Steven Hocking Conflict of Interest

[kickazz]

Hopefully its just a role swap and Brian Cook replaces King Steve at the AFL

Has applied for the role and got close before.

Has a good track record of sorting out finances (assume AFL still a bit shaky due to COVID)

Great operator, would be a good choice. I'd rather he stay at Geelong in some capacity though.

 

[HairyO]

So the campaigner spent a couple of years ruining the AFL and protecting Geelong and is now ******* off back there.
Good riddance.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

This is deceptively put by another Hocklodyte Geelong supporting poster.

The Tribunal is effectively limited to a maximum penalty by what the AFL Prosecutor argues for. Who decides what the AFL argues for?

You guessed it, Steven Hocking.

So we know the Tirbunal landed on 3 weeks when Hocking argued for 3 weeks. What we don’t know is what the Tribunal would land on if the Hocking had argued for say 4, 5 or 6 weeks.

This is complete hogwash. You understand the prosecutor follows a grading chart not Steve Hocking, you are intentionally misrepresenting the process. It's been explained to you often enough that you've gone from being ignorant to outright lying.

The prosecutor elected to follow either severe or high in the gradings and chose high because that's exactly what it was. If you're arguing that a bump where the player got a concussion was "severe" and therefore in the same grading as Gaff breaking Bradshaw's jaw then I don't know what to tell you because you'd be literally fabricating a talking point.

 

[Swanny69]

I wouldn’t expect Gale to be sitting at the Richmond interchange in a big game if he’s appointed AFL CEO.

Yep .. alas he’d more likely suffer from a Richo like excess of self awareness and dignity..

 

[CatToTheFuture]

For clarity here, would you be arguing the penalty the AFL argues for in Tribunal cases has no influence on the sentences the Tribunal hands down? Because that is what the first post in this exchange seems to be suggesting:

The prosecutor has a clear gradings chart, clear terms of reference and is provided video examples of what fits in what category before the season starts. If you're claiming that the prosecution is then ignoring said guidance and then just acting under direct instruction from Hocking to ignore the gradings chart and terms of reference that Hocking himself gave them then please provide any credible example of this having happened.

The MRO/Tribunal makes some pretty poor decisions but they are always transparent and systematic. Claiming that some manager has captured the process for his own ends is just pleading for an excuse for your own clubs poor performance.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I wouldn’t expect Gale to be sitting at the Richmond interchange in a big game if he’s appointed AFL CEO.

I wouldn't expected Hocking to either. Go back and look at the photo, he was on the umpires bench not the cats bech

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It seems the scrupulously fair and notoriously unselfish 199 game former Geelong player Hocking has outlined one of the changes he will be introducing when he commences as new Geelong FC…

“The first thing I will do, just to be fair to everybody concerned is to correct what I see as one of the great wrongs of the Geelong FC. I will change qualification for automatic Life Membership of the club from 200 games to the nice round number of 199 games. The one exception I will implement is nobody with the surname of Sanderson will qualify, I f*cking hate that name, but I don’t expect there to be any 199 gamers named Sanderson in any event. This will recognise all the 199 game greats of the club, whoever they may be, without opening the floodgates in such a way as to allow 198 game and below vermin such as Billy Brownless, Ken Newlands, Josh Hunt and Tom Harley to become life members.”

 

[Sttew]

Not content with Steve Hocking accepting the CEO role at Geelong, Meteoric “I am perfectly happy to declare my hatred of Geelong openly" Rise is now inventing reasons why Hocking should not be allowed to be CEO of Geelong, e.g., "he has intricate details of salary caps". I bet his photocopier is in overdrive as I post!

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I wouldn’t expect Gale to be sitting at the Richmond interchange in a big game if he’s appointed AFL CEO.

I've heard this mentioned a few times, but haven't seen an actual story/article about it. Got a link?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is complete hogwash. You understand the prosecutor follows a grading chart not Steve Hocking, you are intentionally misrepresenting the process. It's been explained to you often enough that you've gone from being ignorant to outright lying.

The prosecutor elected to follow either severe or high in the gradings and chose high because that's exactly what it was. If you're arguing that a bump where the player got a concussion was "severe" and therefore in the same grading as Gaff breaking Bradshaw's jaw then I don't know what to tell you because you'd be literally fabricating a talking point.

You are wrong here. The person who presents the AFL case in Tribunal matters is instructed what to argue for by Hocking.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The prosecutor has a clear gradings chart, clear terms of reference and is provided video examples of what fits in what category before the season starts. If you're claiming that the prosecution is then ignoring said guidance and then just acting under direct instruction from Hocking to ignore the gradings chart and terms of reference that Hocking himself gave them then please provide any credible example of this having happened.

The MRO/Tribunal makes some pretty poor decisions but they are always transparent and systematic. Claiming that some manager has captured the process for his own ends is just pleading for an excuse for your own clubs poor performance.

Sounds very impressive but has nothing to do with anything I have posted. Hocking instructs the prosecutor as to the AFL’s position.

 

[tigs2010]

Bad luck Geelong.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

You are wrong here. The person who presents the AFL case in Tribunal matters is instructed what to argue for by Hocking.

Hocking is accountable for the gradings chart and terms of reference. Prosecutors or the MRO might ask clarification but anything outside that is not how the started system is set up. They're quite transparent about roles and responsibilities. If you're claiming that they're acting outside that please provide evidence

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Sounds very impressive but has nothing to do with anything I have posted. Hocking instructs the prosecutor as to the AFL’s position.

That's not how that works and you know it

 

[Sttew]

You are wrong here. The person who presents the AFL case in Tribunal matters is instructed what to argue for by Hocking.

But the Tribunal does not report to the COO. It is answerable to Legal and Legal reports directly to the CEO. The Tribunal has absolute discretion to make its own decisions on penalties. The COO can have arguments put forward to the Tribunal just like a prosecutor does in a criminal case, but the Tribunal does NOT have to follow what is argued, as we saw with the Holman case.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That's not how that works and you know it

So you have the AFL prosecutor acting autonomously, accepting no brief or instructions, he just decides what penalty to ask for all by himself?

I refer you to the David McKay case. The reporting around that made it clear that:

- Christian thought there was no case to answer,
- Hocking disagreed and so sent it to the Tribunal, instructing the prosecutor to argue for 3 weeks.

So your posts as usual are nonsense dressed up as authority.

To have the unmitigated gall to be still posting your rubbish on this thread after today’s news is really something, I will give you that.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

But the Tribunal does not report to the COO. It is answerable to Legal and Legal reports directly to the CEO. The Tribunal has absolute discretion to make its own decisions on penalties. The COO can have arguments put forward to the Tribunal just like a prosecutor does in a criminal case, but the Tribunal does NOT have to follow what is argued, as we saw with the Holman case.

What the absolute phuk. Christ.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

So you have the AFL prosecutor acting autonomously, accepting no brief or instructions, he just decides what penalty to ask for all by himself?

I refer you to the David McKay case. The reporting aorund that made it clear that:

- Christian thought there was no case to answer,
- Hocking disagreed and so sent it to the Tribunal, instructing the prosecutor to argue for 3 weeks.

So your posts as usual are nonsense dressed up as authority.

To have the unmitigated gall to be still posting you rubbish on this thread after today’s news is really something, I will give you that.

Hocking sets the trend of reference and gradings. Hocking clarifies that this is within the terms of reference as specified and Christensen sends it to tribunal accordingly.

Tribunal over rules this, because shock horror, HOCKING DOESN'T CONTROL THE TRIBUNAL

You are fake news

 

[CatToTheFuture]

So you have the AFL prosecutor acting autonomously, accepting no brief or instructions, he just decides what penalty to ask for all by himself?

I refer you to the David McKay case. The reporting around that made it clear that:

- Christian thought there was no case to answer,
- Hocking disagreed and so sent it to the Tribunal, instructing the prosecutor to argue for 3 weeks.

So your posts as usual are nonsense dressed up as authority.

To have the unmitigated gall to be still posting you rubbish on this thread after today’s news is really something, I will give you that.

In any case, let's ask sit back and watch as there is zero change to the system with Hocking out

 

[Back One Out]

This pretty much confirms that he was a Geelong plant all along

What a disgrace

 

[CatToTheFuture]

This pretty much confirms that he was a Geelong plant all along

What a disgrace

Are you high?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Hocking sets the trend of reference and gradings. Hocking clarifies that this is within the terms of reference as specified and Christensen sends it to tribunal accordingly.

Tribunal over rules this, because shock horror, HOCKING DOESN'T CONTROL THE TRIBUNAL

You are fake news

OK, so now you have Christian sending the McKay case to the Tribunal. This gets funnier and funnier.

Gotta love these Hocklodytes. Hocking is their pinup footy administrator.

 

[Romeoh1]

This thread still going. Lol.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

OK, so now you have Christian sending the McKay case to the Tribunal. This gets funnier and funnier.

Gotta love these Hocklodytes. Hocking is their pinup footy administrator.

This is ridiculous. When asked for evidence of Hocking using any perceived power to affect an outcome you gave an example that proved he doesn't. You need to sit down for a while.

 

[BarryMorgan]

Read the article on the Hun website and then came straight here. Wasn’t disappointed.