Play Nice Hawthorn culture and Fagan

[dlanod]

This is going to be a very touchy subject.

There will be a very broad range of opinions about the correct way to handle this.

I'll remind everyone to post respectfully at this time - sniping at each other is not going to help.

Any continued pointless back and forth will get a day or more to cool off. If you want to avoid this fate, let it go.

 

[Sausages]

It's likely the journo had it but who gave it to him is the question.

Look, let's be clear - it is pure speculation ahaha.

Nevertheless, that has been my most vexing question from the start - exactly HOW did the reporter, even assuming his own reporting being conducted side by side the Hawthorn internal report, get involved in that otherwise CONFIDENTIAL document trail?

Not that he knew, that's not relevant as such.

But he is involved somehow in a document trail - how did that come to be?

Or again, am I totally obscured to an otherwise obvious point?

 

[martinson]

Did he have it or did he get tipped off to its existence?

I think the journo piece is too close in content to the Hawthorn report, which let's face it was relating to something 10 years ago, for him not to have had it.

But that's just my sceptical mindset after reading thousands of reports over the years.

 

[BangyBangy]

You’re on the wrong tram, there was nothing in the report that surprised me…because it was the same as the article written by Russel Jackson (published by the ABC) that brought the issue out into the light. Which has been roundly bagged by a large section of posters on this board. The email exchange has disturbed me a bit more, it adds greater detail. I agree this is going to go on for a long time the way things appear with lawyers at 10 paces.

Forgive me, I'm from the Gold Coast, we've only recently acquired trams.

Nah, my point was in relation to that a few posters have become quiet that Gadzorks brought up. Responded to the wrong bit. Sorry.

Regardless of which camp you're based in right now, I just didn't see what difference it would make now the report has been leaked.

Well, aside from Andrew Newbold looking either incompetent or ... well, nothing really, he just looks incompetent.

 

[martinson]

Look, let's be clear - it is pure speculation ahaha.

Nevertheless, that has been my most vexing question from the start - exactly HOW did the reporter, even assuming his own reporting being conducted side by side the Hawthorn internal report, get involved in that otherwise CONFIDENTIAL document trail?

Not that he knew, that's not relevant as such.

But he is involved somehow in a document trail - how did that come to be?

Or again, am I totally obscured to an otherwise obvious point?

It's self evident Sausages.

These things don't tie up and match out of nowhere.

It'll all come out in the wash.

 

[western royboy]

I think the journo piece is too close in content to the Hawthorn report, which let's face it was relating to something 10 years ago, for him not to have had it.

But that's just my sceptical mindset after reading thousands of reports over the years.

If you’re speaking to the same people that the Report covers, I’d expect a similar story.

 

[western royboy]

Forgive me, I'm from the Gold Coast, we've only recently acquired trams.

Nah, my point was in relation to that a few posters have become quiet that Gadzorks brought up. Responded to the wrong bit. Sorry.

Regardless of which camp you're based in right now, I just didn't see what difference it would make now the report has been leaked.

Well, aside from Andrew Newbold looking either incompetent or ... well, nothing really, he just looks incompetent.

I’ll leave Gadzorks to explain why people might be a bit quiet on posting after the baseless claims without evidence or defamation actions against journalists and the ABC

 

[BangyBangy]

I’ll leave Gadzorks to explain why people might be a bit quiet on posting after the baseless claims without evidence or defamation actions against journalists and the ABC

Lol, no probs, I do have a tendency to use my scroll wheel a lot through this thread

 

[martinson]

If you’re speaking to the same people that the Report covers, I’d expect a similar story.

Yeah but there seemed to be parts actually lifted.

If someone tipped the journo off who to speak to and what to ask them obviously they have the report. Any journo worth his salt is going to see it fall off the back of a truck to make his job a whole lot easier. He was able to get his report up and published shortly after the Hawthorn one was completed.

I mean I think the whole thing is as plain as the nose on your face . But that's just my impression.

 

[martinson]

I’ll leave Gadzorks to explain why people might be a bit quiet on posting after the baseless claims without evidence or defamation actions against journalists and the ABC

There hasn't been much at all posted here with evidence ,or what I'd call evidence, as far as I can tell. By anybody.

 

[western royboy]

Yeah but there seemed to be parts actually lifted.

If someone tipped the journo off who to speak to and what to ask them obviously they have the report. Any journo worth his salt is going to see it fall off the back of a truck to make his job a whole lot easier. He was able to get his report up and published shortly after the Hawthorn one was completed.

I mean I think the whole thing is as plain as the nose on your face . But that's just my impression.

I’ve no idea, I doubt it would be the firm or persons connected with the Report, it would be professional suicide to do so. But who knows?

 

[western royboy]

There hasn't been much at all posted here with evidence ,or what I'd call evidence, as far as I can tell. By anybody.

I think the emails are pretty damning and back up the report and reporting of the incident

 

[21George]

I think the emails are pretty damning and back up the report and reporting of the incident

You’ve seen them?

 

[western royboy]

You’ve seen them?

Yes they’re everywhere

 

[martinson]

I’ve no idea, I doubt it would be the firm or persons connected with the Report, it would be professional suicide to do so. But who knows?

It was the best way of getting the issues in the report into the public arena quickly so the AFL couldn't bury it until a time and a way of their choosing.

If you ask yourself who would want to be doing that it might provide the answers.

 

[western royboy]

It was the best way of getting the issues in the report into the public arena quickly so the AFL couldn't bury it until a time and a way of their choosing.

If you ask yourself who would want to be doing that it might provide the answers.

I’ve no doubt who went to Jackson and why, I’ve detailed a scenario earlier. I’m not convinced they leaked the Report because I didn’t think they had it. But I don’t know, what I do know is that this isn’t going away anytime soon and our man is long odds to cosch next year as a result of today’s developments

 

[martinson]

I’ve no doubt who went to Jackson and why, I’ve detailed a scenario earlier. I’m not convinced they leaked the Report because I didn’t think they had it. But I don’t know, what I do know is that this isn’t going away anytime soon and our man is long odds to cosch next year as a result of today’s developments

Yes. Without passing any kind of judgement on allegations or the outcome our club needs to prepare now for the coach to not be available in 2023.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Yes. Without passing any kind of judgement on allegations or the outcome our club needs to prepare now for the coach to not be available in 2023.

I reckon if Fages isn’t coaching us next year (at all), I don’t think he’ll coach ever again.

Without judging any comment on whenever or not those stories are true, the guy will be 62 by the end of next year and we definitely need to start planning our future without him, sooner rather later.

While it’s very sad, cause I bet everyone at the club and all of us on here would say he has been nothing but first class since his arrival at the club in 2017 (along with others), we don’t want the club to experience a massive long fall down the ladder from a failed coaching transition, similar to what happened with Matthews to Voss and then Leppitsch afterwards.

This is why the high-ends at the club need to start being productive and intensely plan on what our future looks like, in terms of coaching purposes, in 5-10 years time to help maintain the club’s success currently similar to how Sydney and Geelong have managed to constantly be relevant in the top echos of the ladder for the past 15-20 years.

 

[BrizzyBandit]

No it is not. Let’s play the Devil’s Advocate here and before I start not for one minute I am suggesting any of this is true, but I would suggest to you that it is highly plausible. You are asked to participate in interview or series of interviews by a respected member of the indigenous community for a report commissioned by your former club. You tell your story, unfortunately, the process dredges up some bad memories. You hear donuts. Having gone through the process you want to know what the outcome was, what’s going to be done about it. You may have made a few enquires but again donuts.

You are approached by someone that says they can help get thing’s moving along for you but you’re going to have to talk to a journalist who has done similar articles for fellow indigenous people. More rehashing, more trauma. The article hits the media and suddenly you’ve got some action, action that had been non existent for 8 weeks (or however long the AFL had it)

I don’t know what the complainants wanted initially but as everyone has now lawyered up there is only one place it is going to end and it’s not at AFL House. Based upon what I read last night there is a potential civil claim for damages and you don’t engage Arnold, Bloch, Leibler to handle your media.

That being the case there is absolutely no compulsion for them to come forward with more evidence other than to satisfy YOU. This had legal process all over it from day one, depending upon who blinks first the evidence will come out when it needs to. I doubt the AFL will be able to hold an investigation as it potentially interferes with the probable legal case(s)

It is speculative garbage like this that makes this unbearable.

People stop turning your day dreaming into a way to represent one side or the other.

Let's stick to the facts as they come to hand.... if they can ever come to hand.

Humans from all walks of life have an infinite number of simple and complex reasons to lie. People lie all the time.

People also interpret the same interaction differently.

Maybe both sides are telling their own truth?

Maybe one side is lying because they're motivated to lie?


We don't know. We'll have to hear it all and make up our own minds.

But stop making up possible scenarios when you know 0.0005% of thr total situation.

Please.

 

[BrizzyBandit]

You are misunderstanding me, he knew of this report, he knew it would blow up Newbold, Clarkson and others at Hawthorn that he clashed with, hence you’ve heard nothing from him and the new bloke can sort it out

Another example of day dreaming a scenario and imposing it on us like you have some higher understanding.

You don't.

 

[M Malice]

Let me say at this point, for anyone who cares that I still back Fages - this leaked email chain, taken at face value, is damaging but in no way conclusive for my mind.

But, for some reason, the parties involved wish to play this in the public arena. Either that, or there is a leak.

Or is there a third alternative here that I am missing?

I am with you.

While the emails are not a good read for Fages, we still shouldn't take them unquestionably as a 100% accurate description of the event as they actually happened on the day even though there was a short time frame between the event/s and the emails.

The version of events could of been swayed by anger, a feeling of intimidation and misunderstanding... however same could be said for Fagan and Clarkson's recollection of the events.

This is going to be a long stressful process for all involved.

 

[fugitive]

At the same time I find it crazy to think that someone’s partner would just make this stuff up and directly implicit individuals. I’d love to be proven wrong but this is only going in one direction with not so good consequences for our coach.

While the emails are not a good read for Fages, we still shouldn't take them unquestionably as a 100% accurate description of the event as they actually happened on the day even though there was a short time frame between the event/s and the emails.

 

[dlanod]

It is speculative garbage like this that makes this unbearable.

People stop turning your day dreaming into a way to represent one side or the other.

Let's stick to the facts as they come to hand.... if they can ever come to hand.

Humans from all walks of life have an infinite number of simple and complex reasons to lie. People lie all the time.

People also interpret the same interaction differently.

Maybe both sides are telling their own truth?

Maybe one side is lying because they're motivated to lie?


We don't know. We'll have to hear it all and make up our own minds.

But stop making up possible scenarios when you know 0.0005% of thr total situation.

Please.

Heh. While I agree with the intent, there have been a hell of a lot more made up scenarios about both the journalist and the players, whether it was drug use, family abuse, etc, etc, etc, in this thread and this is the one that triggers this post? Really?

Especially when this one at least explicitly includes a disclaimer up front:

Let’s play the Devil’s Advocate here and before I start not for one minute I am suggesting any of this is true

 

[BrizzyBandit]

Heh. While I agree with the intent, there have been a hell of a lot more made up scenarios about both the journalist and the players, whether it was drug use, family abuse, etc, etc, etc, in this thread and this is the one that triggers this post? Really?

Especially when this one at least explicitly includes a disclaimer up front:

It was the extent of the dream on this one.
It was also the one that broke the camels back.... definitely not the only one.
Why make up scenarios to shape people's thinking when you have zero insight? I think it's dangerous when people's lives are on the line, where the truth will determine everything.

It kinda feels like people's politics are coming through how they're seeing this issue.... and they're making up BS to support their view of the world.

I can't stand it.

 

[martinson]

It was the extent of the dream on this one.
It was also the one that broke the camels back.... definitely not the only one.
Why make up scenarios to shape people's thinking when you have zero insight? I think it's dangerous when people's lives are on the line, where the truth will determine everything.

It kinda feels like people's politics are coming through how they're seeing this issue.... and they're making up BS to support their view of the world.

I can't stand it.

People's politics inform most comments on an issue like this.

My personal view is that the email chain doesn't establish anything other than what was said in the emails , it doesn't necessarily prove anything happened. What it does indicate is that the 'inquiry' and civil action will drag on for a long time. The release of these emails also indicates a more aggressive stance from the complainants possibly circumventing any proposed inquiry.

Like others I don't have any first hand insights as to what's going on . Just throwing out some observations as it's up for discussion and obviously of significant importance for our club as to how we manage season 2023 from a coaching perspective.

 

[T Rick]

Okay just for clarity - in all the stuff that has surfaced so far, what has Fages allegedly done?
I'm not being provocative - just searching for explicit detail.
I don't recall any words or racist actions being attributed to him specifically other than being named as being with Clarko when they allegedly went to an accusers house to help him pack.
What detail do we know about Fages, given that the Newbold emails are really an issue for him to explain, not Fages.