TOPIC:

Carr said that there were suggestions of drowning. Gee, the way they word reports to flour it up.

yer,,channel 2 dropped the 'drown' word just then...

Kenny Kev wrote: Caro writes articles to get a reaction. Once she gets one she does not like it and has a avenue on the Footy Classified show to barrage people who have no avenue for come back.

If you look at the article it was also all her Triple M colleagues who also made fun of her with Tony Shaw saying they would make money charging people to push he down the slide. The others in the box at the time all joined in but she has chosen to single out Eddie and James only. Does she not realise she is not liked?

She should retire now. She makes stories up and when they are proven to be incorrect she never admits she was wrong. She hates Eddie and James and its just a weak effort by her at trying to stir things up.

Only one problem with your argument. Caroline Wilson did not bring these comments to everyones attention, it was done via social media and other journalists. She only responded in print when it came out in public. Sure if you think that Wilson is a crap journalist that is your right to express that but please make sure you get your facts correct. Also McGuire and Brayshaw are senior AFL officials and have a responsibility to keep their comments at a better standard than bar room banter.

Winger wrote: Carr said that there were suggestions of drowning. Gee, the way they word reports to flour it up.

Typical Ch7 rubbish mate!! And some of our friends on here reckon they do a good job in broadcasting our footy!

Funny or scary thing is that women want equality, and that's fine, I agree with them wholeheartedy, all should be treated equal, but the problem is when they ARE treated equal in banter etc then they cant cope with it! So now people have to speak with women differently than men in football, yet they want equality?? I am confused, they cant have it both ways!

I think there needs to be a sensible rather than flippant approach to this topic. The message coming out of it, especially in the public domain from public figures is words proposing violence or even implied violence even if it is only said in jest is just not on because it has an implied effect that it's ok.

Jimmy Bartels story is as raw as it gets and so many families have suffered at the hands of an egotistical father who treats his wife as a trophy and gets his kicks out of running his wife and kids down to make himself in his mind feel like a man.

I've been on jury duty in a domestic violence case and I can tell you I felt like standing in front of this gutless prick and invite him to throw the first one.

Swandog wrote: Funny or scary thing is that women want equality, and that's fine, I agree with them wholeheartedy, all should be treated equal, but the problem is when they ARE treated equal in banter etc then they cant cope with it! So now people have to speak with women differently than men in football, yet they want equality?? I am confused, they cant have it both ways!

Spot on SD.

Grassy wrote: 7 put 7's Slant on it.

So McGuire means nothing to them in the iverall scheme of things.

So when they ask,"Eddie McGuire,how does he get away with it?",you just wonder if it's response to someone asking the same question about say,Teevor Nisbett?

Now Nisbett hasn't said or done anything outrageous.It's what he didn't do when all hell broke loose,that 9 May have raised recently,that got up Channel Eagle's Nose!

That's not to excuse Eddie in my book.Swandog's right.He as a Club Official(President no less) should do better and rise above the schoolboy antics that arose last week.

And getting back to what got up his nose,if she didn't raise the issue of his 17 year tenure at Collingwood,someone else should.have.Only 1 Flag with no prospect of one in the next few.The Collingwood Faithfull of old would not have Copped that.There'd be a new President with that ultimately POOR Record!

Teflon Eddie - The AFL media are an "old boys club" just listen to On The Couch last night Healey was having a bit each-way on the subject looking after his "mates"

Eddies with his conflict of Interests has now got CFC major sponsor involved www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-20/eddie-mcg...-sponsorship/7527852

DD wrote: I think there needs to be a sensible rather than flippant approach to this topic. The message coming out of it, especially in the public domain from public figures is words proposing violence or even implied violence even if it is only said in jest is just not on because it has an implied effect that it's ok.

Jimmy Bartels story is as raw as it gets and so many families have suffered at the hands of an egotistical father who treats his wife as a trophy and gets his kicks out of running his wife and kids down to make himself in his mind feel like a man.

I've been on jury duty in a domestic violence case and I can tell you I felt like standing in front of this gutless prick and invite him to throw the first one.

This has zero to do with domestic violence! And Wilson herself said she wants to distance this topic with Domestic violence instead rather linking it as being sexist which absolute rubbish too to be honest

I will agree to disagree with you Swandog, if you listen to Gillon McLachlan. I don't always agree with this bloke but I think he nailed it. There is a broader picture here. We know Eddie wasn't advocating domestic violence but to say I'll pay 50 grand if she'll stay under? You make up your own mind.

Eddie has loose lips and form. Like saying Hollywood should sign up Adam Goodes for the next King Kong movie or words to that effect. These buffoons think they have open license to ridicule anyone, clearly the power of the media goes to their heads.