Not in the PJ camp, but I was a fan.

I know some of the details you’ve mentioned above but you have them wrong. 

Likewise no anti-Pert bias; I gave him time and the results have been atrocious. I only blame him for what he has done in his time in the position, not what he was left with.

55 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

I gave him time and the results have been atrocious.

What results, specifically?

54 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Not in the PJ camp, but I was a fan.

I know some of the details you’ve mentioned above but you have them wrong. 

Likewise no anti-Pert bias; I gave him time and the results have been atrocious. I only blame him for what he has done in his time in the position, not what he was left with.

some strong words there.........but you are still so short on any meaningful info

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

some strong words there.........but you are still so short on any meaningful info

Perhaps the risk of a defamation claim makes one adverse to providing "meaningful info" on a public forum

1 minute ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

Perhaps the risk of a defamation claim makes one adverse to providing "meaningful info" on a public forum

Would be only be defamation if it wasn't true though.

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

I know some of the details you’ve mentioned above but you have them wrong. 

Which ones do I have wrong?  You are clearly privy to inside information I'm not. I'm just stating facts that have been disclosed through the Club or the press other than the prospects of Yarra Park which I got from a reliable source outside the Club. 

2 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Not in the PJ camp, but I was a fan.

I know some of the details you’ve mentioned above but you have them wrong. 

Likewise no anti-Pert bias; I gave him time and the results have been atrocious. I only blame him for what he has done in his time in the position, not what he was left with.

What has he done then, at the moment all you have done is sling a bit of mud around

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Would be only be defamation if it wasn't true though.

very true.

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Would be only be defamation if it wasn't true though.

Actually I believe technically it is defamation but with the justification of truth. 

2 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Actually I believe technically it is defamation but with the justification of truth. 

"People accused of defamation may be able to defend themselves in court by proving that what they said is true or showing that they were expressing an honest opinion."

https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/defamation

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

"People accused of defamation may be able to defend themselves in court by proving that what they said is true or showing that they were expressing an honest opinion."

https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/defamation

 

It's a two stage process. First you have to prove you've been defamed. Then if you prove that the person who defamed you can then defend themselves by showing that what they said was the truth.

The article you've provided sets out the general definition of defamation as "That person has to prove that what was published would tend to lower a person’s reputation in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person."  

2 minutes ago, It's Time said:

It's a two stage process. First you have to prove you've been defamed. Then if you prove that the person who defamed you can then defend themselves by showing that what they said was the truth.

The article you've provided sets out the general definition of defamation as "That person has to prove that what was published would tend to lower a person’s reputation in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person."  

saying someone's performance in their job was atrocious must be heading towards lowering a person's reputation?

anyway this is just an excuse to avoid a robust debate, if it wasn't we may as well shut down 'land and all fan forums

Just now, daisycutter said:

saying someone's performance in their job was atrocious must be heading towards lowering a person's reputation?

anyway this is just an excuse to avoid a robust debate, if it wasn't we may as well shut down 'land and all fan forums

Think that comment was more likely to inflict lowering the reputation of the person who said it than the person it was said about. 

1 hour ago, It's Time said:

Which ones do I have wrong?  You are clearly privy to inside information I'm not. I'm just stating facts that have been disclosed through the Club or the press other than the prospects of Yarra Park which I got from a reliable source outside the Club. 

On that topic your reliable source is incorrect about the leak, for a start.

19 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

On that topic your reliable source is incorrect about the leak, for a start.

Sounds like you have had a very intimate involvement with the Club. My info was only about the chance of YP being approved not anything to do with sources of leaks. I didn't say anything about that. Only fact I know is that it was leaked while PJ was there. 

Not really interested TBH. More interested in the future than the past. Like most people I was a huge fan of PJ's but he hasn't left the legacy I thought he had. I'd rather give the new bloke a proper run at it than start potting him before he's had a chance to do anything but fix the mess left behind. So far I'm pretty happy with Burgess, Richardson, Bruckner and 23 medical and conditioning staff. Plus admin staff changes. There's some good stuff happening on membership engagement like To Hell and Back. Happy to talk to you on this at the end of the year. We'll have a better gauge of Pert's performance by then. 

Edited January 29, 20206 yr by It's Time