Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Really?




It's a really polite way of saying they never let Stengle be by himself, he's got a permanent chaperone, he had to agree all kinds of conditions before they'd give a chance and Geelong gave Betts a job too.

It is all fine because it worked and he got a flag. But its still really paternalistic control and no matter how Geelong dress it up, if his footy wasn't up to scratch they would arseholed him at the end of the season and not given two shits if he ended up in jail and on the pipe.
The AFL website has spun this as a good news story so the average punter wouldn't recognise it to be a modern day variation of what's alleged to have happened at Hawthorn (admittedly, the early newspaper reports related to Hawthorn claimed harsher controls that generated outrage in many including myself, but these have not been proven).

The role of Eddie Betts is interesting as he was one who did make a public comment when reporters stuck a microphone in his face soon after the initial newspaper story broke and he didn't draw any comparisons between Hawthorn and his role at Geelong. Perhaps the biggest difference is that Stengle may have agreed up front to the conditions imposed on him and Eddie might have been able to work in a mentor / teacher type of role with a genuine understanding of the competing forces of culture and footy, and have the patience and personality to work with Tyson in a way that others in the past were unable to manage as effectively.
 
Really?




It's a really polite way of saying they never let Stengle be by himself, he's got a permanent chaperone, he had to agree all kinds of conditions before they'd give a chance and Geelong gave Betts a job too.

It is all fine because it worked and he got a flag. But its still really paternalistic control and no matter how Geelong dress it up, if his footy wasn't up to scratch they would arseholed him at the end of the season and not given two shits if he ended up in jail and on the pipe.
Tyson had a chaperone in Adelaide too - Brad Couch, complete with bag of coke
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think lots of people for a whole variety of reasons want to treat the Clarkson allegations as one off things done by "bad apples" that happened ages so they can be "dealt with" and we can move on.

I find it astounding that Geelong get to brag about how they handled Stengle when it isn't much different to what's in Egan/Jackson's allegations.
That is absolute shit. I know what Stengel went through last year at WWT and the support he had. I also know exactly what was told to Geelong as to what would be need to be done.

Comparing the two situations is very naive.
 
The AFL website has spun this as a good news story so the average punter wouldn't recognise it to be a modern day variation of what's alleged to have happened at Hawthorn (admittedly, the early newspaper reports related to Hawthorn claimed harsher controls that generated outrage in many including myself, but these have not been proven).

The role of Eddie Betts is interesting as he was one who did make a public comment when reporters stuck a microphone in his face soon after the initial newspaper story broke and he didn't draw any comparisons between Hawthorn and his role at Geelong. Perhaps the biggest difference is that Stengle may have agreed up front to the conditions imposed on him and Eddie might have been able to work in a mentor / teacher type of role with a genuine understanding of the competing forces of culture and footy, and have the patience and personality to work with Tyson in a way that others in the past were unable to manage as effectively.

He's Stengle's cousin, which kind of helps.

Phil Egan who wrote the Hawthorn report is Leon Egan's cousin, yet seems to omit that enormous conflict of interest in his work lol.
 
That is absolute s**t. I know what Stengel went through last year at WWT and the support he had. I also know exactly what was told to Geelong as to what would be need to be done.

Comparing the two situations is very naive.

Is this like your inside Adelaide knowledge on the top private school JHF went to?

Fact is everyone runs out the "being a footy player is just a job" line for Hawthorn, but name me a workplace in the world that operates like Geelong have have with Stengle.

The point is, as I made originally, immense amounts of control still goes on for individual players, and especially indigenous players.
 
Last edited:
Is this like your inside Adelaide knowledge on the top private school JHF went to?

Fact is everyone runs out the "being a footy player is just a job" line for Hawthorn, but name me a workplace in the world that operates like Geelong have have with Stengle.

The point is, as I made originally, immense amounts of control still goes on for individual players, and especially indigenous players.
I know the person at WWT who checked in on Stengel every single day and what was done to get him back on track.

And I known your compassion is you trying to make out like youre some know it all, when in fact you’re full of shit.
 
I think Stengles opinion here is the one that counts. I'm guessing, but I don't think he would think Geelong getting him around Uncle Eddie would be a bad thing. And given he chose Geelong over a number of other suitors, including North, is important
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So a club recruits a player with known personal issues, gives them a second chance when others wouldn’t and puts support around them to help them be successful and the conclusion is that the club is ……. Racist?

Oh dear.
yep, suggesting support is "control" is just blatant stupidity.
 
So a club recruits a player with known personal issues, gives them a second chance when others wouldn’t and puts support around them to help them be successful and the conclusion is that the club is ……. Racist?

Oh dear.
I suspect Jayden Stephenson is about to become a player with this sort of support around him. Clarko's chat with the 1st to 4th year players seemed to suggest about helping players with what they do away from the club.
 
So a club recruits a player with known personal issues, gives them a second chance when others wouldn’t and puts support around them to help them be successful and the conclusion is that the club is ……. Racist?

Oh dear.

Lets for augments sake say one of the hawks players issues were equal to Stengels, or even worse and the Hawks tried to help them in a similar way, except the player at the Hawks wouldn’t follow the rules, is that racist?
 
Lets for augments sake say one of the hawks players issues were equal to Stengels, or even worse and the Hawks tried to help them in a similar way, except the player at the Hawks wouldn’t follow the rules, is that racist?
This is really a good point to call out. OK, the facts are sketchy at the moment but it is very possible that support for the players aimed at helping them achieve their goal to become successful AFL players in a team that was rising and even contending could easily be seen as excessive levels of control in hindsight, especially if the players didn't make the grade.

Collateral damage.

Player wins a flag and things are painted differently. I am betting that a lot of players from all backgrounds have been told to dump their mates who are negative influences, get in with the boys from their team or from their draft year, close their circle of friends and focus on the few years they have to make it at the top level if they want success.
 
So a club recruits a player with known personal issues, gives them a second chance when others wouldn’t and puts support around them to help them be successful and the conclusion is that the club is ……. Racist?

Oh dear.
And the player selected that club above others because of the support they offered
 
So a club recruits a player with known personal issues, gives them a second chance when others wouldn’t and puts support around them to help them be successful and the conclusion is that the club is ……. Racist?

Oh dear.
I think that was his point. That the material facts might not be too different, but the outcome is, so one gets called racist and the other gets lauded.
 
Really?




It's a really polite way of saying they never let Stengle be by himself, he's got a permanent chaperone, he had to agree all kinds of conditions before they'd give a chance and Geelong gave Betts a job too.

It is all fine because it worked and he got a flag. But its still really paternalistic control and no matter how Geelong dress it up, if his footy wasn't up to scratch they would arseholed him at the end of the season and not given two shits if he ended up in jail and on the pipe.

So, what is the alternative? And I'm not baiting here. Not drafting those players in the first place? Scrapping rookie wages? Or sharing the love regardless of whether you played a single AFL game? i.e., spent 3 years as a rookie all the while the AFL is proud as punch when it announces a new 670 million rights deal, but we send guys home poorer than when they arrived.

Should there be payments outside of the cap? So, TAO spent 3 years on a rookie contract is an absolute shitmen was never getting a game. Earnt f/all, but under the equality ruling will get 55-80k per yr of service. So 3x55k for me.

It really wouldn't be difficult to do that.


*In my job I can hit the piss mid-week, no one questions my fitness, can call in sick, eat whatever shite I feel like. Jump on BF and besmirch much better players than I ever was.

A good life really.


* I am not in any way suggesting those footballers in question did any of this as I honestly have NFI.

I just feel they put in the effort and sacrifice and got nothing out of it, that is all. And I reckon had they been rewarded we wouldn't be in this pickle.

I was speaking to old mate years ago and the name Gordon Narrier came up, we bought him over from WA for 12 months, at the time old mate said we will churn rookies mining for gold as they cost nothing.


Looking back is that a healthy attitude?

I think not
 
yep, suggesting support is "control" is just blatant stupidity.
Playing devils advocate for a second and not suggesting this is the case but what if in 8 years time Stengle complains that he was withheld or encouraged not see his family, friends or community because they were perceived as being a bad influence on him?
 
Playing devils advocate for a second and not suggesting this is the case but what if in 8 years time Stengle complains that he was withheld or encouraged not see his family, friends or community because they were perceived as being a bad influence on him?
Then I'd call him a stupid ****ing liar. But what's your point?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top