SEN - Soft

[The Big League]

And if he did, what then? Sack him perhaps? Who would we find that information out from by the way? No cameras, only HUN saying so. Do we beat a confession out of Fev?

These things are one persons word against another if you do not see it first hand and in this case, the one person who experienced it first hand isn't talking. Do we beat an admission out of her perhaps?

I think you're completely missing my point here. I'm saying if you held an investigation and concluded this assault has NO witnesses, the "victim" has not complained, and there is no admission of guilt, then you can publicly exonerate Fevola by saying just that.

I investigate for a living. All I can do is to ask questions of people who I know to have been there at the time. People have to cooperate with me however, but do you think Carlton should have gone to every Brownlow guest they could think of and ask if they remembered anything? And then what? Take action against him ... like sacking?

Speak to the venue owners, speak to the Carlton players who were there and perhaps their partners and speak to Fevola. That's your investigation, that's all that would be expected of you.

I feel like I am on a merry go round. Carlton should only investigate in order to be able to take the appropriate action against a player, not to gain a criminal conviction, it simply is not their job and the police would frown on it. In this case, Carlton said 'hang the investigation, we feel he has done enough to be turfed out regardless' and took the harshest penalty available to them. Given he was in contract though, we also did what was best for us and avoided a payout by trading him.

Carlton should investigate to assure it's members, sponsors and players that they take allegations about players seriously and they will not tolerate misbehavior, they will similarly not tollerate people making allegations about their players without forming their own internal investigations.

Honestly, clubs investigate things all the time, that is a fact! I'm just not sure why Carlton didn't on this occasion.

 

[The Big League]

I don't think it's an outrageous request to expect the club to investigate a potential criminal act by one of it's players, until about 11am this morning he was still a Carlton player, yet they never held a formal investigation according to them.

Does that not sound strange?

 

[Dramoth]

Carlton fined him $10,000 after view the footage and banned him from the B&F. If they knew straight away they were going to trade him why fine him at all?
It appears they were only going to fine him because as sticks said they didn't form their own investigation. So, it's only after new rumors emerged that he was put on the table, rumors that are nothing but gossip at this stage. Why the change of heart from a fine, to being put on the draft table if they never held an investigation?

We didnt ban him from the B&F...

It appears on the surface that he stayed away through his own decision. The club might have said it might be best if you dont show up considering the media circus it could provoke and it would detract from our night of nights...

Just like the AFL didnt ban him from the Grand Final parade at the G... he stayed away so as not to cause controversy. Once again, the AFL might have suggested it, but it didnt ban him from it.

 

[The Big League]

My mistake, but in the scheme of things that's relatively insignificant.

 

[The Grover]

Piss off Big League, get a life & go back with your ferals.

Carlton took appropriate action & got rid of him, the rest is up to police & AFL.

 

[Monkey King]

I don't think it's an outrageous request to expect the club to investigate a potential criminal act by one of it's players, until about 11am this morning he was still a Carlton player, yet they never held a formal investigation according to them.

Does that not sound strange?

As stated previously; no it does not sound strange. Fev's marching orders were signed last week. Why would the club investigate an allegation made against a player they already knew wasn't going to be at the club?

Honestly... what is it you anticipate such an investigation would achieve?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Carlton fined him $10,000 after view the footage and banned him from the B&F. If they knew straight away they were going to trade him why fine him at all?
It appears they were only going to fine him because as sticks said they didn't form their own investigation. So, it's only after new rumors emerged that he was put on the table, rumors that are nothing but gossip at this stage. Why the change of heart from a fine, to being put on the draft table if they never held an investigation?

Simple. The AFL stepped in. They were told about the claims when we were.

There were other claims being made about exposing himself and pushing people around etc. No doubt in my mind, the AFL said 'get him out of Victoria.'

The rumours were too plentiful and some people had seen some of it, not just the assault.

Let me let you in on something. HUN say that this happened. You are saying you want Carlton to investigate before taking further action against Fev. I ask again, what does this investigation comprise of?

Sticks: How do we verify that Fev assaulted a HUN reporter? Hmm, I know, I will ask the HUN.

HUN: But we just told you he did?

Sticks: Yes, but I can't believe you, we have to conduct our own investigation. So do you know anything about Fev assaulting a HUN reporter?

HUN: FFS YES.

Sticks: Case closed. Thank you

HUN: Yeah whatever.

If we can't believe the HUN that one of their reporters was attacked, then how do we investigate?

This incident was common knowledge from those there on the night by the way. The media have been hinting at it all week and the HUN said they told all affected parties.

They only needed to satisfy themselves that something went down, in the absence of a complaint by the journalist to make the judgment they made. Either way they couldn't have done the wrong thing by Fev. As more and more came to light aside from the incident, there was more than enough to hang him.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Honestly... what is it you anticipate such an investigation would achieve?

That is the question that can't be answered adequately.

They seem to be saying on one hand, that we owed it to Fev to investigate to try and disprove these allegations. Fev says he doesn't remember, the HUN said it happened but no complaint will be laid. There is no way knowing that Carlton were going to make a statement based on this. Firstly, they should not under any circumstances get themselves involved in something that could be a criminal investigation at any time. Secondly, it is not their place to engage in rumour mongering and tell everyone, 'hey did you hear that Fev may have assaulted someone in the casino toilets?' If they go to the police and say, 'hey we were told Fev assaulted someone', the police would ask the person if they wanted to make a complaint and she says no and they do nothing about it.

Do they try to prove him innocent even though they have been told no complaint has been made? Do they try to prove him guilty so they can sack him, even though they were probably going to do so anyway?

Hell, just the media attention alone kills the club, and is enough to sack him, let alone doing an amateur investigation prior to police involvement.

I really think this word 'investigation' is a BigFooty catchphrase with zero meaning except to start another thread about Carlton under the pretence of serious discussion.

For years we are told we let Fev get away with everything and we lack ethics and compromise our integrity to keep good players. Then we get rid of him and we still cop shit about it.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't think it's an outrageous request to expect the club to investigate a potential criminal act by one of it's players, until about 11am this morning he was still a Carlton player, yet they never held a formal investigation according to them.

Does that not sound strange?

He was still on our books up until 11am this morning, but he was not around the club in any capacity and was effectively not our employee once the decision was made to trade him. If we were allowed to do it right then and the offer was there right then, we would have.

 

[Biffinator]

2. If they were told by the HUN that the incident happened, why would they then need to do an investigation to verify that the incident happened?

ODN, I only have time and bandwidth to reply to Point 2.

Rupert's Rag does not speak ex cathedra. It gets it wrong. There might be variants or misinterpretations or ambiguities. It could be garbage or a set up. Given the permutations, why would not a club launch its own line of investigation if the possible fallout is too great to ignore.

I find it hard to believe that Sticks was told, say, the day after by the HUN, replied "thanks guys" and then returned placidly to the gardening.

If I had been president - and I'm sure he did this in a fashion - I would have told my guys: ask around. Find out what really happened. And get Fev's arse in here pronto.

Biffinator.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think you're completely missing my point here. I'm saying if you held an investigation and concluded this assault has NO witnesses, the "victim" has not complained, and there is no admission of guilt, then you can publicly exonerate Fevola by saying just that.

There is no way the club would public exonerate Fev because they had no complaint from the victim at their disposal. The HUN were saying it happened but weren't going to come out about it to protect the journo. They had no concrete proof but they had reason to believe it could be true.

Speak to the venue owners, speak to the Carlton players who were there and perhaps their partners and speak to Fevola. That's your investigation, that's all that would be expected of you.

Fevola went into hiding right off the bat. They most certainly spoke to Carlton players. There is no doubt they got their information from somewhere, spoke to players, had their reasonable belief there might be something in it, but had no way of saying, it is true or it is not true, and there is no way in hell a football club should hold a press conference about an allegation that may or may not be true and talk about what various parties have told them, or for that matter, you don't bring it to the public's attention unless you are 100% certain. They still can not be 100% certain what he did, and whether it constituted a crime. Only the police can ascertain that.

Carlton should investigate to assure it's members, sponsors and players that they take allegations about players seriously and they will not tolerate misbehavior, they will similarly not tollerate people making allegations about their players without forming their own internal investigations.

*sigh* 1. They showed they won't tolerate misbehaviour (this time) by getting rid of a star player. Sacking him showed that, an investigation does not. 2. There was no need to go to bat for Fev to show they won't tolerate allegations. There was enough in the whole night and in his history to already turf him because he wasn't worth going through all this all the time. Add to this the AFL knew of the allegations as well and were looking to Carlton for a solution.

Honestly, clubs investigate things all the time, that is a fact! I'm just not sure why Carlton didn't on this occasion.

If an investigation is 'did they ask anybody any questions about this incident?', then I would say yes they investigated. Did they retrace his steps or harass the victim or speak to everyone at the casino ... no they probably didn't. When asked about the investigation Sticks just wanted to say nothing about it, fully aware that it was a potential police matter and that is the right course of action, whether the media or BF think so or not.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

2. If they were told by the HUN that the incident happened, why would they then need to do an investigation to verify that the incident happened?

ODN, I only have time and bandwidth to reply to Point 2.

Rupert's Rag does not speak ex cathedra. It gets it wrong. There might be variants or misinterpretations or ambiguities. It could be garbage or a set up. Given the permutations, why would not a club launch its own line of investigation if the possible fallout is too great to ignore.

I find it hard to believe that Sticks was told, say, the day after by the HUN, replied "thanks guys" and then returned placidly to the gardening.

If I had been president - and I'm sure he did this in a fashion - I would have told my guys: ask around. Find out what really happened. And get Fev's arse in here pronto.

Biffinator.

What guys? Ask around about what? Consider this. You have had it to the eyeballs with Fev. He has already said he doesn't remember anything about that night, remember? You hear an allegation, maybe from more than one source as the article indicates there were people aware of it. Do you consider it gospel? No. Do you consider logically that something went down? Yes. You don't go around asking random guests if they saw Fevola assault someone in the toilets. What if they hadn't heard that? Worse still, what if there is a chance ever so slight though it might be, that he didn't do it?

As soon as they made the decision he was going and that they had enough of him, they had no need for further involvement. The people that mattered knew about it (HUN), Carlton could certainly not have shed any further light on it than trained journalists could have, agreed? What exactly was the point aside from playing amateur sleuth, when they were getting rid of him anyway? Do you think if it sounded really really bad, they could have got him in, told him off and sacked him twice?

 

[Blue Ratts]

I don't think it's an outrageous request to expect the club to investigate a potential criminal act by one of it's players, until about 11am this morning he was still a Carlton player, yet they never held a formal investigation according to them.

Does that not sound strange?

Yeh ,from a collingwood supporter it does? Does remaining asleep while a shotgun goes off in a car you are in "not sound strange".
Fair suck of the sauce bottle!!

 

[Monkey King]

He was still on our books up until 11am this morning, but he was not around the club in any capacity and was effectively not our employee once the decision was made to trade him. If we were allowed to do it right then and the offer was there right then, we would have.

Spot on ODN. Saying the Carlton Football Club had a responsibility to investigate an incident involving someone, who for all intents and purposes was not a Carlton player, is pushing it.

Any conclusion arrived at by such an investigation would have been meaningless as it would have yielded no resulting action. Other than being a waste of resources, it would have had no impact on the club, player, AFL, alleged victims or police. So basically it would have served no purpose except to placate the odd Collingwood supporter.

 

[The Big League]

Just because they decided to trade him does not mean they have no further responsibility to the victim or to the reputation of the club. Simply saying "it's not our problem anymore" or words to that effect is if nothing else incorrect. Fevola was a registered Carlton player, representing the club at an official AFL function, whether you like it or not you ARE involved, there is no hiding from that.
News stations are now leading with the story of Stick's press conference, so it's not just bigfooty people who are pretty outraged by this, the unwillingness to even investigate the claims could end up being just a big a story as the alleged assault itself.
I am seriously perplexed as to how you don't think an investigation shouldn't have been done, even before it was decided he should be traded, because obviously they decided to fine him first.

 

[The Big League]

Yeh ,from a collingwood supporter it does? Does remaining asleep while a shotgun goes off in a car you are in "not sound strange".
Fair suck of the sauce bottle!!

Mate, im not saying my club is free from this sort of thing. However, in fairness I seriously doubt any board members knew about that infamous night with Hudson. Anyway my point is, sure Collingwood have also made mistakes, plenty, and when we do I'm the first one to admit we made a mistake.

All im saying is, I don't think Carlton handled this particularly well. You can call me a troll or tell me to piss off, but I think my arguments have been pretty civil and reasonable, if you don't agree with them that's fine, all im doing is giving some perspective.

 

[Blue Ratts]

Just because they decided to trade him does not mean they have no further responsibility to the victim or to the reputation of the club. Simply saying "it's not our problem anymore" or words to that effect is if nothing else incorrect. Fevola was a registered Carlton player, representing the club at an official AFL function, whether you like it or not you ARE involved, there is no hiding from that.
News stations are now leading with the story of Stick's press conference, so it's not just bigfooty people who are pretty outraged by this, the unwillingness to even investigate the claims could end up being just a big a story as the alleged assault itself.
I am seriously perplexed as to how you don't think an investigation shouldn't have been done, even before it was decided he should be traded, because obviously they decided to fine him first.

Channel 9 knew ,the afl bosses knew ,the herald sun knew..Yeah its a cover up by the CFC. Grow up and get real..and perhaps lose 2 picks for a pair of balls.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Just because they decided to trade him does not mean they have no further responsibility to the victim or to the reputation of the club.

Do you mean the victim who did not want anyone to know and refused to make a complaint? Did you want us to ignore her wishes and drag her through it anyway? And responsibility to the reputation of the club? Did we not make the biggest possible statement towards the reputation of the club? True or not, we have had enough of your shit and you are out of here. Didn't we just cut out the middle man and go straight to the punishment?

Simply saying "it's not our problem anymore" or words to that effect is if nothing else incorrect.

He actually said that other parties are investigating and he doesn't want to get involved in that. Sticks is not an investigator, he is merely letting trained people do their job.

Fevola was a registered Carlton player, representing the club at an official AFL function, whether you like it or not you ARE involved, there is no hiding from that.

Yes we are. He is no longer our employee ... end of involvement.

News stations are now leading with the story of Stick's press conference, so it's not just bigfooty people who are pretty outraged by this, the unwillingness to even investigate the claims could end up being just a big a story as the alleged assault itself.
I am seriously perplexed as to how you don't think an investigation shouldn't have been done, even before it was decided he should be traded, because obviously they decided to fine him first.

Bullshit. Look at it again, they twisted his words.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...nlow-medal-count/story-e6frf7jo-1225785069968

 

[mediumsizered]

Just because they decided to trade him does not mean they have no further responsibility to the victim or to the reputation of the club. Simply saying "it's not our problem anymore" or words to that effect is if nothing else incorrect. Fevola was a registered Carlton player, representing the club at an official AFL function, whether you like it or not you ARE involved, there is no hiding from that.
News stations are now leading with the story of Stick's press conference, so it's not just bigfooty people who are pretty outraged by this, the unwillingness to even investigate the claims could end up being just a big a story as the alleged assault itself.
I am seriously perplexed as to how you don't think an investigation shouldn't have been done, even before it was decided he should be traded, because obviously they decided to fine him first.

So we conduct an investigation to prove what has already been the subject of strong rumours, something that the Hun was already over the top of, but for some reason sat on until after trade week has finished (I'm very confused as to why they did this) & ultimately come to the conclusion that Fev has allegedly done what the Hun know he had allegedly done.

Of course with the club now knowing what the Hun (& others it would seem) already knew, what course of action would you have the club take? Sack Fev? We were already doing that because his behaviour, that which was common knowledge on the night (the stuff filmed by TFS), was the final straw in a long list of misdemeanours by Fev. We can't exactly go to the police, because any information unearthed by the investigation is hearsay, because realistically only Fev (who remembers nothing) & the journalist allegedly involved (who has not made a complaint) could possibly know what happened.

So we have conducted an investigation & found out only what is known from hearsay. What do we do now? We have already sacked Fev. The police won't get involved because no complaint has been made. The Hun have published as much as they are prepared to publish (they know more than our club knows). We have conducted an investigation but have not revealed anything not already known/rumoured. What have we achieved? We have wasted the time of those conducting the investigation, the time of those who were at Crown, but who didn't actually see what happened & ultimately uncovered nothing new.

What was it that you were hoping such an investigation would achieve?

 

[Blue Ratts]

Mate, im not saying my club is free from this sort of thing. However, in fairness I seriously doubt any board members knew about that infamous night with Hudson. Anyway my point is, sure Collingwood have also made mistakes, plenty, and when we do I'm the first one to admit we made a mistake.

All im saying is, I don't think Carlton handled this particularly well. You can call me a troll or tell me to piss off, but I think my arguments have been pretty civil and reasonable, if you don't agree with them that's fine, all im doing is giving some perspective.

Didn't they??? So why did he say he was asleep??
Didn't Didak offend again later? Is he still at your football club? Is Fev still at ours?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What was it that you were hoping such an investigation would achieve?

You notice that all roads all come back to this question?

It is paralleling Fev in some ways. I have visions of the media and BF posters chasing Sticks around Crown Casino, repeating over and over 'investigate investigate Stephen Kernahan Seagal'

It's a nice buzz word and it sounds ominous .... dum dum daaaaaaa, the didn't even bother to investigate.

'You didn't investigate, you have failed to take this matter seriously'

'We took it so seriously that we sack him on suspicion.'

'Oh ummm well, you didn't investigate and you should have tried to clear Fev's name.'

'We have been dragged through the mud by Fev for years, sacking was the only option, rumour or otherwise, he put us in this position again.'

'Yes bbbut you didn't investigate.'

'For what purpose, the action was taken'

'That's just what people do, they investigate, can't you just say you spoke to someone about this?'

'Well yes, we did speak to someone about this.'

'Like you would if you were investigating'

'Yeah sure, if that's what you want to call it.'

'So you investigated?'

'Okay then, yes we investigated.'

'Then why did you say you didn't?'

'Oh for ****'s sake.'

 

[Monkey King]

^^^ LMAO

Sticks said

"The club's looked into it... That's why we've made the call that we have."

"We were disgusted with what went on... and we've acted."

 

[BlueBelle]

Waited for a while, just got through and questioned them on blaming Carlton for not investigating the rumours. I said that it was an AFL function and that Carlton had no reason to know any more than anybody else and that these rumours were everywhere including the internet for the best part of two weeks. They said I might be right but then said waffle about being remiss not to look into things if you run a $10m business. I told them Carlton had meetings about it and they cut me off.

They don't want to discuss anything with anyone that goes against their viewpoint.

Reminds me of some of the posters around here

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Reminds me of some of the posters around here

What would you like to discuss BG? I'm all ears ... err .. eyes.

 

[mediumsizered]

What would you like to discuss BG? I'm all ears ... err .. eyes.

Be careful ODN, or else we might have to investigate what you have done.