NO TROLLS Collingwood CEO Craig Kelly involved in racism & homophobia allegations lodged in court documents

[_Mike_]

Zero tolerance for ignoring the thread tag... zero tolerance

 

[Chief]

$250,000 to make the allegations go away

Framing a proposed settlement in this way kind of makes me think - and I know this is crazy - that you don't believe anything bad happened.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Framing a proposed settlement in this way kind of makes me think - and I know this is crazy - that you don't believe anything bad happened.

It's how the HS & other media reported it.

I have no clue what was said between Kelly & Cleaver.

I wasn't there. Like no one else on bf was either.

 

[zeggie]

Nothing's changed from the club's perspective. They're not paying Cleaver $250,000 to make the allegations go away. They intend to
defend themselves at the hearing in August.

It's not that complicated.

What's with the personal insults towards me in every one of your replies? Weird coming from someone trying to come across as someone concerned by another person on the end of alleged personal insults...

So insightful. Should have made those comments on Wednesday.

Care to actually respond to my initial post earlier about today's article? Or do you intend to just straw man more?

Collingwood have said the allegations are not related to the unfair dismissal proceeding. Not sure how they are going to "defend themselves" at the hearing on that basis. They don't appear to be denying the allegations, not think they are related to the hearing (the existence of which you believe is some form of denial?)

 

[pluggeranddoc]

For posting the club statement which YOU said wasn't the club statement?

"You will see our response to the allegations when we file our defence in the proceedings and as those proceedings unfold.” Jeff Browne.

Pretty straightforward.

What I'd like to know is who interviewed the complainant and thought it a good idea to employ them?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

So insightful. Should have made those comments on Wednesday.

Care to actually respond to my initial post earlier? Or do you intend to just straw man more?

Collingwood have said the allegations are not related to the unfair dismissal proceeding. Not sure how they are going to "defend themselves" at the hearing on that basis. They don't appear to be denying the allegations, not think they are related to the hearing (the existence of which you believe is some form of denial?)

I'm waiting for the hearing in August.

Again, I'll repeat what the President of the CFC has repeatedly said :

"You will see our response to the allegations when we file our defence in the proceedings and as those proceedings unfold.” Jeff Browne.

It seems you want the club to lay out it's defence & argue the case in the media before the hearing. Clearly, they're not going to. No matter how many times you post on bf about it.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

What I'd like to know is who interviewed the complainant and thought it a good idea to employ them?

Perhaps that will be mentioned in the hearing.

 

[zeggie]

I'm waiting for the hearing in August.

Again, I'll repeat what the President of the CFC has repeatedly said :

"You will see our response to the allegations when we file our defence in the proceedings and as those proceedings unfold.” Jeff Browne.

It seems you want the club to lay out it's defence & argue the case in the media before the hearing. Clearly, they're not going to. No matter how many times you post on bf about it.

Ah, so you have no opinion and are waiting. Good talk, thanks for posting multiple times the old statement from Wednesday that was irrelevant.

Again, I'll quote from the article today (not Wednesday)
"Sources familiar with the settlement discussion – which was confidential – said the Magpies had offered a small amount to Cleaver, potentially as little as $20,000, which would have barely covered his legal costs, while Cleaver had been seeking upwards of $250,000."

As I said in my original post, Pies will throw $$$ at this to make it go away. I doubt it reaches a hearing. Enjoy waiting.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Ah, so you have no opinion and are waiting. Good talk, thanks for posting multiple times the old statement from Wednesday that was irrelevant.

"Sources familiar with the settlement discussion – which was confidential – said the Magpies had offered a small amount to Cleaver, potentially as little as $20,000, which would have barely covered his legal costs, while Cleaver had been seeking upwards of $250,000."

As I said in my original post, Pies will throw $$$ at this to make it go away. I doubt it reaches a hearing. Enjoy waiting.

I wasn't there. I don't know either person. I don't know if Kelly speaks or thinks like this. I don't know if Cleaver is telling the truth or a liar.

Do you?

If the club was willing to throw money at it to make it go away, why didn't they when Cleaver demanded $250,000 to drop the case?

So yeah, I'm waiting for the hearing.

 

[zeggie]

I wasn't there. I don't know either person. I don't know if Kelly speaks or thinks like this. I don't know if Cleaver is telling the truth or a liar.

I don't really care what you think. I do think it's fascinating that you've latched onto my single post referring to a media article published today, and my opinion of it, that you've swooped in with a massive copy paste frenzy of old material.

Do you?

Another obvious straw man. Already called you out on that. Re-read my first post today again.

If the club was willing to throw money at it to make it go away, why didn't they when Cleaver demanded $250,000 to drop the case?

Never negotiated before, have you?

In my opinion, as per my first post today, the incidents occurred. Whether they were illegal or unlawful is in debate, but I think the optics indicate they occurred or there would have been a sheer, firm and clear denial from the club. They'll probably agree on a number in the middle of their respective offers. Pies won't want this going to a hearing.

So yeah, I'm waiting for the hearing.

Cool. You do that. Your post count on this thread appears to show the opposite of "waiting" however...

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

I don't really care what you think. I do think it's fascinating that you've latched onto my single post referring to a media article published today, and my opinion of it, that you've swooped in with a massive copy paste frenzy of old material.



Another obvious straw man. Already called you out on that. Re-read my first post today again.



Never negotiated before, have you?

In my opinion, as per my first post today, the incidents occurred. Whether they were illegal or unlawful is in debate, but I think the optics indicate they occurred or there would have been a sheer, firm and clear denial from the club. They'll probably agree on a number in the middle of their respective offers. Pies won't want this going to a hearing.



Cool. You do that. Your post count on this thread appears to show the opposite of "waiting" however...

"Your post count on this thread appears to show the opposite of "waiting" however..."

Am I not entitled to reply to comments? And the thread is about my club after all.

You seem to have already made up your mind about what actually took place and the outcome.

I don't know either person, wasn't there and will wait to hear both sides of the story. If people like Leon Davis & Andrew Krakouer were to come out in support of either person, I'd take more notice of their opinion than what any random Blues supporter has to say on bf.

You throw personal insults around in almost every one of your comments, yet come on here pretending to care about about allegations of alleged insults thrown at someone you've presumably never met. Bit hypocritical if you ask me.

 

[Kappa]

If ur boss keeps making racist comments can u please get out ur phone and record it for evidence.. or is that illegal?

 

[SAweagle]

Yawn

 

[VinnieB]

If ur boss keeps making racist comments can u please get out ur phone and record it for evidence.. or is that illegal?

From my understanding (from what I have been told by a Fed), the recording of conversations is not illegal as long as one of those present who is recorded is aware it is being recorded.

So, you can’t ‘hide’ and record others.

 

[Kappa]

From my understanding (from what I have been told by a Fed), the recording of conversations is not illegal as long as one of those present who is recorded is aware it is being recorded.

So, you can’t ‘hide’ and record others.

according to this The Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) will not prohibit covert recordings of a private conversation if the party making the recording can show it was necessary for the protection of his or her lawful interests.

You can do it sometimes. I feel that your boss making racist comments towards u would be grounds to record it to protect yourself. If it was happening over many months surely you gather some evidence, that's the first thing I would do.

 

[ChairmanZia]

From my understanding (from what I have been told by a Fed), the recording of conversations is not illegal as long as one of those present who is recorded is aware it is being recorded.

So, you can’t ‘hide’ and record others.

well the work around that would be the record had crystal clear memory of a certain conversation and only that conversation that was recorded, word for word.

 

[Drought Break]

From my understanding (from what I have been told by a Fed), the recording of conversations is not illegal as long as one of those present who is recorded is aware it is being recorded.

So, you can’t ‘hide’ and record others.

Heretier did this with Buckley during the "do better"saga. Then only released snippets of the conversation. Buckley called him out to release the whole recording which of course he didn't

 

[Chief]

Sources familiar with the settlement discussion – which was confidential

So we don't know what was discussed? Just an unnamed source?

 

[blackcat]

Yeah but it's sort of a "only asking questions" type thing.

Basic info says it is an intermittent issue with most people.

I don't see any real reason to call anything into doubt over those two quotes.

but should we be credulous in the face of moralscares or should we seek rigorous supporting evidence , to me this is Eddie's fault by not adducing the contradicting disperse values when integrating into a high-performance male sport club , they could have brought in Ian Roberts and Bridie O'Donnell to open the culture in a 2015 magpies , but imposing significant change without forecasting potential ramifications was always doomed to fail , i cite into evidence the automatic reaction this will receive . it was Mcguire's way to be the bull in a china shop and have delusions of grandeur with RealMadrid aspirations

bigger=/=automaticallybetter

 

[blackcat]

I repeat: this is the same organisation that says it is owed half a million dollars by a sponsor so make of that what you will

ambiguous there are two organisations we are discussing and they owed hih* 250k

luv Brad cooper , he should have got out of HerMajesty'sBarwon_gaol a whiles[sic] back

The Mayne Report - Brad Cooper, HIH, underperforming News Corp

 

[blackcat]

The standard shouldn’t be whether the person intended for their comment to be racist, but whether the person, given their position, could reasonably determine that the comment may be interpreted as racist.

Given the expectations of CEOs to be effective leaders, the training* provided to them, and the very recent history of the Collingwood Football Club (where the club acknowledged it had issues with racism), I think the it is fair to set the bar fairly high in this context.

It looks like further information from the Collingwood side is needed to make this call, though assuming the examples were not completely fabricated, they don’t look good at face value.

^training*
standpoint epistemology shifting sands , leaders need not to accede to badfaith actors

moralscares were not just a literary device in Miller's

you require idiots like mcguire to make sound decisions and know when you have overstepped a mark and when it is time to go , then the heritier lumumba situation never would have welled up and he would have been a satisfied servant of the football club which need not have caused ructions , eddie needed to take one for the team and understand he caused major kerfuffle

... and he and his brother had eyes on high office in Canberra and if barnaby joyce can do it , evanthornley exception

 

[SAweagle]

^training*
standpoint epistemology shifting sands , leaders need not to accede to badfaith actors

moralscares were not just a literary device in Miller's

you require idiots like mcguire to make sound decisions and know when you have overstepped a mark and when it is time to go , then the heritier lumumba situation never would have welled up and he would have been a satisfied servant of the football club which need not have caused ructions , eddie needed to take one for the team and understand he caused major kerfuffle

... and he and his brother had eyes on high office in Canberra and if barnaby joyce can do it , evanthornley exception

hmmmm

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Directions hearing for 27 August was vacated and we are back to mediation:

Loading…

www.comcourts.gov.au

Edit: ADR (mediation) scheduled for 11 November 10am.

 

[Obeanie1]

So settled out of court. No surprises there.

Wonder if the AFL has any interest to pursue this further and determine if any AFL policies were breached?

Or are they happy for Collingwood to "sweep this under the official legal rug" and get all parties to sign off on non disclosure agreements.

It is how the AFL likes to operate. Put on a facade of being committed to reform against racism and discrimination. Make all the right noises, crucify the little people and players with massive fines for bad behavior but don't really do anything against big clubs unless forced into a corner.

 

[TimothyJ23]

So settled out of court. No surprises there.

Wonder if the AFL has any interest to pursue this further and determine if any AFL policies were breached?

Or are they happy for Collingwood to "sweep this under the official legal rug" and get all parties to sign off on non disclosure agreements.

It is how the AFL likes to operate. Put on a facade of being committed to reform against racism and discrimination. Make all the right noises, crucify the little people and players with massive fines for bad behavior but don't really do anything against big clubs unless forced into a corner.

Your post entirely assumes Kelly was fully in the wrong and Cleaver's claims are 100% true.

That's not possible to be known, so I reckon you probably need to dial back the "swept under the rug" claims.

It's a story that was widely reported, was pretty damaging and was investigated, so I don't even understand how anyone comes to "swept under the rug" rubbish.

 

[Satan]

So settled out of court. No surprises there.

Wonder if the AFL has any interest to pursue this further and determine if any AFL policies were breached?

Or are they happy for Collingwood to "sweep this under the official legal rug" and get all parties to sign off on non disclosure agreements.

It is how the AFL likes to operate. Put on a facade of being committed to reform against racism and discrimination. Make all the right noises, crucify the little people and players with massive fines for bad behavior but don't really do anything against big clubs unless forced into a corner.

Bartlett and dodoro likes this allegedly