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.

 

[briztoon]

Does anyone know how long Hawthorne had the report before the story broke?

Hawthorn had the report for a week.

Then handed it to the AFL, who had it for a week.

Then the ABC ran their story.

 

[Sausages]

Does anyone know how long Hawthorne had the report before the story broke?

+1

 

[Section 5]

Link to The Age article
EDIT: Sorry trikster just noticed you posted this earlier today

A few paragraphs from the article
.........
Sources familiar with the former Hawthorn players’ and their families’ wishes said they did not trust an AFL investigation, but contrary to speculation, they did want to speak and recount their experiences to an independent hearing.

The players and their then partners - four of whom detailed allegations in the cultural safety review Hawthorn commissioned - are insistent upon an inquiry or hearing that is free of the AFL, although it is unclear what form that probe would take.
They want all parties, including coaches Alastair Clarkson and Chris Fagan, to be able to give their versions in a forum that is not subject to the AFL’s rules. Sources said there was a motivation to bring about change in how Indigenous players and people were handled.

Legal figures in Victoria said an inquiry could even be commissioned by the state government under the Inquiries Act. The Australian Human Rights Commission have powers to investigate whether there has been a breach of anti-discrimination laws.
......

Former players at the centre of Hawthorn investigation will talk - to an AFL-free hearing

The First Nations players and partners who have made allegations of mistreatment by Hawthorn senior officials want to tell their stories in an independent hearing, free of AFL influence.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Stars align]

Has anyone who has access read the article in the herald Sun referencing Fagan and Clarkson being pushed to give evidence under oath and face cross examination when investigators finally get going. I can only assume that the same process is going to be applied to those on the other side of the aisle though there is now mention of this in the few lines not behind paywall

 

[BrizzyBandit]

Link to The Age article
EDIT: Sorry trikster just noticed you posted this earlier today

A few paragraphs from the article
.........
Sources familiar with the former Hawthorn players’ and their families’ wishes said they did not trust an AFL investigation, but contrary to speculation, they did want to speak and recount their experiences to an independent hearing.

The players and their then partners - four of whom detailed allegations in the cultural safety review Hawthorn commissioned - are insistent upon an inquiry or hearing that is free of the AFL, although it is unclear what form that probe would take.
They want all parties, including coaches Alastair Clarkson and Chris Fagan, to be able to give their versions in a forum that is not subject to the AFL’s rules. Sources said there was a motivation to bring about change in how Indigenous players and people were handled.

Legal figures in Victoria said an inquiry could even be commissioned by the state government under the Inquiries Act. The Australian Human Rights Commission have powers to investigate whether there has been a breach of anti-discrimination laws.
......

Former players at the centre of Hawthorn investigation will talk - to an AFL-free hearing

The First Nations players and partners who have made allegations of mistreatment by Hawthorn senior officials want to tell their stories in an independent hearing, free of AFL influence.

www.theage.com.au

This is a crazy request.

They want to a review about an AFL club without the AFL?

This is not a criminal matter. Ugly if true. But not illegal. It's an AFL management issue only.

Who is driving this? Where has this come from? Feels more and more like a politically motivated movement to me that doesnt care about listening to both sides.... rather accepting every claim as fact. A witch Hunt to extract an outcome.

 

[Gadzorks]

This is a crazy request.

They want to a review about an AFL club without the AFL?

This is not a criminal matter. Ugly if true. But not illegal. It's an AFL management issue only.

Who is driving this? Where has this come from? Feels more and more like a politically motivated movement to me that doesnt care about listening to both sides.... rather accepting every claim as fact. A witch Hunt to extract an outcome.

A witch hunt. Hmmmm maybe

Or maybe an independent investigation can't be managed by an organisation that has a vested interest. And was the controlling body of the organisation where the said incidents took place.

If it was me with the complaint, I wouldn't want the AFL involved in the review.

 

[BrizzyBandit]

A witch hunt. Hmmmm maybe

Or maybe an independent investigation can't be managed by an organisation that has a vested interest. And was the controlling body of the organisation where the said incidents took place.

If it was me with the complaint, I wouldn't want the AFL involved in the review.

But it's happened within the AFL system.
The AFL manage the competition.

It has nothing to do with the state government or any other entity.

If for example McDonalds receives information that a management team at one of their restaurants has been accused of the same incidents.

It is upto McDonald's to investigate, and take appropriate action on anything that can be substantiated.... The people making the claims have to rely on McDonald's to investigate. If they're not happy afterwards... then theu can take them to civil court to win an outcome.

Why wouldn't they trust the AFL? It was Hawthorn after all that circled back 5-10 years into its history to check they're doing all they can to support first nation people.

By making this request these nameless accusers have already rejected any outcome the AFL may arrive at that doesnt support their story.

This smacks of political manovering by an experienced team behind it.

Not an innocent group of victims you have just been heard for the first time.

 

[Jivlain]

But it's happened within the AFL system.
The AFL manage the competition.

It has nothing to do with the state government or any other entity.

If for example McDonalds receives information that a management team at one of their restaurants has been accused of the same incidents.

It is upto McDonald's to investigate, and take appropriate action on anything that can be substantiated.... The people making the claims have to rely on McDonald's to investigate. If they're not happy afterwards... then theu can take them to civil court to win an outcome.

Why wouldn't they trust the AFL? It was Hawthorn after all that circled back 5-10 years into its history to check they're doing all they can to support first nation people.

By making this request these nameless accusers have already rejected any outcome the AFL may arrive at that doesnt support their story.

This smacks of political manovering by an experienced team behind it.

Not an innocent group of victims you have just been heard for the first time.

What a load of absolute nonsense. There are a number of employment and antidiscrimination laws in play here. Were similar things happening at McDonald's you would be seeing WorkSafe and AHRC etc involved.

And the AFL currently has the then-president of Hawthorn on its commission. It's up to its neck in this.

Nice conspiracy theory though.

 

[BrizzyBandit]

What a load of absolute nonsense. There are a number of employment and antidiscrimination laws in play here. Were similar things happening at McDonald's you would be seeing WorkSafe and AHRC etc involved.

And the AFL currently has the then-president of Hawthorn on its commission. It's up to its neck in this.

Nice conspiracy theory though.

Not for a minute saying I'm right. Just so much that doesnt add up and I'm expressing how it feels to me atm. Hope you're right.

I also fully support them to use any normal business mechanisms that exist to protect workers rights.

But they have to accept the AFL have a right to lead this investigation within its own organisation.
If the accusers don't like the findings then leverage thr law to its fullest extent.

But to dismiss it, and refuse to participate destroys any AFL led process before it begins and before they've met with the panel seems prematurely strategic.

 

[Fitzroy bears]

I think it was my post that caused this Segway and there was no insinuations about anyone being part of an irrational mob,
just that there didn’t seem to be any real support from a lot of people. As for the bolded, really, as we sit here today he is innocent and that is the way it stays until proven otherwise.

You couldn't have said it better. Unfortunately I don't get the innocent until proven guilty vibe on this thread.

 

[Fitzroy bears]

Why, so they can then lean on those making the allegations?
The AFL would love to be able to control the story.

No, the very right thing to do is for the AFL to form an panel of independent people to investigate further and get to the bottom of this.

Personally I would rather this be done outside the football environment, preferably in the courts where everyone including the media component is held accountable for what is said on the record.
The AFL has too much riding on this to select an independent panel.
Clarkston and Fages have too much riding on this and have not been afforded due process or right of reply, thus tainting any internal investigation.
And the men and women of our first nations people will be able to have their allegations heard on a legal record where it can't be manipulated or distorted by any sporting or media body.
A legal courtroom is where the facts and ALL the facts are exposed to the light of day and ALL parties will have there story heard.

 

[lioninthesand]

You couldn't have said it better. Unfortunately I don't get the innocent until proven guilty vibe on this thread.

What you’re getting is a ‘s**t.. this doesn’t look good, even if he isnt guilty, this mess could take years to sort out’ vibe.

Locking into an INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY defense of Fages is more of a pseudo political position/defence of your tribe, that’s not really practical in application here, as it’s not a murder trial that’s going to court.

As tough as it is - this will be decided by political nanovering, media leaks, weight of evidence, public opinion, pressure from sponsors, context, how long it takes, is it effecting the players too much Etc

It comes down to ‘is his position tenable’ not ‘is his 100% guilty or not guilty’.

Anyone without their head firmly stuck in full defence mode can see there is a high chance his position, as devastating as it is, could become untenable.

Whilst it’s important for Fages to have his say, there will be no ‘guilty or not guilty’ verdict read out at the end, just another review summary with plenty of grey and subjective outcomes.

What you are sensing is concern for Fages based on the reality of the above.

 

[Fitzroy bears]

What you’re getting is a ‘s**t.. this doesn’t look good, even if he isnt guilty, this mess could take years to sort out’ vibe.

Locking into an INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY defense of Fages is more of a pseudo political position/defence of your tribe, that’s not really practical in application here, as it’s not a murder trial that’s going to court.

As tough as it is - this will be decided by political nanovering, weight of evidence, public opinion, pressure from sponsors, context, how long it takes, is it effecting the players too much Etc

There will be no ‘guilty or not guilty’ verdict read out at the end, just another review summary with plenty of grey and subjective outcomes.

What you are sensing is concern for Fages based on the reality of the above.

No. What I am getting is exactly what I wrote.
Sorry lioninthesand but guilty and not guilty are not just terms that are used in courts. They are perceptions, assumptions, labels that are unfortunately people in society use in judgement of others based on their perceptions, experiences and moral compass.
I used these terms because they fit the way I perceive how I read what is going on in this thread.
Unfortunately no-one has ALL the facts yet and it seems to me right or wrong that "judgements" are being formulated based on media releases.

 

[lioninthesand]

No. What I am getting is exactly what I wrote.
Sorry lioninthesand but guilty and not guilty are not just terms that are used in courts. They are perceptions, assumptions, labels that are unfortunately people in society use in judgement of others based on their perceptions, experiences and moral compass.
I used these terms because they fit the way I perceive how I read what is going on in this thread.
Unfortunately no-one has ALL the facts yet and it seems to me right or wrong that "judgements" are being formulated based on media releases.

You used ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - that is 100% not applicable in this case as there will be no verdict of ‘innocent or guilty’ handed down.

Perceptions and labels are not going to confirm guilt or innocence, why use such emotive terms that are not ever going to established? It’s not a criminal case.

How can he be innocent until proven guilty, if that assessment will never be made?

It will be decided on another review - which will lead to more perceptions, perceptions from the players, sponsors, public pressure and that will decide if his position in tenable.

Unfortunately, his side of the story and facts, won’t be the the sole determining factor is this, people are rightfully concerned about whether his position will be tenable going forward.

As for this notion there are people casting harsh judgements around here, maybe a small few are, but generally I don’t think that’s the case.

I think you are taking anyone refusing to jump to his defence (which is equally as dangerous in all of this) as people thinking he is responsible for a level of wrongdoing, thus are having an emotional response that your position is not well supported enough.

 

[Clarkythelion]

I think it is headed for the courts, everyone has lawyered up now and both sides will have advice not to incriminate themselves or show their hands.

If If If and I say if, some of the posting I have read on the North Board with previous newspaper clippings of the suspected players previously supporting the club after being de-listed and saying how the club was always there for them is quite contradictory to what they are now saying. The details in those clippings - children, ages, pregnancies, miscarriages do seems to match up.

Seems to me it's now a legal minefield. The accusers, want their story told, if as the Hawthorn report suggests they should get compensation then they need a process to make the claim and a way of determining the amount. Hawthorn are not going to just roll over now, there is public doubt about the claim and Hawthorn have a responsibility to the ex-players and their broader member base. The families involved also need protection, if their names get out there in any official manner, like all the discussion so far they will be picked apart and pursued endlessly. If they are to speak more and produce evidence you would think their lawyer would only be recommending that in some safe environment.

For the accused, well right now their 'powder is dry' their lives have been pulled apart, their reputations dismantled daily and discussion rages about them. The problem they have is when ever you 'Google' their name going forward up will come all these articles. This stuff is forever in their lives now and, unchallenged will affect there lives ongoing. You can bet their lawyers, barristers and KC's have already amassed a cannon full of contradictory evidence. They will want a clear and decisive victory and will want it where it is no longer questionable.

It's a complete mess, no one at the start would have thought this would be so big and getting bigger by the day. The media and the lawyers are the only ones rubbing their hands, there is so much money at stake here now.

The truth is all any of us want, if the outrage from both sides ever dies down, we just want the truth and appropriate action taken afterwards.

 

[MacMum]

Something to think about.....how clubs, or probably all clubs worked back several years ago.

Article in HUN on Dayne Swan selling the house Collingwood made him buy to get him out of living with his mates, they gave him an ultimatum.

I straight away thought of this situation. Just perhaps it wasn't a racist thing after all .... perhaps Hawks were trying to get the accuser players away from bad influences in their lives.....as apparently some clubs did and possibly still do, which seems logical to me when trying to run a club and get the best out of a player.... even parents would do that sort of thing.

..still doesn't explain the pregnancy part though..

I still can't get that Fages would be this horrible type person....surely that side of him would show to our boys after all this time at the club.....they all love him to this day.

Simple as it may seem, I feel a massive misunderstanding has happened and its got out of control..


edit: went back to look at said house in HUN, now can't find the article, seems to be gone.

 

[Fitzroy bears]

You used ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - that is 100% not applicable in this case as there will be no verdict of ‘innocent or guilty’ handed down.

Perceptions and labels are not going to confirm guilt or innocence, why use such emotive terms that are not ever going to established? It’s not a criminal case.

How can he be innocent until proven guilty, if that assessment will never be made?

It will be decided on another review - which will lead to more perceptions, perceptions from the players, sponsors, public pressure and that will decide if his position in tenable.

Unfortunately, his side of the story and facts, won’t be the the sole determining factor is this, people are rightfully concerned about whether his position will be tenable going forward.

As for this notion there are people casting harsh judgements around here, maybe a small few are, but generally I don’t think that’s the case.

I think you are taking anyone refusing to jump to his defence (which is equally as dangerous in all of this) as people thinking he is responsible for a level of wrongdoing, thus are having an emotional response that your position is not well supported enough.

I would say an emotional and emotive response would also be characterised by inserting words like "harsh" when I didn't use it, to enhance the words I did use or replying twice with four or five paragraphs trying to imply what I am thinking when you have no idea.

I am allowed to have my opinions and thoughts. If you disagree that's fine I have no problem with that.

If we are going to play guessing games though, I am guessing you are a little "emotional" at the fact I don't share your views. You can deny all you want, you are just as emotionally charged as anyone, cause you keep pressing your view.

 

[lioninthesand]

I would say an emotional and emotive response would also be characterised by inserting words like "harsh" when I didn't use it, to enhance the words I did use or replying twice with four or five paragraphs trying to imply what I am thinking when you have no idea.

I am allowed to have my opinions and thoughts. If you disagree that's fine I have no problem with that.

If we are going to play guessing games though, I am guessing you are a little "emotional" at the fact I don't share your views. You can deny all you want, you are just as emotionally charged as anyone, cause you keep pressing your view.

Fair enough you didn’t use harsh, but if you don’t think he has been treated harshly around here, then what’s your issue?

Also, where did I say you couldn’t have an opinion?

I responded directly in answer to the points you were making in a response to me, that’s what you do on forums?

You said Fagan is not being treated as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on this thread, I explained why I believe that was untrue.

There is no point he can be proven innocent or guilty, thus, people are generally worried about ‘the big picture’ and if his position remains tenable - which is all that matters through this process.

And if people are leaning toward that concern, that this has nothing to do with their love or support for him or if they believe his is GUILTY, just that people are being realistic about his chances in all of this.

 

[dlanod]

There have been claims on here that Newbold blamed other people in his office and there are comments about him as a person and so on......

I can find no other comment from him than this in the Herald Sun simply saying he never saw the emails.

"The report claims Newbold responded to an email sent by the woman, saying it was “not appropriate” for him to become involved.
He has now told The Herald Sun he never saw the emails. “I want to refute that absolutely. It’s not my language I would use”.

Did he comment somewhere else that I haven't seen yet?

Bombshell emails name Newbold in Hawks racism scandal

A Hawthorn player’s partner claimed that he had been pressured to leave the home they shared, in a desperate email to then-President Andrew Newbold, but her pleas for help were dismissed, according to the club’s explosive racism Review.

www.codesports.com.au

In additional comments made to the Herald Sun on Tuesday night, Newbold said: “Those emails as I understand it went to my hawthornfc address, which I had no access to.

“I haven’t seen them, I don’t know who they are from. I haven’t seen the report, which is appropriate.

“I’m told there is an email around 23 May, I have checked personal email box and I have no emails form any complaints on 23 May 2013.’’

Told it was in March, he said: “Whatever, I’ve checked. I did not write that email.

“That is not my style for a start. It’s not how I would’ve responded, I would’ve said go to the welfare person.

“I will tell you how it works, people would email me at hawthornfc and the media girl, for example, would sometimes ring me and say ‘We’ve had a question from such and such, how do you want them to respond?’ I’d tell her, give them my number and get them to call me.

“Or, say, a member rang up and said we’re really unhappy about such and such and that went to the membership department, and they’d say, I think you ought to respond to this.

“I’d say Ok, draft a response and send it through.”

Asked if it was possible someone responded under his name and did not okay it with him, he said: “Don’t know I haven’t seen it. I did not have access to that email address.

“To put it in context, not even the players had my email address. I did not receive one email from a player on the Hawthorn list for the whole time I was president and I certainly did not know (about ) a player’s personal life.

“It paints me in a certain light which is not the case. It’s not how I deal with people. The other thing is, why would I send an email like that from my Iphone?”

 

[Fitzroy bears]

Fair enough you didn’t use harsh, but if you don’t think he has been treated harshly around here, then what’s your issue?

Also, where did I say you couldn’t have an opinion?

I responded directly in answer to the points you were making in a response to me, that’s what you do on forums?

You said Fagan is not being treated as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on this thread, I explained why I believe that was untrue.

There is no point he can be proven innocent or guilty, thus, people are generally worried about ‘the big picture’ and if his position remains tenable - which is all that matters through this process.

And if people are leaning toward that concern, that this has nothing to do with their love or support for him or if they believe his is GUILTY, just that people are being realistic about his chances in all of this.

Again I get that you disagree with me I don't know how else to put it I am fine with that, however you have miss quoted me again.
I responded to Maboo and said " unfortunately I don't get an innocent until proven guilty vibe on this thread"
Then you responded to me not me to you.
I honestly don't care what labels you attach to it, wrong, right, innocent or guilty...... people are making judgements on this thread, without all the facts. That was my point and perception. Like it or not.

 

[lioninthesand]

Again I get that you disagree with me I don't know how else to put it I am fine with that, however you have miss quoted me again.
I responded to Maboo and said " unfortunately I don't get an innocent until proven guilty vibe on this thread"
Then you responded to me not me to you.
I honestly don't care what labels you attach to it, wrong, right, innocent or guilty...... people are making judgements on this thread, without all the facts. That was my point and perception. Like it or not.

You are just delving into pointless irralivent semantics about who said what when and how, in each response.

I said I responded to your points you forth, not that you engaged me first?

My point, which I have remained focused on, remains the same.

You made a judgement about how other are behaving on this thread based on innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is incorrect.

I have also not asked you to recind your opinion, I am engaging in discussion with you on a forum.

If you don’t want debate, don’t post widesweeping statement’s about what others are doing or that others are judging Fagan guilty etc, especially if it’s easily debatable they are not.

This will be the last time I respond, happy to move on from here as I’m sure this little back and forth would be irritating to others.

 

[On the quiet]

Remembering the 7.30 report has lower ratings this year than when it first aired on the ABC, it's pretty much dead in the water for it's views on most subjects it chooses to cover. It will be interesting to see if they double down on the allegations. I notice all other media outlets are being very careful to put covering clauses in their articles.

Q & A is much worse, have a panel of about 3 to 4 left leaning guest and one token centre-right liberal. Then there is the left leaning audience asking their bias questions. ABC receives over $1B annually.

 

[Sausages]

This is great lol.

I get more confused with almost every media release

Can some media-type involved with this please get a junior staffer to produce some timelines for me, that'd be awesome.

 

[martinson]

This issue is well and truly in the political arena with subsequent SM vigilantes pressing their biases every day now so any chance of any 'fairness' for all is likely out the window.

I think we need to do something about our coaching set up. We don't want to waste a year of our window waiting on this to resolve somehow.

 

[Maboo]

What you’re getting is a ‘s**t.. this doesn’t look good, even if he isnt guilty, this mess could take years to sort out’ vibe.

Locking into an INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY defense of Fages is more of a pseudo political position/defence of your tribe, that’s not really practical in application here, as it’s not a murder trial that’s going to court.

As tough as it is - this will be decided by political nanovering, media leaks, weight of evidence, public opinion, pressure from sponsors, context, how long it takes, is it effecting the players too much Etc

It comes down to ‘is his position tenable’ not ‘is his 100% guilty or not guilty’.

Anyone without their head firmly stuck in full defence mode can see there is a high chance his position, as devastating as it is, could become untenable.

Whilst it’s important for Fages to have his say, there will be no ‘guilty or not guilty’ verdict read out at the end, just another review summary with plenty of grey and subjective outcomes.

What you are sensing is concern for Fages based on the reality of the above.

After days of reflection I believe you are correct and I need to explain myself, an apology of sorts.
Earlier in this thread I posted a rather combative post in defence of Chris Fagan, while I still hold that view, I now
see this issue is too complex and I am struggling to understand it all.
I have autism spectrum disorder, which in no way is an excuse for my behaviour, but I do struggle with grey areas, am fiercely loyal and have a strong sense of social justice. I have been a member of Bigfooty since 2011 and for this reason the amount of posts over the years by me has been minimal, as I tend to take conversations literally, and can get quite childish and upset for no real reason, hence the irrational posts. After Western Royboy opened up about the horrific trauma he experienced historically, it motivated me to do the same. I never meant to diminish the plight of the indigenous family’s and will go back to having a good think before I post anything like that again.