Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

I’d be shocked if he didn’t have very high powered representation.

Well, yes he has - but they won't be able to question him as witness no?
 
Apologies for the intrusion but while not claiming the title of legal eagle I can answer a couple of questions.

Yes Hawthorn will put on a defence. That will happen in a month or so. The statement of claim and defence will probably both be amended a few times as this goes through the courts. If the matter gets to trial that’s probably a minimum of 18 months away.

Great, cheers.

Clarko has lawyers. Because he’s not a defendant they won’t be allowed to speak at a trial.

Aye that's what I thought.

But no doubt they will be wanting to work with Hawthorn’s lawyers so that they ask the “right” questions.

Hmmmm, I don't think Clarko is any mood to help Hawthorn.

And given the mediation between he and the players went very well on a personal level, to the point he not named as a defendant, I don't see why he's going to necessarily be out to "get" or "smear" them.

For example, I can very much see the Peterson stuff damaging both sides hugely.

The Goodes stuff has the potential to be lethal for the club too.
 
The Goodes stuff as it relates to Clarko and his guitar talking the Indigenous players down from their plans to boycott a game in protest compares with the NBA coach, Doc Rivers doing the same thing (sans guitar) when his Clippers players were discussing their response to their team owner's racism just prior to a playoffs game. The difference being that Rivers is black, but like Clarko, he didn't think that a boycott was the appropriate response.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Goodes stuff as it relates to Clarko and his guitar talking the Indigenous players down from their plans to boycott a game in protest compares with the NBA coach, Doc Rivers doing the same thing (sans guitar) when his Clippers players were discussing their response to their team owner's racism just prior to a playoffs game. The difference being that Rivers is black, but like Clarko, he didn't think that a boycott was the appropriate response.
I reckon Clarkson would have done that cos he didn't want his best players missing a game. Not cos of anything else. I think his priorities are football first and everything else a long way behind in second place.
 
I reckon Clarkson would have done that cos he didn't want his best players missing a game. Not cos of anything else. I think his priorities are football first and everything else a long way behind in second place.

Yeah, my first reaction is that it was panicked response and ham fisted attempt to protect his players (I think pretty much everything he's accused of has come from that place).

He understands what a boycott would do their careers and what it would mean for their mental health. He entirely misread the situation by turning up like he did, but actually wanting to go and talk to the players was a sound idea
 
Clarko mortgaged his house to hire strong legal representation.
Not sure who his QC is or what legal counsel he’s with, but he’s left no stone unturned.

He's not even asking for AFL/North to cover any costs.

This is about doing what’s right after he feels like he’s been burnt badly and has done nothing wrong.
Corrs Chambers Wesgarth, the big boys/girls.
 
Not sure what to make of this, but the story has pretty much sunk in the media, no follow up that I can see.
Do you know if there's an avenue to for people named in Federal Court proceedings to have their own legal reps there and if they can be given leave to cross examine witnesses?

I could ask mrs blackshadow who's a highly skilled property lawyer but her eyes glaze over when I talk about anything footy lol
 
Do you know if there's an avenue to for people named in Federal Court proceedings to have their own legal reps there and if they can be given leave to cross examine witnesses?

I could ask mrs blackshadow who's a highly skilled property lawyer but her eyes glaze over when I talk about anything footy lol
Clarkson can seek leave to intervene - given Hawthorn's management of the issue, I imagine it would be something he'd seriously consider

FEDERAL COURT RULES 2011 - RULE 9.12​

Interveners
(1) A person may apply to the Court for leave to intervene in a proceeding with such rights, privileges and liabilities (including liabilities for costs) as may be determined by the Court.

(2) The Court may have regard to:

(a) whether the intervener's contribution will be useful and different from the contribution of the parties to the proceeding; and

(b) whether the intervention might unreasonably interfere with the ability of the parties to conduct the proceeding as the parties wish; and

(c) any other matter that the Court considers relevant.

(3) When giving leave, the Court may specify the form of assistance to be given by the intervener and the manner of participation of the intervener, including:

(a) the matters that the intervener may raise; and

(b) whether the intervener's submissions are to be oral, in writing, or both.
 
Apologies for the intrusion but while not claiming the title of legal eagle I can answer a couple of questions.

Yes Hawthorn will put on a defence. That will happen in a month or so. The statement of claim and defence will probably both be amended a few times as this goes through the courts. If the matter gets to trial that’s probably a minimum of 18 months away.

Clarko has lawyers. Because he’s not a defendant they won’t be allowed to speak at a trial. But no doubt they will be wanting to work with Hawthorn’s lawyers so that they ask the “right” questions.
As above, Clarkson can seek leave to intervene
 
Last edited:
and finally on this topic for today, it may be Zwier has raised issues in the statement of claim not previously ventilated (eg, Birchall, the child LP etc) to show a broader pattern of organisational behaviour not considered by the AFL's investigations (ie, those by Justice Middleton and Gordon Legal).

In other words, he is trying to outflank the AFL and render the finding of no case to answer void.
 
Not sure what to make of this, but the story has pretty much sunk in the media, no follow up that I can see.

Everyone can see now just what shitful effort Rusty's original article was and the impact on Clarko and Fagan's mental health is well known in the industry.

No journo willing to touch it beyond very straight legal reporting.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Everyone can see now just what shitful effort Rusty's original article was and the impact on Clarko and Fagan's mental health is well known in the industry.

No journo willing to touch it beyond very straight legal reporting.
Yes, when 360 noted it they just said the claims had been lodged “and we stress these are allegations”.
 
Yes, when 360 noted it they just said the claims had been lodged “and we stress these are allegations”.

Long way from Rusty's exhortations to "hear the stories, feel the pain".
 
Hmmmm, I don't think Clarko is any mood to help Hawthorn.

And given the mediation between he and the players went very well on a personal level, to the point he not named as a defendant, I don't see why he's going to necessarily be out to "get" or "smear" them.

For example, I can very much see the Peterson stuff damaging both sides hugely.

The Goodes stuff has the potential to be lethal for the club too.

No but his legal team has everyone need to be right in the middle of it to ensure the club doesn't work out some angle with the player to throw clarkson under the bus in order to deflect.

Clarkson's legal team needs to ensure it's Hawthorn bad first, staff bad after if the case against hfc is adverse.

I have every bit of reason to believe hfc will try to get clarkson in trouble if they find defending is too hard by moving the narrative towards 'oh clarkson had the run of the club, he was a bully and no one dared to say anything esp after he won that 08 flag'. Remember, kennet is always in the background, if anything he was the one who let this happen but this has blown up to proportions that he never thought of.

Clarkson's legal team need to drag kennet's name through the mud and in front of himself.
 
Harsh still calling him Corrs, he's had a good season

The only thing funnier than adding an s to names is removing an s when the name ends with an s. That shit cracks me up.

Yes, I am easily amused.
 
Is the Humphrey B Bear thing because that bear didn’t talk and Rioli was a quiet guy?

I know that that could be seen a bit racially insensitive as lots of indigenous men are quieter types, sometimes interpreted as shy.

I doubt very much that it was because the bear is brown??

Clarko’s sin in that particular instance seems pretty marginal to me.
A very good mate of mine is a pretty quiet fella and he garnered a few nicknames from footy clubs starting with the obvious one (Rowdy), then Humphrey and then taking a slightly surprising turn with Boo Radley of To Kill A Mockingbird fame.
 
A very good mate of mine is a pretty quiet fella and he garnered a few nicknames from footy clubs starting with the obvious one (Rowdy), then Humphrey and then taking a slightly surprising turn with Boo Radley of To Kill A Mockingbird fame.
got a bloke at work who has the same humphrey nickname as he dont say much. there is zero racial connotations to that title,
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top