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.

 

[LionCub29]

Report wasn't published though. I don't practice defamation law so if someone knows better please correct me, but the audience for any 'defamation' by the report writers are those who were delivered the report i.e. senior people at Hawthorn and at the AFL. I don't think there could be substantial damages for that - but I did my torts course 14 years ago so could be wrong.

Noting who actually has the capacity to pay, ABC would be the ones who would be sued.

While any person publishing defamatory allegations might be liable for publications that are the natural and probable consequence of the allegations made, the people making the allegations and the report writer will not be pursued. That leaves the ABC and the person who leaked the key contents of the report (clearly a person who knew its contents and holds no love for Clarkson/Fagan or the AFL - given its GF week) as the only real targets.

 

[wantok]

I think it's inevitable as well but it all depends on what slant the AFL takes on this mess and right at the moment they don't have any insights or answers.

Defamation action if taken would be against the ABC and its Reporter. Any other individual in the Media who has repeated the claims as truthful or made derogatory statements against the individuals could also be in the firing line. There are recent examples of this with the Laming actions. HAWTHORN and the AFL have not published any names or indeed directly referred to any coercive behaviour. If the ABC Claims are proven the Claimants could choose to seek compensation from Hawthorn and the AFL. Either way this is destined for the Courts.

Sent from my SM-A525F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[nup]

From the AFL Respect and Responsibility policy

 

[Gadzorks]

Not everyone willing to participate in a club report, but maybe ok with talking to a journalist? Not totally out of the realm of possibility

And the players who spoke to the Hawks people and the ABC are under no obligation to participate in a formal review.

They might feel just getting their story told is enough as it will cause change irrespective of any review outcome.

They have legal rep now and they may be advised not to get involved because it's going to be messy and eat into years of their life. Wouldn't that be a disaster.

 

[vic_LION]

View attachment 1516253

So close

 

[RoyBoy17]

Do you think the afl would've investigated this properly, or binned the report and had a few people sign non-disclosure agreements? You must've been born yesterday.

Not sure what you’re trying to say. You saying you trust the AFL?

This hasn’t been investigated properly. That’s fact. How can something be investigated properly if they haven’t interviewed the accused and haven’t even carried out an ‘independent’ review??

Unless I’m missing something. There’s been an external report put through to the AFL. The AFL didn’t release this. A journo did. Now it’s actually being ‘properly’ and ‘independently’ investigated. The AFL isn’t going to just come out and rubbish the claims. That’s up to the accused. And both Fagan and Clarkson have categorically denied wrongdoing. I know who I believe based on my info.

It’s gutter journalism. Don’t care what anyone thinks. The article should never have seen the light of day without context and proper investigation.

 

[Requiem]

Not sure what you’re trying to say. You saying you trust the AFL?

This hasn’t been investigated properly. That’s fact. How can something be investigated properly if they haven’t interviewed the accused and haven’t even carried out an ‘independent’ review??

Unless I’m missing something. There’s been an external report put through to the AFL. The AFL didn’t release this. A journo did. Now it’s actually being ‘properly’ and ‘independently’ investigated. The AFL isn’t going to just come out and rubbish the claims. That’s up to the accused. And both Fagan and Clarkson have categorically denied wrongdoing. I know who I believe based on my info.

It’s gutter journalism. Don’t care what anyone thinks. The article should never have seen the light of day without context and proper investigation.

My understanding is that Russell Jackson didn't leak/release the external report commissioned by Hawthorn, instead he got wind of the contents and sought out interviews from several past First Nations Hawthorn players, thus his published article is their personal accounts as relayed to him.

The Journalist in question specializes in cases regarding Sexual Abuse and Racial Injustice, he isn't some unethical ambulance chaser writing hit pieces for hire. I find it very ironic that many have asked for Fagan to be given the benefit of the doubt and to suspend judgement, yet there are those here who don't afford Russell Jackson the same, despite having a very credible resume.

Once again, I highly doubt there would be so much antagonism against Russell Jackson's reporting if the issue didn't involve the club.

 

[Sausages]

Calling the difference between equality and equity irrelevant just reinforces your ignorance, to use terminology like 'the bush' is just a racist zeitgeist.

Jeremiah 5:21 (‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’)

It’s impossible to discuss something unless you comprehend what is being said, which at the moment is clearly where this conversation is placed.

I’m out.

 

[Clarkythelion]

Just on that though and I know I have said he may step aside, but being in HR, I know that if Fagan was to resign as such he would lose of his entitlements so you can actually see that he won't do that unless he comes to a financial arrangement with the club first. If he was young man, you could see him being put on gardening leave if the club would be happy to reappoint him in one years time or longer, but I dont know if that works in a sporting landscape.

I agree in a commercial world that would happen, I've seen it happen with very senior executives sent off to the US to do a degree in something at UNI. In the AFL world, not so much as Fagan's salary is part of the 'soft' cap, anything they pay him means less the off field group gets paid in their salary cap. This whole situation doesn't end well for some people, the players, those that did the interviews or their coaches. It's a mess we will hear about most likely for years, the fight will not be short. Maybe the AFL will do something 'special' North Melbourne can't get stuck with Clarkson's contract for 5 years. You being in HR would know, it's unlikely they have a clause in his contract to be able to terminate it on something from his past like this.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Clarkson and Fagan complaining they weren't involved in the report is null - they were given right of comment by the ABC with respect to those findings which have been made public and chose not to - you'll note neither complained they weren't given this in their respective statements.

Shhh, you can't say that around here! If you don't call the ABC a bunch of biased gutter journalists, you're not loyal enough to Fagan.

 

[Clarkythelion]

My understanding is that Russell Jackson didn't leak/release the external report commissioned by Hawthorn, instead he got wind of the contents and sought out interviews from several past First Nations Hawthorn players, thus his published article is their personal accounts as relayed to him.

The Journalist in question specializes in cases regarding Sexual Abuse and Racial Injustice, he isn't some unethical ambulance chaser writing hit pieces for hire. I find it very ironic that many have asked for Fagan to be given the benefit of the doubt and to suspend judgement, yet there are those here who don't afford Russell Jackson the same, despite having a very credible resume.

Once again, I highly doubt there would be so much antagonism against Russell Jackson's reporting if the issue didn't involve the club.

I got the same read on this as you. Hawthorn commissioned a First Nations Consultants to Interview past First Nations Footballers from the club, 20 of them. That came from the current Hawthorne President in a letter to members yesterday.

That report identified some issue that needed further investigation remembering the interviews were under anonymity. That report went to the AFL as Hawthorne didn't think they had the resources necessary to fully investigate. That bit I believe given the amount of people involved and employed all across the AFL

Somewhere in that process the ABC got wind of it and did their own interviews based on anonymity. Who leaked the story, even the hint of it, and to whom, will become evident later.

It seems to me, people are angry with whoever the reporter was/is because it's just a one sided article, Fagan and Clarkson have been hung out in public while the accusers have anonymity. That wont be the case going forward.

The anger is at the injustice where Fagan and Clarkson have been accused, openly without the opportunity to defend themselves. They hadn't been afforded the right to defence by the Hawthorne Club, the AFL or the ABC. Because no one knows the how, why, when and whom. Personally I've no doubt these sort of conversations happened to all young footballers in all the clubs in some contextual way.

I sit here as a keyboard warrior thinking what I would do if I read some accusations about myself that just came out in the national press from un-named sources, at some time, some where. I think my first reaction would be - give me the details so I can at least answer my critics and defend myself. Thats where the frustration comes from, Clarkson and Fagan cant fight this at the moment as their accusers remain protected in the shadows and the public, some of them, are lashing out at the process, not individuals in particular.

 

[Clarkythelion]

Correct. The contents of the Hawthorn report have yet to be divulged let alone made public. No one has been defamed.

Re the ABC report it would be pointless suing the subjects of the report even in the remote chance they flat out lied. They didn't publish or distribute it apart from their financial status.

My partner is a lawyer and not an AFL fanatic like us on here. Her initial reaction was that she hopes the ABC are correct. The timing of their release, the naming of names, was clearly done for commercial benefit. The ABC would have to defend themselves using what resources they have available. They indeed could protect their witnesses but if this gets to a court of law, Fagan and Clarkson then have rights and the burden of proof is on the accusers to prove them guilty.

 

[CarterS]

Correct. The contents of the Hawthorn report have yet to be divulged let alone made public. No one has been defamed.

My understanding is that it only has to be communicated to a third party for it to be considered "published", it doesn't have to be publicly available.

 

[Scubaveg]

Did one of the other assistant coaches already corroborate some of the accusations?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Squizz89]

Hmmm..

‘We were watching those blokes break’: The Hawthorn women who would not stay silent

The prevailing view at Hawthorn is that a small group of women have led the decision to make public the allegations that could radically reshape football’s landscape.

www.theage.com.au

While the review undertaken by Egan focused upon a group of Indigenous players and their families it has now emerged that at least one former assistant coach has corroborated some of the claims. At least one former player manager involved at the time has indicated his willingness to back up some elements of the review.

 

[Lions time]

Hmmm..

‘We were watching those blokes break’: The Hawthorn women who would not stay silent

The prevailing view at Hawthorn is that a small group of women have led the decision to make public the allegations that could radically reshape football’s landscape.

www.theage.com.au

While the review undertaken by Egan focused upon a group of Indigenous players and their families it has now emerged that at least one former assistant coach has corroborated some of the claims. At least one former player manager involved at the time has indicated his willingness to back up some elements of the review.

Which elements ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[briztoon]

Comes under their Umbrella - “if proven” they will wear a sanction no doubt about it - this isn’t a rogue act - it’s collusion between several key members of the football department

Hi western royboy and martinson I think I can frame a response a little better, having slept on it.

From my perspective, what has been alleged falls under human rights violations, not under the umbrella of “illegally trying to gain an advantage over the opposition”.

So I do not understand the calls for competition sanctions.

I do agree Hawthorn need to answer for these actions, but I don’t know in what manner their “punishment” or reparations should look like.

 

[Tom14]

Hmmm..

‘We were watching those blokes break’: The Hawthorn women who would not stay silent

The prevailing view at Hawthorn is that a small group of women have led the decision to make public the allegations that could radically reshape football’s landscape.

www.theage.com.au

While the review undertaken by Egan focused upon a group of Indigenous players and their families it has now emerged that at least one former assistant coach has corroborated some of the claims. At least one former player manager involved at the time has indicated his willingness to back up some elements of the review.

I feel pretty similar Charlie:

Brisbane Lions star Charlie Cameron - in a meeting with senior Indigenous players and the AFL this week - outlined his utter confusion at the allegations levelled at his coach Fagan, allegations that he said painted an unrecognisable picture of the coach he knew.

 

[Surly Boy]

Hmmm..

‘We were watching those blokes break’: The Hawthorn women who would not stay silent

The prevailing view at Hawthorn is that a small group of women have led the decision to make public the allegations that could radically reshape football’s landscape.

www.theage.com.au

While the review undertaken by Egan focused upon a group of Indigenous players and their families it has now emerged that at least one former assistant coach has corroborated some of the claims. At least one former player manager involved at the time has indicated his willingness to back up some elements of the review.

This though:

"Brisbane Lions star Charlie Cameron - in a meeting with senior Indigenous players and the AFL this week - outlined his utter confusion at the allegations levelled at his coach Fagan, allegations that he said painted an unrecognisable picture of the coach he knew."

Think this is what I am grappling with - the dissonance between what is being alleged, and how Fagan actually comes across as an individual. It almost seems inconceivable that he would have been involved in anything like that.

 

[martinson]

My understanding is that it only has to be communicated to a third party for it to be considered "published", it doesn't have to be publicly available.

That too is legally correct but if it were for instance communicated to a third party who was simply then aware of the contents there's not much of a case for damages.

With 2 reports going around , one published and the other 'harrowing' but with no accusers named and now fronting up to a full 'inquiry' the lawyers will be burning the midnight oil trying to sort out how the accused proceed both for their own personal sanity and for whatever legal action can be taken.

This will go on for years unless there's a gamebreaker that emerges from nowhere and I don't say that lightly.

 

[Tom14]

This though:

"Brisbane Lions star Charlie Cameron - in a meeting with senior Indigenous players and the AFL this week - outlined his utter confusion at the allegations levelled at his coach Fagan, allegations that he said painted an unrecognisable picture of the coach he knew."

Think this is what I am grappling with - the dissonance between what is being alleged, and how Fagan actually comes across as an individual. It almost seems inconceivable that he would have been involved in anything like that.

I agree with you, but as someone else on the thread said at the end of the day I don’t know Fagan really, just the public perception.

I’m pretty confident there has been nothing like this happening at our club recently but can I say that about what went on at hawthorn a decade ago?

The ‘best’ outcome, assuming there is substance to the allegations, is that Fagan wasn’t present at the meetings and didn’t know. Which isn’t a great look for him either!

 

[western royboy]

Hi western royboy and martinson I think I can frame a response a little better, having slept on it.

From my perspective, what has been alleged falls under human rights violations, not under the umbrella of “illegally trying to gain an advantage over the opposition”.

So I do not understand the calls for competition sanctions.

I do agree Hawthorn need to answer for these actions, but I don’t know in what manner their “punishment” or reparations should look like.

It’s a workplace issue - they (the employer) will be dealt with on that basis - Hawthorn will be sanctioned if proven

 

[martinson]

This though:

"Brisbane Lions star Charlie Cameron - in a meeting with senior Indigenous players and the AFL this week - outlined his utter confusion at the allegations levelled at his coach Fagan, allegations that he said painted an unrecognisable picture of the coach he knew."

Think this is what I am grappling with - the dissonance between what is being alleged, and how Fagan actually comes across as an individual. It almost seems inconceivable that he would have been involved in anything like that.

It's very difficult to see Clarkson and Fagan fronting up to anyone's place in the manner described and saying the things that are alleged. That's to anybody ,let alone a vulnerable indigenous player. Whatever their character and the moral issues involved I don't think they'd be that stupid.

Perhaps I'll end up being very disappointed and gutted actually if that's not the case. The Courts are full of people who recollect the same thing and have polar opposite versions of what occurred and was said so if that happens you wouldn't be surprised. But as I understand it Fagan has told people anecdotally none of it happened.

These are just opinions and speculation of mine which I'm prepared to be wrong about because like everyone else we just don't know. And it was relatively a fair while ago. Right now I'm confused and concerned for all involved on both sides if this becomes a real fight about the truth.

 

[Clarkythelion]

And the players who spoke to the Hawks people and the ABC are under no obligation to participate in a formal review.

They might feel just getting their story told is enough as it will cause change irrespective of any review outcome.

They have legal rep now and they may be advised not to get involved because it's going to be messy and eat into years of their life. Wouldn't that be a disaster.

Your right they are under no obligation to go further and may just have wanted to have their say. BUT Clarkson, Fagan and the other wont let the stigma follow them for the rest of their careers, if they even have one. If the accusers go to ground then the accused will go after the ABC and the ABC will have to fight the defamation suit with nothing less they 'someone said, but we wont release our sources'. Just remember under law all Australians's have the right to face their accusers and in this case it's the ABC so far. The loss of income and loss of brand equity on the accused will not let this go to ground, it will never just blow over.

I think I'm pretty much like most people, unless cleared there will always be a question mark over those accused. They either did it or were asleep at the wheel and allowed it to happen.

 

[haystark]

I agree with you, but as someone else on the thread said at the end of the day I don’t know Fagan really, just the public perception.

I’m pretty confident there has been nothing like this happening at our club recently but can I say that about what went on at hawthorn a decade ago?

The ‘best’ outcome, assuming there is substance to the allegations, is that Fagan wasn’t present at the meetings and didn’t know. Which isn’t a great look for him either!

Can I ask why? I'm sure there are a lot of things that go on at clubs that not all staff know about.