SEN - Soft

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

I've done it all .... twice!

 

[thylacine60]

Reminds me of some of the posters around here

That might be your view but it's clearly wrong!

 

[Salaryman]

Reminds me of some of the posters around here

Yeah, but in the end we were right........and Swann and co. have pulled off a minor miracle

 

[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?

Sorry ODN - I do not agree. Nor do I subscribe to the Jellyfish Principle: if I am told something, whether it is logical or not, I seek out empirical evidence - and in a controlled fashion; this does not mean running a random poll of guests who were there on the night; it means making discreet enquiries.

Moreover, does not the eyeball-to-eyeball chat with Fev constitute the onset of an enquiry? MK quotes Sticks above and that seals the matter.

You are also pumping up the tyres of 'trained journalists' as if they are demi-gods and not fallible human beings.

Again, the Jellyfish Principle is to the fore when you use the word 'hear'. I am sure that Greg Swann in particular, being the formidible figure that he is, did a lot of 'asking' in the active sense.

Whatever their predisposition might have been in the lead up to Brownlow Night, Carlton were never going to undergo the trauma of the past week without being sure enough in their own minds that all the alleged events did in fact occur.

Biffinator

 

[SMOO]

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.

Big league is having a fair and rational discussion, one which we should probably promote on this page. No need to tell him to piss off

 

[ESKIE]

So what was it you wanted Carlton to investigate?

This is right, the female journalist doesn;t want to formalise a complaint so until she does, there;s nothing anyone can do, which is the stance the AFL are taking...they only thing to do is trade him which they have done...

 

[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.

You are saying what I have said elsewhere then Biff. I am sure the club have talked to players, I am sure they responded to the HUN allegations and satisfied themselves in some way that this was more likely than not. I am sure they spoke to the AFL who were also told about this.

When I talk about Carlton needing to investigate, it is in the context of the ABC, Tony Jones and SEN suggesting they did not investigate. I assume the mean a properly organised formal investigation were all parties are called in one by one and someone is sent out to talk to the journalist who does not wish to talk, and people are canvassed for their observations of the night.

Sticks never said he didn't investigate, he said that he looked into it in fact and he said that others are investigating. The AFL investigation is a formal one, the police investigation is a formal one, Carlton's was a quick Q & A in response to things they were being told. They did enough to satisfy themselves in the absence of a formal complaint.

Is that what you are looking for?

Is it just a matter of what Sticks thinks is an investigation and what the media thinks is an investigation? A journalistic investigation would go further than this particular club investigation. Maybe Sticks should have said 'not formally no but we we made enquiries.' Would that have sated their appetite? Somehow I doubt it.

Check the wording again, nowhere did he say they asked no questions, talked to nobody, didn't even look at it and nor did he say 'we did not investigate.' I just figured if they were hounding him over not investigating, then they were looking for Carlton to be leading the way with a formal investigation. Even on BF I have read expectations that it was up to Carlton to investigate to find out what the truth was. Was that ever a possibility with an uncooperative victim? Seems everybody has a different view on what an investigation is.

By the way, I do investigations for a living. They are thorough and they lend themselves to conclusions. A discreet inquiry or a two way conversation is never an investigation in my line of work, so you can understand how open to interpretation this word can be.

 

[JuddFevGoal]

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.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but despite your colours, your argument makes perfect sense to me.

The answer though is pretty simple.

Carlton would've found out all they could've about the incident.

Their lawyers would've told them with the slightest hint that as Fev's employer, they may be responsible the safest thing would be to play dumb at the press conference.

After all, if they say, yes we investigated it, then the obvious question is 'Why didn't you make it public?', 'Where was your duty of care to the victim on the night?' and so on.

Hence, Stick's non-committal statement.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The answer though is pretty simple.

Carlton would've found out all they could've about the incident.

Their lawyers would've told them with the slightest hint that as Fev's employer, they may be responsible the safest thing would be to play dumb at the press conference.

After all, if they say, yes we investigated it, then the obvious question is 'Why didn't you make it public?', 'Where was your duty of care to the victim on the night?' and so on.

Hence, Stick's non-committal statement.

Not sure about lawyers although we have one on the board, but he was obviously trying to dissuade certain lines of questioning.

Two issues here.

* Did Carlton find out for sure that this happened before making the decision to get rid of Fevola. This has implications for the club and answering to the currently upset members who are unwilling to believe Fev deserved to be moved on.

* If they did know for sure, why didn't they go public with it. Did they tell the teams they were negotiating with? This makes it look like they withheld vital information to land their problem in another team's lap.

The club wanted to appear like they couldn't do too much because it was an allegation only and an allegation that everyone else had heard at that, but also that they had taken a lot of things into account in order to put Fev up for trade.

Do they look bad to their members or to the general AFL community?

The truth is they were right on both counts. They knew enough to know to get rid of Fev, but they did not know enough to repeat allegations that someone else may or may not have known.

 

[ESKIE]

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.

Back to the subject, yes Francis Leach does like to push his opinion and cuts the conversation off or starts wetting his pants if it;s not going his way..has a hissy fit. So Francis, if you;re reading this, and from listening to you I know you read internet forums...Stop bagging Carlton you little wimp and get some balance in your reporting. sook

 

[Biffinator]

You are saying what I have said elsewhere then Biff. I am sure the club have talked to players, I am sure they responded to the HUN allegations and satisfied themselves in some way that this was more likely than not. I am sure they spoke to the AFL who were also told about this.

When I talk about Carlton needing to investigate, it is in the context of the ABC, Tony Jones and SEN suggesting they did not investigate. I assume the mean a properly organised formal investigation were all parties are called in one by one and someone is sent out to talk to the journalist who does not wish to talk, and people are canvassed for their observations of the night.

Sticks never said he didn't investigate, he said that he looked into it in fact and he said that others are investigating. The AFL investigation is a formal one, the police investigation is a formal one, Carlton's was a quick Q & A in response to things they were being told. They did enough to satisfy themselves in the absence of a formal complaint.

Is that what you are looking for?

Is it just a matter of what Sticks thinks is an investigation and what the media thinks is an investigation? A journalistic investigation would go further than this particular club investigation. Maybe Sticks should have said 'not formally no but we we made enquiries.' Would that have sated their appetite? Somehow I doubt it.

Check the wording again, nowhere did he say they asked no questions, talked to nobody, didn't even look at it and nor did he say 'we did not investigate.' I just figured if they were hounding him over not investigating, then they were looking for Carlton to be leading the way with a formal investigation. Even on BF I have read expectations that it was up to Carlton to investigate to find out what the truth was. Was that ever a possibility with an uncooperative victim? Seems everybody has a different view on what an investigation is.

By the way, I do investigations for a living. They are thorough and they lend themselves to conclusions. A discreet inquiry or a two way conversation is never an investigation in my line of work, so you can understand how open to interpretation this word can be.

ODN, we are close enough to agree. I was uncomfortable with how you phrased point 2, that's all.

BTW, I think the deal that finally come your way was much better than the first offering from Brisbane.

Biffinator