The report wasn't all negative They were also praised as they had already started on and initiated some of the recommendations that were pointed out in the report. To me, it was simply that they had to address the negatives. Focussing on some positives was fine - the report did.
The report is secondary here and tbh I don’t really care for it. The issue is the board trying to cover it up getting caught and then having the gall to say it’s a proud day when they caught.
I've seen nothing to suggest that they were trying to cover it up. I thought the general view was that they were going to release the report but wanted to control the release of the report. I personally think it would have been much better for everyone if that had occurred, as the leak has resulted in a misrepresentative feeding frenzy on the word racism - without understanding what was actually meant by the report. I don't see how they could have contemplated covering it up when it was so publicly announced.
They’re the same thing to me. They should have released the report when it came out.
That’s the clubs own fault for not releasing the report sooner and then adding over the top positive spin by using words like proud to describe their actions.
No company ever does and for good reason - needs to be digested and fully understood, and they need to work out how to respond so that the President of the company doesn't stand up and say proud.
It should take all of about 5 seconds to figure out proud isn’t the word you should use.
Not for our Ed. Funniest thing was that in his resignation speech he spoke about how he planned to begin the speech. But then at the last moment, probably in 5 seconds, he decided to go with proud.
Have you read the review?
This is exactly right. My theory about what happened is that the Board was sideswiped by the report, couldn't work out / agree on how to respond and then procrastinated over it. Someone leaked it out of frustration and to force the club's hand -- given the report would have had a very limited distribution, the most likely leakers are the authors.
Yes, I have.
Pretty sad reading that an indigenous player was treated like that. Especially a guy who gave the club such great service and fans so many great moments during his career.
That’s one of the worst websites I’ve ever seen. Amateur hour.
Does he say he wasn't interviewed? Surely as one of our few prominent indigenous stars of this century he was interviewed! If not, the writers of the report have missed the bleeding obvious in their research. Let's also keep in mind that Leon is no doubt referring largely to experiences in his earlier playing years and he retired in 2011. I would very much like to hear of players experiences post 2010 - with one notable exception.
It wasn't a broad review. They looked at our responses to known racial issues that the club was involved in. Leon wasn't relevant to what was reviewed.
The article doesn’t say he wasn’t interviewed. He was rightly upset the club didn’t contact him after the release. I suspect he was interviewed, it’s hard to believe the authors wouldn’t have wanted to speak to him.
Mick Malthouse in self preservation mode....
evidently the racism startted at the end of 2011. Before that there was a period of about 10 years when there was no racism. Unfortunately, before that there was racism again. In fact, the only period where there was no racism at collingwood was during the malthouse years.
If they didn't speak to him and Krakouer, the report's views on the last 20 years would be pretty much worthless.
Soz for the late reply Jmac, this bit is very very important. The intent.
Must say I didn’t get that feel. Sounds like he felt ostracised for speaking out, upsetting the team ethos. He said it didn’t last long but I took it as the reason was speaking out and it meant he didn’t complain to admin again rather tried to solve issues himself via educating directly.
I think they always tread a very fine line, and it's rare that they ever dump on the player in question. I certainly think they handled the H situation better post those comments from Bucks.
I think him being ostracised for it is extremely likely. However I do think the journo editing in the word incident was odd, as the statement didn't need a clarification. Plus considering HLs claims, surely the journo would have drilled down on that comment to get a direct quote about speaking out. But maybe I'm giving the journo too much credit.
They weren't looking for incidents of direct racism - just how Collingwood responded to known racial incidents. I think I read that they only interviewed 30 people for the known issues going back to Robbie Muir. I'm not sure how much his voice would have added to what they were reviewing. He wasn't involved in the incidents they reviewed, nor was he part of the response. I think if Leon had've made the list, they'd be still interviewing.
Maybe but Leon has alwys had a bit of a link in with the Heretier discussion. I didn't take the report as only looking at the 5-6 incidents they reported anyway, I thought it was more general than that and was looking at the mechanisms the club had in place to provide an inclusive environment with facility to manage issues in a balanced fair way. Leon could certainly have spoken to that.
I would have thought part of the process would have been to interview past and present players (particularly indigenous) to and understanding of the challenges they felt and how things fell down. In Leon’s example, I thought it was important to understand how he went about confronting these issues and what a player in his position would have been more comfortable in doing.
