Jump to content

Caroline Wilson, Sam McClure issue apologies over Crows camp saga

dazzledavey36
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Posted

Not really Melbourne related, but it's interesting seeing this unfold.

Ex-Crows footy boss ‘vindicated’ by infamous camp verdict

Sam McClure and Caro have had to issue an apology to the Collective Minds group over the whole camp fiasco.

What raised my eyebrows was this was mentioned in the full statement.

"In 2018 former Port Adelaide head coach Mark Williams publicly stated a number of outlandish claims he asserted were facts. These were a key trigger in the AFL Integrity Unit investigation and have since been proven to be wrong by the AFL Integrity Unit and Safework SA."

  • Quote
    • Shocked 1
    • Demonland changed the title to Caroline Wilson, Sam McClure issue apologies over Crows camp saga
     

    The apology says in part,

    "If the publications were taken to suggest otherwise, Nine withdraws that suggestion. Nine apologises and expresses regret if the publications caused hurt and offence to Mr Woulfe, Mr Leddie and Collective Mind."

    There is also similar wording replacing "Nine" with "The Age" (which Nine, the company) owns.

    I'm surprised the injured parties accepted that wording. It's not really an apology at all. Why have Nine and The Age been allowed to get away with including the phrase "if the publications caused hurt"? Of course they did - that's why the apology was sought in the first place. 

    If a footballer had said that after breaking someone else's jaw behind play, journos would be the first to criticise the player for qualifying it with that mealy-mouthed expression.

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Without being able to read the whole story, it does seem like Choco has either gone off half cocked or is unable to prove what he said was true.

    With that said, the onus is on the journalists to get two sources for every allegation/story. They haven't done this.

    From a PR perspective, I mentioned last year that Pert placed a media ban on Choco. Maybe this is the reason.

  • Quote
    •  
    • Author
    1 minute ago, dee-tox said:

    Without being able to read the whole story, it does seem like Choco has either gone off half cocked or is unable to prove what he said was true.

    With that said, the onus is on the journalists to get two sources for every allegation/story. They haven't done this.

    From a PR perspective, I mentioned last year that Pert placed a media ban on Choco. Maybe this is the reason.

    Is this actually legit?

  • Quote
    • Shocked 1

    • Author
    11 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

    Absolutely. 

    Yeah okay. 

    I remember Mark Williams did the SEN interview last year which was actually great to listen too.

    I know Choco can say stuff that can divide opinions, but personally I wish we could hear more from a football perspective. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    36 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    The apology says in part,

    "If the publications were taken to suggest otherwise, Nine withdraws that suggestion. Nine apologises and expresses regret if the publications caused hurt and offence to Mr Woulfe, Mr Leddie and Collective Mind."

    There is also similar wording replacing "Nine" with "The Age" (which Nine, the company) owns.

    I'm surprised the injured parties accepted that wording. It's not really an apology at all. Why have Nine and The Age been allowed to get away with including the phrase "if the publications caused hurt"? Of course they did - that's why the apology was sought in the first place. 

    If a footballer had said that after breaking someone else's jaw behind play, journos would be the first to criticise the player for qualifying it with that mealy-mouthed expression.

    They could ask for a better apology.

    Or someone at the Age could ring up Eddie Betts or Charlie Cameron and ask them about the camp again.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    53 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    The apology says in part,

    "If the publications were taken to suggest otherwise, Nine withdraws that suggestion. Nine apologises and expresses regret if the publications caused hurt and offence to Mr Woulfe, Mr Leddie and Collective Mind."

    There is also similar wording replacing "Nine" with "The Age" (which Nine, the company) owns.

    I'm surprised the injured parties accepted that wording. It's not really an apology at all. Why have Nine and The Age been allowed to get away with including the phrase "if the publications caused hurt"? Of course they did - that's why the apology was sought in the first place. 

    If a footballer had said that after breaking someone else's jaw behind play, journos would be the first to criticise the player for qualifying it with that mealy-mouthed expression.

    This is the current standard political apology coming from governments.  If you say "I apologise if you are offended" with the implication that no reasonable person would be offended, you can appear to be apologising and can't be proved to be not apoogising.  I'd reject any apology with this qualification was insincere.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
     

    The apology one make when one doesn’t want any legal ramifications for apologizing….

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    the comments were made in 2018 and the apology given in 2022 .it is reasonable to postulate that the apology formed part of settlement terms of a defamation action brought by members of the  Crows hierarchy  and/or Collective Minds .

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    4 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

    They could ask for a better apology.

    Or someone at the Age could ring up Eddie Betts or Charlie Cameron and ask them about the camp again.

     

    Exactly - the apology is issued only because Safework SA found no evidence of breaches of OH&S laws - this doesn't mean that there wasn't significant fallout from the camp among the players.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    The apology says in part,

    "If the publications were taken to suggest otherwise, Nine withdraws that suggestion. Nine apologises and expresses regret if the publications caused hurt and offence to Mr Woulfe, Mr Leddie and Collective Mind."

    There is also similar wording replacing "Nine" with "The Age" (which Nine, the company) owns.

    I'm surprised the injured parties accepted that wording. It's not really an apology at all. Why have Nine and The Age been allowed to get away with including the phrase "if the publications caused hurt"? Of course they did - that's why the apology was sought in the first place. 

    If a footballer had said that after breaking someone else's jaw behind play, journos would be the first to criticise the player for qualifying it with that mealy-mouthed expression.

    From what I understand, the wording of these apologies is determined as part of the legal proceedings or negotiated through legal parties afterwards, and when you see these kind of 'I'm sorry if it was taken a particular way...' apologies; I think that gives you an insight into how strong (or otherwise) the case against the journos was.

    It's very different to breaking someone's jaw, so perhaps not the best analogy there.

     

  • Quote

    21 hours ago, dee-tox said:

     

    From a PR perspective, I mentioned last year that Pert placed a media ban on Choco. Maybe this is the reason.

    Hang on! What?! Really?

    That's a bit disappointing. I was looking forward to hearing more interviews by Mark "Choco" Williams regarding his contribution as Head of Development for the MFC. How he was going with developing our young recruits.

    I also had my hopes up that @Demonlandmight be fortunate enough to try and get Mark "Choco" Williams on the Demonland podcast this year.

  • Quote
    On 2/4/2022 at 4:01 PM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    This is the picture of Sam McClure in "The Australian" story (online version). I think he owes us all an apology for that haircut.

    bdfc70efff88e1ec1be1631d79d50d4c

    He'll look back in 30 years and wonder . . . what was I thinking?

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    22 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

    Hang on! What?! Really?

    That's a bit disappointing. I was looking forward to hearing more interviews by Mark "Choco" Williams regarding his contribution as Head of Development for the MFC. How he was going with developing our young recruits.

    I also had my hopes up that @Demonlandmight be fortunate enough to try and get Mark "Choco" Williams on the Demonland podcast this year.

    He was on the BUrgo podcast after the GF and pretty sure I heard him on another one too (Deebrief?)

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • REPORT: Gold Coast

      From the start, Melbourne’s performance against the Gold Coast Suns at Peoples First Stadium was nothing short of a massive botch up and it came down in the first instance to poor preparation. Rather than adequately preparing the team for battle against an opponent potentially on the skids after suffering three consecutive losses, the Demons looking anything but sharp and ready to play in the opening minutes of the game. By way of contrast, the Suns demonstrated a clear sense of purpose and will to win. From the very first bounce of the ball they were back to where they left off earlier in the season in Round Three when the teams met at the MCG. They ran rings around the Demons and finished the game off with a dominant six goal final term. This time, they produced another dominant quarter to start the game, restricting Melbourne to a solitary point to lead by six goals at the first break, by which time, the game was all but over.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Gold Coast

      Coming off four consecutive victories and with a team filled with 17 AFL listed players, the Casey Demons took to their early morning encounter with the lowly Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium with the swagger of a team that thought a win was inevitable. They were smashing it for the first twenty minutes of the game after Tom Fullarton booted the first two goals but they then descended into an abyss of frustrating poor form and lackadaisical effort that saw the swagger and the early arrogance disappear by quarter time when their lead was overtaken by a more intense and committed opponent. The Suns continued to apply the pressure in the second quarter and got out to a three goal lead in mid term before the Demons fought back. A late goal to the home side before the half time bell saw them ten points up at the break and another surge in the third quarter saw them comfortably up with a 23 point lead at the final break.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

      With their season all over bar the shouting the Demons head back on the road for the third week in a row as they return to Adelaide to take on the Crows. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 57 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      The Demons did not come to play from the opening bounce and let the Gold Coast kick the first 5 goals of the match. They then outscored the Suns for the next 3 quarters but it was too little too late and their season is now effectively over.

        • Haha
      • 225 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      Max Gawn has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kysaiah Pickett. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • 34 replies
      Demonland

    • GAMEDAY: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      It's Game Day and the Demons are back on the road again and this may be the last roll of the dice to get their 2025 season back on track as they take on the Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium.

      • 546 replies
      Demonland
    View All