NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

 

[Slartibartfast]

So you're saying it is possible Jackson spoke with the families INDEPENDENT of Phil Egan?

Despite Egan making clear in his Bindana report the families only spoke with him due to the respect afforded to him as an elder and due to his culturally appropriate interview techniques?

Jackson may have got his source prior to the report being tabled at HFC is what I am saying. The families speaking with officials from HFC must have been daunting and that is why having Egan involved made it easier. This does not mean they would not have spoke to others outside of the HFC process where they did not fear it being ignored or used against them as was the case with HFC .

Can you show me where his article incorrect?

 

[JyeDye]

Absolutely they got dealt a terrible hand, but backing in someone accused of such shocking behaviour doesn't seem the right call for mine. People accused of serious wrongdoing are often stood down until the investigation is complete, North should appoint an interim coach and prepare for the possibility that Clarkson won't coach them. It's a bad situation, the only way it would be worse is if they are seen to support him, pay him, then it turns out he is guilty on all counts.

Would they actually be allowed to do that though? Clarkson hasn't been charged with anything, I'm not sure under what grounds they can terminate his contract currently. They would have to give him some sort of payout, and considering it's a long term contract that hasn't even started, I don't think it would be cheap. On a purely football club standpoint would it not be best for them to wait for the investigation to be concluded and then assess then? I believe Clarkson will face penalties, they definitely should be thinking about life without him.

Standard 'no comment' would have been appropriate and expected.

North understandably would have had no idea of these allegations when going through the selection process to hiring Clarkson, so the boilerplate 'we are saddened by these allegations and please appreciate our position in not commenting further until the investigation is complete' etc etc is kind of the routine here when a club faces these revelations. And then you make a contingency plan if Clarkson cannot begin his appointment.

That being said, it's fine for a president to back her staff - but if you throw all your weight behind them, smear the journalists, attack the credibility of the victims etc as JackOutback said, then you will get tarnished if the investigation ends with Clarkson being forced to step down.

I tend to agree with this. When I said 'back in' I didn't so much mean backing in Clarkson around this situation, but more so to not immediately terminate his contract and still proceed with him as their current coach. I don't think the club has done any of that attacking of victims credibility or journalists, more so supporters who are just being idiots under typical footy tribalism.

 

[Del191229]

Jackson may have got his source prior to the report being tabled at HFC is what I am saying. The families speaking with officials from HFC must have been daunting and that is why having Egan involved made it easier. This does not mean they would not have spoke to others outside of the HFC process where they did not fear it being ignored or used against them as was the case with HFC
Can you show me where his article incorrect?

That's absurd thinking you're inventing here because you've nailed yourself to Jackson.

As for the continual question a out me showing you where thr article is "incorrect", I find this fascinating.

Can you show me where it is correct?

You can't. No, you can't.

You've internalised the allegations made in the article as fact.

They're not fact, they're allegations.

If the article had gone to lengths to independently verify those allegations, then they could be considered facts.

But it doesn't. It contains related allegations along similar themes, bit no corroboration.

There's nobody quoted who says "I was there when Clarkson and Fagan did what's alleged.".

That's not there because Russell didn't do the work that Nick McKenzie woukd do, as you know first hand.

It's a deeply emotive story, the allegations are quite shocking.

I can understand why people may have internalised the allegations as facts.

Russell certainly has and we've seen just how unhinged and aggressive he becomes when thinks that people are challenging his view.

But these allegations are going to be independently tested and people have to ready themselves for the fact they don't stand up.

Or that they don't turn out to have occurred as Jackson portrayed them.

I was very prepared for Clarkson not to be coaching North on first read.

But since then, having analysed it further, and especially with someone I know and trust in Sonja backing him, I've changed my mind.

Other people need to be prepared to change theirs too.

 

[Del191229]

Standard 'no comment' would have been appropriate and expected.

North understandably would have had no idea of these allegations when going through the selection process to hiring Clarkson, so the boilerplate 'we are saddened by these allegations and please appreciate our position in not commenting further until the investigation is complete' etc etc is kind of the routine here when a club faces these revelations. And then you make a contingency plan if Clarkson cannot begin his appointment.

That being said, it's fine for a president to back her staff - but if you throw all your weight behind them, smear the journalists, attack the credibility of the victims etc as JackOutback said, then you will get tarnished if the investigation ends with Clarkson being forced to step down.

Sonja has smeared journalists and attacked the credibility of victims?

Where has she done this? Please provide quotes and links.

 

[Chief]

There's nobody quoted who says "I was there when Clarkson and Fagan did what's alleged.".

Wasn't there one witness involved in it who talked?

 

[Forward Press]

Sonja has smeared journalists and attacked the credibility of victims?

Where has she done this? Please provide quotes and links.

Was more referring to the fans with the later remarks of 'if you throw all your weight behind them, smear the journalists, attack the credibility of the victims etc'

 

[Makeshift Park]

Wasn't there one witness involved in it who talked?

Jon Ralph at one point reported that there was a Hawthorn assistant coach who had "corroborated some elements of the alleged discrimination."

Whether that means they witnessed an actual event where discrimination occurred is unclear from his article, as is whether that discrimination was perpetrated by any particular individual.

Key quote from Ralphy: "The Herald Sun has been unable to confirm which allegations the coach corroborated, but the Herald Sun is not suggesting the coach’s information proves the allegations."

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's absurd thinking you're inventing here because you've nailed yourself to Jackson.

As for the continual question a out me showing you where thr article is "incorrect", I find this fascinating.

Can you show me where it is correct?

You can't. No, you can't.

You've internalised the allegations made in the article as fact.

They're not fact, they're allegations.

If the article had gone to lengths to independently verify those allegations, then they could be considered facts.

But it doesn't. It contains related allegations along similar themes, bit no corroboration.

There's nobody quoted who says "I was there when Clarkson and Fagan did what's alleged.".

That's not there because Russell didn't do the work that Nick McKenzie woukd do, as you know first hand.

It's a deeply emotive story, the allegations are quite shocking.

I can understand why people may have internalised the allegations as facts.

Russell certainly has and we've seen just how unhinged and aggressive he becomes when thinks that people are challenging his view.

But these allegations are going to be independently tested and people have to ready themselves for the fact they don't stand up.

Or that they don't turn out to have occurred as Jackson portrayed them.

I was very prepared for Clarkson not to be coaching North on first read.

But since then, having analysed it further, and especially with someone I know and trust in Sonja backing him, I've changed my mind.

Other people need to be prepared to change theirs too.

Your the one calling Jackson all facets of incompetent, tell us why. Tell us what is wrong with the article???? What work did Jackson not do???
I have not said what is fact and what is not, I read the article and could not find issue with it. The allegations are terrible.

You have issues with it , show us what parts of the article are wrong??? You have been slinging of about the article. Saying it was rushed?? Saying it is poor journalism . Your right, I cant show you what is right or wrong at this stage and i dont know how you can then.

You are the one with the blinkers on, so blinded by your need to protect Clarkson. You say you worked in the media but I cannot see how, your lack of rational thinking that if you did it must have been reporting on school fairs for suburban weekly’s. Not sure why you would raise your media experience if you are not going to qualify it.

I dont understand your rage unless you are the one who has internalised that Jackson is a Poor journalist.
You are the one stating it is bad journalism without waiting for more evidence. Remember Jacksons article comes form participants.

As for how he he learnt about it , not a big issue for me but it is very plausible that it was sourced before the report was tabled, I am keeping an open mind and am not blinkered to what suits my story best…..unlike you.


I cannot find issue with the article. Great bit of journalism.

Look forward to chatting about what motivates you to saying that the Jackson article is so bad.

 

[Del191229]

Wasn't there one witness involved in it who talked?

Was there? There's nothing in Egan's Bindama report or Russell's write offs that I've seen that does that.

There's the "Russian Mafia" assistant coach but what they actually corroborate is quite vague.

Egan says they "validate" his findings and the assistant coach was "present and complicit in carrying out part of orders from Clarkson, Fagan and Burt".

Surely if they'd been present for the actual nub of the allegations their testimony would have been included by Egan.

Or Jackson.

That doesn't seem to have happened.

As it stands, there's nobody who can verify the details of the allegations made.

At the moment, it is he said, she said as it were.

And for some of them it is he said to me that this is what happened - third party hearsay.

You'd think on a story so huge, covering such vast time frames and with so many people who could have been involved, more allegations would have surfaced, or people come forward.

I mean jeezo, there'd be a very nice earn in it too, but nobody has done the big "My Clarkson Hell" story.

That all may change, but as it stands, Jackson's article is untested and uncorroborated allegations.

FWIW I have no problem believing the people making the allegations. And I can totally seer how those situations could have happened.

 

[JackOutback]

Would they actually be allowed to do that though? Clarkson hasn't been charged with anything, I'm not sure under what grounds they can terminate his contract currently. They would have to give him some sort of payout, and considering it's a long term contract that hasn't even started, I don't think it would be cheap. On a purely football club standpoint would it not be best for them to wait for the investigation to be concluded and then assess then? I believe Clarkson will face penalties, they definitely should be thinking about life without him.

There'd be ways around it, one might involve the AFL stepping in and paying some of the costs, or an agreement between Clarkson and the club that he stand down, with the full payments to be made if he's cleared or none if he's not, regardless of how much time the investigation takes. I just find it hard to accept that the only solution is allowing someone to coach who, if found guilty, will have been found to be an unacceptable person to be in charge of young men. The club will then have exposed some of its players to a situation they should not have to be exposed to and leave itself open to further criticism and possible consequences.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Was there? There's nothing in Egan's Bindama report or Russell's write offs that I've seen that does that.

There's the "Russian Mafia" assistant coach but what they actually corroborate is quite vague.

Egan says they "validate" his findings and the assistant coach was "present and complicit in carrying out part of orders from Clarkson, Fagan and Burt".

Surely if they'd been present for the actual nub of the allegations their testimony would have been included by Egan.

Or Jackson.

That doesn't seem to have happened.

As it stands, there's nobody who can verify the details of the allegations made.

At the moment, it is he said, she said as it were.

And for some of them it is he said to me that this is what happened - third party hearsay.

You'd think on a story so huge, covering such vast time frames and with so many people who could have been involved, more allegations would have surfaced, or people come forward.

I mean jeezo, there'd be a very nice earn in it too, but nobody has done the big "My Clarkson Hell" story.

That all may change, but as it stands, Jackson's article is untested and uncorroborated allegations.

FWIW I have no problem believing the people making the allegations. And I can totally seer how those situations could have happened.

So if you believe the people making the allegations why not Jacksons reporting of them???? Thats all he has done.

 

[Del191229]

Was more referring to the fans with the later remarks of 'if you throw all your weight behind them, smear the journalists, attack the credibility of the victims etc'

No, you said: "it's fine for a president to back her staff - but if you throw all your weight behind them, smear the journalists, attack the credibility of the victims etc as JackOutback said, then you will get tarnished if the investigation ends with Clarkson being forced to step down."

You're very clearly saying the president backs her staff (which is fine) - but has thrown all her weight behind them, smeared journalists, attacked the credibility of the victims etc.

Again, please show me, with evidence, where North President Sonja Hood has smeared journalists and attacked the credibility of victims.

They are very ugly and serious claims.

If you didn't mean that, you should go and edit the post to be very clear about that.

 

[Chief]

There's the "Russian Mafia" assistant coach but what they actually corroborate is quite vague.

Would we not assume there is more detail around than just one line?

 

[Makeshift Park]

I mean jeezo, there'd be a very nice earn in it too, but nobody has done the big "My Clarkson Hell" story.

This is an interesting point I hadn't thought of.
The family of an Australian drug smuggler were paid $200k by 60 minutes for tell-all interviews about a decade ago.
A few years back, a Melbourne wellness blogger who faked brain cancer was paid $75k.
Surely an assistant coach who worked under Clarko would command upwards of half a million?
Quite an incentive, wouldn't you say?

 

[Del191229]

Your the one calling Jackson all facets of incompetent, tell us why. Tell us what is wrong with the article???? What work did Jackson not do???
I have not said what is fact and what is not, I read the article and could not find issue with it. The allegations are terrible.

You have issues with it , show us what parts of the article are wrong??? You have been slinging of about the article. Saying it was rushed?? Saying it is poor journalism . Your right, I cant show you what is right or wrong at this stage and i dont know how you can then.

You are the one with the blinkers on, so blinded by your need to protect Clarkson. You say you worked in the media but I cannot see how, your lack of rational thinking that if you did it must have been reporting on school fairs for suburban weekly’s. Not sure why you would raise your media experience if you are not going to qualify it.

I dont understand your rage unless you are the one who has internalised that Jackson is a Poor journalist.
You are the one stating it is bad journalism without waiting for more evidence. Remember Jacksons article comes form participants.

As for how he he learnt about it , not a big issue for me but it is very plausible that it was sourced before the report was tabled, I am keeping an open mind and am not blinkered to what suits my story best…..unlike you.


I cannot find issue with the article. Great bit of journalism.

Look forward to chatting about what motivates you to saying that the Jackson article is so bad.

I've come back on to the thread after Jackson defamed a very good friend of mine in Sonja. Sonja paid a beautiful tribute to my recently deceased mother at the North AFLW B n F. I've seen the brilliant work Sonja has done at The Huddle, with the community hubs.

And I'm pissed off that some snivelling white male turd like Jackson who has made a career out of monetising the misery of others felt he could king hit my good friend like he did on Friday.

Rusty misjudged Sonja, like so many do (including on this thread) and paid a significant price in terms of credibility.

A wise person would look at Jackson's behaviour of late and say "Hmmmm, is this bloke actually the right person to be handling a story of this complexity and nuance?"

I'm also really pissed off at how cavalier he's been with this story, with his arrogant and ugly white saviour complex.

When I first read his story I was shocked, I still am, by the allegations, but when I got to the end I went "And? Where's the hard work? Where's the witnesses, where's the corroboration? Why has the ABC published the first draft of what could be an outstanding investigation?"

Racism towards indigenous players is something that's defined my experience of footy.

One of my earliest memories is being horrified at why people were shouting awful things at my favourite players, Phil and Jim Krakouer.

I've heard so much racist abuse at the footy over the years, and me and my family stood up against the racists, sometimes at significant personal risk - Victoria Park in the early 90s, Kardinia Park in the 80s, Friday night games against Essendon before Sheeds saw the light.

I'm pissed off because this is such an important story about indigenous footballers and Jackson has just stuffed it from top to bottom. His towering ego (which we saw on ugly display on Friday) and his incompetence combined.

Jackson wanted to use these people's stories of suffering to further his own career. It isn't about them, it is about Rusty and his ever expanding ego.

That's why he rushed to print, why he didn't do the work, why he put these people's future at risk by refusing to treat the story properly and give the people he's naming a genuine right of reply.

Rusty wants Alistair Clarkson's scalp, make his name, and he's prepared to risk the health and wellbeing of deeply vulnerable people to do it.

I've seen that happen plenty of times in journalism, I did it myself once and I still feel sick when I think about it.

And on Clarkson, do you honestly think I give THAT much of a shit if Clarkson coaches us or not?

That I'd put Clarkson ahead of the brilliant culture of Cable (first ever indigenous coach), the Krakouers, the sublime Daniel Wells, Lindsay Thomas who was treated with disgusting racism by the wider AFL, Tarryn Thomas, Mia King etc that we have at North?

If Clarkson did even half of what's being alleged here, he's not welcome at Arden Street.

You folks on here have no idea how we North fans think.

Us sacking Clarkson tomorrow wouldn't even be in the top five shitty off field things to happen to us ffs.

If we sack him, we'll get a new coach and we'll play Round 1 next year just fine.

 

[boncer34]

Yeah but ... * the criticism. We lost a player a year or two early because of actual overt racism across AFL media five years ago, the rest of the AFL have no legs to stand on criticising us.

We have strong BIPOC players at the club who have no problem speaking out or standing up for themselves and we have people quite capable of making judgements on situations in our clubs best interests. We'll wait for the results of this investigation, we'll assess them against our own values and make our own decision and a bunch of hypocritical w***ers in the afl media or footballing public can go * themselves if they don't like the results.

We make Jy Simpkin captain and then the AFL or media morons like Corne start telling him whether or not he's safe at North, as if he's incapable of making that decision for himself ... how does that work?

Which player?

 

[ferball]

Which player?

Lindsay Thomas

 

[boncer34]

Lindsay Thomas

Oh. I thought he went to Port.

What's the story?

 

[ferball]

Oh. I thought he went to Port.

What's the story?

He went to Port to get away from the noise here and got slammed while he was there too.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Would we not assume there is more detail around than just one line?

We can assume anything, the thing is we don't know what the assistant coach said or corroborated.

 

[boncer34]

He went to Port to get away from the noise here and got slammed while he was there too.

Can you expand on the story? Who slammed him? How?

 

[ferball]

Can you expand on the story?

Honestly not really interested. I only came into this thread cos a different one I was posting in got merged with it.

If you think the treatment of LT was okay tho ... welll dunno what to say to that really.

 

[boncer34]

Honestly not really interested. I only came into this thread cos a different one I was posting in got merged with it.

If you think the treatment of LT was okay tho ... welll dunno what to say to that really.

No need to go on the attack. I genuinely have never heard this before.

 

[gouki88]

I've come back on to the thread after Jackson defamed a very good friend of mine in Sonja.

What was the defamation?

 

[ferball]

No need to go on the attack. I genuinely have never heard this before.

I didn't mean to come across that way. Its kind of tiring to go over it tho. I might PM you.