NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 2

[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

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf


DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[just ask!!!]

Just seems a bit strange to pay a lot of money, then walk out cause someone said something about the AFL. Seems weird to me.

It was embarrassment and couldn’t put up with the garbage that was being spoken and the demeanour in which it was addressed pointing fingers at people etc

 

[ferball]

Funnily enough, in this case, if this happened, Clarko should have handed it off to Jason Burt ... which could well be what happened. And Hawthorn should have had demarcated lines between Burt and the coaches - which probably didn't happen.

If you're a coach trying to build the rapport you need to have a kid constantly put their body on the line because you ask them to (and that's the difference between footy and most middle managers, in a nutshell - coaches are asking players to do things no middle manager in a "normal" workplace will ever ask for,) then you don't fob the kid off when they are talking about important stuff.

 

[Back One Out]

No I'm not assuming that it was coercion- that's what the inappropriate allegations relate to - and if it was coercion, footy being a special industry doesn't cut it. They're workers with workers rights. Yep coaching is an incredibly tough gig with enormous external pressures - but for that reason clubs should actually be more vigilant to ensure they aren't over-stepping the mark, rather than saying this is a special industry where basic worker's rights don't count.

Imagine if one of your co-workers was 2 minutes late for a meeting and the CEO of the company you work for announced that EVERYONE had to assemble at Elwood Beach the following morning at 5AM as punishment.

Or imagine if you went out for dinner with friends during the week and then decided to kick on and have a few drinks at a nearby bar. But then somebody snapped a picture of you, sent it to your boss and you were given a verbal warning and told you would be sacked if it happened again. Or how about if you went on holiday to Vegas or Bali for your annual leave and somebody took a picture of you cupping the breast of a (consensual) woman on the dance floor. Imagine if this went viral and you received a warning from employer, had your pay docked, etc, etc...

It makes me laugh when people equate AFL football clubs with other workplaces. Obviously they are not the same. It's elite-level team sport. Players earn massive salaries and they're expected to measure up to the demands and to fully buy in to the club culture and act as club ambassadors at all times.

The AFL and clubs impinge on the "rights" of footballers in all sorts of ways and it's accepted by most.

 

[_Mike_]

Interesting. I wonder how afl clubs manage to suggest/direct/impose living arrangements for draftees every single year.

Does an employer have the right to demand an employee is present to do their job, even if it means no one is present to look after a child at home?

An employee must follow a lawful direction, within the scope of their employment. If the employee is required to be at the work location on a specified day and hours, that is a condition of employment

 

[_Mike_]

I just think people should keep in mind the humanity of everyone involved - not just the 'victims' - when they are assessing the alleged events. It's possible to have full sympathy for the past players and hope they receive justice without demonising Clarkson, Fagan, Burt and Hawthorn to the extent which many people have. But people love to create villains and monsters. Makes them feel better about themselves.

There's a difference between supporting an employee vs interfering with matters outside of the employer-employee relationship. An employer is required to look after the welfare of their employee by providing adequate support and tools for the employee to perform their role. What an employer cannot do is take on a scope outside of their obligations and training, such as providing advice relating to psychological well being. There's a fine line and while we want coaches of all sports to be the good guys, they dont all need to wear capes and try to be super heroes.

It's not the right call to demonise any coach in their position, rather provide education and tools to help them identify when a player of theirs needs assistance, and to be able to provide support to enable the player to get the right assistance

 

[the big lebowski]

An employee must follow a lawful direction, within the scope of their employment. If the employee is required to be at the work location on a specified day and hours, that is a condition of employment

And what if they aren’t. Like a certain hawthorn past player that would not turn up at the club for weeks on end? (Their own words)

 

[_Mike_]

And what if they aren’t. Like a certain hawthorn past player that would not turn up at the club for weeks on end? (Their own words)

Then they are in breach of the conditions of employment and can have their agreement terminated on grounds of breach of contract. The AFL player contract and club contracts usually define terms and sanctions for a player breaching conditions. These are collateral contracts and are not separate contracts in their own rights.

 

[the big lebowski]

Then they are in breach of the conditions of employment and can have their agreement terminated on grounds of breach of contract. The AFL player contract and club contracts usually define terms and sanctions for a player breaching conditions. These are collateral contracts and are not separate contracts in their own rights.

Fully understand. So either fire them for breaching their contractual obligations, or suggest/direct alternative arrangements that will hopefully see them able to fulfill their dream jobs requirements.

 

[ferball]

Don't you see the problem here?

Which one?

 

[_Mike_]

Fully understand. So either fire them for breaching their contractual obligations, or suggest/direct alternative arrangements that will hopefully see them able to fulfill their dream jobs requirements.

In essence, yes.

 

[ferball]

No I'm not assuming that it was coercion- that's what the inappropriate allegations relate to - and if it was coercion, footy being a special industry doesn't cut it. They're workers with workers rights. Yep coaching is an incredibly tough gig with enormous external pressures - but for that reason clubs should actually be more vigilant to ensure they aren't over-stepping the mark, rather than saying this is a special industry where basic worker's rights don't count.

Okay fair enough. If it was coersion that's dodgy as. But if that is the case there needs to be intent. Cultural insensitivity isn't enough to get someone into the same amount of shit.

And its completely unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

 

[ferball]

No, however if a club identifies an employee suffering those listed problems the club has an obligation, if made aware, to refer the player to professional peer support services. OH&S

When did this and any other relevant OH&S provisions become law?

 

[the big lebowski]

Okay fair enough. If it was coersion that's dodgy as. But if that is the case there needs to be intent. Cultural insensitivity isn't enough to get someone into the same amount of s**t.

And its completely unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

“Coercion” that wasn’t coercive enough to work

 

[perplexed]

No, however if a club identifies an employee suffering those listed problems the club has an obligation, if made aware, to refer the player to professional peer support services. OH&S

Indeed. And this is really the crux of it. The club had inadequate mechanisms in place for dealing with these issues and instead relied on coaching staff to try and handle situations well outside their training and capabilities. Then when the report came out, the club let all the blame fall on the staff for their overreach rather than accept blame for its failures.

 

[ferball]

“Coercion” that wasn’t coercive enough to work

Well yeah, but we're not even at that point yet.

 

[Kwality]

An employer has no authority under a contract of employment to direct/suggest/impose opinions on an employee on matters outside the scope of employment, including relationships or family.

Does a game plan fit within direct/suggest/impose in an AFL team, needing to play your role?

 

[ferball]

Indeed. And this is really the crux of it. The club had inadequate mechanisms in place for dealing with these issues and instead relied on coaching staff to try and handle situations well outside their training and capabilities. Then when the report came out, the club let all the blame fall on the staff for their overreach rather than accept blame for its failures.

This is why people are pointing the finger at hawthorn but as I said upthread was that even how things were viewed when these events took place? How long has that level of player welfare been Legally mandated.

 

[Devington]

An employer has no authority under a contract of employment to direct/suggest/impose opinions on an employee on matters outside the scope of employment, including relationships or family.

That's great and all but every club has historically done that regardless, and I would suggest still do it to this day.

Not excusing anything, but it's a question mark the AFL as a whole (or headquarters specifically) need to address.

 

[_Mike_]

When did this and any other relevant OH&S provisions become law?

To stand corrected it should be the Health & Safety Act, under employee assistance programs, not OH&S

 

[sr36]

Okay fair enough. If it was coersion that's dodgy as. But if that is the case there needs to be intent. Cultural insensitivity isn't enough to get someone into the same amount of s**t.

And its completely unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

I don't really see the cultural insensitivity angle If you take the stories from Jackson's article as accurate accounts, I see coach behaviour that is inappropriate regardless of the player's culture.

There's the question of whether it was the product of cultural stereotyping, but you can never really answer that unless you have access to the coaches thought patterns.

According to Amy, the original AFL inquiry terms had no mention of race. They were just looking for inappropriate conduct. Personally, I think that's fair enough, as all that could have been judged was whether the coaches behaviour was inappropriate. How the hell could they have worked out whether it was racially motivated

 

[_Mike_]

That's great and all but every club has historically done that regardless, and I would suggest still do it to this day.

Ofcourse, we do live in the real world. If you look at the profile of a footy player when they first pull on a jumper, they have little to no worldly experience & have not developed a level of maturity or understanding of employment agreements

 

[perplexed]

This is why people are pointing the finger at hawthorn but as I said upthread was that even how things were viewed when these events took place? How long has that level of player welfare been Legally mandated.

The club did have a part time indigenous liaison officer, but he seems to have been sidelined. I suspect that at the time the club thought they handled things well and when they go the review back they were shocked by how their actions were received.

 

[_Mike_]

There's the question of whether it was the product of cultural stereotyping, but you can never really answer that unless you have access to the coaches thought patterns.

This in essence, and IMO, is why racism is still a major problem for Australian sports today. Stereotyping is just another way of describing subconscious bias/racism and the indictment on the game today is that 30 years after what Winmar made a point of, it still happens now, and has happened in 2023.

People just don't get it.

 

[Back One Out]

There's a difference between supporting an employee vs interfering with matters outside of the employer-employee relationship. An employer is required to look after the welfare of their employee by providing adequate support and tools for the employee to perform their role. What an employer cannot do is take on a scope outside of their obligations and training, such as providing advice relating to psychological well being. There's a fine line and while we want coaches of all sports to be the good guys, they dont all need to wear capes and try to be super heroes.

It's not the right call to demonise any coach in their position, rather provide education and tools to help them identify when a player of theirs needs assistance, and to be able to provide support to enable the player to get the right assistance

I believe this scandal is a watershed moment in AFL history and it will forever change the relationship between players and their coach & club.
Not just for the cultural sensitivities towards Indigenous players. But the manner in which AFL coaches interact with all of their players.

I think we'll start seeing a more business-like approach similar to American sports, where players will be left to their own devices once training has finished and they drive away from the practise field. American athletes aren't regulated by their employer like AFL players are. They can indulge their rock star fantasies. They go on wild cocaine binges with hookers and all their hangers-on. And if they go too far and they get arrested and or have compromising photos published on social media, their employer tears up their lucrative contract and tells them to f... off.

We will end up going down that same path here unfortunately and the lives of many promising young footballers will be ruined. Coaches won't be there to offer guidance and life training. It will be more of a business transaction. Colder and more ruthless. Continually missing training sessions? See ya later, bud. Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

It will also affect recruiting & draft day decisions. Clubs will be less willing to take a punt on the indigenous kid from the remote community with their rookie selections and late picks. Why bother? It's too high maintainance and the attrition rate is too high. They'll just take the kid with similar ability from the Sandringham Dragons. It's a safer bet. If you say that out loud, people will call you "Racist!" (just like they did to Matty Rendell) but it's purely pragmatic. Clubs only get so many draft picks and list vacancies.

I honestly think this will result in fewer indigenous players on AFL lists. We'll still see the Buddy's, the Cyril's and the Burgoyne's. We'll be less likely to see the Tipungwuti's, the Jurrah's and the Mosquito's.

 

[ferball]

Don't you see the problem here?

So I'm gonna have a guess at what you're talking about.

The problem here is classism.

white AGS/APS kids

So before we go any further my club's ("co-") captain is an indigenous man who went to one of those schools on a footy scholarship. Odds are kids in those situations and those schools generally, whatever their background, are brainwashed/educated into not having kids before they've got a job, maybe a house and various resources behind them. There's always an emphasis on career first. Its a haute bourgeois attitude. I imagine at hawthorn that's even more the case cos they're the most upper middle class club in the comp.

So Jy Simkin would probably not get the conversation or be in the same situation to begin with, most likely. (Tho Jy did get pissed and walk into a motorbike in his second or third year and i think the realisation of how close he came to losing his career changed his outlook.) But would Eddie Ford or Paul Curtis? They're the only western suburbs kids I'm aware of in the comp, they played for the Jets, who rarely get players drafted compared to other junior sides. Probably not cos that stuff filters down thru all the suburbs and the social strata.

Classism is all over the AFL this century. We've seen it since aound the time Clarkson won his first flag.