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.

 

[SSSSSS]

Draft picks wont happen.

The AFL's MO has been to sweep and bury.

They don't want the rags talking about this any longer. Draft picks cause headlines for years and years to dig this back up.

The media don't really dig up fines.

 

[BobHawk]

There are two significant considerations if the AFL is to penalise Hawthorn.

1. Both the AFL and the club have stated that the biggest issue was the leak to the media. Did the club leak? Who? Why? Would be a problem if the club leaked.

2. if North and Brisbane reckon this has had an impact on their club's performance then one could point the blame at the AFL and its dilly dallying with a so called commission over a period of 8 months. Not sure they can blame the club for this. Also, would be interesting to hear what sort of case North would have given where they are. IMO, this point wouldn't stand a chance in court.

Would be interesting if the AFL penalised the club for its own failures but it would be no surprise. Its how it rolls.

 

[SJT76]

If North are complaining it affected their onfield performance, the AFL can take all out points this year and allocate them to North

 

[badgrill]

There are two significant considerations if the AFL is to penalise Hawthorn.

1. Both the AFL and the club have stated that the biggest issue was the leak to the media. Did the club leak? Who? Why? Would be a problem if the club leaked.

2. if North and Brisbane reckon this has had an impact on their club's performance then one could point the blame at the AFL and its dilly dallying with a so called commission over a period of 8 months. Not sure they can blame the club for this. Also, would be interesting to hear what sort of case North would have given where they are. IMO, this point wouldn't stand a chance in court.

Would be interesting if the AFL penalised the club for its own failures but it would be no surprise. Its how it rolls.

if not for all this, North would be easily TOP FOUR!

 

[birch]

And if it’s a financial sanction, which is again ludicrous, then this is the last year we don’t put our hand out for handouts like 12 other clubs. We no longer stay financially free from AFL, we take from their pockets from now on

This might be simplistic, but say for example the $800k fine is what it ends up being.
We’ve got 80,000 members - could we not just chip in 10 bucks each and be in the same spot financially?
This isn’t even considering non members.

 

[hardway]

This might be simplistic, but say for example the $800k fine is what it ends up being.
We’ve got 80,000 members - could we not just chip in 10 bucks each and be in the same spot financially?
This isn’t even considering non members.

It’s like giving drug dealers extra funds to bring in more supply. Accept zero sanctions .

Would rather chip in $100 each and make it go towards the Kennedy centre. AFL is not getting a dime from me.

 

[Gaborone]

Sorry to intrude but I've heard some whispers and I thought I'd share them.

Hearing it's first round pick this year and next year's second.

$1,000,000

Public apology to all involved including Fagan, Burt and Clarkson.

Hawthorn will accept because they don't want to be on the AFL'S s**t list.

Enjoy your afternoon's.

LOL!

 

[HeHateMe]

Yes l know how that feels

Imagine being Karl Amon, just signed on to a long term deal with a club that's developing and the AFL decides to hamstring the process because of historical allegations and non football related board level decisions. Or Sam Mitchell who has nothing to do with any of it but his coaching career will be altered by it.

Clarko had allegations leveled at him, it's unfortunate timing for North but the AFL haven't punished him he has been allowed to coach, currently step aside was his own decision.

You would not know how Amon or Sam would feel, you're just some supporter who is the piggy in the middle like the rest of us, get off you high horse muppet.

 

[Gaborone]

Don't know why every one is getting worked up here. Trolls have lots of Hawthorn supporters taking the bait. Let's resume when something factual is reported.

 

[Brishawk]

Draft picks wont happen.

The AFL's MO has been to sweep and bury.

They don't want the rags talking about this any longer. Draft picks cause headlines for years and years to dig this back up.

The media don't really dig up fines.

They literally fuelled speculation about penalties. No doubt deliberately. They want this in the news so that they have public support for penalties.

 

[Brishawk]

Yes l know how that feels

Should have stood Clarkson down from day one this launched. Failing to do so was an error on your club’s part. Granted they did so on the basis of the afl announcing this would all be done by Christmas but that is on the afl. Your club isn’t responsible for everything but it could have made better moves to lessen the impact on the football team.

 

[Brishawk]

There are two significant considerations if the AFL is to penalise Hawthorn.

1. Both the AFL and the club have stated that the biggest issue was the leak to the media. Did the club leak? Who? Why? Would be a problem if the club leaked.

2. if North and Brisbane reckon this has had an impact on their club's performance then one could point the blame at the AFL and its dilly dallying with a so called commission over a period of 8 months. Not sure they can blame the club for this. Also, would be interesting to hear what sort of case North would have given where they are. IMO, this point wouldn't stand a chance in court.

Would be interesting if the AFL penalised the club for its own failures but it would be no surprise. Its how it rolls.

At least some of the participants of the story were not even interviewed by Egan for the cultural safety review. So that isn’t a leak. The report was leaked to the media after the Jackson review and that is terrible by whoever did it but let’s not forget that the scope of the original article and the report aren’t the same.

 

[kirbatron]

take our points not our picks!

 

[The hands of stone]

Highly doubt we see draft sanctions .

One club is at the AFL nipping away like an annoying pet pushing for it .
The rest are smart enough to be happy with a financial sanction.
They know they might be next.

 

[BobHawk]

At least some of the participants of the story were not even interviewed by Egan for the cultural safety review. So that isn’t a leak. The report was leaked to the media after the Jackson review and that is terrible by whoever did it but let’s not forget that the scope of the original article and the report aren’t the same.

I am aware that the leak was after the Jackson piece and, as far as I am aware, it was not the complete report. However, if it came from the club and regardless of the circumstances then I think it will weigh heavily on any penalty. For instance, if the circulation and availability of the report was not tightly held and restricted and came into the hands of a person or people that it should not have. Or if, for example, it was leaked by someone at the club or a participant of the review because there was no confidentiality attached to it. So, if we say that the club did not have stringent enough procedures for the review and it resulted in the leak then that is a problem.

 

[Boot Studder]

I am aware that the leak was after the Jackson piece and, as far as I am aware, it was not the complete report. However, if it came from the club and regardless of the circumstances then I think it will weigh heavily on any penalty. For instance, if the circulation and availability of the report was not tightly held and restricted and came into the hands of a person or people that it should not have. Or if, for example, it was leaked by someone at the club or a participant of the review because there was no confidentiality attached to it. So, if we say that the club did not have stringent enough procedures for the review and it resulted in the leak then that is a problem.

That assumes the report was only held by the Club when the leak occurred. I believe the AFL was in possession of the report at that stage. Egan and his group, most certainly. If that is the case, Hawthorn should not bear the brunt as there are other possible avenues for the unfortunate release of information.

 

[Rob R]

Can confirm 1st round pick is definitely on the table

An extra one given the AFLs failure sounds about right - need to give North and Brisbane one too as they suffered from the AFLs mismanagement

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Brishawk]

I am aware that the leak was after the Jackson piece and, as far as I am aware, it was not the complete report. However, if it came from the club and regardless of the circumstances then I think it will weigh heavily on any penalty. For instance, if the circulation and availability of the report was not tightly held and restricted and came into the hands of a person or people that it should not have. Or if, for example, it was leaked by someone at the club or a participant of the review because there was no confidentiality attached to it. So, if we say that the club did not have stringent enough procedures for the review and it resulted in the leak then that is a problem.

Yes it’s a problem for the governance but the accusations that were made in the media which took the narrative right out of the afls control was only partly overlapping with the review. I think the afl want to punish us for this going public more than anything else.

 

[Bugs1977]

That assumes the report was only held by the Club when the leak occurred. I believe the AFL was in possession of the report at that stage. Egan and his group, most certainly. If that is the case, Hawthorn should not bear the brunt as there are other possible avenues for the unfortunate release of information.

I cannot agree with this post more. I think part of the reason why the players / Egan went public is because it was handed to the AFL because they likely thought it would either be buried or watered down. If the report was in the possession of the AFL at that point then that is surely out of our control.

 

[TylerDurden]

So there's strong rumours from a number of sources that the first pick is gone.

Is it fair to assume then, that we were the leak?

And if we were the leak, is it fair to assume that it was Reeves, given he resigned out of nowhere.

Anxious wait for us Hawks supporters over the coming days.

 

[almuz]

How’d the Crows not lose their first round pick for hiring someone to tie their players to trees and abuse them on a training camp?

 

[Baz_hawk]

AFL took 8 months to achieve nothing but seemingly can take our picks within a week. Yeah nah, sounds like a load of rubbish.

 

[seysearles]

So funny and so sad. Everyone hates Kennett and Reeves by association, particularly online where the AFL watches sentiment closely (almost exclusively it seems at times). So they see if they can pin this on them in order to get Hawthorn to roll over. It's not a good-faith exercise in justice, it's yet another attempt to find an acceptable bad guy. The attempt on the coaches failed when the coaches loaded up for court action. The attempt at Hawthorn's current board failed when they showed spine over the last few days. So now they turn to their last option.

If the AFL had good faith in this regard, they wouldn't have turned the original investigation into such a predictable circus with one leak after another. Now they try again, picking the weakest target but one that everyone can rally around hating. (If Kennett could have in any way been left holding the bag on this then he would have been targeted immediately out of the gates)

Meanwhile, the AFL will have accomplished its primary mission: attention focused anywhere but on it. I've got my fingers crossed for you AFL! Do your best to save Gil's reputation and not leave him holding a turd sandwich like Demitrio on his exit! We love you Gil!

The problem is that no one can say that the claims are baseless and have to be dismissed without any further action. They’ve conflated that conclusion with denying racism.

 

[smish]

So there's strong rumours from a number of sources that the first pick is gone.

Is it fair to assume then, that we were the leak?

And if we were the leak, is it fair to assume that it was Reeves, given he resigned out of nowhere.

Anxious wait for us Hawks supporters over the coming days.

What are these rumours you’re hearing TD?

 

[HedgeFund]

So there's strong rumours from a number of sources that the first pick is gone.

Is it fair to assume then, that we were the leak?

And if we were the leak, is it fair to assume that it was Reeves, given he resigned out of nowhere.

Anxious wait for us Hawks supporters over the coming days.

That makes absolutely no sense.

A fine for misconduct in leaking a report? Yep - if proven fair enough. That’s how it should be penalised.

Draft picks are about bringing talent / players into the club. Absolutely unrelated to the misconduct alleged.