NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

 

[Choc Milk]

Such a gross false equivalence to try and equate actions based on past behaviour with actions based on racist assumptions.

You have no idea what the behaviour was.

 

[Sphynx]

owen87 the gist of the posts from Sphynx et al is that the report would just be accepted and people sent to prison over it without a trial.

Who said anything about prison?

But the argument can be made that the report has been accepted and judgments have already been well and truly made through trial by media.

Unless you have read this thread with your eyes close.

I have continually stated that if the accusations are validated all involved should be deregistered from any involvement from football for life and that the victims would be looking forward to significant compensation from Hawthorn and the AFL.

However, lets do a simple exercise, as a point of balance:

We have 4 (Clarkson, Fagan, Burt and Newbold) very reputable people with a long history of community and indigenous involvement, who categorically deny the allegations, in fact they are essentially accusing others of wrongdoing, we also have 3 people who we know have been in the room together in many of the known events and by extension have corroborated any wrongful involvement.

Before further investigation of the facts, do you think it appropriate that we should not only name Ian, Zac and Liam, but make recommendations about potential apologies to Clarkson, Fagan and Burt (if further validated) by those involved as well as Jackson and Robinson? Based on Clarkson and Fagan and Burt's fairly strong responses and belief of the facts of their story. Should we also go as far as to suggest financial restitution recommendations based on the likely defamation (if further validated) and emotional impact that they have inflicted upon these 3 people?

Of course you wouldn't, because it's completely ridiculous to make decisions or recommendations on ANY person's guilt until the entire facts of all parties of the allegations are heard.

 

[hawkman]

Clubs are probably pissed because they’ll have to do some asking of themselves.

Or then again, it might be one or two people who have spoken to Caro which has given her the ability to use the plural.

The way Hawthorn have done this truth telling exercise is no doubt a mess now, but I actually like that it’s been done in isolation, away from the AFL’s grubby little mits.

I doubt we’d ever have gotten the truth as told by these players, if the AFL had involved themselves.

I'm not sure what else Hawthorn should have done. They set a clear terms of reference then followed the 1st recommendation straight away

It would have been even more a mess if halfway through they decided to change the terms and start interviewing everyone

Clearly they didn't expect the severity of issues that have come to it. The expectations probably was that there were smaller issues that could be fixed.

 

[nobbyiscool]

You have no idea what the behaviour was.

Are you joking?

 

[Saint]

Yep. The Egan report was completed at the end of August 2022. Its first recommendation was that the findings of alleged negligence be immediately reported to the AFL Integrity Unit.

This is exactly what Hawthorn Football Club did.

I wonder if reporting to AFL integrity was the right move for Hawthorn, it leaves them open to AFL sanction and doesn't resolve them of any culpability legally with the ex-players.

I'm not sure what else Hawthorn should have done. They set a clear terms of reference then followed the 1st recommendation straight away

It would have been even more a mess is if halfway through they decided to change the terms and start interviewing everyone

Clearly they didn't expect the severity of issues that have come to it. The expectations probably was that there were smaller issues that could be fixed.

I think they should have acted as any normal organisation would have and addressed the issue themselves via reconciliation/compensation/support.

Out-sourcing to the AFL doesn't solve any of Hawthorn's problems, it just helps the AFL manage perceptions of the AFL.

Hawthorn could have approached the AFL once they'd sorted out the biggest issues with the victims (and alleged perpetrators) so that instead of the victims going to the media with un-resolved issues could go to the media and say that they had issues, but they're working through them with the club.

Instead Hawthorn have out-sourced everything and throwing themselves at the whim of the AFL and then probably the courts when the victims seek compensation. The AFL are great at sweeping everything under the rug, but when they can't, they come down hard.

I don't believe Hawthorn don't have the resources or ability to address this issue. Workplace HR departments and consultants deal with all sorts of stuff and there are indigenous specialists they could have employed.

 

[buttox]

Player agent says Clarkson uncertainty won’t affect Logue’s move to Kangaroos

“There’s been no change of tact.”

www.sen.com.au

 

[Chief]

Who said anything about prison?

I was being hyperbolic in response to hyperbole.

 

[the harry]

Player agent says Clarkson uncertainty won’t affect Logue’s move to Kangaroos

“There’s been no change of tact.”

www.sen.com.au

I would think Logue is moving for reasons other than Clarko.

If Clarko is cleared, then there is no issue. If the allegations are upheldthen he's gone and North get a new coach.

I don't see how any player moving for money would really care?

 

[hawkman]

I wonder if reporting to AFL integrity was the right move for Hawthorn, it leaves them open to AFL sanction and doesn't resolve them of any culpability legally with the ex-players.

I think they should have acted as any normal organisation would have and addressed the issue themselves via reconciliation/compensation/support.

Out-sourcing to the AFL doesn't solve any of Hawthorn's problems, it just helps the AFL manage perceptions of the AFL.

Hawthorn could have approached the AFL once they'd sorted out the biggest issues with the victims (and alleged perpetrators) so that instead of the victims going to the media with un-resolved issues could go to the media and say that they had issues, but they're working through them with the club.

Instead Hawthorn have out-sourced everything and throwing themselves at the whim of the AFL and then probably the courts when the victims seek compensation. The AFL are great at sweeping everything under the rug, but when they can't, they come down hard.

I don't believe Hawthorn don't have the resources or ability to address this issue. Workplace HR departments and consultants deal with all sorts of stuff and there are indigenous specialists they could have employed.

The first recommendation of the report says this should be sent to the AFL integrity unit. If they don't do it then they get accused of ignoring the report

 

[buttox]

I would think Logue is moving for reasons other than Clarko.

If Clarko is cleared, then there is no issue. If the allegations are upheldthen he's gone and North get a new coach.

I don't see how any player moving for money would really care?

Read the article not just the headline.
Logue is not the important point.

 

[owen87]

Who said anything about prison?

But the argument can be made that the report has been accepted and judgments have already been well and truly made through trial by media.

Unless you have read this thread with your eyes close.

I have continually stated that if the accusations are validated all involved should be deregistered from any involvement from football for life and that the victims would be looking forward to significant compensation from Hawthorn and the AFL.

However, lets do a simple exercise, as a point of balance:

We have 4 (Clarkson, Fagan, Burt and Newbold) very reputable people with a long history of community and indigenous involvement, who categorically deny the allegations, in fact they are essentially accusing others of wrongdoing, we also have 3 people who we know have been in the room together in many of the known events and by extension have corroborated any wrongful involvement.

Before further investigation of the facts, do you think it appropriate we should not only name Ian, Zac and Liam, but make recommendations about potential apologies to Clarkson, Fagan and Burt (if further validated) by those involved as well as Jackson and Robinson? Based on Clarkson and Fagan and Burt's fairly strong responses and belief of the facts of their story. Should we also go as far as to suggest financial restitution recommendations based on the likely defamation (if further validated) because emotional impact that they have inflicted upon these 3 people?

Of course you wouldn't, because it's completely ridiculous to make decisions or recommendations on ANY person's guilt until the entire facts of all parties of the allegations are heard.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the purpose of the report was, and also seem to misunderstand the difference between the report and the ABC article, AND also what's followed largely due to the ABC article.

Were it not for the ABC article, the review would have still been quietly sitting with the AFL Integrity Unit for further investigation. It had been there for at least a week prior to the ABC article without anyone hearing a peep. Clarkson, Fagan, Burt et al weren't publicly named or implicated in any way.

The report has presented the 'experiences of past and current First Nations players as engaged by Hawthorn Football Club'. The report makes a number of recommendations, the very first of which is reporting these experiences to the AFL Integrity Unit for further investigation, at which point other parties that aren't 'past and current First Nations players as engaged by Hawthorn Football Club' would be interviewed.

 

[the harry]

Read the article not just the headline.
Logue is not the important point.
View attachment 1522253

Is the important bit where Young ignored what multiple journalists think and instead said "give it a month mate"? Because that really doesn't mean much tbh.

 

[Chief]

But the argument can be made that the report has been accepted and judgments have already been well and truly made through trial by media.

"Report has been accepted" - by who?

Trial by media - yes, it's something similar to that.

Unless you have read this thread with your eyes close.

I have continually stated that if the accusations are validated all involved should be deregistered from any involvement from football for life and that the victims would be looking forward to significant compensation from Hawthorn and the AFL.

But you are unhappy the allegations were even presented to HFC management in anything but dry factual terms?

The HFC's scope was "we have probably got problems, we need to look at them and decide if we have addressed them, or how we will address them".

However, lets do a simple exercise, as a point of balance:

We have 4 (Clarkson, Fagan, Burt and Newbold) very reputable people with a long history of community and indigenous involvement, who categorically deny the allegations, in fact they are essentially accusing others of wrongdoing,

They don't deny the allegations, though. They deny they did anything wrong. They don't say, "that would be wrong to do, and I didn't do it".

Don't they?

we also have 3 people who we know have been in the room together in many of the known events and by extension have corroborated any wrongful involvement.

Huh? 3 people being the the coaches? The players?

The report says 17 respondents, 5 on record, 5 considering their options about being on record.

Before further investigation of the facts, do you think it appropriate that we should not only name Ian, Zac and Liam,

Who?

but make recommendations about potential apologies to Clarkson, Fagan and Burt (if further validated) by those involved as well as Jackson and Robinson? Based on Clarkson and Fagan and Burt's fairly strong responses and belief of the facts of their story. Should we also go as far as to suggest financial restitution recommendations based on the likely defamation (if further validated) and emotional impact that they have inflicted upon these 3 people?

Of course you wouldn't, because it's completely ridiculous to make decisions or recommendations on ANY person's guilt until the entire facts of all parties of the allegations are heard.

It is not ridiculous to make recommendations on what to do if allegations are found to be correct.

It's what the report writers were ASKED TO DO by the HFC.

The report is not a legal document, it's a confidential report to management. It makes arguments based on the interviews and the writer's professional judgement and the environment the club operates. The law, human rights, the club's goals etc.

 

[The acurate one]

Is the important bit where Young ignored what multiple journalists think and instead said "give it a month mate"? Because that really doesn't mean much tbh.

Yeah not sure " multiple journalists" means a great deal either, just sayin.
We will all just have to wait and see.

 

[the harry]

Yeah not sure " multiple journalists" means a great deal either, just sayin.
We will all just have to wait and see.

Yeah so the article is a non- event right?

The biggest take out is that Colin Young and Freo still hate each other but that doesn't relate to the topic of this thread

 

[The acurate one]

Yeah so the article is a non- event right?

The biggest take out is that Colin Young and Freo still hate each other but that doesn't relate to the topic of this thread

The article carries no more or less weight than many others we read. In Young's opinion Clarko will be back. In C Wilson's opinion Clarko will be hung, quartered and drawn.
Both have a slant to their preferred outcomes.

I am of course exaggerating Wilson's desired outcome.

 

[buttox]

Yeah so the article is a non- event right?

The biggest take out is that Colin Young and Freo still hate each other but that doesn't relate to the topic of this thread

Its an opinion that differs from the current opinion driven media narrative.
November 1 start date would seem to be one end of the argument.
Life bans the other end.
It will finish somewhere in between.

 

[the harry]

Its an opinion that differs from the current opinion driven media narrative.
November 1 start date would seem to be one end of the argument.
Life bans the other end.
It will finish somewhere in between.

Reckon? Feels pretty binary really. Like if any of it is upheld Clarko won't get a slap on the wrist.

I'd say he either gets totally off or never works in the industry again.

 

[buttox]

Reckon? Feels pretty binary really. Like if any of it is upheld Clarko won't get a slap on the wrist.

I'd say he either gets totally off or never works again.

We have heard one side of the story.
We are not even sure those who made the accusations are willing to talk about it again at this stage.
If they are not willing to be cross examined and questioned on the allegations this could already be over.

 

[owen87]

We have heard one side of the story.
We are not even sure those who made the accusations are willing to talk about it again at this stage.
If they are not willing to be cross examined and questioned on the allegations this could already be over.

Yes i'm sure the Indigenous players at North would love turning up to play under Clarkson if he gets off on a technicality.

 

[less than zero]

Its an opinion that differs from the current opinion driven media narrative.
November 1 start date would seem to be one end of the argument.
Life bans the other end.
It will finish somewhere in between.

If you think "it will finish somewhere in between" then that would mean a much later start date for Clarko no?

How do you think this may affect North Melbourne's plans for 2023?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Yes i'm sure the Indigenous players at North would love turning up to play under Clarkson if he gets off on a technicality.

Or there's a good chance they don't act like children, go to him and sit down and discuss their concerns, ask him what has happened, and go from there.
Why is there so many people that go to a stereotype (and that is what you've done, you've gone to a stereotype, or is that OK because you're siding a particular way?)

 

[buttox]

Yes i'm sure the Indigenous players at North would love turning up to play under Clarkson if he gets off on a technicality.

At the moment the accusers are anonymous.
First thing that happens when the names are revealed is their credibility is questioned.
They would have been advised of this by there lawyer you would assume.
Being able to face your accusers is not a technicality.
If they are not willing to take part Clarko has nothing to answer as nothing has been put forward.

 

[rado]

But it's not looking good for them.

They have had a week to respond, which they have. And their responses didn't deny that these things happened - just that they don't think they did anything wrong.

That's why, IMO, it does not look good for them in terms of being able to coach again.

Beyond reputational damage though, of course it's too early to know what the implications, if any will be.

Rather than relying on the media to run the agenda, those accused are seeking counsel as they should do. They have also denied any wrongdoing and await a forum to provide their account to the allegations.

For me, I think it’s prudent for the accused not to respond to specific allegations in the media, a public cross examination won’t be good for anyone involved.

A public execution via the media has the potential to stop participation of victims, witnesses and the accused, which will not serve the initial intent of the HFC commissioned report.

 

[biggiemediums]

Yes i'm sure the Indigenous players at North would love turning up to play under Clarkson if he gets off on a technicality.

It's a tricky thing if that were to happen.

I can see both sides of the coin. If Clarkson was cleared due to the players not wanting to talk about it again, the situation you outlined is a possibility and I don't think anyone would blame those players. We as humans judge people; it's one of the ways we survive.

On the other side, it sets a bit of a wonky precedence if you ban him from footy without definitive proof.

That situation would be the worst outcome. No clarity for anyone.