News Geelong being sued by former player alleging sexual assault.

[Strange Cat]

This isn’t a dig or a smart arse comment it’s a genuine question.

If Geelong employed these people as players, how is it there fault because of there actions?
I’m sure the football club would’ve had more than one house and assuming and hoping this is the only case, the only thing I can see the football club possibly did wrong was not house the house mum inside the actual house to keep an eye on the men/boys living there.

Also why is it just a civil claim and not a criminal charge against the accused?

Once again these are just genuine questions that if you or something can answer so
I could understand better.
Thanks

The club had a duty of care to their employees…civil case because of that reason alone

We don’t know if there is an ongoing investigation to criminally charge the accusers (3 players) , however a court case is much harder to prove as there needs to be strong evidence and witnesses which is especially hard after 40 years and the survivor may not want to even put himself through that in the court system that will make life being hard for him on the stand

It’s a traumatic process which is why a lot of people don’t go through it and why it is so underreported in society

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Why haven’t the 3 players been named in the writ ?
Unless there is an ongoing police investigation, it seems odd that the actual perpetrators aren’t being sued as well.

The individual Catholic priests didn't get sued, the Catholic Church did.

 

[caitsith01]

This isn’t a dig or a smart arse comment it’s a genuine question.

If Geelong employed these people as players, how is it there fault because of there actions?
I’m sure the football club would’ve had more than one house and assuming and hoping this is the only case, the only thing I can see the football club possibly did wrong was not house the house mum inside the actual house to keep an eye on the men/boys living there.

Also why is it just a civil claim and not a criminal charge against the accused?

Once again these are just genuine questions that if you or something can answer so
I could understand better.
Thanks

Employers can be vicariously liable for the actions of employees. Also, according to the article the allegation is that the club controlled the living situation of the players, so presumably what is alleged is that the club was negligent in placing as kid in that environment when it was foreseeable that something like this could happen.

Re civil v criminal, they are independent. Civil is pursued privately, criminal is prosecuted by the state. The fact of a civil claim doesn't prevent a criminal prosecution.

 

[35dangerwood14]

Geez could this year get any worse for the GFC?

Hopefully the club takes care of the victim now that they are aware of this horrifying claim.

Im too young to know anyone involved but i would hope those that know something come forward to the club or victim and spill the beans.

Alleged victim

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Why haven’t the 3 players been named in the writ ?
Unless there is an ongoing police investigation, it seems odd that the actual perpetrators aren’t being sued as well.

It's usually hard to name a perpetrator without giving away the identity of the victim

 

[Cataholic]

It's usually hard to name a perpetrator without giving away the identity of the victim

Well, he's approximately 56, was a footballer in the early 80's, and is now a prominent Indigenous elder.

They haven't exerted an utmost effort to conceal his identity.

 

[standupand]

This isn’t a dig or a smart arse comment it’s a genuine question.

If Geelong employed these people as players, how is it there fault because of there actions?
I’m sure the football club would’ve had more than one house and assuming and hoping this is the only case, the only thing I can see the football club possibly did wrong was not house the house mum inside the actual house to keep an eye on the men/boys living there.

Also why is it just a civil claim and not a criminal charge against the accused?

Once again these are just genuine questions that if you or something can answer so
I could understand better.
Thanks

The article said that the claim against the club was for vicarious liability.

This means that the club is argued to be responsible for the actions of those that it employs. Like if a restaurant employee spills hot coffee on you, you can sue the restaurant rather than the employee even if you can't prove the restaurant itself did anything wrong like failing to train the employee or provide adequate facilities etc.

The difficulty in cases like this is proving that the the actions were sufficiently connected to their employment.

The reason it's a civil claim essentially is that it is a decision by the claimant to seek compensation for damage suffered. There may also be a police investigation, but its a separate matter and would concern the individuals rather than the club. There are many many reasons why someone might choose not to make a police complaint at the time, especially in relation to child abuse.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

This is pretty awful reading. Need full and thorough investigation immediately

 

[cats_09]

Ah, as expected the uNprOVeN aLleGaTiON inNOcEnT UnTiL pRoVeN guIlTy!!1!!1 crowd are already out in full force now that it's our club.

I'd suggest it's actually the same thing said when there's been allegations against other clubs, including the players, coaches, board members etc

Doesn't matter the issue or where the allegations have been laid - discuss the issue in a respectful manner, but be careful of not crossing a line of presumed guilt when that hasn't been established

These allegations aren't good, but there's a lot to play out

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Well, he's approximately 56, was a footballer in the early 80's, and is now a prominent Indigenous elder.

They haven't exerted an utmost effort to conceal his identity.

Token as it is it does seem they're not releasing his identity

 

[FredLeDeux]

The article said that the claim against the club was for vicarious liability.

This means that the club is argued to be responsible for the actions of those that it employs. Like if a restaurant employee spills hot coffee on you, you can sue the restaurant rather than the employee even if you can't prove the restaurant itself did anything wrong like failing to train the employee or provide adequate facilities etc.

The difficulty in cases like this is proving that the the actions were sufficiently connected to their employment.

The reason it's a civil claim essentially is that it is a decision by the claimant to seek compensation for damage suffered. There may also be a police investigation, but its a separate matter and would concern the individuals rather than the club. There are many many reasons why someone might choose not to make a police complaint at the time, especially in relation to child abuse.

The timing suggests that, legally, they may be hoping to ride on the coat-tails of the recent High Court decisions confirming that the Church can be vicariously liable for the actions of its pedophile priests.

 

[Turbocat]

The trouble with these type of claims is there probably is going to be nothing but pain..even when its all done no winners... Look at the Haw thing...I cant see that being resolved with all parties feeling satisfied. In this case three unnamed players did something and the club is potentially liable .... I'm no lawyer but I suspect there are few case brought against defendants for damages when the defendants have little or nothing to give .... so I can see why anyone looking at these historical case would feel cynical.

Its hard to fight that cynical feeling but ...we all have heard of VFL clubs handling issues in the past by smothering and quietening them. Obviously wrong now, It was probably the way all organisations thought it best to do it. Just make it go away. We have all heard stories of Monday morning deals that surrounded stars, deals done to satisfy damaged parties. If in this instant .. the club knew certain players were less than the best standard citizens and they put minors in their care I could see how they would liable. If they knew it was a party house or they had received complaints and reports about those players etc ... then putting kid in that environment would be a failure of his care. To me , if there was any knowledge of the party situation and the club put the shush on it... then they should try to make it right. How to make it right is hard but we should try. I wonder if there has already been talks that have not be beneficial before this hit the media. Even seeing this in print damages Geelong, so there is a tactical advantage to doing it.

The other side is ... If I was accused of something that I did not do how do I defend myself? To validate claims before them being tested is heading down a dangerous track. I think its only fair to test claim... especially in this day and age ...when so many claims are made and proclaimed in media ... and it seems guilt is attached when something has just been asserted. Just yesterday I saw some Mayor talking about an incorrect claim on chatgpt .... for all the righteous me-too stuff that was absolutely disgusting there has been some claim that have been malicious and proven to not standup. One can not just attach guilt based on feelings and stories, no matter how valid the feeling or the memories sound ..and that means this is going to be difficult. 40 years ago... the three unnamed players may not even still be with us.


In general, if claims like these can be substantiated in our court system with robust evidence then I have little time for the actual perpetrators of crimes like this, my punishment would far harsher than what seem to see generally be handed out. I have no time for child abusers. I tend to look at people like that as a cancer...one does not try to rehabilitate a cancer..you chop it out before it affects other parts of the body, before the cycle of damage is perpetuated. I do find historical claims hard to get my head around. Something that happened years ago the facts and the memories are going to be blurred. Emotions will cloud righteous memories or events. Of recent years so many historical cases solved thru dna has been corrected... peopel convicted on verbal evidence, showing wrong conviction and of course long unsolved crimes solved. It was done thru DENA evidence... but what evidence do we have in cases like this, cases without evidence I find troubling. Then it became a trial of who you believe, and if someone is unlikeable then a poor outcome can happen.

Its going to be difficult to defend one self against a claim likes this without coming off as uncaring ... and at the same time try to rectify past deeds that no one at the club had anything to do with ... and in a meaningful way help someone damaged by something associated with a sporting clubs we all support.

In the end there will be winners and a lot of pain.

The people who did wrong by someone will not pay a price

The person wronged will only get marginal relief. If anyone thinks money will solve the hurt they are deluded. People could offer me millions of dollars and I would not want memories like these ones in my head

... and yes the footy club takes a black eye for something that was done in and around its name.

Very very sad.

 

[jim boy]

I'd suggest it's actually the same thing said when there's been allegations against other clubs, including the players, coaches, board members etc

We were pretty badly run in the early 80's - we really wouldn't have governance or processes in place to ensure that all those under the care of the GFC were 'safe'. We would just be relying on what we thought of the character of those at the time.

I've obviously no idea if the allegations are true or not, but at least their doesn't seem to be any allegations of systemic abuse

 

[CatToTheFuture]

False made up bullsh-t no way this happen

Rather than dismiss it out of hand, perhaps accept that we actually have no idea as to the veracity of the claim.

It is incumbent upon us to drive a thorough investigation here

 

[Strange Cat]

What bullshit

False made up bullsh-t no way this happen

I’m sure you can backup those statements

Otherwise best reframe from making absolute statements

 

[Micksy]

The club had a duty of care to their employees

What employees?
Was football a profession back then?

 

[Strange Cat]

What employees?
Was football a profession back then?

They are still working within the organisation you don’t have to be paid to be an employees

Absolutely the club has a duty of care to their players and employees..espically if they are living and in the care of the club facilities like this boarding house

 

[Partridge]

Its hard to fight that cynical feeling but ...we all have heard of VFL clubs handling issues in the past by smothering and quietening them. Obviously wrong now, It was probably the way all organisations thought it best to do it. Just make it go away. We have all heard stories of Monday morning deals that surrounded stars, deals done to satisfy damaged parties. If in this instant .. the club knew certain players were less than the best standard citizens and they put minors in their care I could see how they would liable. If they knew it was a party house or they had received complaints and reports about those players etc ... then putting kid in that environment would be a failure of his care. To me , if there was any knowledge of the party situation and the club put the shush on it... then they should try to make it right. How to make it right is hard but we should try. I wonder if there has already been talks that have not be beneficial before this hit the media. Even seeing this in print damages Geelong, so there is a tactical advantage to doing it.

The other side is ... If I was accused of something that I did not do how do I defend myself? To validate claims before them being tested is heading down a dangerous track. I think its only fair to test claim... especially in this day and age ...when so many claims are made and proclaimed in media ... and it seems guilt is attached when something has just been asserted. Just yesterday I saw some Mayor talking about an incorrect claim on chatgpt .... for all the righteous me-too stuff that was absolutely disgusting there has been some claim that have been malicious and proven to not standup. One can not just attach guilt based on feelings and stories, no matter how valid the feeling or the memories sound ..and that means this is going to be difficult. 40 years ago... the three unnamed players may not even still be with us.

Brilliant post. Summed it up perfectly.

To the first paragraph above, exactly. I've got very little doubt horrible stuff would have occurred at or near all clubs in past eras (and current too while we're at it). Not just the evil "other" clubs either, I bet it happened at Geelong too. There would be all sorts of things that most people would have very little knowledge of. So could something like this have happened? Of course it could.

But now to the second paragraph. You still need evidence. You can't just assume guilt based on decades old accusations - with no named parties. That's ridiculous. Have people really thought through what happens if that were to become accepted? Anyone you don't like, any real or imagined enemy, you can make an accusation and be rid of them. Imagine what would happen just on here. Let alone in the real world.

If there is something to these allegations they need to be investigated as thoroughly as possible. If proven to be true and they know who they are, they can burn. But it still needs to be proven first.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

It's how the justice system works, regardless of the size of the picture.

This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. The judges in criminal and civil courts have different powers. Criminal Court judges can punish you for breaking the law by sending you to jail. Civil Court judges can order you to pay money or a fine or make decisions about your family or home.

In a criminal court, crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof, such as "the preponderance of the evidence." The term "the preponderance of evidence" refers to how it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way.

I repeat this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one.

 

[Two Planks]

Dare say this is more of an "initiation" thing rather than a sexual thing.

Reminds me of what used to happen to apprentices when they first started working where they would be on the end of some sick pranks.

Why is the fact the man is indigenous even required to be printed. All this does is make most think this is a cash grab and make it easier for the person to be identified. The article should have left it at a man in his 50s.

 

[cats_09]

Reopening shortly...

 

[cats_09]

This thread covers a sensitive subject and we don't want to discourage discussion BUT, posting in a manner which is provocative, baiting, trolling, excessively negative/positive etc, won't be tolerated

As a reminder of terms & conditions agreed to:

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which:

• is dangerous to health, anti-vax, Covid denial etc,
• is hateful, including sympathetic discussion of far-right/neo-Nazi tropes,
• misinformation or disinformation,
• defamatory,
• threatening,
• abusive,
• bigotry,
• likely to offend,
• is spam or spam-like,
• contains adult or objectionable content,
• risks copyright infringement,
• encourages unlawful activity (including illegal drug use, buying, selling etc),
• or otherwise violates any laws,
• or contains personal information of others,

Reviewing the above & the agreed to T&Cs may be a good option, especially when discussing sensitive topics such as we're doing in this thread

And as we've said in previous discussions with allegations made against other clubs, players, coaches etc: Doesn't matter the issue or where the allegations have been laid - discuss the issue in a respectful manner, but be careful of not crossing a line of presumed guilt when that hasn't been established and just don't be dick...

These allegations aren't good, but there's a lot to play out

 

[Goggin Our Best]

This thread covers a sensitive subject and we don't want to discourage discussion BUT, posting in a manner which is provocative, baiting, trolling, excessively negative/positive etc, won't be tolerated

As a reminder of terms & conditions agreed to:

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which:

• is dangerous to health, anti-vax, Covid denial etc,
• is hateful, including sympathetic discussion of far-right/neo-Nazi tropes,
• misinformation or disinformation,
• defamatory,
• threatening,
• abusive,
• bigotry,
• likely to offend,
• is spam or spam-like,
• contains adult or objectionable content,
• risks copyright infringement,
• encourages unlawful activity (including illegal drug use, buying, selling etc),
• or otherwise violates any laws,
• or contains personal information of others,

Reviewing the above & the agreed to T&Cs may be a good option, especially when discussing sensitive topics such as we're doing in this thread

And as we've said in previous discussions with allegations made against other clubs, players, coaches etc: Doesn't matter the issue or where the allegations have been laid - discuss the issue in a respectful manner, but be careful of not crossing a line of presumed guilt when that hasn't been established and just don't be dick...

These allegations aren't good, but there's a lot to play out

Its interesting - posters have said - that in Australia - you are presumed innocent until proven guilty

Well Michael Vaughn - the former England Cricket test capitian - last week he won his case -or it was not proved - re that racial allegation - that he said - look we have got too many of you lot

After the result he said - in England you are presumed guilty and you have to prove your innocence - he then said - he got alot more support from Aust - he said - Australians didnt take the view that i didnt do it or i did do it - they just waited for the result - he even said that because of it he and his wife even contemplated moving to Australia

Re this Geel issue - i think if this happened those 3 should be named - they deserve no protection - so name them

And the problem without naming them - then that casts aspersion over anyone who was living their at the time

 

[Footy Smarts]

It's a tough read. And I've heard too many stories about what happened at our club in the 80s and 90s to think there wouldn't be some horrific tales in our past. We weren't unique in that but some of the stories around the treatment of young players (hazing rituals, etc) and racism I've heard were very, very ugly.

On the bright side the club clearly has a far more inclusive culture and takes its duty of care much more seriously now. Hopefully we're mature enough as a club to recognise and own the mistakes of the past, ensure we continue to do better in the future and hopefully assist those we let down previously get some form of closure.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

What employees?
Was football a profession back then?

Well they were paid by the club.
Alec Popescu and John Newman's father had been paying our bills during periods in the 1970s. So it would be fair to assume in the early 1980s that VFL clubs would pay its players. Amateur w/ day job v professional probably doesn't matter too much.