TOPIC:

you thought it was just a coincidence that he appeared at a press conference the other day that had nothing to do with football ?

havnt read anything from Fremantle denying the reports in the Melbourne media Lyon is involved or any legal action to sue for naming him for something he didn't do, wonder why that would be ?

MarkOlsen wrote: you thought it was just a coincidence that he appeared at a press conference the other day that had nothing to do with football ?

havnt read anything from Fremantle denying the reports in the Melbourne media Lyon is involved or any legal action to sue for naming him for something he didn't do, wonder why that would be ?

Have you read anything that confirms same?

MO I don't know what agenda you have but it is patently clear that certain members of the media have their own agenda. Gerard Whately is the epitome of that.

MarkOlsen wrote: you thought it was just a coincidence that he appeared at a press conference the other day that had nothing to do with football ?

havnt read anything from Fremantle denying the reports in the Melbourne media Lyon is involved or any legal action to sue for naming him for something he didn't do, wonder why that would be ?

Precisely as I said previously there mere fact he was in attendance at that press conference and referencing the "non disclose agreement that both parties wanted" is black and white admission he is the person the former employee complained about. It's obviously as close an admission we are going to get without actually saying it.

swan42 wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: you thought it was just a coincidence that he appeared at a press conference the other day that had nothing to do with football ?

havnt read anything from Fremantle denying the reports in the Melbourne media Lyon is involved or any legal action to sue for naming him for something he didn't do, wonder why that would be ?

Have you read anything that confirms same?

MO I don't know what agenda you have but it is patently clear that certain members of the media have their own agenda. Gerard Whately is the epitome of that.

I think it is beside the point of the whole matter to dismiss the media reports as some kind of personal bias against Ross Lyon.

The one thing it is futile to do in these matters involving high ranking individuals is trying to cover it up. The more they try it raises further suspicion what they are trying to cover up.

DD wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: you thought it was just a coincidence that he appeared at a press conference the other day that had nothing to do with football ?

havnt read anything from Fremantle denying the reports in the Melbourne media Lyon is involved or any legal action to sue for naming him for something he didn't do, wonder why that would be ?

Precisely as I said previously there mere fact he was in attendance at that press conference and referencing the "non disclose agreement that both parties wanted" is black and white admission he is the person the former employee complained about. It's obviously as close an admission we are going to get without actually saying it.

It is not an admission.

swan42 wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: JB and swan42 - are you saying Ross Lyon is not involved in this ?

MO I can't speak for JB but I personally have seen no evidence to confirm that.

Swan, you are acting so naive on this. If it turns out that Ross has been avery naughty boy and caused your football club to spend $100k of member’s funds to protect him, will you hand your membership in as a protest?

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: JB and swan42 - are you saying Ross Lyon is not involved in this ?

MO I can't speak for JB but I personally have seen no evidence to confirm that.

Swan, you are acting so naive on this. If it turns out that Ross has been avery naughty boy and caused your football club to spend $100k of member’s funds to protect him, will you hand your membership in as a protest?

58s I am very confused. I can't see any way that Swan Districts, even if they could afford it, would be required to pay $100k of member's (sic) funds. Perhaps MO can help me why Swan Districts would be involved; I certainly have no idea why Swans would be involved.

Heres a suggestion. Everybody has had their say about this ( several times in some instances). The discussion seems to be going around in circles. How about we get back to talking about footy?

No honour amongst thieves - No prejudice when you're blind - No wrong when you've never been taught what's right >>>> sums up the AFL in a nutshell

swan42 wrote:

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

MarkOlsen wrote: JB and swan42 - are you saying Ross Lyon is not involved in this ?

P
MO I can't speak for JB but I personally have seen no evidence to confirm that.

Swan, you are acting so naive on this. If it turns out that Ross has been avery naughty boy and caused your football club to spend $100k of member’s funds to protect him, will you hand your membership in as a protest?

58s I am very confused. I can't see any way that Swan Districts, even if they could afford it, would be required to pay $100k of member's (sic) funds. Perhaps MO can help me why Swan Districts would be involved; I certainly have no idea why Swans would be involved.

You’re playing cute swannie, as you do when asked a difficult question. Will you hand in your FFC membership???