Opinion Hawthorn - Clarkson - Fagan Racism Investigation

[Ramify]

I think you're likely on the money here.

Another popular opinion I'm sure.
But hey, it is his bread and butter after all,even if he isn't consciously aware of what damage he's doing.

So far she's provided more specifics about the events than Clarko has, I don't see how her claims would be less credible at this point

I'm not suggesting the AFL will intervene. I think she was hoping public pressure would see the clubs themselves sack or refuse to hire him. Whether that will happen is another story

I feel this was the gameplan all along.
An ill-thoughtout orchestrated plan of attack that's fallen on its face.
I also feel the AFL has already intervened and used their influence to control the airplay and overall narrative. An equally grubby approach that only serves 1 purpose.

At the end of the day, I doubt there is an entirely innocent party in any of this, which is a sad, sad indictment on these factions of society.

 

[Ramify]

Going public was a bad move. Gut feel is that somewhere along the line the accusers were told that there’d be a result based solely on the allegations being made public. I’d be surprised if both Egan and the journo didn’t advance that belief. How would either of them have benefitted if there was a quiet settlement between the parties?

I'm glad you hint at ulterior motives. Even if they are subconscious or unintentional,they are undeniably there.

 

[Scorpus]

Another popular opinion I'm sure.
But hey, it is his bread and butter after all,even if he isn't consciously aware of what damage he's doing.


I feel this was the gameplan all along.
An ill-thoughtout orchestrated plan of attack that's fallen on its face.
I also feel the AFL has already intervened and used their influence to control the airplay and overall narrative. An equally grubby approach that only serves 1 purpose.

At the end of the day, I doubt there is an entirely innocent party in any of this, which is a sad, sad indictment on these factions of society.

What remains to be seen is whether they thought a single article would do all the work, or whether they'll need to go further to get the outcome they want.

It took a long time for the Crows camp leakers to get what they wanted. The initial "leak" wasn't enough to overcome the damage control. If they were smart they would have held back some ammunition for later use

 

[Ramify]

What remains to be seen is whether they thought a single article would do all the work, or whether they'll need to go further to get the outcome they want.

It took a long time for the Crows camp leakers to get what they wanted. The initial "leak" wasn't enough to overcome the damage control

I hear you, but I think the AFL are a completely different beast to both us(AFC) and any of the usual roll-over institutions/enterprises these tactics would work against.

I'm pretty confident a whole lot of under/over estimating has occurred at some point.

Without any substantial evidence bar hearsay, they don't have much else to rely on.

 

[1970crow]

I hear you, but I think the AFL are a completely different beast to both us(AFC) and any of the usual roll-over institutions/enterprises these tactics would work against.

I'm pretty confident a whole lot of under/over estimating has occurred at some point.

Without any substantial evidence bar hearsay, they don't have much else to rely on.

Fact is that once it went public the AFL had no other option but to have a full investigation conducted. They cannot act against the coaches without it. Unless the police get involved somehow, but you’d think that would have occurred already if there was anything actionable.

If the complainants wanted any actions against the coaches a proper investigation was inevitable. If the wanted $, then going public was a very bad move because it forced the investigation. They’ve lost control of the narrative and refusing to engage diminishes their position further.

 

[Ramify]

Fact is that once it went public the AFL had no other option but to have a full investigation conducted. They cannot act against the coaches without it. Unless the police get involved somehow, but you’d think that would have occurred already if there was anything actionable.

If the complainants wanted any actions against the coaches a proper investigation was inevitable. If the wanted $, then going public was a very bad move because itposs forced the investigation. They’ve lost control of the narrative and refusing to engage diminishes their position further.

Yes, but there was always the very real possibility that the AFL wouldn't blink in throwing the accused under the bus in order to protect themselves and "the brand". Until they didn't...

To be honest, I was betting on them(AFL) hanging the Coaches out to dry.

 

[1970crow]

Yes, but there was always the very real possibility that the AFL wouldn't blink in throwing the accused under the bus in order to protect themselves and "the brand". Until they didn't...

To be honest, I was betting on them(AFL) hanging the Coaches out to dry.

I think that might have been a possibility with lots of coaches, but definitely not Clarko. But I don’t see a $ settlement without a genuine investigation once the claims went public. They pay to keep their s**t out of the media, not as a reward for going public.

 

[Sanders]

Clarko saying it's not true without any details does little for his reputation. His image has already been damaged but not to the point of sacking yet.

All she has to do is wait for the investigation to take place and ramp up or repeat any claims if they let him off. If she does that in public it will throw doubt on the investigation.

It may not actually work but what definitely won't work is cooperating with an AFL investigation that's goal is protecting their image

Nah. Clarkson is already back at work, and there’ll be no smoking gun to knock him back off that perch at this rate.

 

[Sanders]

I don't think she really cares whether the AFL investigate it or not. She's made statements effectively saying she doesn't believe the AFL will investigate it properly. There's virtually no incentive for her to participate unless she believes the investigation is conducted appropriately, which given the AFL is involved would be unlikely.

She wants public opinion to be on her side so action is taken to avoid brand damage.

For now it's all just in a holding pattern. I'd expect more to happen one way or another after the investigation is finished depending on what outcome is reached.

She can’t sue because none of this happened to her. Her allegation is that certain things happened to her ex-partner

An ex-partner who doesn’t appear to be saying the same things.

Her game (by the looks) was a quick bout of AFL shame, and a cheque.

Public opinion has a lot of directions to go in with regards to her motivations for not submitting herself to scrutiny

 

[Sanders]

So what are the chances that the initial investigator has also played the role of advocate/puppet master in all this?


Or am I the only one who's had this thought, since he(Egan) went public?

I think there are quite a few people coming to that same conclusion.

 

[Sanders]

Going public was a bad move. Gut feel is that somewhere along the line the accusers were told that there’d be a result based solely on the allegations being made public. I’d be surprised if both Egan and the journo didn’t advance that belief. How would either of them have benefitted if there was a quiet settlement between the parties?

I think the miscalculation was that a big public furore would be followed a huge outpouring of grief and mea culpa, and that as part of the maelstrom big cheques would be written, and heads would roll.

It’s hard to imagine why anyone thought it would be so easy, or that scrutiny wouldn’t be brought to bare but here we are.

 

[Ramify]

I think that might have been a possibility with lots of coaches, but definitely not Clarko. But I don’t see a $ settlement without a genuine investigation once the claims went public. They pay to keep their s**t out of the media, not as a reward for going public.

This was a miscalculation point for sure.

I based my bet on global trends seen throughout the sporting world,and the fact that I think the AFL are completely devoid of any integrity.

I'm not as convinced that it being Clarko as the name had as much to do with it, as I am that the AFL having sat down, weighed up the pros and cons involved with being seen to not follow due process.
In other words, I didn't think they were that smart,grown up
or responsible enouch to show any common sense ala Netball Australia, and instinctively backed yet another knee jerk, corporate woke pressured response over a common sense one.

Whatever the case, I'm still sure they wouldn't hesitate in selling Clarko up the river,if it didnt affect their bottom line,ensured they came out smelling of roses to Major sponsors and sidestepped any messy public litigation from either side.

 

[Ramify]

I think there are quite a few people coming to that same conclusion.

Awesome. Nice to know I'm not the only rabid racist.

 

[1970crow]

This was a miscalculation point for sure.

I based my bet on global trends seen throughout the sporting world,and the fact that I think the AFL are completely devoid of any integrity.

I'm not as convinced that it being Clarko as the name had as much to do with it, as I am that the AFL having sat down, weighed up the pros and cons involved with being seen to not follow due process.
In other words, I didn't think they were that smart,grown up
or responsible enouch to show any common sense ala Netball Australia, and instinctively backed yet another knee jerk, corporate woke pressured response over a common sense one.

Whatever the case, I'm still sure they wouldn't hesitate in selling Clarko up the river,if it didnt affect their bottom line,ensured they came out smelling of roses to Major sponsors and sidestepped any messy public litigation from either side.

The issue with Clarko is that he wouldn’t go down without a fight. So the only option would be to buy him off, but I don’t think he’d accept that either.

 

[Ramify]

I think the miscalculation was that a big public furore would be followed a huge outpouring of grief and new culpa, and that as part of the maelstrom big cheques would be written, and heads would roll.

It’s hard to imagine why anyone thought it would be so easy, or that scrutiny wouldn’t be brought to bare but here we are.

I thought it would be that easy. But I've become somewhat disillusioned with the world,in the past 5 years especially.

The issue with Clarko is that he wouldn’t go down without a fight. So the only option would be to buy him off, but I don’t think he’d accept that either.

Ah I get your point now.
Do you reckon it would be different if it was just Fagan and the others?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Many on here who were earlier talking about waiting for the truth to come out before offering an opinion... now are offering their opinion that this is an open & shut case... before the investigation has even started.

 

[Sanders]

I thought it would be that easy. But I've become somewhat disillusioned with the world,in the past 5 years especially.

I’ll tell you why I think this:

1. Amy has no win no fee lawyers
2. Amy lacks standing for a civil case. I.e. you can’t sue on behalf of someone else
3. So how did the lawyers think they were getting paid? Where or from whom was the money coming?

 

[Scorpus]

Nah. Clarkson is already back at work, and there’ll be no smoking gun to knock him back off that perch at this rate.

Clarkson is back at work because North fans don't give a s**t. They are that desperate.

So from that perspective the plan hasn't worked

 

[Sanders]

Clarkson is back at work because North fans don't give a s**t. They are that desperate

However you choose to explain it away, them’s the facts

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

This isn't just about Amy...

 

[Ramify]

Many on here who were earlier talking about waiting for the truth to come out before offering an opinion... now are offering their opinion that this is an open & shut case... before the investigation has even started.

Who? Name them.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Who? Name them.

You can read...

 

[1970crow]

I thought it would be that easy. But I've become somewhat disillusioned with the world,in the past 5 years especially.



Ah I get your point now.
Do you reckon it would be different if it was just Fagan and the others?

I think possibly, but still unlikely because the cat is already out of the bag. Sp the AFL’s usual driver has been eliminated. Egan’s report does feed into that expectation though. No current problems, Hawks are awesome in this area - AFL tick. But here’s some horrific historic s**t that you need to pay up for. Right up the AFL’s usual alley.

 

[1970crow]

This isn't just about Amy...

This is right and presumably there will be an investigation completed to substantiate their claims. Then actions can be decided dependant upon the degree with which that occurs. But it’s fair to comment on Amy as her recent actions are outside the investigations. And even then, these are t being pushed as facts one way or the other, just suggestions as to what may be her motives or those of others involved in her decision making. No other complainant or outcome is being discussed.

 

[Ramify]

You can read...

I can. Can't quite see what you are seeing though, but I've not caught up on a fair few pages/posts.

Ive seen a few people hypothesising on missing peices of the process and possible motives, as well as one or two calling inferring racism if one doesnt instantly condemn the accused.

Cant say Ive seen anyone steadfastly claim the accused are innocent though. That again would be kinda stupid considering the facts that are at hand.