News Hawthorn Racism Review - No player name speculation - opposition posters tread very carefully

[Strapping Young Lad]

Wrong. Hawks did what they had to do by the rules of the AFL.

Correct. For reference below, once the HFC had the report outlining serious allegations they were duty bound by the AFL’s protocol to hand over the report to the AFL integrity unit.

I will pin this post, as it seems to be a constant query.

 

[HedgeFund]

Now there naming newbold, come off it.

The claimants haven’t added Newbold, the Herald Sun have chosen to published that information which was provided a lot earlier than yesterday.

 

[HedgeFund]

yep

Geoffrey Rush great actor that will never work again despite winning his defamation case and never been found guilty of anything

He did Storm Boy in 2019 after the defamation trial had concluded and he was awarded the $850k in damages.

Also playing Groucho Marx in a film entitled Raised Eyebrows about to start filming in LA and due to be released early next year.

So he will be devastated to hear he will never work again.

 

[Stratton24]

Well - I know people in the industry who shared stories about particular antics long before any of that trial became a thing - but if you want to idolise the guy then have at it I guess.

Was a joke mate
Stories are exactly the point, once out there they are hard to stop true or not

 

[Gralin]

Was a joke mate
Stories are exactly the point, once out there they are hard to stop true or not

yeah just joking about guys careers being ruined, no reason, just a laugh, doesn't matter if its true or not, just a joke.....

haha yeah

 

[Simon Crawshay]

The more I think about this the more certain I am that Clarko and Fagan are going to take this to the courts.

As soon as their names were dropped it was a certainty this was the outcome.

Id say they are in with an excellent chance of getting a huge (and I mean huge) payout considering;

1. Players don't want to go to court
2. Lack of any hard evidence against them (that's an assumption on my part but probably true)

You could say that they might not win a case without one of the above but to have both means they are basically 100% certainties to win substantial damages.

None of the above goes to the validity of the claims but from a legal sense I can't see how they could lose in this scenario.

 

[badgrill]

Was a joke mate
Stories are exactly the point, once out there they are hard to stop true or not

You mean you were making a joke? Or that the stories out there were a joke?

 

[StillAtLarge]

yep

Geoffrey Rush great actor that will never work again despite winning his defamation case and never been found guilty of anything

I hate newscorp as much as the next guy but that was one of the all time great headlines

 

[Mitchell Madness]

One interesting angle out of this sorry saga is a discussion on how much of an involvement clubs should have in players life’s.

I mean what other workplace offers to board young workers in the houses of their bosses (coaches)? Or why do clubs care what activities players get up to on the off season (why should my employee care what I do in my holidays)?

And of course no other workplace would ever tell an employee who they should date (if that’s proven).

Could a possible outcome of all this be that AFL clubs become more of a traditional workplace? In that you turn up to work (training/game day) do your thing then clock off.

No involvement of the clubs at all in the players life’s aside from making sure they play well and turn up to training / meet their ski folds / etc. In essence meet their KPIs?

In essence a purely employer/employee relationship with no “father figure” overtones?

Clubs may decide this is the safest course of action after this all played out.

And then players run rampant, and the media and fans cry about how the poor players were never given support.

More understanding of each player is needed, but butting out completely is going to be just as negative for PR

 

[tommyk72]

The more I think about this the more certain I am that Clarko and Fagan are going to take this to the courts.

As soon as their names were dropped it was a certainty this was the outcome.

Id say they are in with an excellent chance of getting a huge (and I mean huge) payout considering;

1. Players don't want to go to court
2. Lack of any hard evidence against them (that's an assumption on my part but probably true)

You could say that they might not win a case without one of the above but to have both means they are basically 100% certainties to win substantial damages.

None of the above goes to the validity of the claims but from a legal sense I can't see how they could lose in this scenario.

Who will they take to court? I presume the papers, rights?

 

[Messenger]

I think Clarko, etc. should put his lawyers away until the AFL investigation is complete.

 

[Wingnut19]

Into em Clarko. Bloke hasn't done a wrong thing for 45 years, every player under him (especially the first nations) absolutely idolise him. Hope he sues the lot of them. Disgraceful how many on here were willing to stick the boot into him from the start. Get in the bin.

 

[Hawkforce]

I think Clarko, etc. should put his lawyers away until the AFL investigation is complete.

Why on earth would he, or anyone, do that in this situation?

 

[HedgeFund]

The more I think about this the more certain I am that Clarko and Fagan are going to take this to the courts.

As soon as their names were dropped it was a certainty this was the outcome.

Id say they are in with an excellent chance of getting a huge (and I mean huge) payout considering;

1. Players don't want to go to court
2. Lack of any hard evidence against them (that's an assumption on my part but probably true)

You could say that they might not win a case without one of the above but to have both means they are basically 100% certainties to win substantial damages.

None of the above goes to the validity of the claims but from a legal sense I can't see how they could lose in this scenario.

Well if the complainants (including the partners) proceed to firm up those statements into sworn evidence which is accepted as being sufficiently believable to meet the evidentiary threshold, that’s how the named coaches could lose.

It’s not just one isolated claim. It’s several with a level of corroboration. In criminal law we are allowed to argue tendency reasoning when there’s a pattern of behaviour.

It means if they accept one complainant to be truthful and that evidence supports a charge, then they can use that accepted evidence in determining the likelihood of another seperate, but similar incident to have occurred.

A bit like the strength of the collective evidence is greater than the sum of each individual claim.

 

[Stratton24]

You mean you were making a joke? Or that the stories out there were a joke?

Saying justice for Rush was a joke. My apologies.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

View attachment 1520627

I hate newscorp as much as the next guy but that was one of the all time great headlines

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Into em Clarko. Bloke hasn't done a wrong thing for 45 years, every player under him (especially the first nations) absolutely idolise him. Hope he sues the lot of them. Disgraceful how many on here were willing to stick the boot into him from the start. Get in the bin.

He king hit a bloke on the footy field and broke his jaw. Let's not get hysterical shall we.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Who will they take to court? I presume the papers, rights?

That to me is the real question.

Could be a combination of the papers, AFL, Hawthorn Football Club and even potentially the author of the report (especially if they got Fagans involvement wrong).

Gonna be an absolute s..t fight!

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Into em Clarko. Bloke hasn't done a wrong thing for 45 years, every player under him (especially the first nations) absolutely idolise him. Hope he sues the lot of them. Disgraceful how many on here were willing to stick the boot into him from the start. Get in the bin.

Except if you actually listen to them, they don't.

 

[Kuuz]

That to me is the real question.

Could be a combination of the papers, AFL, Hawthorn Football Club and even potentially the author of the report (especially if they got Fagans involvement wrong).

Gonna be an absolute s..t fight!

I imagine for a defamation suit, it would just be the papers, particularly ABC. It targets who published the article, and Hawthorn/AFL always intended the report to be confidential.

Hard to still say as so many facts are still fragmented and lost in the wider discussion. There have been people on this board who are resolute on one set of facts, whilst the complete opposite has been put forward by other parts of the media, so its a bit muddy still.

 

[HedgeFund]

Into em Clarko. Bloke hasn't done a wrong thing for 45 years, every player under him (especially the first nations) absolutely idolise him. Hope he sues the lot of them. Disgraceful how many on here were willing to stick the boot into him from the start. Get in the bin.

You may have overlooked a former #37 who played in that jumper from 2013 to 2015. Pretty sure he didn’t idolise the gaffer.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Well if the complainants (including the partners) proceed to firm up those statements into sworn evidence which is accepted as being sufficiently believable to meet the evidentiary threshold, that’s how the named coaches could lose.

It’s not just one isolated claim. It’s several with a level of corroboration. In criminal law we are allowed to argue tendency reasoning when there’s a pattern of behaviour.

It means if they accept one complainant to be truthful and that evidence supports a charge, then they can use that accepted evidence in determining the likelihood of another seperate, but similar incident to have occurred.

A bit like the strength of the collective evidence is greater than the sum of each individual claim.

From what I am reading though the families involved have zero interest in making sworn evidence / being named.

I agree the multiple charges of the same nature supports a claim but if no one involved is prepared to make a sworn statement / be cross examined / even be named how can this work?

Surely that would go against the principles of natural justice?

Like I said I reckon any Lawyer would knock this one out of the park for Clarko and Fages as it stands right now.

If hard evidence comes to light and/or the families involved decide to make sworn statements/be cross examined in court that's a whole different ball game.

 

[Gralin]

Into em Clarko. Bloke hasn't done a wrong thing for 45 years,

I thought this was bad

every player under him (especially the first nations) absolutely idolise him.

But then you wrote this

 

[Phil McCreviss]

This whole situation reminds me of researching prospective employers and finding the last 5 Glassdoor reviews are 1 star and do not approve of CEO

 

[deanc]

You may have overlooked a former #37 who played in that jumper from 2013 to 2015. Pretty sure he didn’t idolise the gaffer.

You mean this bloke..?

Anderson thanked the Hawks for his introduction to AFL football, but says he is is excited to be relaunching his career with the Kangaroos.

"North Melbourne have shown over the past couple of years that they are building towards something really exciting and I'm looking forward to being part of that," Anderson said.
"Everyone at the club has been really professional and I can't wait to get my first pre-season underway with my new teammates.

"A big thank you also to the Hawthorn footy club for their support over the past few years, it's been a great club to be involved with."

 

[Messenger]

Why on earth would he, or anyone, do that in this situation?

There’s a former assistant coach who was interviewed for the Egan report.

Wouldn’t want to go all Ben Roberts-Smith right now.