- Thread starter
- #51
Yes and we wouldn’t want that happening Dan. That is why we prefer he stands aside and leaves it to a person who has no conflict to deal with.
Rules Brad Scott Conflict of Interest….
- Thread starter Meteoric Rise
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yes and we wouldn’t want that happening Dan. That is why we prefer he stands aside and leaves it to a person who has no conflict to deal with.
- Apr 29, 2016
- 11,039
- 9,648
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
He won't step aside. Doing so would acknowledge he has a bias. And that would look very unprofessional. It's no real different to Stephen Silvagni being the head recruiter for Carlton when they picked his son. If my memory serves me correct.
- Thread starter
- #53
You don’t need to be aware of being biased to be biased.
You don’t need to be biased to have a conflict of interest.
Therefore you don’t necessarily admit bias by standing aside from a decision in which you have an apparent conflict of interest.
And far from being unprofessional, it is the most professional way there is to handle a situation where you have an apparent conflict.
John Kennedy Senior I think stepped down as Hawthorn Coach when his son started playing for the Hawks for this very reason. So that there could be no question of him showing bias toward his son. This was a very intelligent decision from a man who would believe himself to be a scrupulously fair decision maker. Of course the Hawks went from strength to strength and Kennedy Junior played in 4 Premierships for the Hawks.
Dennis Pagan was in the same situation at North with his son and chose to ignore his conflict of interest and when he selected his son in a senior match - truly believing his son was the best option - at least one other member of the match committee resigned as a result and it did not work out well for the club.
The Silvagni situation got messy and eventually led to Stephen being effectively sacked by the Blues given there were difficult decisions looming on his sons.
It doesn’t matter how confident you are in your own ability to make unbiased decisions. Nor does it matter how confident others are that you will not make biased decisions. When you are in a conflicted position the best thing to do is step aside from having any part of a decision making process that could be affected, or could be seen to be affected by that conflict.
It is just good practice and if B Scott followed that practice here or was asked to by the AFL then it would put nobody at any disadvantage.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #54
So sure enough, Brad Scott’s grading of Tom Stewart’s deliberate bump as careless becomes the AFL’s position in the Tribunal hearing effectively limiting the maximum penalty to 4 weeks, for his twin brother’s star player.
This is not specific to this case or anything to do with Brad Scott’s clear conflict of interest, but why the prosecuting agent, the AFL, consistently argues for moderate penalties is a shocking flaw in the way this system works. In all case they should be arguing for the maximum penalty and let the other side argue for the minimum and let the Tribunal decide.
Terrible system, but anyway, here is our conflict of interest issue hard at work in a live case. The very first action the AFL and Brad Scott should have taken in this case was to absent Brad Scott from any part of the process given he is making decisions in regard to a player from the team his twin brother coaches.
I try to keep an air of levity about this thread but this is straight out wrong.
This is not specific to this case or anything to do with Brad Scott’s clear conflict of interest, but why the prosecuting agent, the AFL, consistently argues for moderate penalties is a shocking flaw in the way this system works. In all case they should be arguing for the maximum penalty and let the other side argue for the minimum and let the Tribunal decide.
Terrible system, but anyway, here is our conflict of interest issue hard at work in a live case. The very first action the AFL and Brad Scott should have taken in this case was to absent Brad Scott from any part of the process given he is making decisions in regard to a player from the team his twin brother coaches.
I try to keep an air of levity about this thread but this is straight out wrong.
Last edited:
He does have a clear conflict of interest, what matters is only whether that conflict of interest between his personal relationship with his brother effects or influences his thought process or decision making or actions in any way in his role at the AFL.
- Thread starter
- #56
And who do you think can reliably judge that juss?
The answer is nobody can reliably judge that. That is why the correct thing to do when you have even an apparent conflict of interest is to omit yourself from the decision making process in which you are conflicted.
I love how like 70% of this entire thread is just the OP talking to himself.....
- Thread starter
- #58
That is why it is so good that you Cats supporters come to keep me company MM.
Pretty much like the Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest thread, just me, and a whole lot of Geelong FC supporters, it was lovely back in those good old days.
Cats supporters seem a bit more gunshy to attend this thread after they were made fools of by Steven Hocking becoming the Geelong FC CEO during the period most of them were arguing he had no troublesome link to the Cats. But don’t be afraid, you are welcome here to speak wise or foolish words alike, I will soon straighten your ideas out for you.
Haha, yes. Unhinged.
- Thread starter
- #60
Hinged, but unnerved.
I'd probably be offended by your insults if I could understand them.....That is why it is so good that you Cats supporters come to keep me company MM.
Pretty much like the Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest thread, just me, and a whole lot of Geelong FC supporters, it was lovely back in those good old days.
Cats supporters seem a bit more gunshy to attend this thread after they were made fools of by Steven Hocking becoming the Geelong FC CEO during the period most of them were arguing he had no troublesome link to the Cats. But don’t be afraid, you are welcome here to speak wise or foolish words alike, I will soon straighten your ideas out for you.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,873
- 21,964
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
Silvagni stepped aside on any decisions involving his sons at the club. He had no input on whether they were drafted, or whether they got games.
He was planning on stepping out of the role anyway (can't remember if it was that year, or the following year), but a conflict between he and Cain Liddle, where Liddle was overreaching in his role, led to it happening early and Liddle somehow managed to convince the powers that be that SOS was going to sabotage the upcoming draft/trade period.
If SOS had the power that some try to claim, Ben would still be on the list and he probably would have played some senior games before being delisted.
If Jack was simply on the list due to his name, as some try to claim, he would have been delisted since SOS left, or at the very least, relegated to the VFL.
As for Brad Scott, I didn't know that part of his role was involved with tribunal/MRO cases. I've seen nothing so far to indicate that he's acting conflicted, but if he's involved in the potential availability of players on his brother's team, or the players that his brother's team might come up against in the following weeks, then there is a conflict there, whether it's acted on or not.
It's not a role he should have, but is he more, or less conflicted than Hocking? Is he more, or less conflicted than his potential replacement could be?
- Thread starter
- #63
Then things were conducted as they should have been if Silvagni played no role in any decisions regarding his sons.
Regarding your questions about Brad Scott, until and unless the AFL announce otherwise, we have no reason not to believe he is sitting in judgement of Geelong related MRO matters. His roles include that he has the final say in every MRO decision. So where people blame Christian for MRO decisions or non-decisions they do not agree with, they should not. They should blame Scott, who has the final say in all of these decisions. We never actually have any certainty as to what Christian’s position on any individual case is.
No person who has a clear conflict should be making these decisions. Vague conflicts caused by having played for a club in the past I think we can mostly live with, but it is these conflicts where a person has a current link to a club, or a close relationship with somebody in the football department of a club where I think they should not be involved in making decisions that directly affect that club’s fortunes. And replaced for the purpose of making that decision on behalf of the AFL by another suitable unconflicted person. Do you think that seems right? And workable?
- Thread starter
- #64
It is well your comprehension skills lack then MM, we do not wish to offend on this thread.
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
how come OP is only focused on a conflict of interest through Brad's connection to Chris and not his connections to Hawthorn, Brisbane, Collingwood or the Kangaroos? Seems weird
- Thread starter
- #66
Fair question.
His connections to those 4 clubs are past connections….and there are 4 of them. So there is doubt around whether any conflict would exist with decisions concerning any of those clubs though I concede some sort of argument could be formed that it does. I am not making this argument though, it is too tenuous for me.
His connection to the Geelong FC coach is a current and permanent one. This creates an obvious conflict of interest in decisions with any relevance to the Geelong FC.
Do you think Brad Scott does not have a conflict of interest in regard to decisions relating to the Geelong FC?
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
Considering he has never worked for Geelong FC in any capacity then I don't see any possible conflict of interest
Does Richard Goyder create a conflict of interest because of his past employment at Fremantle?
Michael Christian at Collingwood?
Gil is a St Kilda supporter, is that a conflict of interest? Ultimately he has more power than anyone else in the AFL administration
Andrew Newbold at Hawthorn?
I could go on. Practically everyone within the AFL administration circle has been involved with various AFL clubs at different times. I'm sure many of them have friends and family still working at different clubs and some of them are in positions of power within the AFL. Fact is, the AFL is highly unlikely to hire someone as the football GM or whatever Brad Scott's title is who doesn't have a history within AFL administration.
You've been banging on about this topic for years now and I've never seen a single person legitmately take your side, anyone who you may think is backing up your idea is taking the piss out of you - just letting you know since it needs to be said
- Thread starter
- #68
Your first line presumes you would have to have worked for a club to have a conflict of interest in regard to that club. As if this is the only thing that could cause a Football Operations Manager and MRO final decision maker to be biased one way or the other in relation to a football club. That is simply not the case.
Then you ask about a whole lot of people who have previously worked for clubs and whether they have a conflict of interest. They may or may not. You would need to find some decisions they are making where they are conflicted. And then you would have to decide whether the links they had or have to those clubs creates a conflict. But this is nothing to do with Brad Scott, it is a red herring argument from you. B Scott is clearly conflicted in regard to his role as MRO final decision maker in any case affecting Geelong, because the current Geelong FC coach is his twin brother.
You didn’t answer the question about whether you believe Brad Scott has a conflict of interest in regard to decisions affecting the Geelong FC. You simply listed a lot of other people who probably don’t have a significant conflict of interest. Strange way to answer.
Then you try to support your nonsense with an appeal to popularity by saying you have never seen a person take my side on these threads. It doesn’t much matter who is on whose side. But you only have to refer back to the very most recent post that wasn’t from you or I on this thread, at post #62, where Carlton supporter Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods posted this:
So if you are looking to discredit a perfectly legitimate thread, I would suggest clutching at some new and different straws, not the old chestnuts you are re-hashing here to the yawns of all and sundry.
Since you've posted 6 x more than the next two prolific posters, this seems to be you indulging in your fantasies. There is another name for that sort of behaviora perfectly legitimate thread,
- Thread starter
- #70
Since you've posted 6 x more than the next two prolific posters, this seems to be you indulging in your fantasies. There is another name for that sort of behavior
The trouble is that all the legit posters who would normally have this thread buzzing like a bumble bee, as happened on the Hocking conflict of interest thread, aren’t here this time. Because they can now see he premise of the thread is correct. And that all the Geelong mafia posters who made fools of themselves on the Hocking thread trying to defend the honour of their dishonourable club, are not worth engaging with here.
But here is the thing Speardude. Despite your superior air, I know you are interested in this thread….because you are here….and you are checking how many posts have been made by whom….and you are posting. What is the alternative name for that sort of behaviour?
sherb
Hall of Famer
The Roosters.I’m fine thanks. You?
From down that way my teams are Grovedale, Bannockburn, Torquay and Simpson.All the Tigers.
But I have a soft spot for Anarchy FC, sounds like chaos.
Not been anything watchable come out of the area footy wise since Warwick Yates’ sideburns in the 70’s though.
View attachment 1172516
Watch this space……...
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
There is little doubt Meteoric Rise was conflicted as a child
Every person who works for the afl has ties to a club, has ties to people at those clubs and in many cases probably has relatives at certain clubs or at the very least very close associates from their playing days or social circle.
The surf coast sized chip on certain posters’ shoulder seems to be growing into their brain
The surf coast sized chip on certain posters’ shoulder seems to be growing into their brain
making fun of the monkeys at the zoo?The trouble is that all the legit posters who would normally have this thread buzzing like a bumble bee, as happened on the Hocking conflict of interest thread, aren’t here this time. Because they can now see he premise of the thread is correct. And that all the Geelong mafia posters who made fools of themselves on the Hocking thread trying to defend the honour of their dishonourable club, are not worth engaging with here.
But here is the thing Speardude. Despite your superior air, I know you are interested in this thread….because you are here….and you are checking how many posts have been made by whom….and you are posting. What is the alternative name for that sort of behaviour?
- Thread starter
- #75
I stand corrected, you did indeed answer in the first line of your post. I apologise with all the sincerity of a Geelong player trying to avoid a fair suspension he knows he is highly unlikely to receive.
So let it be known then that Wojcinski thinks that although Brad Scott’s twin brother is the current coach of the Geelong FC he could not have any possible conflict of interest while considering matters relating to the Geelong FC, because Brad Scott has never worked for the GeelongFC in any capacity.
Unusual way to look at it. Quite creative really. You just look at a person’s well known relationship that is creating an obvious conflict of interest, and then reason that the person could not have a conflict of interest because he does not fit into a completely different category of possibly conflicted people, ie, those who have previously worked for the club. Neat. Not very logical, but very convenient for those who don’t want the conflict to be known to exist. Well done Wojcinski.
