Mega Thread Matt Rendell situation thread #2

[Freddy Bassett]

This is a major part of the problem I think.
From a logical perspective it is clearly a no-brainer. Even if the parents do not wish to send their children away they can refuse.
However, the strong emotional similarities to the stolen generation may bring immediate resentment amongst some people about such a program. (ie. let's take your children away to the other side of the country to raise them better).
It is a real minefield and one I suspect Matt is not equipped to handle.
Has he ever been given any education in dealing with indigenous sensitivities? If not (which I suspect is the case), then again this lays more blame to Crows management and even more so to the AFL. Such education should be a strict requirement by the AFL for all recruitment officers.

I am studying a course at uni that involves a large amount of interaction with indigenous people. We have a whole subject devoted to how to deal with such issues. If Matt has never been taught it is hardly his fault if he is a bit rough around the edges with it. Maybe one good thing to come from this is if the AFL introduce such a scheme (if they have not already).

I think you have knocked the nail square on the head...

 

[ruscy002]

and irony upon irony is that the AFL's indigenous affairs and multicultural managers were not able to educate him but simply blew the whistle. Either Matty must have completely lost it talking to them (which is possible) or they are ill-equipped to do their jobs.

This "education" may have happened if Vlad/Trigg didn't blow his head off - Mifsud did allegedly beg Trigg not to fire him right?

 

[AFC979810]

I think you have knocked the nail square on the head...

+1

 

[JP Sauce]

and irony upon irony is that the AFL's indigenous affairs and multicultural managers were not able to educate him but simply blew the whistle. Either Matty must have completely lost it talking to them (which is possible) or they are ill-equipped to do their jobs.

Fahour got the job because of the position his brother holds, so I have no doubt that he's ill-equipped to do it.

 

[ftmch]

From what we know so far, and really it isn't too much, and there are still way too many questions which is why I am trying very hard not to make a judgment until I get more facts. I think things could have possibly been handled better, but I do think there was strong pressure from AFL House and there are external factors that we need to keep considering before we really get to the truth. Nothing in life is ever black and white, there are always shades of grey.

To be honest, the longer the ambiguity around this whole saga drags out, the more Trigg's decision to sever ties is probably vindicated.

Here we are almost a week after the news broke, and we are still getting conflicting stories and versions of events as to how it played out, what the context and intent was, when the offensive nature of his comments and discussion was flagged with Matt, and how he handled it.

If we still had Matt Rendell on board now, the AFC would still be caught up in the ambiguity and negative connotations that are still dogging MR today.

The fact that these connotations are (in my view) unjustified is largely irrelevant - the reality is they are still negative and hang like a dark cloud over anyone / anything associated with them.

By severing ties, we've essentially disassociated ourselves from them, which was always the intent.

Yes - the trade off is we're (or at least Triggy) is seen as disloyal and maybe too regimentted in dealing with this issue, but at the end of the day, sponsors and corporate stakeholders will be much less concerned with that, than the alternative.

 

[Mattrox]

First of all you will find that indigenous players have higher retention rate than non-ingeniousness players.

Secondly, players that come from remote indigenous towns are the ones that they are referring to with lot retention rates. When it comes to completely to the isolated remote communities we haven't had that many players at all. You do understand that players like Amos Frank and Liam Jurrah are the exception. It wasn't long ago these people were even considered by recruiters.

The AFL has tried it's to put resources in trying to reach these isolated communities where only a small percentage speak english on a accepted minimum standard for literacy. It's literally a second language for them.

The Cyril Rioli scenario worked for Rioli but that does not mean it will work for all. Even Rioli himself said that if his mother hadn't of pushed him he would not be on an AFL list right now. Suggesting this is the only course of avenue is completely ignorant of my previous points.

A lot indigenous people from remote communities feel like they have left another country to play AFL. It is normal for them to want to go back. Take them out of this environment too early can be harmful, especially if the club is not catering to make the transition as gradual and comfortable as possible.

You don't necessirarly need more resources to aclimitise these players, but just smarter resources. And that's not exclusive to remote indegenious communities, but everyone

Hawthorn

All of what you say is true. But this does not prove that Rendell is a racist and deserves to lose his job. He clearly has a passion for recruiting young players and keeping them in the game.

If the AFL disagreed with his methods and explained to him that it wouldn't work for complex cultural reasons that is one thing.

To respond all guns blazing just pushes a pervieved problem under the rug.

The AFL is precious about perception. This is clearly demonstrated by the slap on the wrist about Falou's MRC rearing. Now the AFL has the perception that it shoots the messenger. It now has the perception that Govt. grants, Australia Post sponsorship and nepotism are involed in this saga.

I think the debate is moving from, "Was he racist?" to "What the hell is going on in AFL head office?"

 

[ruscy002]

To be honest, the longer the ambiguity around this whole saga drags out, the more Trigg's decision to sever ties is probably vindicated.

Here we are almost a week after the news broke, and we are still getting conflicting stories and versions of events as to how it played out, what the context and intent was, when the offensive nature of his comments and discussion was flagged with Matt, and how he handled it.

If we still had Matt Rendell on board now, the AFC would still be caught up in the ambiguity and negative connotations that are still dogging MR today.

The fact that these connotations are (in my view) unjustified is largely irrelevant - the reality is they are still negative and hang like a dark cloud over anyone / anything associated with them.

By severing ties, we've essentially disassociated ourselves from them, which was always the intent.

Yes - the trade off is we're (or at least Triggy) is seen as disloyal and maybe too regimentted in dealing with this issue, but at the end of the day, sponsors and corporate stakeholders will be much less concerned with that, than the alternative.

Disagree - much of the ambiguity and the necessity to ask all of these questions was forced by the decision to terminate Rendell. Had we suspended him pending investigation, there would've been no need for Rendell to explain himself, and no need for Mifsud/Fahour/Vlad/Trigg to justify their actions and muddy the waters.

They all created the very thing that they tried so desperately to avoid.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Spot on fatoomsch.

We live in a society where it is acceptable to fly off the handle and make moral judgements on others at the drop of a hat. I try not to do this, but I know in some respects I have done so myself. With the ease of communication in the world atm we expect to know everything and know it NOW. If we don't there must be some great conspiracy behind it.

I wasn't one who was willing to go after the club as soon as possible. I understand that there are always other mitigating factors that were involved in the club being caught between a rock and a hard place, especially with the next day most of the top journalists were going to be in Adelaide for the NAB Cup GF.

We want a successful club, which means we want our club to be financially viable in order for this to happen. In that case, the 'Brand' is a major factor to how we are perceived. We love the idea of the local footy club and being able to have a chat with everyone involved but the AFC is in reality a huge national business and not a local footy club.

 

[ruscy002]

All of what you say is true. But this does not prove that Rendell is a racist and deserves to lose his job. He clearly has a passion for recruiting young players and keeping them in the game.

The post that you quoted was deleted before I could respond.

The point that I was going to make is that indigenous attrition vs non-indigenous attrition is flat out irrelevant. Most draftees are non-indigenous, and most draftees fail to make a career out of AFL, so this was a terrible point. Indigenous attrition can absolutely be a concern in isolation.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Disagree - much of the ambiguity and the necessity to ask all of these questions was forced by the decision to terminate Rendell. Had we suspended him pending investigation, there would've been no need for Rendell to explain himself, and no need for Mifsud/Fahour/Vlad/Trigg to justify their actions and muddy the waters.

They all created the very thing that they tried so desperately to avoid.

You don't think that with the article in The Age and that we were 'investigating' that all media outlets would have been after the club for leaks about what was or wasn't said? That there would still have been questions being continually asked? If Mifsud and Fahour were so offended, as it has been reported, that there wouldn't have been potshots headed our way from AFL House?

What this has done, no matter which way the decision to go was done, it has marred the start of a really promising new era in the club. A winning one, which many of us have been waiting a number of years to see.

 

[Roby]

So Roby, you seem like an intelligent person... How can we keep more Indigenous players in our great game? How can we attract more and make easier pathway's? ( sorry If I offended in anyway, was not my intention, just not as smart and politically correct as you )

First of all you will find that indigenous players have higher retention rate than non-indigenous players.

Secondly, players that come from remote indigenous towns are the ones that they are referring to with lot retention rates. When it comes to the completely isolated remote communities we haven't had that many players at all. You do understand that players like Amos Frank and Liam Jurrah are the exception. It wasn't long ago these people were even considered by recruiters.

The AFL has tried it's best to put resources in trying to reach these isolated communities where only a small percentage speak english on a accepted minimum standard for required literacy levels. It's literally a second language for them.

The Cyril Rioli scenario worked for Rioli but that does not mean it will work for all. Even Rioli himself said that if his mother hadn't of pushed him he would not be on an AFL list right now. Suggesting this is the only course of avenue is completely ignorant of my previous points.

A lot indigenous people from remote communities feel like they have left another country to play AFL. It is normal for them to want to go back. Take them out of this environment too early can be harmful, especially if the club is not catering to make the transition as gradual and comfortable as possible.

You don't necessarily need more resources to aclimitise these players, but just smarter resources. And that's not exclusive to remote indigenous communities, but everyone

Hawthorn recently had issues with Travis Tuck, son of games record holder and the most winning premiership player Michael Tuck. His brother Shane had also similar issues. Now given his pedigree you would think he had every opportunity to have a long AFL career. Not so.

So as you can see to suggest that you would recruit or even insinuate to recruit based on race is completely ridiculous.

The AFL need to set up more academies that cater for indigenous communities and make their transition easier into AFL. I also don't believe their should be a set age limit. Different people will differently and faster and will be ready sooner or later.

One example is Jaeger O'meara. I don't know what his cultural background is but that's not the point. AFL rules as they stand because of his age he does not get to play AFL. From what I have seen of him his far more than ready. And we geninuley losing an exciting player to watch this season as well as hampering hsi development. O'meara would benefit more playing a season of AFL than anything else right now.

Ill give you an example of some like Leo Messi of Barcelona. He played his first game at Barcelona (that's their fist team) in the Primera Liga at age 16. This week at age 24 he has broken their goals record, and looks to be now going to win World Player of the Year for the third time in a row. The fact he learned his trade at superhouse club at the highest pressure only means now at age 24 he plays like a veteran hitting is prime.

On the other hand I don't think we should go trigger happy on getting young players in. In fact the way the draft is set up it force clubs to pick up young players they may not need and then let them sit on he sidelines when they would be best served picking up mature age recruits instead. The rookie and national draft should just be included in one.

So in conclusions what I am saying is that in regards to indigenous remote communities there is necessarily one size fits all. That can only be a framework but then natural divergence from each individual happens and the academies, recruiters and club need to be smarter in educate individuals. Which means they need to be educate themselves in this regards because as it is now everybody is learning on their own accord. Maybe they need to provide seminars, retreats or and regular open discussion forums the like for the major stakeholders in the game.

 

[ruscy002]

You don't think that with the article in The Age and that we were 'investigating' that all media outlets would have been after the club for leaks about what was or wasn't said? That there would still have been questions being continually asked? If Mifsud and Fahour were so offended, as it has been reported, that there wouldn't have been potshots headed our way from AFL House?

What this has done, no matter which way the decision to go was done, it has marred the start of a really promising new era in the club. A winning one, which many of us have been waiting a number of years to see.

Sure there would've been questions asked, but the devil is in the detail - most people were on the AFC/AFL's side before Rendell told his version of events, and since it has spiraled out of control. We suspend him, we muzzle him, we control the messages going out to the public.

 

[King Elvis]

This is a major part of the problem I think.
From a logical perspective it is clearly a no-brainer. Even if the parents do not wish to send their children away they can refuse.
However, the strong emotional similarities to the stolen generation may bring immediate resentment amongst some people about such a program. (ie. let's take your children away to the other side of the country to raise them better).
It is a real minefield and one I suspect Matt is not equipped to handle.
Has he ever been given any education in dealing with indigenous sensitivities? If not (which I suspect is the case), then again this lays more blame to Crows management and even more so to the AFL. Such education should be a strict requirement by the AFL for all recruitment officers.

I am studying a course at uni that involves a large amount of interaction with indigenous people. We have a whole subject devoted to how to deal with such issues. If Matt has never been taught it is hardly his fault if he is a bit rough around the edges with it. Maybe one good thing to come from this is if the AFL introduce such a scheme (if they have not already).

I didn't make the Stolen Generation link at all, until it was mentioned here; and I still don't agree with it - but I can see how it'd be a bit sensitive in that respect.

I'd say Rendell was the same - his suggestion came from a pure, well intentioned and sincere thought process; so he never made the negative association.

 

[jenny61_99]

And that was often Matty's problem. He spoke before he thought about the implications of what he said.

 

[jenny61_99]

Sure there would've been questions asked, but the devil is in the detail - most people were on the AFC/AFL's side before Rendell told his version of events, and since it has spiraled out of control. We suspend him, we muzzle him, we control the messages going out to the public.

You couldn't suspend him without the same questions being asked. No matter which way we handled this, we'd have this mess we currently have.

 

[Roby]

All of what you say is true. But this does not prove that Rendell is a racist and deserves to lose his job. He clearly has a passion for recruiting young players and keeping them in the game.

If the AFL disagreed with his methods and explained to him that it wouldn't work for complex cultural reasons that is one thing.

To respond all guns blazing just pushes a pervieved problem under the rug.

The AFL is precious about perception. This is clearly demonstrated by the slap on the wrist about Falou's MRC rearing. Now the AFL has the perception that it shoots the messenger. It now has the perception that Govt. grants, Australia Post sponsorship and nepotism are involed in this saga.

I think the debate is moving from, "Was he racist?" to "What the hell is going on in AFL head office?"

I understand what you are getting in regards to thinking the AFL is trying protect themselves but they are in fact doing so for a reason PR reason. And whether you think this cold and calculating and an innocent person has lost job, the AFL would have preferred he had at the very least retracted the comments which were not an informed or educated opinion.

I expanded further on the issue which may provide some clarification as I accidentally submitted reply half way through it before.

 

[Syd Crow]

That's why in big corporations you find lots of yes men who never come up with original ideas......its the safest policy for long term employment.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Just goes to show the cultural insensitivity and ignorance of the general public regarding indigenous culture. That's why the AFL is accordance with national and international acts has such diligent reprimands on racial discrimination.

If anything the public defence for Rendell is only justifying the AFL has done correct thing. If anything they may need tobe even more diligent. I will be contact in Dr Helen Szoke, who is Australia's racial discrimination commissioner.

As I have sad already, I applaud Trigg for making this decision and the Adelaide FC will be applauded for it's due diligence.

The only people that seem to think Trigg has done the right thing is Trigg himself, AD, Ali and self righteous people like you on a crusade to some sort of moral paradise.

In all your posts, all you have done is tell us all how the AFL and the AFC have done the right thing, yet I can't recall you providing any constructive comments on how the AFL can increase the numbers and assist indigenous Australians transition successfully and be part of our great game now and into the future.

I'm fascinated to hear your opinion on how we can help our indigenous freinds and at the same time how we appease moral crusaders like yourself without fear of someone pulling the "Racism" or "highly offensive" card out.
Im happy to give you a few days to consult with Dr Helen Szoke if you need.

 

[ruscy002]

You couldn't suspend him without the same questions being asked. No matter which way we handled this, we'd have this mess we currently have.

Except that with a properly conducted investigation, those questions wouldn't be answered immediately with emotional responses from all corners.

 

[Roby]

The only people that seem to think Trigg has done the right thing is Trigg himself, AD, Ali and self righteous people like you on a crusade to some sort of moral paradise.

In all your posts, all you have done is tell us all how the AFL and the AFC have done the right thing, yet I can't recall you providing any constructive comments on how the AFL can increase the numbers and assist indegenous Australians transition successfully and be part of our great game now and into the future.

I'm fascinated to hear your opinion on how we can help our indigenous freinds and at the same time how we appease moral crusaders like yourself without fear of someone pulling the "Racism" or "highly offensive" card out.
Im happy to give you a few days to consult with Dr Helen Szoke if you need.

You need to read each post.

By the way, what are your solutions?

 

[afc1991]

So in conclusions what I am saying is that in regards to indigenous remote communities there is necessarily one size fits all. That can only be a framework but then natural divergence from each individual happens and the academies, recruiters and club need to be smarter in educate individuals. Which means they need to be educate themselves in this regards because as it is now everybody is learning on their own accord. Maybe they need to provide seminars, retreats or and regular open discussion forums the like for the major stakeholders in the game.

Roby, do you find any of the comments in the recent article about Frank Amos to be offensive, perhaps cringeworthy, or at least walking a fine line.

Its a great story, and I think it helps illustrate some of what Rendell was trying to say. However it seems discussing Indigenous life is very sensitive, and I reckon theres plenty of potential fodder in what is a positive article, if you want to look for it.

Not trying to be a smart arse, or bring hawthorn into it, I dont doubt their intentions. I just think we are heading down a path where we cant talk about it at all. For example the article is littered with "they" and "them", in refrence to Amos' people, something that Rendell has been criticised for. Theres plenty of other examples too.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Sure there would've been questions asked, but the devil is in the detail - most people were on the AFC/AFL's side before Rendell told his version of events, and since it has spiraled out of control. We suspend him, we muzzle him, we control the messages going out to the public.

I don't think most people were on the AFC/AFLs side first. I think most people were shocked and then couldn't really believe it. Then people would want to know. The main problem is the AFL sanctioned interview that came out on Friday, before the AFC had been able to talk to everyone. That would have still been in the public domain and with Demetriou's comments on Tuesday it would have compounded (and did) the issue and the 'controlability'.

There would have been just as much talk on the radio etc. The media would have gotten a sniff and gone after the story that would be the most sensational to them. There would have been leaks, as there always are in the footy world. Most of the time journalists actually don't tell us everything they know as they are holding onto the information to possibly use either as leverage later on or to get an 'exclusive' on another matter in return for not letting out other information.

 

[RocknRoll]

I didn't make the Stolen Generation link at all, until it was mentioned here; and I still don't agree with it - but I can see how it'd be a bit sensitive in that respect.

I'd say Rendell was the same - his suggestion came from a pure, well intentioned and sincere thought process; so he never made the negative association.

We still do not know if that was even an issue.
Not all the information that was so sensitive has been provided.
However we do know (except for the conspiracy theorists) that Matt was being insensitive to the two AFL reps. I have met Matt myself several times and understand that he can be a bit pig headed. I strongly suspect he just did not understand the effect his words were having.

Also I analysed AFL data until the 2008 season and found indigenous retention rates were higher than for non-indigenous people (and presented a paper on it). This in itself is remarkable considering the extra hurdles involved. So I was quite surprised when Matt said the retention rate was falling in the last few years. I figured he was correct until Roby just said it was still higher (and I get the impression he knows somehow).

 

[jenny61_99]

Except that with a properly conducted investigation, those questions wouldn't be answered immediately with emotional responses from all corners.

No I agree. However, there would be a stench hanging over us with the many unanswered questions - no different to it is now. Don't you think?

 

[Syd Crow]

This could have been handled a lot fairer to all parties if the AFL dealt with it quickly behind closed doors - they kept it secret for 6 weeks then press releases????? I think this is what I am angry about.