Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 30,112
- 28,702
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
They simply do not care.
Rules Brad Scott Conflict of Interest….
- Thread starter Meteoric Rise
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #177
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.
- Thread starter
- #178
That is certainly how it appears. Or worse, they do care to ensure that there is bias...
I suspect he also knows that simply making rule changes that affect a group of persons (being the whole range of people who could be affected) is not actually a conflict (actual or otherwise) unless there’s a reason to believe that his brother (or Brisbane, North etc) is being favoured, which is why he asked the question. That standard is - at law at least - a reasonable person test so clearly nothing in this thread would be relevant.
I do wonder if in the world you’re proposing there would be any way for any decision to be made given how many administrators have strong club connections. Most of them seem to be able to behave professionally, and I suspect the AFL is aware of Scott’s connections to various clubs…
FWIW - an actual conflict of interest would be if Hocking or B Scott made the decision to allow Geelong to choose where it plays its home games, but we all know that despite Geelong’s stranglehold over the commission in a Darth Vader like grip somehow has been insufficient to get that basic change made.
And finally - by way of context, the third man up rule was a direct rule change to deny a Geelong tactic - which was very significant for us because our rucks have been crap since Ottens (thanks for him, by the way). But I don’t recall the tin hats getting rolled out quite like this.
Let’s be honest. If Chris Scott coached Gold Coast, this thread would not exist.
- Feb 12, 2017
- 16,577
- 43,418
- AFL Club
- Geelong
And with the job now done, he rides off into the sunset. Your dedication won't be forgotten, Bradley.
- Feb 9, 2015
- 4,661
- 9,199
- AFL Club
- Geelong
It happened once in a game in 1882 against Hotham, outside that, never.
- Thread starter
- #184
"And finally - by way of context, the third man up rule was a direct rule change to deny a Geelong tactic - which was very significant for us because our rucks have been crap since Ottens (thanks for him, by the way). But I don’t recall the tin hats getting rolled out quite like this."
The 3rd man up rule change is not relevant to anything to do with this thread. To my understanding it was brought in long before Hocking or B Scott were appointed Footy Ops boss. And to my knowledge at least, that rule change was not guided or instituted by a clearly conflicted person. I am guessing this is why there was no protest at the time along conflict of interest lines. Wasn’t this rule brought in to protect ruckmen from being blindsided in ruck contests? So I think that point is a red herring to this thread regardless of whether it advantaged or disadvantaged some teams over others at the time.
"FWIW - an actual conflict of interest would be if Hocking or B Scott made the decision to allow Geelong to choose where it plays its home games, but we all know that despite Geelong’s stranglehold over the commission in a Darth Vader like grip somehow has been insufficient to get that basic change made.”
What you are describing is a decision a conflicted person might make in favour of a party to whom he has a connection. This may arise from a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest itself is a separate but related thing. It occurs where a person is conflicted in a decision making role by their relationship with a party to whom that decision relates. For a conflict of interest to be present does not require a biased decision to have been made. Whether deliberately or otherwise, Geelong supporters in particular seem to be confusing this point while at the same time saying they know what conflict of interest means. What should occur if things were being done ethically is that any person with a real or perceived conflict should not make a decision that affects the party who is conflicting them. There are quite well established mechanisms for dealing satisfactorily with conflicts of interest.
"That standard is - at law at least - a reasonable person test so clearly nothing in this thread would be relevant."
I think you have the standard right, but you are incorrect on the result of it being applied properly. I would think that for example no reasonable person would see Brad Scott as MRO final decision maker sitting in judgement of one of his twin brother’s key players and say that no conflict is present. Likewise, Steven Hocking doing the same and more whilst essentially negotiating with Geelong FC to be its next CEO. These things are not passing your reasonable person test. And that is just scratching the surface, there are many other decisions both B Scott and Hocking made where they would not pass a reasonable person test in relation to being conflicted by ties to Chris Scott and the Geelong FC.
"I suspect he also knows that simply making rule changes that affect a group of persons (being the whole range of people who could be affected) is not actually a conflict (actual or otherwise) unless there’s a reason to believe that his brother (or Brisbane, North etc) is being favoured, which is why he asked the question.”
Regarding the rule changes there are most certainly ways that this process could have been corrupted. If Chris Scott for example had discussions with Hocking suggesting certain rule changes that he thought would suit his team more than others, and Hocking implemented those changes at a time when he was negotiating with Geelong to become its next CEO, this would be straight out improper practice. But even if nothing like this happened - and I for one find it very difficult to believe it didn’t, given the close friendship between C Scott and Hocking - Hocking is still clearly conflicted by the fact he knew he was heading back to Geelong. He still could have been biased based only on his own views of what might suit Geelong. I am sure all future club CEO’s and all club coaches would like to have the ability to majorly influence the introduction of new rules. This role should never be carried out by a conflicted person.
"I do wonder if in the world you’re proposing there would be any way for any decision to be made given how many administrators have strong club connections. Most of them seem to be able to behave professionally, and I suspect the AFL is aware of Scott’s connections to various clubs…”
I agree it would be unworkable that if every person working for the AFL had to avoid making any decision regarding clubs with which they have had any connection in the past. It is a matter of the nature of these relationships. This is why I never started a thread about any other conflicts other than the S Hocking and B Scott ones. Hocking and C Scott were both on record as saying they are very close to each other. And as we know Hocking franked the conflict fully by becoming Geelong CEO. B Scott is obviously C Scott’s twin brother. So there is a lifetime relationship that nobody can deny. So these relationships go way beyond say B Scott’s relationship with North Melbourne, or Brisbane or Hawthorn FC’s. And they are current, not past relationships. As far as your claim that most of them seem to behave professionally, you would have to be joking. Lethlean carried on an affair with his office girl and had to be stood down. Hocking did not seem to declare to the AFL that he was in for he Geelong FC CEO position at the earliest possible point so that the many issues could be properly considered and dealt with. Brad Scott’s handling of the dissent rule was amateur hour, he was way out of his depth. Actions that were acceptable in one game weren’t acceptable in another, then next week what had been unacceptable last week was now fine and so on. These are just the things we know for certain. And if a person looking from outside can observe such obvious lack of professional standards, then god only knows what a fly on the wall would see.
So really, I don’t think you have much right in your post that relates to this thread.
Last edited:
- Feb 9, 2015
- 4,661
- 9,199
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Anyone else hearing the new head of Football is down to Darryl Sommers and Billy Brownless?
Apparently after very few people saw through the Brad Scott thing we can start blatantly taking the piss.
Apparently after very few people saw through the Brad Scott thing we can start blatantly taking the piss.
- Thread starter
- #186
The bigger worry is an ex Geelong Grammar cartel member is now King of Australia. I might declare my property a Kingdom and break the f*ck away, and if anyone associated in any way with Geelong sets foot on it I will declare war on them by making them watch replays of the 2017, 19, 20 finals losses to Richmond on continuous loop.
Last edited:
You mean like last season against Sydney when we got back within a kick and our coleman medal winning full forward took a mark right in front of goal on the siren from a 23 metre kick and it was called play on for not being the required 15 metres?
Is that the sort of example you wanted?
Or is it only the ones that don’t completely cripple the argument that stick in your memory?
- Feb 9, 2015
- 4,661
- 9,199
- AFL Club
- Geelong
That’s probably a discussion for the “King Charles conflict of interest” thread.The bigger worry is an ex Geelong Grammar cartel member is now King of Australia. I might declare my property a Kingdom and break the f*ck away, and if anyone associated in any way with Geelong sets foot on it I will declare war on them by making them watch replays of the 2017, 19, 20 finals losses to Richmond on continuous loop.
You’ve started that yeh?
- Thread starter
- #189
You Geelong supporters do seem to love my conflict of interest threads. I get a request for a new one from you roughly once a week on average. My favourite one of those is the Brendan Gale conflict of interest thread requests, and he doesn’t even work for the AFL.
Last edited:
- Feb 9, 2015
- 4,661
- 9,199
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You Geelong supporters do seem to love my conflict of interest threads. I seem to get a request for a new one from you roughly once a week on average. My favourite one of those is the Brendan Gale conflict of interest thread requests, and he doesn’t even work for the AFL.
I’ll admit, I do enjoy them. Whatever makes you chuckle.
But seriously, start the King Charles one.
- Aug 25, 2018
- 4,126
- 10,751
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Well, if you do, then you know that nothing else other than the conflict matters. You don’t need to prove actions were a conflict; the perception of a conflict is all that is required.
You avoid the situation entirely.
Hocking’s close ties to Geelong and Brad Scott’s ties to his twin brother should have been enough to rule both out of the the position of running the game.
Not that they would be candidates, but would you want McGuire in the job? Or Sheedy?
Adrian Anderson had seemingly no conflict or bias; that is the sort of appointment we need.
Tom Browne (I know) says “the AFL may be more likely to look for a more “pure” footy person than an administrator.”
I don’t like the sound of that. Unfortunately everyone in footy is conflicted and the boss of football is the role that most directly affects the playing of the game.
- Feb 9, 2015
- 4,661
- 9,199
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Stop stressing about it mate. It’ll be Joel Selwood.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
You obviously don’t work in the real world. Have you heard of policies and protocols to deal with potential conflicts? You and I have no idea exactly what the AFL has in place for its senior employees, but if it is like the industry in which I work the processes will be robust.
What’s the alternative in your naive world? No former footballer can hold a position of power in the AFL?
Funny that it is only on BF that hard hitting rumours and speculation of Brad Scott being conflicted perpetuate.
- Aug 25, 2018
- 4,126
- 10,751
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
“Rumour” of Scott being conflicted? He either is or he isn’t, and given that conflict of interest is mostly about appearances, then yes he is and so was Hocking and so would Matthew Richardson or Wayne Campbell be as well.
And, also, thanks for your misrepresentation and lack of comprehension: I stated one AFL position: Head of Football. That’s it.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
But how do you know what protocols the AFL has in place for the Head of Football Ops when faced with a potential conflict? Do you know?
- Thread starter
- #196
What we know is there is no appearance whatsoever of anything at all being in place to relieve either Hocking or B Scott from having to make decisions where they had an operative conflict of interest.
They are continuously publicly credited with changes to rules and interpretations, and there has never been any hint of either of them standing aside from any MRO case that might have affected Geelong.
Only the other day it was being raised in mainstream media that Essendon stood to benefit substantially from all the AFL “IP” that Brad Scott brings to them. Principally I imagine intricate knowledge of every clubs TPP position. So right now Essendon will know precisely who to be opening conversations with well ahead of other clubs. And they will know exactly where to pitch their offers, where other clubs won’t. Probably barring Geelong, for obvious reasons.
The AFL gives every appearance of having absolutely nothing whatsoever in place to ensure it is a level playing field. There is no reason to assume they have anything in place because all available evidence says they do not.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
EFA. You simply don't know. I really don't care about Brad Scott but have we ever heard of him intervening and overruling the MRP for ulterior motives?
Yes, that's the Head of Football's job. And we all know the 6 goal run in the GF this year and Melbourne's run in last year's GF wouldn't have occurred but for the rule changes.
Do you know this for a fact?
- Thread starter
- #198
Statement from Essendon President Dave Barham:
"I want to stress that neither the board nor Andrew was aware of the comments from the 2013 sermon until we read about them this morning. I also want to stress that this is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our members, our fans, our partners and the wider community.”
Even that most hilarious of laughing stocks, the Essendon Bombers Football Club understands how to deal with even the mere appearance of a conflict of interest.
"I want to stress that neither the board nor Andrew was aware of the comments from the 2013 sermon until we read about them this morning. I also want to stress that this is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our members, our fans, our partners and the wider community.”
Even that most hilarious of laughing stocks, the Essendon Bombers Football Club understands how to deal with even the mere appearance of a conflict of interest.
- Thread starter
- #199
So your suggested way of dealing with something that looks all wrong from every angle is to assume it is all right…seems like a winning formula.
Essendon CEO thing is more a conflict of philosophies or core-values than a conflict of interest I think. Maybe I'm just nit-picking.
