News Hawthorn Racism Review - No player name speculation - opposition posters tread very carefully

[Lickmesocks]

Correct. Hawthorn followed the process once they saw the allegations leveled at HFC staff. They handed the report to the AFL to investigate.

I think it’s a more than fair assumption that the leak occurred because the AFL had sat on it for two weeks, and the leaking party was concerned that nothing would ever come of what was written in the report.

Nailed it.

Clarko upset as Viney alluded too because he wasn’t made aware that we were interviewing past players and then not made aware of the serious allegations levelled at him.

What was the AFL doing once we handed it to them. How long had they had the report, was it 1 or 2 days or weeks as has been reported? Some will say who cares about timelines but these now become critical as to the whole process.

Why didn’t they call Clarko Burt and Fagan in with lawyers present and let them know they had a report that had some serious allegations levelled at them and give them some sort of notice?

Did the AFL really think this would never hit the public and it could be handled in closed mediation sessions?

 

[DogDaySonny]

May I post in your forum?

Cards on the table, I strongly dislike Kennett for political reasons and also personal ones: I have had family members work close to him and in my view he's a stinker of a man. I think much of your current woes are down to him, failing to change culture and making it worse.

Its worth distinguishing my hurt feelings from his actual achievements, he clearly helped connect Hawthorn and set up a successful era, and his mental health work is to be applauded, I did not think he had it in him but he did some great things for the country there.

He's obviously done a lot for your club with strong political and financial connections (like McGuire did for ours) and had as much success as McGuire. As with McGuire a lot of the fruits of his labours have been harvested by others. There's a reason for that.

Jeff was under pressure over the whole Rioli saga, something I heard about from a mate inside the club years ago. The botched inquiry has pushed the heat onto ex coaches and staff and off Jeff, I suspect that was his idea.

Jeff has a self destructive streak. He lost an unlosable election and has often spoiled good things he worked hard to build. Best for Hawthorn to let him finish his current spiral before giving him a gong. He does deserve it but the club has to protect itself. The whole league lives off government money and licenses in a heap of different ways, and if you let racism slide you risk losing that.

Heh. A cards on the table brave post in this forum would have been one of support with grudging criticism, rather than the other way around.

 

[Mississippi]

No. It's with the HRC which is not a court of law.

I guess is depends on how you want to define "legal action".

If you have a strict and narrow definition such as "going to court", then you're right.

But if your definition of 'legal action' involves instructing lawyers to act for you in connection with a discrimination claim brought by a complainant who alleges that you have breached the Racial Discrimination Act and where the parties and their lawyers seek a conciliation of the dispute by the HRC, then it most definitely is 'legal action".

In other words, if it’s a legal dispute (which it is) and you’ve engaged lawyers (which you have) to deal with the legal dispute, and if you've submitted the complaint to a statutory body which is obliged to investigate the dispute (which you have), then it's fair to say that legal action is pending.

 

[brad sue well]

I recall reading HRC hearing was due in December.

Now planned for February.

 

[thehardway]

I guess is depends on how you want to define "legal action".

If you have a strict and narrow definition such as "going to court", then you're right.

But if your definition of 'legal action' involves instructing lawyers to act for you in connection with a discrimination claim brought by a complainant who alleges that you have breached the Racial Discrimination Act and where the parties and their lawyers seek a conciliation of the dispute by the HRC, then it most definitely is 'legal action".

In other words, if it’s a legal dispute (which it is) and you’ve engaged lawyers (which you have) to deal with the legal dispute, and if you've submitted the complaint to a statutory body which is obliged to investigate the dispute (which you have), then it's fair to say that legal action is pending.

Legal action is conducted in a court of law which the HRC is not. It is not an adversarial body where witnesses are cross examined by Lawyers for both sides. Lawyers are optional. It's aim is a conciliated outcome.

But I'm not a Lawyer and it would be good to get the opinion of someone on here with a legal background.

 

[jumpingjai]

You're very naive.
The Kennett return in 2017 was heavily engineered. As was his first term when he took over from Dicker.
And when he did return in 2017 he insisted that all directors sign off on a pact that a director would immediately resign if Kennett told him or her to go! So much for responsible directors and a diverse board - but that's another story.

You're very naive.
The Kennett return in 2017 was heavily engineered. As was his first term when he took over from Dicker.
And when he did return in 2017 he insisted that all directors sign off on a pact that a director would immediately resign if Kennett told him or her to go! So much for responsible directors and a diverse board - but that's another story.

And as for the Trump / Kennett comparison, they have exactly the same Meyer Briggs personality indicators. Aside from the other similarities, they yearn for attention and the spotlight and making headlines and, of course, they're obsessed about power and control.

Who is naive?
Last time I looked all president positions are 'heavily engineered', including the current. That is the way things work. Good luck to Andy Gowers. I hope he succeeds massively.

But please don't just make stuff up to denigrate both Kennett and the Hawthorn board as "irresponsible and not diverse". These people were always doing things in the best interests of the Hawthorn Football Club.
And then to proceed with just another example of playing a man with personal abuse under the guise of some pseudo psycho analysis.

It is not funny smart or useful. It is just abuse.

 

[Mississippi]

Who is naive?
Last time I looked all president positions are 'heavily engineered', including the current. That is the way things work. Good luck to Andy Gowers. I hope he succeeds massively.

But please don't just make stuff up to denigrate both Kennett and the Hawthorn board as "irresponsible and not diverse". These people were always doing things in the best interests of the Hawthorn Football Club.
And then to proceed with just another example of playing a man with personal abuse under the guise of some pseudo psycho analysis.

It is not funny smart or useful. It is just abuse.

I think you're missing my point.
Of course, the directors were well intentioned and considered they were working in the best interest of the club and generally they were.

But when Kennett returned to the board in 2017, the board was effectively turned into a dictatorship (there's Trump again).
Kennett demanded that each director make a pledge to resign from the board if Kennett required their resignation (presumably because they disagreed with Kennett).
That is not how a good, diverse board operates. A director's primary duty is not to the president, but to the club. And a director should not feel hesitant about expressing views without fear or favour (that's what diverity is).
It was surprising that the directors at that time actually agreed to give that pledge.

In short, a president should not be given the power to sack a board member at will.

Who knows whether, when things ultimately soured under Kennett's presidency, resulting in a number of respected Hawthorn people turning against him, a contributing factor was the disproportionate power that had been conferred on him.

I'm not saying that was the case, but it was certainly an unhealthy situation. And I suspect there's a huge majority of members who are glad the club's moved on from that time.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

It is not funny smart or useful. It is just abuse.

Developed a bit of a glass jaw in your old age, Jeffrey?

 

[peetoo]

You're very naive.
The Kennett return in 2017 was heavily engineered. As was his first term when he took over from Dicker.
And when he did return in 2017 he insisted that all directors sign off on a pact that a director would immediately resign if Kennett told him or her to go! So much for responsible directors and a diverse board - but that's another story.

And as for the Trump / Kennett comparison, they have exactly the same Meyer Briggs personality indicators. Aside from the other similarities, they yearn for attention and the spotlight and making headlines and, of course, they're obsessed about power and control.

Kennet modus preceded Trump by a couple of decade. And I think Jeff is marginally younger

 

[jumpingjai]

I think you're missing my point.
Of course, the directors were well intentioned and considered they were working in the best interest of the club and generally they were.

But when Kennett returned to the board in 2017, the board was effectively turned into a dictatorship (there's Trump again).
Kennett demanded that each director make a pledge to resign from the board if Kennett required their resignation (presumably because they disagreed with Kennett).
That is not how a good, diverse board operates. A director's primary duty is not to the president, but to the club. And a director should not feel hesitant about expressing views without fear or favour (that's what diverity is).
It was surprising that the directors at that time actually agreed to give that pledge.

In short, a president should not be given the power to sack a board member at will.

Who knows whether, when things ultimately soured under Kennett's presidency, resulting in a number of respected Hawthorn people turning against him, a contributing factor was the disproportionate power that had been conferred on him.

I'm not saying that was the case, but it was certainly an unhealthy situation. And I suspect there's a huge majority of members who are glad the club's moved on from that time.

I didn't miss your point(s)
And you just regurgitated them.

In summary
Kennett was a dictator.
I have nothing to prove he acted like one.
I and others don't like Kennett.

I just do not understand why you and others want to keep attacking people who have done so much for the club over such a long period

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I and others don't like Kennett.

Yet a good portion of your posting history is defending him. I’m not buying it.

 

[Bugs1977]

Developed a bit of a glass jaw in your old age, Jeffrey?

Is it just me here thinking it's actually Jeff sitting on the other end of your posts? Don't make him turn his jacket inside out Ned

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Is it just me here thinking it's actually Jeff sitting on the other end of your posts? Don't make him turn his jacket inside out Ned

He parked in the residents only parking area outside my place without a permit a while back - he made an enemy that day.

 

[Roger Rogerson]

I recall reading HRC hearing was due in December.

Now planned for February.

Hmmm that drags it out even longer which isnt ideal.

 

[DogDaySonny]

Hmmm that drags it out even longer which isnt ideal.

It will drag out forever. If there was a case to be made, it would have been pursued with vigour. The HRC is simply a mediation forum with zero enforcement powers. So, it provides a political function of being able to generate enough noise and embarrassment for a “go away” settlement. Particularly with Fagan (by atty letter) and Clarkson (by media release) ready to sue for defamation if they are slighted.

But now that we hear Jeff’s lifetime membership has been delayed because of delicate negotiations regarding Cyril’s return to the club (I think, we don’t really know what these negotiations are negotiating) plus now the delay of the HRC until Feb, I wouldn't be surprised to see the club/AFL put Cyril in some sort of ambassadors role in Jan/Feb and Kennett quietly gets the membership at the next AGM with no pomp or circumstance. Gowers is tight with the AFL (a selling point for his election, after all) and the AFL’s first mode of operation is back room negotiations and the heavy use of carpets for hiding the dust. We should expect this.

 

[Topiary]

It will drag out forever. If there was a case to be made, it would have been pursued with vigour. The HRC is simply a mediation forum with zero enforcement powers. So, it provides a political function of being able to generate enough noise and embarrassment for a “go away” settlement. Particularly with Fagan (by atty letter) and Clarkson (by media release) ready to sue for defamation if they are slighted.

But now that we hear Jeff’s lifetime membership has been delayed because of delicate negotiations regarding Cyril’s return to the club (I think, we don’t really know what these negotiations are negotiating) plus now the delay of the HRC until Feb, I wouldn't be surprised to see the club/AFL put Cyril in some sort of ambassadors role in Jan/Feb and Kennett quietly gets the membership at the next AGM with no pomp or circumstance. Gowers is tight with the AFL (a selling point for his election, after all) and the AFL’s first mode of operation is back room negotiations and the heavy use of carpets for hiding the dust. We should expect this.

Correct. This is how the AFL works.

 

[bigmaxi]

It will drag out forever. If there was a case to be made, it would have been pursued with vigour. The HRC is simply a mediation forum with zero enforcement powers. So, it provides a political function of being able to generate enough noise and embarrassment for a “go away” settlement. Particularly with Fagan (by atty letter) and Clarkson (by media release) ready to sue for defamation if they are slighted.

But now that we hear Jeff’s lifetime membership has been delayed because of delicate negotiations regarding Cyril’s return to the club (I think, we don’t really know what these negotiations are negotiating) plus now the delay of the HRC until Feb, I wouldn't be surprised to see the club/AFL put Cyril in some sort of ambassadors role in Jan/Feb and Kennett quietly gets the membership at the next AGM with no pomp or circumstance. Gowers is tight with the AFL (a selling point for his election, after all) and the AFL’s first mode of operation is back room negotiations and the heavy use of carpets for hiding the dust. We should expect this.

Kicking the can down the road is an AFL trade mark move. Better to have it held during the season than the footy vacuum that is December. Nothing to see here move on, that's what they are gunning for.

 

[Yardie]

It will drag out forever. If there was a case to be made, it would have been pursued with vigour. The HRC is simply a mediation forum with zero enforcement powers. So, it provides a political function of being able to generate enough noise and embarrassment for a “go away” settlement. Particularly with Fagan (by atty letter) and Clarkson (by media release) ready to sue for defamation if they are slighted.

But now that we hear Jeff’s lifetime membership has been delayed because of delicate negotiations regarding Cyril’s return to the club (I think, we don’t really know what these negotiations are negotiating) plus now the delay of the HRC until Feb, I wouldn't be surprised to see the club/AFL put Cyril in some sort of ambassadors role in Jan/Feb and Kennett quietly gets the membership at the next AGM with no pomp or circumstance. Gowers is tight with the AFL (a selling point for his election, after all) and the AFL’s first mode of operation is back room negotiations and the heavy use of carpets for hiding the dust. We should expect this.

Jeff needs to understand that just because you qualify for life membership doesn't mean you are entitled to it.

 

[brew]

Developed a bit of a glass jaw in your old age, Jeffrey?

Do you think you're funny?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Do you think you're funny?

Depends, as a friend of my wife said ‘you write funnier than you are in person’ - which I’m still yet to decipher as being a compliment or insult. I also have a whole stack of Aussie comedians who follow my socials and once ran an Ian Hewitson meme page that took off to the point where Huey sent me an autographed cookbook - so I do alright.

 

[Bugs1977]

Depends, as a friend of my wife said ‘you write funnier than you are in person’ - which I’m still yet to decipher as being a compliment or insult. I also have a whole stack of Aussie comedians who follow my socials and once ran an Ian Hewitson meme page that took off to the point where Huey sent me an autographed cookbook - so I do alright.

Good old Hewie eh. I reckon if you cut him then gravy would pour out

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

Jeff needs to understand that just because you qualify for life membership doesn't mean you are entitled to it.

That seems a bit silly. If someone has qualified just give it to them.

 

[Mississippi]

Kennett was a dictator.
I have nothing to prove he acted like one.

There's a monumental flaw in your response that's bigger than the Empire State Building, and you conveniently seem blinded to it.

An incoming president who demands that each director of the HFC must make a pledge to resign from the board if the president requests them to resign (presumably because they disagreed with president Kennett)??

If that's not proof of a dictator mentality, can you explain what is ??!!

The reason why Kennett is still a live issue (and not something dead and buried as you'd like it to be) is precisely the reason why the current president and board have elected to defer his award as a life member. Perhaps there are issues relating to the racism controversy - that occurred under Kennett's presidency - that the current board are wanting to be resolved, before the club confers honours on Kennett.

 

[brad sue well]

Revealed: The millions Hawks paid, put aside for First Nations probe

Hawthorn have budgeted to pay a total of more than $2.5 million in legal fees and potential payouts in the fallout from the investigation into alleged mistreatment of First Nations players and their families.

www.theage.com.au

 

[TylerDurden]

 

[flinchfree]

Do you think you're funny?

Funny is not the right word. He's interesting, easy to read, and seemingly extremely available for comment.
What would you put up as the value you bring with your posts?