Player Watch Jeremy Finlayson

Remove this Banner Ad

Handyandy said:
The afl thought it relevant to mention for Clarkson
Click to expand...
The AFL are a bunch of campaigners, I don't care what they say.

The disparity between Finlayson's treatment and Clarkson's treatment is wrong. That doesn't mean Finlayson should have been treated more leniently. The error was not treating Clarkson more harshly.
 
AFL general counsel Stephen Meade on Wednesday reiterated the AFL's stance that there was no place for homophobia in football.

Stephen Meade said:
Everyone, including Jeremy, understands the word he used is both hurtful and totally unacceptable in any setting, ever.

The AFL is very clear that homophobia has no place in our game, nor in society. We want all people in LGBTQI+ communities to feel safe playing or attending our games and we know the incident that happened on the weekend does not assist this goal. As a code we will continue to work together to improve our game as a safe and inclusive environment for all.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase that last part for Stephen.

"The AFL is very clear that homophobia has no place in our game, nor in society. We were less clear on that a few weeks ago. But we're really really clear on that now. So clear now. What we are less clear on, is honesty, integrity and fairness."


I accept the penalty, and the club's acceptance of the penalty. But that does nothing to dimish my ever-increasing disdain and lack of faith in the disgustingly corrupt and misguided organisation called the Australian Football League.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Schulzenfest said:
What do you suggest the Essendon players could have said to him that would make it okay to use a slur?

Provocation is entirely ****ing irrelevant and you're embarrassing yourself by constantly banging on about it. It's the same s**t Crows supporters tried to pull to defend Walker.
Click to expand...
Maybe so but the impact on Jeremy and his family for him uttering a word which I doubt he meant anyway, is a disgrace. These people don’t really care because if they did the apology and self reporting would have been sufficient.
 
ClintEastwood said:
AFL general counsel Stephen Meade on Wednesday reiterated the AFL's stance that there was no place for homophobia in football.



Let me rephrase that last part for Stephen.

"The AFL is very clear that homophobia has no place in our game, nor in society. We were less clear on that a few weeks ago. But we're really really clear on that now. So clear now. What we are less clear on, is honesty, integrity and fairness."


I accept the penalty, and the club's acceptance of the penalty. But that does nothing to dimish my ever-increasing disdain and lack of faith in the disgustingly corrupt and misguided organisation called the Australia Football League.
Click to expand...
Great post. The AFL is as corrupt as could be.
 
Port 2004 said:
Maybe so but the impact on Jeremy and his family for him uttering a word which I doubt he meant anyway, is a disgrace. These people don’t really care because if they did the apology and self reporting would have been sufficient.
Click to expand...

Nah, bad take. If apology and self-reporting were enough, anyone could say anything they liked, as long as they apologized and self-reported after.
 
Relativity said:
With the attack on Finlayson's house I can see a public backlash coming. The handling of this by the AFL has been a publicity disaster. If only he'd taken cocaine instead.
Click to expand...
And Robbo saying that with some racist incidents in the AFL it is sorted by ‘private mediation’

Also in this case apparently the Essendon players were outraged. Mmm. It sounds like they demanded a severe penalty.
 
Last edited:
ClintEastwood said:
Nah, bad take. If apology and self-reporting were enough, anyone could say anything they liked, as long as they apologized and self-reported after.
Click to expand...
Yes, but humans are not perfect. Jeremy made mistake, but the guy has been through hell and back with his family issues and now he and his family is being shredded by a bunch of self righteous w***ers for uttering a word on the football field. It is a complete load of bullshit.
 
Port 2004 said:
Yes, but humans are not perfect. Jeremy made mistake, but the guy has been through hell and back with his family issues and now he and his family is being shredded by a bunch of self righteous w***ers for uttering a word on the football field. It is a complete load of bullshit.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, and I really feel bad for him re what he and his family are dealing with. But it's unrealistic to expect an organisation, even one that wasn't as broken, corrupt and hypocritical as the AFL, to give special exemptions from consequences for people who are doing it tough.
 
ClintEastwood said:
I hear what you're saying, and I really feel bad for him re what he and his family are dealing with. But it's unrealistic to expect an organisation, even one that wasn't as broken, corrupt and hypocritical as the AFL, to give special exemptions from consequences for people who are doing it tough.
Click to expand...
Unless you are on drugs or have mental health issues. Maybe when Jeremy has a mental breakdown they will wrap their arms around him the ****ing hipocrites.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Talking footy said Jez spoke to Zach Merrett post match and then you see no7 guernsey walk past bottom of screen. He was talking to Gresham
 
Schulzenfest said:
What do you suggest the Essendon players could have said to him that would make it okay to use a slur?

Provocation is entirely ****ing irrelevant and you're embarrassing yourself by constantly banging on about it. It's the same s**t Crows supporters tried to pull to defend Walker.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was OK for him to say what he did, provoked or otherwise. I was just saying that if the AFL felt that provocation made Clarkson's comments less serious, and therefore resulted in a lesser penalty, then I would expect that they investigated whether Finlayson was also provoked. The AFL are the one's that have made provocation relevant by their explanation of the difference in penalties.
And I'm not 'constantly banging on about it', or trying to defend Finlayson, just questioning the AFL's justification of the difference in penalties.
 
Janey said:
I didn't say it was OK for him to say what he did, provoked or otherwise. I was just saying that if the AFL felt that provocation made Clarkson's comments less serious, and therefore resulted in a lesser penalty, then I would expect that they investigated whether Finlayson was also provoked. The AFL are the one's that have made provocation relevant by their explanation of the difference in penalties.
And I'm not 'constantly banging on about it', or trying to defend Finlayson, just questioning the AFL's justification of the difference in penalties.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I somehow had you confused with 240volt.
 
ClintEastwood said:
Nah, bad take. If apology and self-reporting were enough, anyone could say anything they liked, as long as they apologized and self-reported after.
Click to expand...
In the AFL self reporting is good enough to avoid a drugs strike.
 
I canned my membership and reserved seat in 2022 cos of the Ken renewal. My intention was to come back maybe not straight after he leaves, but perhaps when there were some board changes. I’m using this example to help explain how like the demographic I’m about to talk about, I’m pretty stubborn. When I possess a strong belief and feel that these are conflicted and beyond my control, I’ll pull my support out of principle.

I don't know if I'll return as a member until I’ve got kids old enough to drag me to the footy. This is based on the principle of the competition becoming another brand that contorts itself wherever theres a dollar to be earned and neglecting the traditional fan base, who couldn’t give a rats ass if the game had some semblance with their moral compass, we just want to watch our club win footy matches.

I understand this is a business and like any it needs to maximise its profits. However, at what cost? Growth into untapped markets naturally means incentivising a newer audience. I can comprehend the attempt to make an expansion team in rival code territory, successful via draft concessions was done to strengthen to competition.

What all big businesses are doing now, including the AFL, are targeting an audience of people who aren’t yet paying customers and must see semblance of their values in whatever they consume. This typifies millennials, of which I am and explains my initial example but it’s a small part of the strong LGBTQI+ community that’s responsible for token adoption of merely surface level ‘support’ like rainbow laces (athletes actually think this is meaningful support, see Jordan Henderson). These big businesses don’t actually care about what you believe, they just care if you believe enough to give them your money. You’re selling yourself short of any actual meaningful change when those examples are enough for you to buy a pet membership.

The actual LGBTQI+ community isn’t large enough to produce enough demand to put their identity at the forefront of a big brand, however there are two reasons why they do. One is that their community while in size isn’t great enough to warrant a business to prioritise their values when considering marketing practices, the approach of a smaller radical minority in labelling and tarnishing people’s reputations by convincing the public those who don’t agree with them are inherently evil people, is. This has just intimidated the masses into quietly cheering on the sidelines like zombie allies who out of nothing but fear of being called a bigot, add to an initially small demographic, creating one worth a lot of money.

Two, without going into so many words, this demographic puts their money where their mouth is, unlike the traditional fan who is cash in the pocket for the comp.

I made my comments on what I think about the language Jeremy used earlier in the thread, it’s wrong and deserved acknowledgment. All things above considered, I think the 3 games is another token effort that’s just gauged feedback from how previous issues were handled by the AFL.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Prince St said:
The actual LGBTQI+ community isn’t large enough to produce enough demand to put their beliefs at the forefront of a big brand,
Click to expand...
Surely you're not serious? Almost Every second player within AFLW identifies with the LGBTQ+ community.
They had to make a stand. He had to get weeks. The frustration here is why Clarkson didn't and how they handled it.
 
Schulzenfest said:
What do you suggest the Essendon players could have said to him that would make it okay to use a slur?

Provocation is entirely ****ing irrelevant and you're embarrassing yourself by constantly banging on about it. It's the same s**t Crows supporters tried to pull to defend Walker.
Click to expand...
Janey's comment about provocation was in response to Lauren Wood's comparison of the Finlayson and Clarkson situations where she said:

“Then they looked at the provocation. Finlayson was basically unprovoked, Clarkson’s situation, the environment was highly charged, he had St Kilda players coming at him (after the Jimmy Webster bump), he was going back at them.”

In this case it is entirely reasonable to ask the question was Finlayson provoked and if so, how?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Opinion Jeremy Finlayson verdict broader discussion
2 3
Replies
74
Views
2K
Grave Danger
Grave Danger
Ford Fairlane
Toast Congratulations Jeremy Finlayson 100 games
Replies
15
Views
830
Sneeky
Sneeky
Progressive Aggresion
Strategy Lycett and/or Finlayson to spare a few minutes in the defence?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Powerage
Powerage

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top