Coach Alastair Clarkson III - new NMFC senior coach until at least end 2027 - NMFC board approved AC to start 1/11 amid ongoing HFC racism investigation

[Tas]

Sorry mate, but this has got big #standbyhird vibes.

I'm sure Clarko's legal have bigger things to worry about than an unsubstantiated convo with a rando in a telco shop.

Hehe, you never know. in the Depp vs Heard defamation case one of the witnesses was "some rando" who worked at an airport who saw Heard being abusive towards Depp. It obviously wasn't the star witness but if it goes to court in terms of a defamation suit then they try and paper cut the opposition to death by trying to tear down the credibility of the opposition and their witnesses.

In terms of the AFL investigation I doubt it would be useful. The thing they need to kill off is the claims they told people to get abortions, I think that is the only thing that would be cause the AFL to ban the coach. The rest seems to be an over-dramatization of first year players going into shared accomodation. There is definitely scope there to implement better standards and procedures with indigenous players and I've always believed we should have a past indigenous player employed as a liaison person who can help new player settle down away from home and family.

I think for the most part the outcome is going to be a message about understanding and rehabilitate the way clubs approach indigenous players. The abortion thing is something that has to be unpacked that, that goes beyond anything you could explain away, he has to come out clearing any involvement in that.

 

[Tas]

The Inquiries Act wtf?

Inquiries Act 2014, only applies to government Royal Commissions, Boards of Inquiries and Formal Reviews. It is literally on the first page of the Act what it includes/excludes, it excludes everything else. It would require the government getting involved which would mean you can add 2-5 years on the date it gets finished.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Did I miss something? It’s a real life anecdote. If you accept that it’s true then too bad if it doesn’t sit comfortably with you. You don’t get to only pick non-indigineous examples for fear of a negative generalisation.

Again - that’s if you accept that the anecdote is true. Ofcourse, you’d also be excused for believing that he doesn’t want to believe the Clarkson allegations and so made up an eerily similar scenario (fantasy) that totally absolves his grandfather / Clarkson from the allegations. Who knows? I don’t know.

lol. Rightio.

 

[Merlin007]

"While Russell Jackson’s story reports on the existence of the external review commissioned by Hawthorn, and some allegations made within it, his story was not based on that review and does not quote its contents."

"Not based on that review" Hmm, let's see:

Headline: "Hawthorn racism review to allege that former coaches separated First Nations players from families and demanded a pregnancy termination"

First paragraph starts: "An external review commissioned by the Hawthorn Football Club will reveal allegations..."

Second paragraph starts: "The review document, handed to Hawthorn's senior management two weeks ago and now with the AFL integrity unit, will allege that..."

Third paragraph starts: "It is believed the review was similar..."

Fourth paragraph starts: "According to the families of three players interviewed by ABC Sport, the incidents at the centre of the review..."

Fifth paragraph starts: "Hawthorn had more than 20 First Nations players in the period of the review."

There follows very similar (the same?) stories as detailed in the review, presumably sourced separately.

So still a lot of unanswered questions on the reporting side:

• if the story is not based on the review why is the headline and the first five paragraphs describing the review?
  
  
• Why, in all the references to the review, did you not mention that its terms of reference did not include investigation into facts, incidents or individuals and that it's methodology was based on non-critical listening? Do you think that omission could mislead readers into believing the accusations had been tested and/or could be substantiated with other evidence?
  
  
• Why did you not report that the review recommended reparations to the identified individuals based only on their stories? Do you think that omission could have hidden from readers a potential important interest of the ex-players?
  
  
• Did you share the identities of the three players with the accused? If so, why did Gil McLachlan not even know their names? If not, how can you say you shared 'all relevant information'?
  
  
• Did the accused have permission from the ex-players to reveal their confidential and personal information to a journalist? If not, how were they intended to respond?
  
  
• Did you do any investigation as to the truth of the allegations? Or are you prepared to publish unverified allegations?

Spot. On.

 

[DuckYeah]

"While Russell Jackson’s story reports on the existence of the external review commissioned by Hawthorn, and some allegations made within it, his story was not based on that review and does not quote its contents."

"Not based on that review" Hmm, let's see:

Headline: "Hawthorn racism review to allege that former coaches separated First Nations players from families and demanded a pregnancy termination"

First paragraph starts: "An external review commissioned by the Hawthorn Football Club will reveal allegations..."

Second paragraph starts: "The review document, handed to Hawthorn's senior management two weeks ago and now with the AFL integrity unit, will allege that..."

Third paragraph starts: "It is believed the review was similar..."

Fourth paragraph starts: "According to the families of three players interviewed by ABC Sport, the incidents at the centre of the review..."

Fifth paragraph starts: "Hawthorn had more than 20 First Nations players in the period of the review."

There follows very similar (the same?) stories as detailed in the review, presumably sourced separately.

So still a lot of unanswered questions on the reporting side:

• if the story is not based on the review why is the headline and the first five paragraphs describing the review?
  
  
• Why, in all the references to the review, did you not mention that its terms of reference did not include investigation into facts, incidents or individuals and that it's methodology was based on non-critical listening? Do you think that omission could mislead readers into believing the accusations had been tested and/or could be substantiated with other evidence?
  
  
• Why did you not report that the review recommended reparations to the identified individuals based only on their stories? Do you think that omission could have hidden from readers a potential important interest of the ex-players?
  
  
• Did you share the identities of the three players with the accused? If so, why did Gil McLachlan not even know their names? If not, how can you say you shared 'all relevant information'?
  
  
• Did the accused have permission from the ex-players to reveal their confidential and personal information to a journalist? If not, how were they intended to respond?
  
  
• Did you do any investigation as to the truth of the allegations? Or are you prepared to publish unverified allegations?

Jackson is cooked..

 

[giantroo]

"While Russell Jackson’s story reports on the existence of the external review commissioned by Hawthorn, and some allegations made within it, his story was not based on that review and does not quote its contents."

"Not based on that review" Hmm, let's see:

Headline: "Hawthorn racism review to allege that former coaches separated First Nations players from families and demanded a pregnancy termination"

First paragraph starts: "An external review commissioned by the Hawthorn Football Club will reveal allegations..."

Second paragraph starts: "The review document, handed to Hawthorn's senior management two weeks ago and now with the AFL integrity unit, will allege that..."

Third paragraph starts: "It is believed the review was similar..."

Fourth paragraph starts: "According to the families of three players interviewed by ABC Sport, the incidents at the centre of the review..."

Fifth paragraph starts: "Hawthorn had more than 20 First Nations players in the period of the review."

There follows very similar (the same?) stories as detailed in the review, presumably sourced separately.

So still a lot of unanswered questions on the reporting side:

• if the story is not based on the review why is the headline and the first five paragraphs describing the review?
  
  
• Why, in all the references to the review, did you not mention that its terms of reference did not include investigation into facts, incidents or individuals and that it's methodology was based on non-critical listening? Do you think that omission could mislead readers into believing the accusations had been tested and/or could be substantiated with other evidence?
  
  
• Why did you not report that the review recommended reparations to the identified individuals based only on their stories? Do you think that omission could have hidden from readers a potential important interest of the ex-players?
  
  
• Did you share the identities of the three players with the accused? If so, why did Gil McLachlan not even know their names? If not, how can you say you shared 'all relevant information'?
  
  
• Did the accused have permission from the ex-players to reveal their confidential and personal information to a journalist? If not, how were they intended to respond?
  
  
• Did you do any investigation as to the truth of the allegations? Or are you prepared to publish unverified allegations?

Care to send this to Sally Jackson or Russell Jackson's email and see if you get a response within 24 hours?

 

[Disco Dew]

"While Russell Jackson’s story reports on the existence of the external review commissioned by Hawthorn, and some allegations made within it, his story was not based on that review and does not quote its contents."

"Not based on that review" Hmm, let's see:

Headline: "Hawthorn racism review to allege that former coaches separated First Nations players from families and demanded a pregnancy termination"

First paragraph starts: "An external review commissioned by the Hawthorn Football Club will reveal allegations..."

Second paragraph starts: "The review document, handed to Hawthorn's senior management two weeks ago and now with the AFL integrity unit, will allege that..."

Third paragraph starts: "It is believed the review was similar..."

Fourth paragraph starts: "According to the families of three players interviewed by ABC Sport, the incidents at the centre of the review..."

Fifth paragraph starts: "Hawthorn had more than 20 First Nations players in the period of the review."

There follows very similar (the same?) stories as detailed in the review, presumably sourced separately.

So still a lot of unanswered questions on the reporting side:

• if the story is not based on the review why is the headline and the first five paragraphs describing the review?
  
  
• Why, in all the references to the review, did you not mention that its terms of reference did not include investigation into facts, incidents or individuals and that it's methodology was based on non-critical listening? Do you think that omission could mislead readers into believing the accusations had been tested and/or could be substantiated with other evidence?
  
  
• Why did you not report that the review recommended reparations to the identified individuals based only on their stories? Do you think that omission could have hidden from readers a potential important interest of the ex-players?
  
  
• Did you share the identities of the three players with the accused? If so, why did Gil McLachlan not even know their names? If not, how can you say you shared 'all relevant information'?
  
  
• Did the accused have permission from the ex-players to reveal their confidential and personal information to a journalist? If not, how were they intended to respond?
  
  
• Did you do any investigation as to the truth of the allegations? Or are you prepared to publish unverified allegations?

This is actually legendary. I have loved your work throughout Hsquid.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Care to send this to Sally Jackson or Russell Jackson's email and see if you get a response within 24 hours?

Sassy GR is the best GR.

 

[Samsquanch]

Arms reaching up like giant testicles…

Blackshadow checks ancestry.com and discovers he's a direct descendant of Jack Dyer.

 

[blackshadow]

Care to send this to Sally Jackson or Russell Jackson's email and see if you get a response within 24 hours?

I wonder if some lawyers may have been in contact with Mr Jackson or the ABC to prompt that “clarification”…

 

[The Nostradamus]

Either Russell Jackson will be unemployed at the end of this or clarko and fages

 

[travelli]

Either Russell Jackson will be unemployed at the end of this or clarko and fages

They'll all bounce back. The only ones that will be fkd over is the whistle blowers. Gotta be careful how you do that.

 

[Samsquanch]

Jackson is cooked..

Rightly so.

 

[Del191229]

Rusty has the full support of the board lol.

 

[Del191229]

Should never have named names. * wit. An absolute ******* spanker. Yep, story should of been released, just should of been Hawthorn vs First Nations.

The campaigner is a flog

This.

 

[rickety]

Rusty has the full support of the board lol.

 

[Eggs11]

I wonder if some lawyers may have been in contact with Mr Jackson or the ABC to prompt that “clarification”…

I am not wondering at all

 

[Marstermind]

And Usayed Givashe our convo started when you mentioned Newbold sits on 5 boards. It might be more, who knows.

He was that divorced from his role, he was having other people respond to their urgent welfare enquiries in his name. People connected to the club sought him out as a leader, and he wasn't even the one responding from his personal email (according to his claims).

This is not a meritocracy. If that's true, he's derelict in his role.

Anyway, glad that he failed in his role, and left the industry.

Oh wait, he's an AFL commissioner.

Mrs.Marstermind is an experienced CEO with a moderate media profile, who sits on several boards, albeit somewhat outside the football industry.

She says there would be no instance a responsible CEO would let a PA read emails directly sent to them without their knowledge, let alone respond to them without their knowledge. If they did then not only would the PA be grossly overstepping their brief, the CEO would be derelict in their duty.

For Newbold to claim ignorance here is fanciful.

 

[Horizons_00]

"While Russell Jackson’s story reports on the existence of the external review commissioned by Hawthorn, and some allegations made within it, his story was not based on that review and does not quote its contents."

"Not based on that review" Hmm, let's see:

Headline: "Hawthorn racism review to allege that former coaches separated First Nations players from families and demanded a pregnancy termination"

First paragraph starts: "An external review commissioned by the Hawthorn Football Club will reveal allegations..."

Second paragraph starts: "The review document, handed to Hawthorn's senior management two weeks ago and now with the AFL integrity unit, will allege that..."

Third paragraph starts: "It is believed the review was similar..."

Fourth paragraph starts: "According to the families of three players interviewed by ABC Sport, the incidents at the centre of the review..."

Fifth paragraph starts: "Hawthorn had more than 20 First Nations players in the period of the review."

There follows very similar (the same?) stories as detailed in the review, presumably sourced separately.

So still a lot of unanswered questions on the reporting side:

• if the story is not based on the review why is the headline and the first five paragraphs describing the review?
  
  
• Why, in all the references to the review, did you not mention that its terms of reference did not include investigation into facts, incidents or individuals and that it's methodology was based on non-critical listening? Do you think that omission could mislead readers into believing the accusations had been tested and/or could be substantiated with other evidence?
  
  
• Why did you not report that the review recommended reparations to the identified individuals based only on their stories? Do you think that omission could have hidden from readers a potential important interest of the ex-players?
  
  
• Did you share the identities of the three players with the accused? If so, why did Gil McLachlan not even know their names? If not, how can you say you shared 'all relevant information'?
  
  
• Did the accused have permission from the ex-players to reveal their confidential and personal information to a journalist? If not, how were they intended to respond?
  
  
• Did you do any investigation as to the truth of the allegations? Or are you prepared to publish unverified allegations?

POTY

 

[Engimal v3]

Either Russell Jackson will be unemployed at the end of this or clarko and fages

Yeah, it'll be Clarko and Fagan lol

 

[Del191229]

Anyway, sounds like the ABC might be feeling a bit of heat if they're having to publish something like this. Anyone know how often that happens?

Not often at all. Usually only if actual legal action has been initiated.

 

[Agenda 21]

Care to send this to Sally Jackson or Russell Jackson's email and see if you get a response within 24 hours?

It sometimes takes my friends and family 3 days to respond, to my texts and/or emails. They aren't famous.

 

[Del191229]

Where's North in all this?

View attachment 1522598

He doesn't legally work for us yet - hence contacting his personal management.

No need to contact us.

 

[hsquid]

Hi everyone. One more post from me tonight.

Firstly, thanks for all the love. I've been obsessed by this club for a long time and somehow the events of the last years seem to have brought that to ever more intensity. This latest saga has me breathlessly following, desperate for that genuine 'turning corner' moment where we can see the team actually developing again and get on board for a ride that will have ups as well as downs. I know a lot of you feel the same and it's cathartic to have a community of equivi-nuts out there. Wonderfully, my Portuguese wife is fully on board and immersed in the journey with me too: I even woke up to her beaming face to give me the original Clarko news.

I want to add another point to this whole discussion, to talk about my personal journey. My first serious post on this topic was this one. I was an instant believer in the allegations. Their detail, their emotion. They made me feel sick and I wanted no part of it. I had no knee-jerk denial or tribal defensiveness.

My second post was this one a few days later. I already had suspicions. Things didn't seem right, the report seemed incomplete, the article under-researched, the stories hard to reconcile with broader facts we knew. I detailed out the reasons my view had shifted and the uncertainties I saw.

My third post was this one, pointing out the holes in the process around the report and specifically the details we could now see around how 'yarning' and 'story-telling had morphed into hard accusations against individuals, the mess this makes and where it comes from.

My most recent post was this one, pulling apart the abc statement justifying the way it had reported around the issue.

When you look at the path of those posts, it's striking how they have gone from full-empathy for the victims to strong skepticism of the process and the outcomes. This has happened in parallel with my own (yes, speculative) impression that the complete stories are likely to be very different from the versions we were first told. I don't believe that skepticism comes from my deep wishes that Clarkson is cleared, I hope my first post is sufficient evidence of that.

And it makes me think that if this all falls over, if the media got it wrong, if the ex-players are incomplete in their story-telling, what a terrible result this is for indigenous Australia. There is enormous racism in Australia, casual and otherwise. There is enormous ignorance of diversity and multiculturalism. There are many people indigenous and non-indigenous around Australia suffering from this. It's hard.

And there are always those quick to defend power. Quick to say every accusation is made up. Quick to look for flaws in the accusers rather than wanting to fix systems of pain.

If this process, if this report-writer and this journalist, good intentioned or otherwise, if they create stories that fall apart and feed the narrative that racism is exaggerated, that complaints are self-interested, that media outrage is a commoditised fabrication, then they will have done a great disservice to the victims of discrimination and racism in this country.

 

[rickety]

It sometimes takes my friends and family 3 days to respond, to my texts and/or emails. They aren't famous.

Not famous? Are you sure? It's these guys right?