that certainly would make sense, as i know that is a big issue over there. government schools are seen in a very poor light.
the thing i don't understand is how that is relevant to us or the wider industry here as something to take back? unless he's saying that's a view shared by others within the industry e.g. others clubs or the AFL?
Well maybe.
Cast your mind back to the Trout recruiting patterns: Good Blokes, very little aboriginal talent or if so the urbanised mixed race variety, very samey in terms of background. I think his criteria was more would he be good at a backyard BBQ or fishing trip than would he be good on a football field. I'm being facetious but I think he placed a huge value on what people call having good character, rightly so after all the scandals we endured previously.
Gallagher has done the research and found out what Trout (or Westaway and Finnis who gave him his remit) maybe forgot; that some types might not be great blokes to be mates with - not necessarily that they are campaigners but maybe they are a little quiet (Gehrig) or they made some poor decisions in their past (Parker) or their view of the world is a bit "controversial" (Ablett Jnr) - but their ability to excel in a professional sports league that can sometimes feel like war makes them invaluable to a football club.
I am happy that we've gone from Vanilla to Neapolitan in any case.
EDIT: I think I veered off your original point, was Gallagher equating being white with having good character. Sorry. Answer; not directly, but maybe he did equate being white with more chance of adapting to the AFL landscape, the more precise version of the point that Rendell tried to make a few years back.