Discussion 2023 General AFL Discussion - Part II

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

You heard of the stones and glass houses thing ?

I didn't know Kernahan moved onto property damage...

Every club has skeletons, such is the age and white Australia being only 70 years ago, issue in this case is, most have rapport and dialogues for such things, Doggies have litigation. Kinda telling, and from experience, Doggies really great locally with running clinics for kids in the 90's.
 
Of course , probably not even their decision to make.
Also, they (and we) might not have had insurance coverage for this type of thing for the period when the pedophilia happened.
In which case, it will only take one or two of these cases before a club becomes insolvent.
I see the Bulldogs are having to borrow to cover their damages bill from this case.
The AFL will need to step in otherwise their 19 team competition will shortly become 17.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Also, they (and we) might not have had insurance coverage for this type of thing for the period when the pedophilia happened.
In which case, it will only take one or two of these cases before a club becomes insolvent.
I see the Bulldogs are having to borrow to cover their damages bill from this case.
The AFL will need to step in otherwise their 19 team competition will shortly become 17.

The criminal was NOT the western bulldogs.
 
The criminal was NOT the western bulldogs.


I'd say to be sued for that kind of figure, that they have been found to have breached a duty of care. You imagine that it was reported and ignored or something, so they very much may have been criminal too, just not the perpetrator.
 
I'd say to be sued for that kind of figure, that they have been found to have breached a duty of care. You imagine that it was reported and ignored or something, so they very much may have been criminal too, just not the perpetrator.
You may recall that when the issues with our Little League team first surfaced, Finnis jumped right onto it, in a compassionate, respectful and supportive manner.
Apart from the human and moral nature of the response, I remember questioning how deep in the mire he thought us. A more cynical view of his response could hold it as simply damage limitation.
Over on the Bulldog’s board, they have a thread where this is being discussed.
It’s not just them with exposure.
It’s anyone who had a care of duty.
Richmond is another club cited in that thread.
And if that’s not enough, I recently inadvertently stumbled into a conversation with a stranger who was a victim at Beaumaris Primary and attended in the same class as Eloise Worledge’s brother. Sometimes you wish you could suck those words right back into your brain because I had no idea where they would lead and what hurt I might have inadvertently inflicted.
 
I'd say to be sued for that kind of figure, that they have been found to have breached a duty of care. You imagine that it was reported and ignored or something, so they very much may have been criminal too, just not the perpetrator.

OK but look at the sum.
If they were actually liable for that much, how much would the guy who did it be liable for?

Maybe a bank has a duty of care to protect tellers from bullets, but they still aren't the one shooting.
 
OK but look at the sum.
If they were actually liable for that much, how much would the guy who did it be liable for?

Maybe a bank has a duty of care to protect tellers from bullets, but they still aren't the one shooting.


That's what I mean, if the club knew that they had a predator that they didn't remove it would make them liable to prosecution. If not there is a good chance that they could argue their way out of it.
 
You may recall that when the issues with our Little League team first surfaced, Finnis jumped right onto it, in a compassionate, respectful and supportive manner.
Apart from the human and moral nature of the response, I remember questioning how deep in the mire he thought us. A more cynical view of his response could hold it as simply damage limitation.
Over on the Bulldog’s board, they have a thread where this is being discussed.
It’s not just them with exposure.
It’s anyone who had a care of duty.
Richmond is another club cited in that thread.
And if that’s not enough, I recently inadvertently stumbled into a conversation with a stranger who was a victim at Beaumaris Primary and attended in the same class as Eloise Worledge’s brother. Sometimes you wish you could suck those words right back into your brain because I had no idea where they would lead and what hurt I might have inadvertently inflicted.
Geelong is another. Relocated a young player at their property which also housed other Geelong players. He was then pack r*ped.
 
Geelong is another. Relocated a young player at their property which also housed other Geelong players. He was then pack r*ped.

See they owned the house.
That means they probably offered a good deal , compared to a mainstream rental, but surely, unless they had some clue as to what kind of messed up morons their under 19 players were , its not their duty of care above and beyond being a landlord.

If you moved into a share house and that happened with the other tenants, could you blame the landlord?
 
See they owned the house.
That means they probably offered a good deal , compared to a mainstream rental, but surely, unless they had some clue as to what kind of messed up morons their under 19 players were , its not their duty of care above and beyond being a landlord.

If you moved into a share house and that happened with the other tenants, could you blame the landlord?

he's been relocated for work though in temporary housing

did you read about the case of the couple who were staying in a hotel on a work trip, ended up banging, got injured doing it. they were able to claim workers comp and the employer was found responsible.
 
he's been relocated for work though in temporary housing

did you read about the case of the couple who were staying in a hotel on a work trip, ended up banging, got injured doing it. they were able to claim workers comp and the employer was found responsible.

No i didn't lol.
Shouldn't be funny though. Precedent. No more work trips.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top