Can Mike Sheahan do that?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

He can only be sued if it isn't true.

Depends on the jurisdiction. Truth is a defence against defamation in Victoria but that is not true throughout Australia. Previously the Herald Sun's place of publication would make any legal action applicable in Victoria. In today's multi media, online versions of the newspaper allow plaintiffs to sue anywhere that the online version can be downloaded and viewed and according to local law.
 
Yes you do. You need that vaccine in all South American countries. I needed one when I went to Venezuela (its a hole)

No you don't.
Do some research,basically the only country were it is mandatory is Brazil.
Some only require it if you have come from an infected country.
I have had the vaccine and was one of the 1/100 who develops minor symptoms
and i was very sick but vomiting was not one of them.


P.S Caracas is a hole but the beaches and countryside are beautiful especially Angel Falls.
 
This thread is laughable.

Sooner or later someone's gonna start comparing Chad Fletcher to Pablo Escobar and start saying he should be gunned down in a blood-riddled massacre, ala Escobar.

Once again, another case of "nobody's-funkin'-business" getting everyone high and mighty.

The AFL aren't doing anything because they know they can't do anything.
 
If I was chad flecther lawyer I sue his dumb ass.....mike sheehan works for the gutter trash paper that I wouldnt use for lighting a fire its that bad....nuff said
 
This thread is laughable.

Sooner or later someone's gonna start comparing Chad Fletcher to Pablo Escobar and start saying he should be gunned down in a blood-riddled massacre, ala Escobar.

Once again, another case of "nobody's-funkin'-business" getting everyone high and mighty.

The AFL aren't doing anything because they know they can't do anything.

It is plenty of people's business though, the AFL itself, is a business - one that largely relies on image and sponsorship rather than product.

It is big business, simple as that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

.......and the A-League is sitting back and giggling to themselves.

Exactly, footy would want to be careful.

Victorian footy is in strife both on and off field, and support is dwindling in many ways (plus the AFL could quite easily lose a solid 100,000 fans by relocating North).

It seems nearly everyone has been to at least one Victory game. I know I have, and I hate wogball, but I do love getting drunk and yelling at people! I can do that at the soccer without having some mum yell at me just because she was stupid enough to have kids and bring em to the game.

The AFL would have a massive hard on if it could attract 55 thousand to the Telstra dome to watch a Victorian team play an interstate side. But it will never happen.

The last thing the AFL needs is a premiership player, a veteran player at that, overdosing on drugs and (hypothetically of course) dying whilst on an end of season trip with his fellow players.

Firstly, because nobody wants to see that. Secondly, the fact he was doing it with his team mates on a club sponsored trip is far worse PR wise than if he was completely alone.

That's why I think it's harsh to call players who DON'T do drugs and DO want to report others, dobs. It's their livelihood at risk because some douche decided to OD on drugs overseas, and, as I mentioned before - there's so much peer pressure in that footy club environment that when you see a leader and veteran of the best side doing drugs, it spells trouble ahead for that club and the AFL in general.
 
It is plenty of people's business though, the AFL itself, is a business - one that largely relies on image and sponsorship rather than product.

The AFL gets $780 million from Channel 7 & 10 plus Foxtel, and if it were so damaging to their property, these channels wouldn't take such delight in reporting the personal shortcomings of players as they do, always taking the same holier-than-thou attitude. Newspapers wouldn't put Brendan Fevola on the front page for shagging someone else if they were concerned about sponsorship money, company after company wouldn't be lining up to sponsor the league and supposed trouble clubs if they were concerned about images.

Everyone knows the truth and have done so for years and the league has continued to grow and grow.
 
It is plenty of people's business though, the AFL itself, is a business - one that largely relies on image and sponsorship rather than product.

It is big business, simple as that.

Look, under the current arrangements they can't do anything, otherwise they'll be in breach off the agreement with the AFLPA. The question now is should this arrangement be tightened, as some are advocating, in much the same way the NRL has done - one strike and you're out? On the one hand that would be great for protecting the business, on the other hand it does nothing for the player's welfare.
 
Look, under the current arrangements they can't do anything, otherwise they'll be in breach off the agreement with the AFLPA. The question now is should this arrangement be tightened, as some are advocating, in much the same way the NRL has done - one strike and you're out? On the one hand that would be great for protecting the business, on the other hand it does nothing for the player's welfare.

Bad luck for those who take drugs. Look, I, joe average, take drugs every now and then when I'm out. I'm not a significant amount of people's role model (off Bigfooty at least) and I don't feel guilty about it because I'm only hurting myself.

Players in other big sports simply can NOT go socialise with the public without being at a huge risk. It's time AFL players manned up and accepted that their huge salaries and media exposure comes with a price - they have to stock to that image for the good of the game, and by extension, the good of every player both now and in future.
 
The AFL as a whole may not be threatened by soccer for a long time to come but Victorian football is in a sh** load of trouble....f*** we're struggling to compete now but average crowds of 25 odd thousand to Victory games competes very easily with 4 or 5 Victorian teams. Maybe they don't compete season wise but they're definitely going to compete membership wise and there's only so much money to go round
 
Players in other big sports simply can NOT go socialise with the public without being at a huge risk. It's time AFL players manned up and accepted that their huge salaries and media exposure comes with a price - they have to stock to that image for the good of the game, and by extension, the good of every player both now and in future.

Players shouldn't have to pay that price though, no matter how much exposure they get or how much they are being paid. At what stage do you say to someone that they have to sacrifice a part of their life for the betterment of everyone else. Is a rookie-listed player on $50,000 a year (or whatever they earn) with no media exposure exempted from behaving badly by that same criteria??

(Wasn't there some furore when Nathan Ablett didn't want to play in the AFL because he just wanted to play footy and didn't want the exposure that comes with being an AFL player, let alone the son of one of the all-time greatest players?)

Why can't any player at any club get their paychecks and just play footy? Why does the fact that they earn lots and have media exposure mean that they are held to a higher social standard than everyone else and have to sacrifice a part of their life because the parents a 6-year-old they've never met may get upset and angry???

Rock stars earn heaps and are expected to live the high life on and off the stage, yet people aren't seemingly concerned about their impact on kids so they keep buying their cds. I just find it interesting that of all the people in the public eye, sportspeople are the only ones expected to behave above everybody else.

(Politicians don't count because no one grows up wanting to be a polly!)
 
Players shouldn't have to pay that price though, no matter how much exposure they get or how much they are being paid. At what stage do you say to someone that they have to sacrifice a part of their life for the betterment of everyone else. Is a rookie-listed player on $50,000 a year (or whatever they earn) with no media exposure exempted from behaving badly by that same criteria??

(Wasn't there some furore when Nathan Ablett didn't want to play in the AFL because he just wanted to play footy and didn't want the exposure that comes with being an AFL player, let alone the son of one of the all-time greatest players?)

Why can't any player at any club get their paychecks and just play footy? Why does the fact that they earn lots and have media exposure mean that they are held to a higher social standard than everyone else and have to sacrifice a part of their life because the parents a 6-year-old they've never met may get upset and angry???

Rock stars earn heaps and are expected to live the high life on and off the stage, yet people aren't seemingly concerned about their impact on kids so they keep buying their cds. I just find it interesting that of all the people in the public eye, sportspeople are the only ones expected to behave above everybody else.

(Politicians don't count because no one grows up wanting to be a polly!)

You're a 15 yo girl, right?
 
You're a 15 yo girl, right?

Far from it.

I just don't happen to believe that AFL players are public property in any way, shape or form, no matter how much they earn or how much they are on tv, or how much the league earns through sponsorship, or how much their team earns through sponsorship. There are just some things we don't have a right to know.

I also don't care about kids and their role models. If you're looking at a football player for a role model then you're in trouble. Admire the way they play but if you're looking for anything else then you're looking in the wrong place.
 
I would say that Sheehan would have to have a piece of evidence hidden away somewhere. If it is untrue, Fletcher can sue him despite the use of the word 'supposedly'. If it is true, Fletcher is hardly going to do anything but make denials. Better to deny and maintain some sort of innocence than challenge legally and have your guilt confirmed.

Fletcher has been defamed here. The accuracy will depend on what his next step is.

I'm sure Mike would have his bases covered. Unlike most here on BF, I actually quite like the guy, and he's certainly one of the better footy journos out there.
 
Far from it.

I just don't happen to believe that AFL players are public property in any way, shape or form, no matter how much they earn or how much they are on tv, or how much the league earns through sponsorship, or how much their team earns through sponsorship. There are just some things we don't have a right to know.

I also don't care about kids and their role models. If you're looking at a football player for a role model then you're in trouble. Admire the way they play but if you're looking for anything else then you're looking in the wrong place.

Sorry mate, they have no choice and it matters not what you believe.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Can Mike Sheahan do that?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top