Rules Brad Scott Conflict of Interest….

Feb 7, 2009
2,299
2,566
lost somewhere in time
AFL Club
Geelong
If you know what a conflict of interest is then why are you asking me to prove instances where bias was shown?

The rule changes obviously hampered Richmond’s game plan through a period where other teams were struggling to score against them. In 2017 Richmond conceded 22 goals in 3 finals. In 2019 Richmond conceded 20 goals in 3 finals. And in 2020 is was 29 goals in 4 shortened finals.

How confident are you that if Geelong had that same record the same rule changes would have been introduced? How confident could anybody be? This is the whole point. The rules have the appearance of dismantling the grip Richmond’s defensive system alone had on the rest of the League, especially in finals. Geelong themselves scored 21 goals in their 3 losing finals against Richmond in that period. Hocking was during 2020 reported to be wanting to legislate the Richmond defensive tactics out of the game. Thus the stand rule. Who was the highest marking team in that period? Geelong. So if you were wanting to introduce a rule to hamper Richmond and help Geelong, the stand rule mightn’t be a bad place to start. I read a post the other day saying that Geelong are now the highest play on team in the AFL so the stand rule doesn’t help them. Of course this does not make sense. Without the stand rule it was not as effective or as easy to play on from a mark or free kick when the man on the mark was standing on the line where you would want to play on to. So you got forced down the line.

Anyway, who knows if this or other rules were brought in to benefit the Cats or hamper the Tigers. But there should never be any doubt about something like that. And this is where the conflict of interest should have been handled better, to remove any doubt.

For the record I don’t have an issue with a club CEO being appointed as AFL CEO, but again they should stand aside from decisions that directly affect their former club in any way that could be seen to be giving them an advantage. But the AFL CEO does not deal directly with football operations and rules so you would think it is a lot less of an issue. But if Brandon Gale was AFL CEO and he alone had to decide whether Richmond or another club got a particular AFL grant, then of course he should not be making that decision, nor influencing it.
Then how do you explain Cats players being the most suspended? Yet Lynch has multiple similar incidents and only gets fined? Surely if there was a conflict of interest Lynch would have got multiple weeks and your captain would have missed the GF for his little indiscretion. As Pauline would say please explain
 
Feb 4, 2008
12,957
27,927
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Then how do you explain Cats players being the most suspended? Yet Lynch has multiple similar incidents and only gets fined? Surely if there was a conflict of interest Lynch would have got multiple weeks and your captain would have missed the GF for his little indiscretion. As Pauline would say please explain

Are the Cats the most suspended since 2018, which is the period this thread and its predecessor the Hocking Conflict thread relates to?

Regardless, whichever teams were more or less penalised over the period is not simply a function of how biased the MRO might be.

Your introduction of Lynch and Cotchin to the discussion is completely immaterial to whether Brad Scott or Steven Hocking were operating under a conflict of interest in their time as AFL Football Operations Manager. So it might be more a case of you needing to explain that than me.
 
Feb 7, 2009
2,299
2,566
lost somewhere in time
AFL Club
Geelong
Are the Cats the most suspended since 2018, which is the period this thread and its predecessor the Hocking Conflict thread relates to?

Regardless, whichever teams were more or less penalised over the period is not simply a function of how biased the MRO might be.

Your introduction of Lynch and Cotchin to the discussion is completely immaterial to whether Brad Scott or Steven Hocking were operating under a conflict of interest in their time as AFL Football Operations Manager. So it might be more a case of you needing to explain that than me.
My introduction of those players shows that the 2 clubs have been treated differently. With the Cats getting harsher penalties. Therefore showing there is no conflict of interest as if there were the Cats would have gotten off lighter. But keep being you hopefully you will have the same stance if Gale gets the gig.
 
Feb 4, 2008
12,957
27,927
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
My introduction of those players shows that the 2 clubs have been treated differently. With the Cats getting harsher penalties. Therefore showing there is no conflict of interest as if there were the Cats would have gotten off lighter. But keep being you hopefully you will have the same stance if Gale gets the gig.

IYO your post demonstrates that Brad Scott and Steven Hocking did not have a conflict of interest when in their role as AFL manager Football Operations.

Yet Brad Scott is the twin brother of the current Geelong coach and Steven Hocking was operating in the role whilst negotiating with Geelong to be their next CEO amongst other things, notably being Chris Scott’s best mate and having been employed 30 odd years by Geelong previously as a player and administrator and having no known link with any other club.

No conflict of interest.

lol-laughing.gif
 

ThatsjustDappa

Premiership Player
Feb 19, 2011
3,649
4,937
AFL Club
Geelong
Give examples so we can see wtf you are strawmanning about. 😁

WTF are you strawmanning about....tell me which governance documentation, policies and procedures from AFL have you read that demonstrates the below assertion? If you haven't read them and understand how they manage conflicts of interest then you're making stuff up....

"From 2018-2022 the people chiefly responsible for making the rules, guiding interpretations on a weekly basis, and overseeing adjudicators, and acting as the final decision maker in all MRO cases, and with access to all club’s TPP ledgers, were known to be the twin brother/best mate of a current club coach, namely, Chris Scott."
 
Feb 4, 2008
12,957
27,927
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
WTF are you strawmanning about....tell me which governance documentation, policies and procedures from AFL have you read that demonstrates the below assertion? If you haven't read them and understand how they manage conflicts of interest then you're making stuff up....

"From 2018-2022 the people chiefly responsible for making the rules, guiding interpretations on a weekly basis, and overseeing adjudicators, and acting as the final decision maker in all MRO cases, and with access to all club’s TPP ledgers, were known to be the twin brother/best mate of a current club coach, namely, Chris Scott."

Which part do you think is incorrect?
 
Feb 4, 2008
12,957
27,927
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I'm saying you're making stuff up...if you haven't confirmed how they manage conflict of interest.....

Do you believe there would be a conflict of interest if say Brad Scott sat in judgement of one of his twin brother Chris Scott’s players in Brad’s role as final decision maker in all MRO cases?
 
Do you believe there would be a conflict of interest if say Brad Scott sat in judgement of one of his twin brother Chris Scott’s players in Brad’s role as final decision maker in all MRO cases?
Why do you keep avoiding the simple question ThatsjustDappa asked? I've asked similar questions on countless occasions, (maybe not as succinctly as TJD put it), and your constant response to avoid and fire back with a question. That tells me you are a serial troll who cares little about facts.

To repeat: which governance documentation, policies and procedures from AFL have you read that demonstrates your assertion?

Until you answer that question you really should stop posting on this topic.

It's all moot now because Brad is no longer Manager Football Ops
 
Feb 4, 2008
12,957
27,927
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Why do you keep avoiding the simple question ThatsjustDappa asked? I've asked similar questions on countless occasions, (maybe not as succinctly as TJD put it), and your constant response to avoid and fire back with a question. That tells me you are a serial troll who cares little about facts.

To repeat: which governance documentation, policies and procedures from AFL have you read that demonstrates your assertion?

Until you answer that question you really should stop posting on this topic.

It's all moot now because Brad is no longer Manager Football Ops

The question has been asked on these threads in many guises. And I have answered it completely.

In short, there is a presumption of regularity, unless the AFL gives any reason for us to believe otherwise. And nobody in these threads has ever provided any evidence that the AFL has done anything to deal with Hocking and B Scott being conflicted in the position. Other than to tell Hocking to f*ck off immediately when his conflict became so obvious even they couldn’t turn a blind eye.

You guys are going around in circles. First it was no conflict exists. We showed a conflict does definitely exist. Then it was everyone is conflicted anyway so it is fine. We explained this situation is both crucial and unique. Then it is claimed we have no evidence to support the claim the AFL does not deal with the very conflict you denied even existed to start with. So we pointed out Hocking and B Scott are constantly credited in the media with being the driving factor behind rule changes and new interpretations etc, and have it written into their job description they are the final decision maker in all MRO cases. Then you move to saying that Ben Gale will need a thread if he becomes CEO. He doesn’t work for the AFL and it is a completely different role in any event. Then we go back to the start, another Cats shill pops up, or worse, one of Cats supporting posters that has already proven beyond doubt they are a fool…to say there is no conflict of interest and we go on repeat.

As I posted earlier, you guys would have us believe that when everything looks like it stinks we should presume it smells of roses.
 
The question has been asked on these threads in many guises. And I have answered it completely.

In short, there is a presumption of regularity, unless the AFL gives any reason for us to believe otherwise. And nobody in these threads has ever provided any evidence that the AFL has done anything to deal with Hocking and B Scott being conflicted in the position. Other than to tell Hocking to f*ck off immediately when his conflict became so obvious even they couldn’t turn a blind eye.

You guys are going around in circles. First it was no conflict exists. We showed a conflict does definitely exist. Then it was everyone is conflicted anyway so it is fine. We explained this situation is both crucial and unique. Then it is claimed we have no evidence to support the claim the AFL does not deal with the very conflict you denied even existed to start with. So we pointed out Hocking and B Scott are constantly credited in the media with being the driving factor behind rule changes and new interpretations etc, and have it written into their job description they are the final decision maker in all MRO cases. Then you move to saying that Ben Gale will need a thread if he becomes CEO. He doesn’t work for the AFL and it is a completely different role in any event. Then we go back to the start, another Cats shill pops up, or worse, one of Cats supporting posters that has already proven beyond doubt they are a fool…to say there is no conflict of interest and we go on repeat.

As I posted earlier, you guys would have us believe that when everything looks like it stinks we should presume it smells of roses.
You have avoided the question….as always
 
Feb 4, 2008
12,957
27,927
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
You have avoided the question….as always

Answers question 10 times on thread and its predecessor the Hocking conflict thread.

Gets asked the same ill-conceived question again that presumes if you don’t have a smoking gun you can’t even tell if a murder has occurred.

Gives perfectly satisfactory answer yet again. .

Idiot suggests avoided the question. 🤣

I know you guys are desperate to remove this hideous stain from your recent flag, but it will be there forever.
 
Answers question 10 times on thread and its predecessor the Hocking conflict thread.

Gets asked the same ill-conceived question again that presumes if you don’t have a smoking gun you can’t even tell if a murder has occurred.

Gives perfectly satisfactory answer yet again. .

Idiot suggests avoided the question. 🤣

I know you guys are desperate to remove this hideous stain from your recent flag, but it will be there forever.

You simply don’t get it, do you🙄
 
Feb 7, 2009
2,299
2,566
lost somewhere in time
AFL Club
Geelong
Answers question 10 times on thread and its predecessor the Hocking conflict thread.

Gets asked the same ill-conceived question again that presumes if you don’t have a smoking gun you can’t even tell if a murder has occurred.

Gives perfectly satisfactory answer yet again. .

Idiot suggests avoided the question. 🤣

I know you guys are desperate to remove this hideous stain from your recent flag, but it will be there forever.
Show concrete proof that they have ever done anything to prove your accusations
 
Feb 4, 2008
12,957
27,927
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Never mind I'm now taking the not arguing with idiot theory with you. You claim they have a conflict of interest but fail to provide evidence how they have acted on it. Therefore no evidence there is or that they have acted inappropriately.

It has been explained many times over. Recognition of a conflict of interest does not require evidence of wrongdoing. I think you are out of your depth cavey old chap.

But I like your policy of not arguing with idiots. Much better to just patiently explain your position and let them make fools of themselves. 😉
 
Back