BLWNBA

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.”

Assuming you’re referring to Green’s post, nothing gives anything contextually to suggest it’s a tongue in cheek response to Lloyd.

We didn’t do that last year? What’s the point in doing it if you’re never going to follow through with it?

Nah, this is all media BS. Tom Morris is constantly notoriously way off.

Once again, I don’t overly disagree with this. Of course there’s a balance, but it also has to consider what a willing club would pay towards his contract (either in full, or as a percentage), as well as just how desperate are the MFC to get Oliver out. It’s unfortunately not a clear cut scenario, with a multitude of issues and concerns at play.

I don’t disagree mate, but people holding onto the idea that the current Oliver is worth what he was 12 months ago on the market is farcical.

1) That’s irrelevant to the point made by both myself and the OP that was quoted. 2) I’m surprised you didn’t find a way to also throw Maynard in there. But don’t worry mate, victim status and the shortcomings of the MFC will always be welcomed by the majority of those on Demonland. You’ll get your likes.

We had a Ferrari; it’s since been treated like a lawnmower.

Pert told her so.

Once again, can you actually acknowledge and refute anything I’ve said, rather than continuing to deflect? But yes, the beacon of truth is a what a club employee says to a random supporter at a Best and Fairest or family day.

You’re absolutely playing semantics, and I note that the end result doesn’t indicate a ‘lie’ or ‘misrepresentation’. A reported ‘intention’ can be accurate, without a corresponding result ensuring. I may have a desire and intent to go to the movies today, not completing that action does not take away from either the intention or desire. That’s simply output dependency; a change to an input can absolutely result in a change in output. As I said earlier, your binary outlook lacks any analytical value at all, and is an extremely sheltered and naive way to treat information. It has no real world application. Feel free to keep living in the post truth world though, it’s scary out there.

Yeah, how dare parties disagree on a forum. Next you’ll bring out the timeless classic “supporters support” line.

As you’re the one asserting a mistruth, or claims of libel, the onus is actually on you to suggest otherwise. But given you’re essentially wanting to impart some obscure, reverse onus, I would suggest to you that there is enough on the balance of probabilities to indicate much of what is reported is accurate to the extent the information is available. Do you want to proceed with tendency examples? Show some critical thinking, it may hold you in good stead. Once again, your inability to critique the club says volumes.

One of the best posts in this thread.

Your inability to ever critique the club, and constant grandstanding honestly just removes any credibility in your stance(s). ‘Notoriously’ way off? Guessing you live and work in a binary world then?

Asking for clarification on your own contention, using your words, is a straw man? Okay.

What are you genuinely talking about? You’ve gone from stating that the ‘club’ should bring a legal claim against The Age, for ‘lies’, proceeding to ask for a ‘quote’, and now your stating that ‘this is a forum discussion not a published article’, yet your first point is directed at an article published by The Age. Honestly, it’s beyond nonsensical.

Ah yeah, nothing like a good old straw man to really prove a point. Well done, a resounding showing of critical thinking.

He’ll be right at home. Bring him in, fellas!

Similar to just claiming something as a ‘lie’, yeah?

I look forward to the accompanying turnover.

Fanboys gotta blame someone.

Nailed it.

I can't speak for the original poster, but essentially, diagnoses are often used as a shield, often without any nuance. Whilst there are legitimate reasons and occurrences where a diagnosis can play a part in an aggravating / mitigating manner, to have it bandied about in such a trivial manner, is not only disingenuous but completely trivialises and diminishes legitimate cases where a diagnoses is a causative mechanism. I'd also suggest in many cases, these factors are far more causative than enabling.

Agree with all points, and for all the faults of the club - there was nothing more that could be done to support Oliver. We as a club absolutely lent in to support him in an authentic and genuine manner. It went far beyond traditional window dressing and I'm actually proud of the club for this. What is absolutely disappointing for mine, is the toing and throwing the club has done over the past two seasons with Oliver. It's weak and frankly pretty embarrassing. We made a decision to back him in and mend the relationship, yet the club has acted akin to a parent that makes empty threats and everyone knows it - including the child; a real "if you keep doing that, you'll be getting out of the pool", and then the parent never delivers. If we're at a point we're the relationship is untenable, or the concerns around Oliver and his behaviour/standards can no longer be tolerated, then get him out. The weakness of the club in this regard is embarrassing and frankly somewhat farcical.