Play Nice Hawthorn culture and Fagan

[dlanod]

This is going to be a very touchy subject.

There will be a very broad range of opinions about the correct way to handle this.

I'll remind everyone to post respectfully at this time - sniping at each other is not going to help.

Any continued pointless back and forth will get a day or more to cool off. If you want to avoid this fate, let it go.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I can't see how this isn't going to court. Gonna be a big shitshow all through 2023. Really hope I'm wrong.

Sadly, looks like we won’t be seeing Fages ever coach us again

 

[western royboy]

They can't bury this.

Whether we ever get to the 'truth' of the matter is now conjectural.

Lawyers involved = no hope in hell

 

[BangyBangy]

When have you ever been wrong Bangy ?

On the money again.

 

[western royboy]

I can't see how this isn't going to court. Gonna be a big shitshow all through 2023. Really hope I'm wrong.

I would almost guarantee civil actions will result - that = going to court…whether you get there or settle out it’s still legal

 

[briztoon]

The allegations are very serious…more serious than the Essendon situation (which ultimately no one knows what happened) but the fallout is well known, Essendon still hasn’t fully dealt with it.

The AFL is walking a political and ethical tightrope here. If we look at how they handled the Essendon saga it will be similar, lots of big statements but ultimately nothing concrete. You will not and cannot hope to make everyone happy here that is not possible, some party(s) are going to come out of this aggrieved regardless of the findings and I would suggest civil actions will result regardless.

None of this will be quick, parties are lawyering up already and from my experience that makes it a guaranteed s**t show of the highest order and ensures it gets drawn out - Lawyers go on holiday in January- can it be done by then? Maybe

What does it mean?

For us we have to decide how long we can wait with Fagan out of the system - Trade Week has effectively started - he would normally be crucial moreso than at Draft Time - uncertainty can kill an off season - we need to be decisive based upon the likely timeframes - Fagan cannot be out of the system for 3 months

For North this is catastrophic - this could end them - the goodwill of Clarkson’s appointment has been pissed up against the wall and none of it is their fault - they face the same decision we do

Hawthorn will be dealt with very harshly if these allegations or aspects of them are proven, however they’ve probably got the least to lose but if you use Essendon as an example the fallout could last a decade.

Every individual in the Essendon saga has had huge issues since…despite nothing really been proven.

As a guide, it’s very ******* scary for everyone involved

How can Hawthorn be punished if the people responsible are no longer at the club, and if the people in control of the club had no knowledge of what was going on?

At Essendon, the people responsible and in charge were still at the club, so the club was punished. Note: there were no draft sanctions, just individuals punished.

 

[western royboy]

How can Hawthorn be punished if the people responsible are no longer at the club, and if the people in control of the club had no knowledge of what was going on?

At Essendon, the people responsible and in charge were still at the club, so the club was punished. Note: there were no draft sanctions, just individuals punished.

Comes under their Umbrella - “if proven” they will wear a sanction no doubt about it - this isn’t a rogue act - it’s collusion between several key members of the football department

 

[martinson]

How can Hawthorn be punished if the people responsible are no longer at the club, and if the people in control of the club had no knowledge of what was going on?

At Essendon, the people responsible and in charge were still at the club, so the club was punished. Note: there were no draft sanctions, just individuals punished.

Britzoon I think Howard tried a similar argument when he refused to apologise for the stolen generation.

Any Government for instance has to take responsibility for whatever the predecessors did.

I get your argument but it just won't wash. If the club is responsible for serious misdemeanors it will pay.

 

[T Rick]

I would almost guarantee civil actions will result - that = going to court…whether you get there or settle out it’s still legal

Just out of curiosity - who does Fages sue for defamation?
I doubt it can be Hawthorn because they didn't publicly release their report.
I doubt it can be the AFL because they didn't release the Hawthorn report.
I doubt it can be the accusers in the Hawthorn review because they participated in a "truth telling" exercise on the basis of annonomity.
So does that just leave the ABC and the journalist who did his own research and published the allegations and names of Clarkson and Fagan?

Did the ABC have access to the Hawthorn report handed to the AFL and if so, who provided that to the ABC?

 

[briztoon]

Comes under their Umbrella - “if proven” they will wear a sanction no doubt about it - this isn’t a rogue act - it’s collusion between several key members of the football department

I understand that part.

I don't understand what type of punishment Hawthorn could face (if the people involved are found guilty).


Regardless, I'm really trying to stay out of this, until the review is conducted and we see what the results/fall out is?

 

[McIvor]

I get your argument but it just won't wash. If the club is responsible for serious misdemeanors it will pay.

And so it should to.

North and Brisbane are paying big time at the moment - moreso North i feel and all our planning for 2023 has gone into turmoil while Hawthorn continue on with 2023 like any other day.

I will be livid if they are not severely punished even if those at the club, including coaches and players had nothing to do with what happened 10 years ago or whenevr it was.

 

[briztoon]

Britzoon I think Howard tried a similar argument when he refused to apologise for the stolen generation.

Any Government for instance has to take responsibility for whatever the predecessors did.

I get your argument but it just won't wash. If the club is responsible for serious misdemeanors it will pay.

Please don't try and make such comparisons between me and other such individuals.

I'm NOT making an argument, I'm asking a question because I don't understand.

Think I'll go back to lurking on this thread.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Please don't try and make such comparisons between me and other such individuals.

I'm NOT making an argument, I'm asking a question because I don't understand.

Think I'll go back to lurking on this thread.

Whoa, he wasn’t comparing you to Howard.

He was using a historical example of where the lines were blurred in terms of who is responsible when an organisation has been found to have done something wrong but the leadership has since changed.

 

[vic_LION]

This was my understanding as well - which still begs the question of how the original review did not uncover these stories. It’s pretty bizarre when you think about it.

Not everyone willing to participate in a club report, but maybe ok with talking to a journalist? Not totally out of the realm of possibility

 

[martinson]

Just out of curiosity - who does Fages sue for defamation?
I doubt it can be Hawthorn because they didn't publicly release their report.
I doubt it can be the AFL because they didn't release the Hawthorn report.
I doubt it can be the accusers in the Hawthorn review because they participated in a "truth telling" exercise on the basis of annonomity.
So does that just leave the ABC and the journalist who did his own research and published the allegations and names of Clarkson and Fagan?

Did the ABC have access to the Hawthorn report handed to the AFL and if so, who provided that to the ABC?

The ABC hasn't made clear what access it had to anything Rick. The timing was kind of odd with the ABC publishing its findings and the AFL coming out the next day and saying oh yeah btw Hawthorn have done a review , we can't tell you what's in it even though we've had it for a couple of weeks ( hmmm I wonder how long ) and it's really harrowing for us as well.

If the claims in the ABC report are untrue, coerced or any sort of embellishment of what's been said Fagan ,Clarkson and Burt will have a significant defamation action against them. Because they published their names first and foremost and names are suppressed generally in the legal world with anyone disclosing identities facing jail. As Hinch and others have found.

Please don't try and make such comparisons between me and other such individuals.

I'm NOT making an argument, I'm asking a question because I don't understand.

Think I'll go back to lurking on this thread.

Sorry mate. I think you've completely misinterpreted my response.

 

[western royboy]

Just out of curiosity - who does Fages sue for defamation?
I doubt it can be Hawthorn because they didn't publicly release their report.
I doubt it can be the AFL because they didn't release the Hawthorn report.
I doubt it can be the accusers in the Hawthorn review because they participated in a "truth telling" exercise on the basis of annonomity.
So does that just leave the ABC and the journalist who did his own research and published the allegations and names of Clarkson and Fagan?

Did the ABC have access to the Hawthorn report handed to the AFL and if so, who provided that to the ABC?

I think the author of the report might have some nervousness given it appears to be at best an incomplete review

 

[Tom14]

I think the author of the report might have some nervousness given it appears to be at best an incomplete review

Report wasn't published though. I don't practice defamation law so if someone knows better please correct me, but the audience for any 'defamation' by the report writers are those who were delivered the report i.e. senior people at Hawthorn and at the AFL. I don't think there could be substantial damages for that - but I did my torts course 14 years ago so could be wrong.

Noting who actually has the capacity to pay, ABC would be the ones who would be sued.

 

[martinson]

Report wasn't published though. I don't practice defamation law so if someone knows better please correct me, but the audience for any 'defamation' by the report writers are those who were delivered the report i.e. senior people at Hawthorn and at the AFL. I don't think there could be substantial damages for that - but I did my torts course 14 years ago so could be wrong.

Noting who actually has the capacity to pay, ABC would be the ones who would be sued.

Correct. The contents of the Hawthorn report have yet to be divulged let alone made public. No one has been defamed.

Re the ABC report it would be pointless suing the subjects of the report even in the remote chance they flat out lied. They didn't publish or distribute it apart from their financial status.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I'm sorry but I have a real issue with the lack of loyalty and empathy you (and some others around here) are showing a man that has given his heart and soul to this club. To effectively kick him to the way side because times got a little tough just screams weak leadership to me.

Have you considered asking people questions to understand better what they think instead of assuming you know what others' motivations are?

 

[martinson]

Correct. The contents of the Hawthorn report have yet to be divulged let alone made public. No one has been defamed.

Re the ABC report it would be pointless suing the subjects of the report even in the remote chance they flat out lied. They didn't publish or distribute it apart from their financial status.

i.e. suing individuals is pointless unless they are wealthy. Unless you have a point to prove and are happy to bear the costs.

But I think we've all got ahead of ourselves. There's a lot needs to happen before anyone gets sued.

 

[western royboy]

i.e. suing individuals is pointless unless they are wealthy. Unless you have a point to prove and are happy to bear the costs.

But I think we've all got ahead of ourselves. There's a lot needs to happen before anyone gets sued.

I am of the view that civil action by the parties allegedly aggrieved in the report is inevitable. Defamation actions would only result if those claims are proven to be unsubstantiated. I hope I am wrong.

 

[martinson]

I am of the view that civil action by the parties allegedly aggrieved in the report is inevitable. Defamation actions would only result if those claims are proven to be unsubstantiated. I hope I am wrong.

I think it's inevitable as well but it all depends on what slant the AFL takes on this mess and right at the moment they don't have any insights or answers.

 

[Thomasno]

Not rolling over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Tom Browne.

“INVESTIGATION DELAYED”

Yeah by 3 days till Monday because they couldn’t get everything done by COB on a public holiday in the middle of a 4 day weekend.

Again, thanks Tom for your input.

 

[rye]

i dont get why any poster here would need to display loyalty to fagan. as far as im aware none of us personally know him with the possible exception of mighty lions.

at the end of the day the fagan we know is the projection of the man he puts forward in public. it is the same as any other public figure / influencer type. who they are when nobody is looking could be an entirely different character to this. to show loyalty to a figure in a position like this is imo rather silly regardless of their achievements

 

[western royboy]

i dont get why any poster here would need to display loyalty to fagan. as far as im aware none of us personally know him with the possible exception of mighty lions.

at the end of the day the fagan we know is the projection of the man he puts forward in public. it is the same as any other public figure / influencer type. who they are when nobody is looking could be an entirely different character to this. to show loyalty to a figure in a position like this is imo rather silly regardless of their achievements

I have known one player on our list since birth, he loves the man and as I rate this lad and his family in the highest esteem possible I am more than confident that he is a man of the utmost integrity so I’m happy to back him in.

 

[mighty_lions]

i dont get why any poster here would need to display loyalty to fagan. as far as im aware none of us personally know him with the possible exception of mighty lions.

at the end of the day the fagan we know is the projection of the man he puts forward in public. it is the same as any other public figure / influencer type. who they are when nobody is looking could be an entirely different character to this. to show loyalty to a figure in a position like this is imo rather silly regardless of their achievements

the contrary is believing currently unfounded accusations that in no way reflects anything public of Clarko and fagan anyone has ever seen, they must be fantastic actors if you believe them to be some sort of extreme racists