What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 4

[Sentinel]

The AFL has to take the case over. What really annoys me is the main perpetrator (because he's dead) gets off scot free, however if others that were involved with him are alive, they need to be brought to account.

That's not entirely true, he did serve 3 years in prison for the abuse of the victim in the story plus another boy - which does seem manifestly inadequate but he was given some offensively light degree of punishment rather than go to his grave without retribution.

The conviction also makes this line baffling: However, Bulldogs chief executive Ameet Bains said before the case was filed that the club was “shocked and dismayed to learn about the terrible abuse suffered by Adam Kneale in the 1980s.”

Clearly, it was known by some within the club years ago. This hasn't suddenly come to light, there is no way that the club can even be given benefit of the doubt about its knowledge of at least some of what occurred. Bains can perhaps talk for himself in expressing shock in learning about it, but he can't speak for the club on the whole.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

That's not entirely true, he did serve 3 years in prison for the abuse of the victim in the story plus another boy - which does seem manifestly inadequate but he was given some ridiculously light degree of punishment.

The conviction also makes this line baffling: However, Bulldogs chief executive Ameet Bains said before the case was filed that the club was “shocked and dismayed to learn about the terrible abuse suffered by Adam Kneale in the 1980s.”

Clearly, it was known by some within the club years ago. This hasn't suddenly come to light, there is no way that the club can even be given benefit of the doubt about its' knowledge of at least some of what occurred.

It has just come to light, again, due to the action being taken by the victim. He went to the police back then, the perpetrator was jailed, probably it was assumed that was the end of it and it wasn't spoken of again. Of course Kneale was badly scarred by the experiences and has lately been convinced that he has a case against the club.

The current staff, including Bains, are very likely not to have known about it. Are there many/any who are still there, who worked there back in the 80s/early 90s?

 

[Sentinel]

It has just come to light, again, due to the action being taken by the victim. He went to the police back then, the perpetrator was jailed, probably it was assumed that was the end of it and it wasn't spoken of again. Of course Kneale was badly scarred by the experiences and has lately been convinced that he has a case against the club.

The current staff, including Bains, are very likely not to have known about it. Are there many/any who are still there, who worked there back in the 80s/early 90s?

Don't get me wrong, I'd certainly be giving Bains and others at the club now the benefit of the doubt about their own knowledge of the events (Peter Gordon who was president at the time of the court case also claimed to have no recollection of it).

However, the Bulldogs as an organisation at some point MUST have known about it - and seemingly chose to do very little by way of support for the victim. Which is why I don't think it's appropriate for Bains to apparently claim, according to the article, that the club is only just learning about what happened.

 

[Fossie 32]

Don't get me wrong, I'd certainly be giving Bains and others at the club now the benefit of the doubt about their own knowledge of the events (Peter Gordon who was president at the time of the court case also claimed to have no recollection of it).

However, the Bulldogs as an organisation at some point MUST have known about it - and seemingly chose to do very little by way of support for the victim. Which is why I don't think it's appropriate for Bains to apparently claim, according to the article, that the club is only just learning about what happened.

I guess when he says 'the club' it means the people who run it / are involved with it now, not in the past

 

[Sentinel]

I guess when he says 'the club' it means the people who run it / are involved with it now, not in the past

No doubt that's the case. I just think the semantics are important with this.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Don't get me wrong, I'd certainly be giving Bains and others at the club now the benefit of the doubt about their own knowledge of the events (Peter Gordon who was president at the time of the court case also claimed to have no recollection of it).

However, the Bulldogs as an organisation at some point MUST have known about it - and seemingly chose to do very little by way of support for the victim. Which is why I don't think it's appropriate for Bains to apparently claim, according to the article, that the club is only just learning about what happened.

When you say "as an organisation" I'm not sure what you mean. Clubs had pretty basic record-keeping procedures back then (compared to now), still climbing out of the local-footy mould, especially the FFC that was in disarray and great financial difficulty. They had a lot more important matters on their minds - important to them such as survival. Records if kept would have been haphazard if they existed, perhaps lost during the upheaval. I'd bet nothing was committed to paper. Staff would have been on the point of losing their jobs or going elsewhere, expecting to be laid off when the club folded. In any case very few would know or have been told. No one talked about such things, except maybe in private. Victim-support wasn't a thing then, either. It was supposed that not talking about it would help the sufferer to forget it sooner. We know better now of course.

 

[Sentinel]

When you say "as an organisation" I'm not sure what you mean. Clubs had pretty basic record-keeping procedures back then (compared to now), still climbing out of the local-footy mould, especially the FFC that was in disarray and great financial difficulty. They had a lot more important matters on their minds - important to them such as survival. Records if kept would have been haphazard if they existed, perhaps lost during the upheaval. I'd bet nothing was committed to paper. Staff would have been on the point of losing their jobs or going elsewhere, expecting to be laid off when the club folded. In any case very few would know or have been told. No one talked about such things, except maybe in private. Victim-support wasn't a thing then, either. It was supposed that not talking about it would help the sufferer to forget it sooner. We know better now of course.

I mean the club, as an ongoing entity, as distinct from the people who currently occupy it (Bains etc).

I agree that not everyone within the club would have known about it, and perhaps no one did at the time of the offending itself until years later. However the newspaper which reported on the court case in 1994 was edited by a club board member at the time, and it would be a long bow to suggest there was no police contact made with the club at any point prior to the court case, given they were investigating offending on the premises.

My point is that the club simply must have had some degree of knowledge of the offending once the court case occurred, rather than just learning about it now - perhaps 're-learning' was more appropriate to say. And, apparently, did nothing by way of restitution towards the victim. This came after the club, according to the new court case, did nothing to protect the victim from the offender at the time of the abuse (again I'm not suggesting the club was complicit in any way, this is purely going off the case which has been lodged with the Supreme Court).

 

[Golden_6]

I mean the club, as an ongoing entity, as distinct from the people who currently occupy it (Bains etc).

I agree that not everyone within the club would have known about it, and perhaps no one did at the time of the offending itself until years later. However the newspaper which reported on the court case in 1994 was edited by a club board member at the time, and it would be a long bow to suggest there was no police contact made with the club at any point prior to the court case, given they were investigating offending on the premises.

My point is that the club simply must have had some degree of knowledge of the offending once the court case occurred, rather than just learning about it now - perhaps 're-learning' was more appropriate to say. And, apparently, did nothing by way of restitution towards the victim. This came after the club, according to the new court case, did nothing to protect the victim from the offender at the time of the abuse (again I'm not suggesting the club was complicit in any way, this is purely going off the case which has been lodged with the Supreme Court).

Gordon is probably the one I'm looking at.

"In a written response to questions from ABC Sport, Gordon said he had no recollection of Adam's story and "no knowledge of any interaction the club may have had with Adam nor any offer of assistance".

"Until this week, I was unaware my cousin Charles Kneale had a son named Adam, and I have no recollection of hearing of Adam or what you have described," Gordon said."

I honestly find this completely hard to believe. Gordon was president from 1989-1996 and the offender was jailed in 1994. Gordon was president of the club whilst the offending was taking place, as well as the jail sentence being handed down. There is absolutely no chance he wasn't aware of the situation.

 

[NBates]

There is absolutely no chance he wasn't aware of the situation.

There is a chance. The Western Times article about the 1994 court case states the abuse was between 1984 and 1987. There is a statement in the HS article that the abuse was between 1984 and 1990, but it's not a quote (granted, neither is the WT article). Gordon took over in late 1989, so this creep may have been shafted soon after the complete overhaul there, or he may have left after 1987. And the creep pleaded guilty, which may have meant there were no witnesses called from the Club. So Gordon may not have been aware or made aware of the article or the case. And not everyone is close with their cousins - I wouldn't have a clue who most of my cousins kids were.

Regardless, the case is against the Club and not any individual who may have let these appalling crimes go on by turning a blind eye (although we cannot assume people did that either - in those days a lot of people couldn't believe someone would do that to a child). I'm sure Mr Kneale will be successful in his claims and we will not be the last Club who is made to pay. I also think the AFL may want to take over these cases - not to fight them necessarily, but to have a fund to pay. They will have to do so for past concussion cases soon as well.

 

[Golden_6]

There is a chance. The Western Times article about the 1994 court case states the abuse was between 1984 and 1987. There is a statement in the HS article that the abuse was between 1984 and 1990, but it's not a quote (granted, neither is the WT article). Gordon took over in late 1989, so this creep may have been shafted soon after the complete overhaul there, or he may have left after 1987. And the creep pleaded guilty, which may have meant there were no witnesses called from the Club. So Gordon may not have been aware or made aware of the article or the case. And not everyone is close with their cousins - I wouldn't have a clue who most of my cousins kids were.

Regardless, the case is against the Club and not any individual who may have let these appalling crimes go on by turning a blind eye (although we cannot assume people did that either - in those days a lot of people couldn't believe someone would do that to a child). I'm sure Mr Kneale will be successful in his claims and we will not be the last Club who is made to pay. I also think the AFL may want to take over these cases - not to fight them necessarily, but to have a fund to pay. They will have to do so for past concussion cases soon as well.

I’m not saying that was Gordon was around when the actual offending was taking place but as the president during that period I just find it hard to believe he would have no knowledge of it, even if it wasn’t under his watch.

Even someone just mentioning the crimes to him just once because the nature of it is that once you hear it, there’s no way it could slip your memory.

 

[NBates]

I’m not saying that was Gordon was around when the actual offending was taking place but as the president during that period I just find it hard to believe he would have no knowledge of it, even if it wasn’t under his watch.

Even someone just mentioning the crimes to him just once because the nature of it is that once you hear it, there’s no way it could slip your memory.

You might be right, but I think you are applying how news of today travels rather than how it was at the time. Doubt there was any media manager to ensure people were aware and an article in the local paper is hardly headline news. (Not saying it doesn't deserve to be, just saying that's how it was then).

 

[NBates]

Derwent on SEN just said C'wood doesn't miss Treloar and he hasn't done anything this year!!!! (In response to C'wood supporter questioning whether they are missing all those that left).

 

[MYOB]

The club had to know.

The Western Times was the biggest local paper in a time when local papers were actually read .

It is bullshit to think that not one person at the club was aware of the court case.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

You might be right, but I think you are applying how news of today travels rather than how it was at the time. Doubt there was any media manager to ensure people were aware and an article in the local paper is hardly headline news. (Not saying it doesn't deserve to be, just saying that's how it was then).

Plus, the idea then was that it was best if offences of this nature were not talked about. I know in light of how we view these crimes now, in totality, including perpetrator, victim as well as circumstances or environment, it seems impossible that they could be ignored or played down but they were. If you weren’t around back then you won’t understand how it was.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The club had to know.

The Western Times was the biggest local paper in a time when local papers were actually read .

It is bullshit to think that not one person at the club was aware of the court case.

You’re saying “the club” as a whole, then “one person at the club”. I wonder how many of the then-staff are still there.

 

[MYOB]

You’re saying “the club” as a whole, then “one person at the club”. I wonder how many of the then-staff are still there.

I'm not worried about who was there then or now, my point is the club had to know about this at the time and did nothing, and for that we are going to pay for it now, and rightly so.

 

[NBates]

The club had to know.

The Western Times was the biggest local paper in a time when local papers were actually read .

It is bullshit to think that not one person at the club was aware of the court case.

I don't think Gordon would have lived anywhere near the WO to see it. And I don't think anyone would bring it to his attention in those days.

 

[doggies ftw]

“The club” must have known, “not necessarily the people there now, but the club”

What does this even mean lmao? What is “the club” exactly?

 

[Mr. Walker]

What did the President know and when did he know it?

 

[MYOB]

I don't think Gordon would have lived anywhere near the WO to see it. And I don't think anyone would bring it to his attention in those days.

And that is where we disagree. You can't seriously believe that no one in the corridors of the Western Oval would have said "s**t, did you see that article in the Western Times".

 

[Dogs Rule]

It's just a shame the grub died. Hopefully it was a horrible, painful death.

 

[Sentinel]

“The club” must have known, “not necessarily the people there now, but the club”

What does this even mean lmao? What is “the club” exactly?

Is it that hard to understand? The presumption is that, at the time of the court case, people within the football club who were representing the club and acting on behalf of the club, knew about the case's existence. The club being the Footscray Football Club, obviously. Those representing the club now may not have had the details of that passed onto them so they can rightly claim individual ignorance of the matter but I don't believe should be insinuating that the club never knew of it.

It's the same "club" which now needs to defend itself against the case being brought to the Supreme Court, rather than any specific individuals. Bains and co aren't on trial, nor are their equivalents from the 80s and 90s, but the club is.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I'm not worried about who was there then or now, my point is the club had to know about this at the time and did nothing, and for that we are going to pay for it now, and rightly so.

The. Club. I still don’t know who you mean. What do you think should have happened? I’ve tried to explain how, at that time, there was no concept of counselling or compensation of victims of abuse. No actual acknowledgment. There was no discussion, no foretelling that there might be consequences in the future. Someone was punished, that was it.

 

[MYOB]

The. Club. I still don’t know who you mean. What do you think should have happened? I’ve tried to explain how, at that time, there was no concept of counselling or compensation of victims of abuse. No actual acknowledgment. There was no discussion, no foretelling that there might be consequences in the future. Someone was punished, that was it.

The CLUB that you support, the Footscray Football Club.

What do I think should have happened. I think an apology should have been provided to the victim. The concept of decency

 

[NBates]

Candice Wyatt down at the WO waiting for live cross (bit early, unless they record it before it goes to air)