Oliver Trade Rumours

[BLWNBA 834]

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 334]

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 6,224]

How is this thread still going….

Trade talk is a recognised addiction.

[Flowergirl 507]

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 29,482]

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 23,106]

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 751]

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 3 hours ago by GM11

[daisycutter 29,482]

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 5,668]

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 29,482]

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 334]

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 507]

5 minutes ago, Witches Hat said:

You'd hope not. 

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

[daisycutter 29,482]

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 334]

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 33,366]

Missed a whole day of quality value on this thread 

Edited 2 hours ago by layzie

[waynewussell 5,053]

1 hour 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.

"mindlessly", "mismanaged", "basketcase", all emotive, lacking balance, possibly incorrect, definitely counter-productive,

 

[deejammin' 2,287]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Pert's not going to sue the AFL website FFS. Ours supporters have all gone full nuffie. AFL Media is run independently of the AFL, Barrett would be no worse than any other favoured reporters like Wilson, Baum or Whately who get fed lines from the AFL. The AFL website also reports on issues to do with the AFL executive and commission, they've been writing opinion about clubs for years too. The victim mentality on here is nauseating.

 

1 hour ago, old55 said:

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 ...

I’m not saying he will sue the AFL or AFL media for the article. I’m saying should Pert sue Damien Barrett for defamation OR the AFL in the event he claims income loss or damage to his career/reputation as part of a wider wrongful dismissal case against the MFC and AFL the AFL hosting these comments on a site they have editorial control over is not something that is good to have to defend as part of the wider case. 
All those journalists have been writing all sorts of things, however I have never seen a columnists directly call for an external clubs CEO to be removed on the AFL (media) website. Can you find that somewhere? 

Max Gawn is currently cited in a certain ex-pres case, for comments in an on field interview. You think articles on the AFL (media) run website wouldn’t be cited in any Pert case?

Victim mentality? What?! Damien Barrett is literally calling for our CEO to be sacked, I’m not claiming to be the victim, I’m engaging in a discussion of why I wouldn’t be comfortable with that if the AFL were my business.

Yep, the AFL website is run by AFL media, a subsidiary of the AFL that has key editorial and legal decisions overseen by AFL HQ. It’s a buffer that would work to protect the AFL from a lot, but I’ve never really seen it tested. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a defamation case against AFL media? There’s slagging off and there’s directly calling for someone to be “removed”. It’s not a great look and could be challenged if Pert gets sacked and goes on a legal bender like a certain ex-pres.

Edited 1 hour ago by deejammin'
Formatting and spelling

[layzie 33,366]

On 10/10/2024 at 20:19, Antioch said:

So the news media are perfect and the club is no good? What a load of garbage. Why don’t you go and support another club! Or maybe you do and you’re just on here to dig the boots into our club. If you don’t like what’s happening at the club do something about it! Get involved in the club! Don’t just sit tapping on your keyboard at home and saying the club is “dysfunctional”. That doesn’t help anything!

Oh for the love of God who writes this stuff?

[John Demonic 5,621]

 

I'm going to repost this because the intense late night back and forth conversations remind me of a particular tv show.  

Edited 2 hours ago by John Demonic

[Bowserpower 118]

On 09/10/2024 at 08:45, Superunknown said:

the increasing use of the word cringe in this context is quite annoying 

What are you on about?

[deejammin' 2,287]

1 hour ago, BLWNBA said:

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.”

Thank you very much for your excellent and informative response BLWNA. 
Out of interest what was the impetuous for the Fair work Ombudsman stating they were legally distinct (because tone is near impossible online I’m asking because I’m curious, not challenging you). Was there a particular case that established this?

Also, at the risk of derailing this thread further (although let’s face it, it’s way off the cliff now). What are the chances Pert could include external pressure and site sources like these articles as part of a wrongful dismissal suit should the MFC ever sack him?

I think the defamation question is still interesting though (to me), if Pert can show a pattern of behaviour undermining his position and casting doubt on his reputation as part of a wider and longer defamation suit. Given Barrett has a long history with him, back to the Collingwood days, would these comments not be part of that pattern even if protected by being a journalistic comment or are they excluded entirely?

Edited 1 hour ago by deejammin'

[Dr. Gonzo 23,953]

1 hour ago, Flowergirl said:

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

No, it probably won't. And we enter next year with at least two disgruntled players on our list.

[Mel Bourne 4,450]

9 minutes ago, Bowserpower said:

What are you on about?

That it’s not a pissing adjective. 
 

(Sorry, I just noticed that Saty got past the censors with “pissing”, so it’s going to be my go-to adjective from now on). 

[Flowergirl 507]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No, it probably won't. And we enter next year with at least two disgruntled players on our list.

That could change. Many things can change in 12 months. 

[layzie 33,366]

16 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

That it’s not a pissing adjective. 
 

(Sorry, I just noticed that Saty got past the censors with “pissing”, so it’s going to be my go-to adjective from now on). 

I'm going go thank you but really quietly.

Thnx MB