Oliver Trade Rumours

[waynewussell 5,708]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Sorry, has the discussion moved on from whining about Barrett now?

There's plenty of reasons that Pert needs to go, main one is the poor culture he has presided over that has seen two of our top stars want to leave the club and the utter mismanagement of those two situations by the club. That's just for starters, you can also add in the rampant leaking of info to the media to try and sway supporters to the clubs narrative which has caused further divisions within the club. He hasn't hit any home runs anywhere else either, not great with sponsors, membership and crowds significantly down, no movement on a home base. He's emblematic of the basketcase the club is perceived as at the moment.

bullocks!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

1 minute ago, waynewussell said:

bullocks!

Yep, you've convinced me 😂

[waynewussell 5,708]

Gonzo is a try hard! Hey, mate... many of us here are Melbourne supporters! We are used to being under siege. It is when it comes from within that we protest, or at least stand up for what we are invested in. Don't give us a never-ending barrage of your misconceptions. No one has to go unless they have committed a serious crime!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

3 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Gonzo is a try hard! Hey, mate... many of us here are Melbourne supporters! We are used to being under siege. It is when it comes from within that we protest, or at least stand up for what we are invested in. Don't give us a never-ending barrage of your misconceptions. No one has to go unless they have committed a serious crime!

What are you on about? Where I'm from when people perform poorly they are held to account. The cheerleaders on here that mindlessly support the club even when it is being mismanaged are worse than the people in the media gleefully kicking us for being a basketcase. There were many on here back during the Schwab years who didn't want to hear a bad word about that administration either, the threads will still be here if you do a search.

[daisycutter 29,613]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's done through the AFL website which is run by AFL media. I think you'll find there's no issues (legally) with the way the AFL website opines on club matters.

barretts comment was more than just an opinion (as others have pointed out to you)

he has an obvious mission to get pert sacked and has called for it on a number of occasions lately, and none too subtly.

the afl website is fully owned and is the responsibility of the afl. they do in fact exercise a lot of editorial oversight on it (when it suits them).  Anyway, i never raised any questions on legalities, that was another poster

it p155es me off that journos think they can tell clubs how they should be run, just to boost their brand career, and in this case all under the aegis of the afl. some in the media are just pushing their relationships with clubs a bit too far, too quick.  the relationship between clubs and the media is rapidly changing (for the worse) and it's not just with the mfc.

i still think brad should have a private chat with the afl (if he hasn't)

[old55 23,541]

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

barretts comment was more than just an opinion (as others have pointed out to you)

he has an obvious mission to get pert sacked and has called for it on a number of occasions lately, and none too subtly.

the afl website is fully owned and is the responsibility of the afl. they do in fact exercise a lot of editorial oversight on it (when it suits them).  Anyway, i never raised any questions on legalities, that was another poster

it p155es me off that journos think they can tell clubs how they should be run, just to boost their brand career, and in this case all under the aegis of the afl. some in the media are just pushing their relationships with clubs a bit too far, too quick.  the relationship between clubs and the media is rapidly changing (for the worse) and it's not just with the mfc.

i still think brad should have a private chat with the afl (if he hasn't)

Holy sheet, this is getting to you daisycutter, I see a capital letter in that post!

[old55 23,541]

What @Dr. Gonzo says is correct AFL Media editorial is independent of AFL control. Barrett slags off the AFL regularly, he even has a dedicated slot for it at the bottom of his weekly Sliding Doors column

Posters here are now whinging that the AFL should rein Barrett in, the usual paranoid whinge, yes like you @Clintosaurus, is that journalists are in the AFL's pocket - you can't have it both ways ...

[Satyriconhome 10,831]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What are you on about? Where I'm from when people perform poorly they are held to account. The cheerleaders on here that mindlessly support the club even when it is being mismanaged are worse than the people in the media gleefully kicking us for being a basketcase. There were many on here back during the Schwab years who didn't want to hear a bad word about that administration either, the threads will still be here if you do a search.

You are still, as always, not answering the questions put to you.

You are part of the small cohort on here who demands that everybody accepts their opinion as the only right one.

Schwab tried hard to fix things, I didn't like the way he tried to interfere on the footy side, but he was pissing on too many fires at the same time and it overwhelmed him

Crowds not turning up on a freezing Saturday night Pert's fault, no fair-weather supporters.

No sponsor has jumped ship.

The home base is a greenfield project, ever been involved in one? I have, it is not a quick fix.

I could go on but I don't want to be delusional. 

[bush demon 2,039]

1 hour ago, deejammin' said:

Where it gets blurry is when it’s published on the official AFL website. By publishing that content and supporting it there is a tacit imputation that the AFL condones or even shares the opinion. That’s not something a governing body should be doing and should Pert end up suing for unfair dismissal, industrial relations issues or defamation I wouldn’t be wanting to defend it legally.

The AFL are essentially a gambling organisation with a commentary overlay and a bit of footy on the side. 

[rpfc 28,381]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Ours supporters have all gone full nuffie. 

[BLWNBA 1,002]

1 hour ago, deejammin' said:

Where it gets blurry is when it’s published on the official AFL website. By publishing that content and supporting it there is a tacit imputation that the AFL condones or even shares the opinion. That’s not something a governing body should be doing and should Pert end up suing for unfair dismissal, industrial relations issues or defamation I wouldn’t be wanting to defend it legally.

AFL Media as a legal person, differs from the Australian Football League. They’re not one and the same and certainly not interchangeable. Journalists employed under the AFL Media, are deemed to be independent, which has previously been held to be true by the Federal Fair Work Ombudsman.

Assuming Pert were to step away, at best he may have a claim for constructive dismissal, but even then, a court would need to determine the nexus between the AFL Media, and the Melbourne Football Club, which would be unlikely in the context of employment law. However, there are numerous protections in place which allow for a journalist to make fair comment under the Defamation Act, and multiple High Court rulings suggest that an ordinary reasonable would be able to deduce the difference between an opinion, such as Barrett’s, and a statement of fact.

“A “discussion or comment” is to be distinguished from “the statement of a fact”. “It is not the mere form of words used that determines whether it is comment or not; a most explicit allegation of fact may be treated as comment if it would be understood by the readers or hearers, not as an independent imputation, but as an inference from other facts stated.”

[Witches Hat 433]

Meanwhile back on topic...my Geelong contact tells me they haven't given up on getting Oliver. He definitely wants out. If what he is telling me is true it will be a future first rounder and nothing else.

Thankfully only five more days of wild speculation before we can all have a good lie down.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,386]

How is this thread still going….

Trade talk is a recognised addiction.

[Flowergirl 539]

4 minutes ago, Witches Hat said:

Meanwhile back on topic...my Geelong contact tells me they haven't given up on getting Oliver. He definitely wants out. If what he is telling me is true it will be a future first rounder and nothing else.

Thankfully only five more days of wild speculation before we can all have a good lie down.

So it won't get done then? There is no way the club will settle for that.

[daisycutter 29,613]

32 minutes ago, old55 said:

Holy sheet, this is getting to you daisycutter, I see a capital letter in that post!

great pickup, old55

and damnit, it's too old now to edit

let's keep this between the two of us, ok?

[old55 23,541]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

great pickup, old55

and damnit, it's too old now to edit

let's keep this between the two of us, ok?

I won't mention that you've been dealing your UPPER CASE to @picket fence for years then.

[GM11 776]

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

great pickup, old55

and damnit, it's too old now to edit

let's keep this between the two of us, ok?

Too late. Tom Morris is all over it.

Headline news tomorrow.

Edited October 11 by GM11

[daisycutter 29,613]

2 minutes ago, old55 said:

I won't mention that you've been dealing your UPPER CASE to @picket fence for years then.

i blame juice newton for that

 

[mo64 5,874]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i don't think you are comprehending what i am saying

it has nothing to do with journos writing mean things - that's par for the course and a different issue

it's about an afl paid journo on an official afl site calling personally and directly for a club executive to be sacked. that sort of interference in club governance needs clarification/action from the afl ... it's simply beyond the pale

[this of course is a matter of principle and nothing to do with my opinion of pert's performance]

It's no different to when the AFL website poses the question as to whether a player might be in trouble with the Match Review Panel. If it was illegal for a member from AFL Media to pass commentary on an incident before the MRO has made a decision, then surely a club would take it to court and argue that an AFL employee has prejudiced the case.

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 minute ago, GM11 said:

Too late. Tom Morris is all over it.

Headline news tomorrow.

think i might head to noosa and go into hiding then

[Witches Hat 433]

12 minutes ago, Flowergirl said:

So it won't get done then? There is no way the club will settle for that.

You'd hope not. 

[Flowergirl 539]

5 minutes ago, Witches Hat said:

You'd hope not. 

So why haven't they given up? It seems pretty futile. 

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 minute ago, mo64 said:

It's no different to when the AFL website poses the question as to whether a player might be in trouble with the Match Review Panel. If it was illegal for a member from AFL Media to pass commentary on an incident before the MRO has made a decision, then surely a club would take it to court and argue that an AFL employee has prejudiced the case.

can't you see that calling for someone to be sacked is a bit different to "commentary"

i don't have any problems if barrett reported on other people suggesting pert's position was in danger etc and discussing reasons. that's reporting, not playing judge and executioner so personally.

as for mro, no problem with discussing the issues, speculating on possible outcomes and others' opinions, but i think they should refrain from demanding (vs speculating) a certain outcome. but even if they do, this is quite different because the mro produce a judgement and penalty matrix which is meant to determine outcome, so all they would be doing is following an established process. 

i think your comparison attempt is a bit apples and oranges though

anyhoo, i'm done with discussing barrett ... maybe i might start a petition for his sacking 😁

[Witches Hat 433]

2 minutes ago, Flowergirl said:

So why haven't they given up? It seems pretty futile. 

I can only guess that they think Melbourne will be happy to offload him. Like everyone else in this 130 pages of running around in circles I have absolutely no idea what Melbourne are thinking!

[layzie 33,793]

Missed a whole day of quality value on this thread 

Edited October 11 by layzie