

Edited by Matt Demon, Today, 08:02 AM.

You edited that? How many mistakes did you make?

Funny about that!

the Aged has gone a bit quiet on the subject

I wonder how long fairfax will last until it disappears up itself !!

Seems to me that DM's article was entirely for the benefit of "members and supporters".

In my view, Caro's just doing her job. If she'd written a factual balanced article that was fair to all parties, we'd all go "yeah, good article" and move on to something else. As it is, she's generated a huge amount of anxiety & fear - and chatter - both here and Bummerbitz. In the media, the Mae West principle applies - the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Her job is to get attention and provoke a reaction, not to be fair and factual, and lately she's been far too successful in this.

The club's only broken its strategy of "no comment" because it's picked up the amount of fear among "members and supporters", generated by Caro's article, that our defence to the AFL is in trouble. He's telling us that our response is far more crafted and effective than the objections of most supporters to the charges, which Caro rightly pointed out would be a very poor defence.

I also get the strong message that it's clear to the club that while Caro and her ilk may be generating a lot of fear among members and supporters, they have no influence where it counts within the AFL, so the club's not worried about what she prints as far as the AFL is concerned. But it did want to convey to "members and supporters" that it's got the situation well in hand.

I'm no fan of Caro, but to me she's just doing her job, which is to get attention for her paper by being provocative. The number of posts and amount of anxiety on D'land (and almost certainly elsewhere) shows that she's got far more attention than she deserves.

Edited February 13, 201312 yr by Akum

That is my understanding... altho the AGE might be considered not for profit ha ha ha

lol

I was wondering if anyone would pick up that one R and B.

You must have a few years up if you remember it!

I am surprised no one said Blue what?

More than I care to admit ... I remember my aunt and uncle being keen fans, and it was almost always on when we went to their place.

There may be a few episodes left in this current saga, though ...

Seems to me that DM's article was entirely for the benefit of "members and supporters".

In my view, Caro's just doing her job. If she'd written a factual balanced article that was fair to all parties, we'd all go "yeah, good article" and move on to something else. As it is, she's generated a huge amount of anxiety & fear - and chatter - both here and Bummerbitz. In the media, the Mae West principle applies - the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Her job is to get attention and provoke a reaction, not to be fair and factual, and lately she's been far too successful in this.

The club's only broken its strategy of "no comment" because it's picked up the amount of fear among "members and supporters", generated by Caro's article, that our defence to the AFL is in trouble. He's telling us that our response is far more crafted and effective than the objections of most supporters to the charges, which Caro rightly pointed out would be a very poor defence.

I also get the strong message that it's clear to the club that while Caro and her ilk may be generating a lot of fear among members and supporters, they have no influence where it counts within the AFL, so the club's not worried about what she prints as far as the AFL is concerned. But it did want to convey to "members and supporters" that it's got the situation well in hand.

I'm no fan of Caro, but to me she's just doing her job, which is to get attention for her paper by being provocative. The number of posts and amount of anxiety on D'land (and almost certainly elsewhere) shows that she's got far more attention than she deserves.

I would have thought that her job was to print the truth, not her view of what may happen in her dreams. If a reporter or opinion writer just prints whatever comes to their head, whether it's true or not, they effectively become a Troll, which she now appears to be.

Have journalistic "standards" declined so much?

Did the Age print Don M's statement today? I couldn't spot it on their website (but with my eyesight...)

Did the Hun print it?