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

[big_e]

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

Future NMFC board member?

 

[Hazey1977]

Vote 1 - Jane-o

Making a 4th quarter run for Poster of the year!

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DunderHead]

If your argument is that wasn’t to sow the seeds that indigenous people do this, it’s a long way up. That is blatantly racist rubbish which this board is entertaining because the bloke involved wears our polo shirt.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I see your point.

 

[GS WARRIORS]

If proper attempts to contact Clarko and Fagan and details of the allegations were actually supplied I’m convinced an injunction would have been taken out to stop publication.

I’m equally convinced that Rusty suspected as much and only did the bare minimum when seeking comment.

Spot on.

 

[blackshadow]

They could have sought an injunction, but on what grounds would it have been granted?
The allegations in his story arose out of interviews Jackson had conducted, not the internal report (which the coaches could have argued was unlawfully leaked).

Can you give me an example of a similar situation whether there has been a successful injunction?

On the grounds that the allegations made are false and publishing them would cause damage to reputations

‘Extraordinary and unprecedented’: Court order could have chilling effect on journalism

Investigative journalists warn a recent court order could have a chilling long-term effect on Australian media.

www.google.com

 

[Passmore]

If proper attempts to contact Clarko and Fagan and details of the allegations were actually supplied I’m convinced an injunction would have been taken out to stop publication.

I’m equally convinced that Rusty suspected as much and only did the bare minimum when seeking comment.

Would Fagan or Clarkson even know who Russell Jackson was before last week?

 

[Makeshift Park]

On the grounds that the allegations made are false and publishing them would cause damage to reputations

‘Extraordinary and unprecedented’: Court order could have chilling effect on journalism

Investigative journalists warn a recent court order could have a chilling long-term effect on Australian media.

www.google.com

Yes but they wouldn’t be able to prove to the court that they were being identified in the story.

 

[blackshadow]

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.

Certainly not all execs farm out their email management to underlings but it definitely happens, especially among old school types or those receiving extremely high volumes of emails.

That doesn’t excuse Newbold’s claimed lack of knowledge. It’s either a serious breakdown of the system or a lie.

 

[blackshadow]

Yes but they wouldn’t be able to prove to the court that they were being identified in the story.

If full details were supplied they should be told they were being named.

The ABC statement looks like a thinly veiled arse covering exercise.

 

[Marstermind]

Certainly not all execs farm out their email management to underlings but it definitely happens, especially among old school types or those receiving extremely high volumes of emails.

That doesn’t excuse Newbold’s claimed lack of knowledge. It’s either a serious breakdown of the system or a lie.

Hence "responsible CEOs".

 

[blackshadow]

Hence "responsible CEOs".

I totally agree!

 

[Marstermind]

Future NMFC board member?

It would have to require my stepping away from this board. And how would this group know how many "Phoenixs" have played for NMFC if that happened? Therefore, she's not on the board for the greater good.

 

[Makeshift Park]

The ABC statement looks like a thinly veiled arse covering exercise.

Of course it’s an arse covering exercise. That’s what their comms dept do.

Fwiw the example you gave of malicious falsehood was overturned by the court of appeal

Court of appeal throws out order for 60 Minutes to hand over copies of program on Sydney cosmetic surgeon

Supreme court to revisit May decision preventing broadcast of the program on Double Bay surgeon Joseph Ajaka

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Certainly not all execs farm out their email management to underlings but it definitely happens, especially among old school types or those receiving extremely high volumes of emails.

That doesn’t excuse Newbold’s claimed lack of knowledge. It’s either a serious breakdown of the system or a lie.

It certainly does happen and in most instances it is fine. People that do this have to have the right person represent them and regardless of who sends the email, the responsibility remains on the executive, not the assistant.

 

[Del191229]

I’ve been pondering this, what’s worse, naming names or a generic reference to Hawthorn which tars everyone who was there over the course of the relevant six year period with the same brush and leads to endless speculation on which individuals are involved?

Tellingly the ABC statement doesn’t indicate a timeframe. If it was indeed 24 hours then publishing without a response to something of this magnitude is a disgrace.

There was no time imperative on Jackson’s behalf, he wasn’t about to be beaten to an exclusive.

Yeah if you say Football Department at Hawthorn it gives it away.

Just Hawthorn Football Club it has to be.

On a related note, when McKenzie had the BRS report, he didn't name him first up, used a pseudonym.

Let’s be honest. If Jackson gave the coaches 72 hours instead, he might have ended up with an iteration of the statement that they both eventually provided. Or he might have ended up with nothing. (I suspect this would actually be the case, given they could have asked for more time and didn’t.)

In either scenario, the article would essentially have ended up how it appeared when the statements were added. There is no way they would have done interviews about allegations by anonymous former players.

So at the end of the day, it doesn’t make any material difference to the outcome whether it was 24 hours or 72 hours.

Clearly Jackson was confident enough in the veracity of the allegations to pull the trigger and publish.

Whether he was right or not to do that, in the manner he did, knowing what we know about the review and what has been identified by hsquid and others here, is the real nub of the “journalism ethics” part of this saga.

If he'd given them more time, they'd have sought an injunction and probably got it.

 

[Del191229]

They could have sought an injunction, but on what grounds would it have been granted?
The allegations in his story arose out of interviews Jackson had conducted, not the internal report (which the coaches could have argued was unlawfully leaked).

Can you give me an example of a similar situation whether there has been a successful injunction?

Why do you keep saying this when he literally opens his piece talking about the report?

 

[Makeshift Park]

Yeah if you say Football Department at Hawthorn it gives it away.

Just Hawthorn Football Club it has to be.

On a related note, when McKenzie had the BRS report, he didn't name him first up, used a pseudonym.


If he'd given them more time, they'd have sought an injunction and probably got it.

I’ve seen this so many times in this thread, and no one has provided a single believable example for why they would have successfully gotten an injunction

 

[Makeshift Park]

Why do you keep saying this when he literally opens his piece talking about the report?

Only because it goes to injunction risk.
It was an internal report, probably unlawfully leaked.
That’s grounds for an injunction.
Which could have been why he avoided using specific allegations in the article from the review.

 

[Del191229]

I’ve seen this so many times in this thread, and no one has provided a single believable example for why they would have successfully gotten an injunction

Because it is defamatory and unsourced and he can't prove to the court he's taken even basic measures to verify the claims he's making.

The report may as well be issued by The Ponds Institute, a or compiled by the dudes you meet in a pub and up going in a bag with.

It has no legal standing. It isn't privileged.

The people he interviewed after may tell a similar story, of similar experiences but they don't corroborate each other in terms of facts.

 

[Devington]

I wonder who it was that "alerted" Jackson to the story.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Because it is defamatory and unsourced and he can't prove to the court he's taken even basic measures to verify the claims he's making.

The report may as well be issued by The Ponds Institute, a or compiled by the dudes you meet in a pub and up going in a bag with.

It has no legal standing. It isn't privileged.

The people he interviewed after may tell a similar story, of similar experiences but they don't corroborate each other in terms of facts.

Yeah look, I suspect RJ’s questions were legalled, the coaches would have no way to prove whether they would be identified in the final published copy, and because the players almost certainly weren’t named in RJ’s correspondence, they couldn’t have been joined to the legal action.

 

[Sillygit]

Because it is defamatory and unsourced and he can't prove to the court he's taken even basic measures to verify the claims he's making.

The report may as well be issued by The Ponds Institute, a or compiled by the dudes you meet in a pub and up going in a bag with.

It has no legal standing. It isn't privileged.

The people he interviewed after may tell a similar story, of similar experiences but they don't corroborate each other in terms of facts.

I thought I was goin f*ckin crazy, so many people elsewhere claiming this exact idea, that it's "so much stronger because these stories corroborate each other", but they just simply don't. They're just 3 separate stories featuring the same names. Unless I missed something, there is no crossover of the actual same event detailed in the same way.

 

[Bazzbot13]

Hey giantroo Is the Sally Jackson any relation to that Russell Jackson or whoever his is?

Can't help think so bloody what. If the Clarko or Fagan did respond stating that they deny all allegations what would have changed? A one liner at the bottom of the article stating such?

 

[Roos1991]

Because it is defamatory and unsourced and he can't prove to the court he's taken even basic measures to verify the claims he's making.

The report may as well be issued by The Ponds Institute, a or compiled by the dudes you meet in a pub and up going in a bag with.

It has no legal standing. It isn't privileged.

The people he interviewed after may tell a similar story, of similar experiences but they don't corroborate each other in terms of facts.

For it to be defamatory, you need to be able to demonstrate a malicious intent. Who here could be said to have had malicious intent? Jackson wrote about what was in the Hawks report. The Hawks report included statements that may be true to those making them and reflective of their recollections of these discussions. Similarly, Clarko and Fagan may have different, and equally true, recollections of those conversations. Truth will likely lay somewhere in the middle. But no matter how you cut it, malicious intent is a high bar to satisfy and so defamation is off the cards. Even if Clarko wanted to go after the Barrett's and Caros of the world, they're trained to caveat what they say so as for avoid being sued.

 

[rickety]

Can't help think so bloody what. If the Clarko or Fagan did respond stating that they deny all allegations what would have changed? A one liner at the bottom of the article stating such?

Sorry to bore you with a random thought. Park view.