Play Nice Hawthorn culture and Fagan

[dlanod]

This is going to be a very touchy subject.

There will be a very broad range of opinions about the correct way to handle this.

I'll remind everyone to post respectfully at this time - sniping at each other is not going to help.

Any continued pointless back and forth will get a day or more to cool off. If you want to avoid this fate, let it go.

 

[Fitzroy bears]

So it's been about 24 hours, everyone comfortable with this being enough time to know how to respond to allegations of this nature, or reckon we hit send and end some careers

As much as I agree with the premise of what you are saying. I don't think it is quite that cut and dry....

 

[nup]

See you all at the end of this, ciao

 

[Fitzroy bears]

It's an opinion mate. I didn't open that but I will comment if I have an opinion on a post.

I think you are far too worked up over what I posted, but you are right in what you say

 

[Clarkythelion]

This is straight up just shooting the messenger because you don't like what they have to say. Russell Jackson has a very good reputation and broke the stories on Rod Owen and Robert Muir. You know full well that he contacted Fagan and Clarkson for comment and they didn't respond, and yet you still comment that he didn't give them an opportunity to defend themselves. How does that work?

No he didn't. 24 hours notice by email to the club's Information line is not sitting down with them and giving them the same option he gave the player's families. He would not produce the story on his own, the Editor at the ABC would have to approve it for release and it would have been run through legal before release knowing the ramifications. It reeks of the Christian Porter case which the ABC had to pay compensation for which was one sided and against the wishes of the persons family. I'm mot shooting the messenger, I' just asking why the obscure ABC, why that timing, and who befits.

 

[Squizz89]

It’s obviously very early on and who knows what will happen and how long it will take but it would be nice to know the clubs position in terms of how long we can keep Fages “stood down” as opposed to being replaced, at least in the interim for next year.

I would assume we’ve given ourselves a bit of time now as you’d hope the list change/movements etc have all been locked in and we probably don’t have to do to much until preseason starts from an actual coaching perspective.

 

[SizeMatters]

The father does.

Nah, no one has the right to advocate for taking away a woman's right.
It's one of the most traumatic experiences a woman will have to carry for the rest of their life.
It should be their choice not some guy who is 'advocating' for an abortion ffs. He had that chance a few weeks prior.*

*But it is a complicated matter. Many variables and possible unfortunate events that could lead to these discussions.

 

[SizeMatters]

A few "well I'm not racist but..." type posts in here.

I feel sick.

 

[lioninthesand]

Whatever the outcome of this inquiry the AFL is now undertaking, Fagan, Clarkson and several others are going to be tried and convicted by media and will be labelled racists for the remainder of their lives. This isn't isolated to just them either. Their families will have to live with this shadow hanging over them as well.....found guilty or not guilty....it wont matter.

I support this investigation by Hawthorn, but I dont support the way it has been reported or the results presented until everyone has been investigated and an overall summary has been done along with a plan moving forward.

One thing is for sure 100%, we need to find a new coach.

If the investigation finds there was no evidence of racism, the alleged victims don’t want to face the KC or their accounts can’t be verified - then there is a good chance Fagan will be cleared and he will continue his career.

I think what you are really saying/preparing for is ‘this isn’t just a flippant claim, this looks like this will be hard to get out of with a clean sheet, we need to look for a new coach’.

The notion that white males are treated harshly by the media or anyone else, and therefore can’t continue their careers and or are tainted for the rest of their lives after claims of racism, isn’t true.

If they are guilty they move on in life, if they are innocent they move on, it’s the victims like Rioli and Goodes who suffer more reputational damage and are tarnished.

Eddie is fine, Tex is fine, all those involved in the Adelaide camp got off and moved on - infact - it is rare these scandals bring people down, even when they are proven guilty.

The notion the world is stacked against them is just not supported in previous scandals.

If they are guilty of the claims or some/ most of the claims, they will be tainted and won’t work in footy again, but will get high paying jobs elsewhere.

If Clarko and Fagan are innocent or can be found largely innocent of these claims (they have everything stacked in their favour to be found innocent), then they will move on and Australia will quickly turn on those making the allegations. Fages has everything stacked in his favour to survive this, provided it’s their word against the alleged victims and he can prove reasonable doubt or that he was largely innocent.

He is not doomed either way, he is doomed as an AFL coach if he was involved in some of the alleged horrors that occurred.

 

[dlanod]

It reeks of the Christian Porter case which the ABC had to pay compensation for which was one sided and against the wishes of the persons family. I'm mot shooting the messenger, I' just asking why the obscure ABC, why that timing, and who befits.

Might as well provide the facts on this one given it sounds like you've been misled:

• the ABC didn't pay compensation to Porter or anyone.
• the ABC didn't have to retract the article.

There was an agreed upon settlement for the ABC to add a standard disclaimer (that pretty much all articles have on all media sites, and the ABC should have had in the first place) and the ABC paid a few thousand to cover the mediation costs - not even Porter's legal costs. It was basically the epitome of "let's just drop this".

 

[CarterS]

A few "well I'm not racist but..." type posts in here.

I feel sick.

Care to point them out? I haven't read every thing here but I can't say I've seen any thing racist.

 

[CarterS]

I'd like the AFL investigation expanded to include the whole club and not just the indigenous players.

 

[Quested]

Is it though? In the last 20 years for work I will have been in conservatively 1000 team meetings, had 5000 client meetings and probably 50,000 phone calls.

Would I be expected to remember each and every interaction?

We can take a counter view which is that these statements contain a portion of truth and a portion of bullshit.

We don’t need to believe what the “victims” in this case claim until there has been an actual impartial investigation neither of which Hawthorne or ABC have done here.

Here's the thing though, if you were in a meeting where someone demanded an employee terminated their pregnancy, I'm pretty sure you would remember that one. Not saying I agree he should have responded, but I do think it would have been wise to send a response in the form of 'our legal team are looking in to this and will respond via the appropriate channels at the appropriate time' - something that says 'I'm not confirming or denying, but acknowledging receipt'

 

[lioninthesand]

No he didn't. 24 hours notice by email to the club's Information line is not sitting down with them and giving them the same option he gave the player's families. He would not produce the story on his own, the Editor at the ABC would have to approve it for release and it would have been run through legal before release knowing the ramifications. It reeks of the Christian Porter case which the ABC had to pay compensation for which was one sided and against the wishes of the persons family. I'm mot shooting the messenger, I' just asking why the obscure ABC, why that timing, and who befits.

The journo claims he sent it directly to Fagans email and followed up with a phone call, both were ignored - which is well within Fagans rights.

Can we just accept that Fagan would not have responded to the journo and the questions either way and move on?

It would not have been in his best interests to speak at that early stage, any denials or rebuttals would have been incredibly risky at that point.

If he is found completely innocent, he and his lawyers will have the right to explore defamation angles once the findings are released - the ABC will have assessed that risk and will have lawyers at the ready.

 

[Quested]

First Zorko, then Berry, now Fages? All three situations where either full details were not disclosed or a deliberate one sided media circus (Berry) ensued.

The one thing I keep thinking is, at least Fages is in Brisbane where 95% of the population wouldn't know him if they walked past him in the street. While the full details are unknown, it's good that he won't have VIC eyeballs everywhere he goes.

 

[Dom PC]

Yep 24 hours is reasonable for something that has serious legal implications.

A reasonable person wouldn’t consider that an opportunity to properly defend themselves

24 hours to respond... For something so serious with major repercussions it does come across as disingenuous to me.

Reading between the lines, purely using disgruntled ex employees with a history of hanging out with bad people and a history of making poor life decisions as sources... surely that's reason enough to at least get some secondary sources to cross check the veracity of their claims...

If you're going to go off just those sources, I think the article shouldn't have named the Hawthorn staff.

 

[Gadzorks]

So speculation is the player involved is Garlett, a player who was found by a court to be addicted by meth his entire career and only one club would take a punt on.

Hawthorn put him with hodge to try to straighten him out. I trust fages

Not Hodge. Please no, don't let him be caught up in this.

I really like him and dream that one day he coaches us.

 

[dtm06]

Is it though? In the last 20 years for work I will have been in conservatively 1000 team meetings, had 5000 client meetings and probably 50,000 phone calls.

Would I be expected to remember each and every interaction?

The argument is not 'can you remember each and every interaction?'. The argument is 'Were you at a meeting where something so egregious was allegedly asked/ demanded of a subordinate by a person in power?'.

I think there's a fair case that most people would be able to answer simply yes or no to that. I've been in roughly as many meetings as you over the past few years and can categorically say something like what has been alleged has never happened in one of them. I cannot recall every meeting however, but I know I would remember that.

Now that's not to say Fagan may not say exactly that to the investigators and was just saying the right thing for the moment yesterday, but the argument that he needs to be able to recall every single meeting isn't what needs to be asked, nor a defence.

TL;DR: Fagan needs to be able to say to the investigators he wasn't at those meetings, not that he can't recall imo.

 

[Viceregal]

OK so how does receiving more evidence of the same candour reduce it's efficacy?

It doesn't - but increasing the quantity of low grade information doesn't turn it into good information any more than adding more sub prime mortgages makes for better financial instrumentation.

As I indicated the point wasn't that six meant more credibility (which you were indicating) but that the volume of entries does not, of itself, have value in the determination of credibility.

I don't know about the US but here in Australia we look darkly upon institutions who advocate abortion over family.

To call a foetus 'unwanted tissue' is just abominable.

Whether you or I or the laws of the land consider the process to be a casual medical procedure or murder or a breach of sacred dogma or a sure fire way to add negative karma to our next lives is only relevant to our own opinion and reaction - when you are judging another person's actions it is important to try and get inside their own motivations not to apply ours to them ... eg if you were to advise an abortion it might be only after great soul searching and in extreme circumstances while to another person it might be a matter purely of convenience. Your horror is yours and ascribing that feeling to another who does not share it (or judging them because their feelings are different) does not add to understanding.

Your conspiracy theory of the ABC working covertly with so called aboriginal activists is just Q-anon level rhetoric.

Interesting. I clearly delineated the difference in the role and potential motivations of the two groups and had them in two separate silos. You did admit that you were under emotional strain and it was the end of a long day and it may very well have affected your reading comprehension but flipping my statement 180 and calling it a conspiracy seems ... lacking in the honour you profess.

Oh and btw 'so called aboriginal activists' ... not sure if you think any of those words are 'loaded' but they are an organisation that is explicitly working on and for First Nation rights and causes and for their benefit ...

In any case it is a new day and hopefully we are all refreshed and ready for the next installment (while being aware that this ain't likely to be over soon)

 

[BuntonRules]

I thought comparing this to the stolen generation on 360 was a bit much. Saying that I’m not an indigenous person and don’t claim to be very knowledgeable About this stuff.

Dead wrong. It is all part of the same scenario. Listen to Eddie Betts.

 

[Squizz89]

Maybe I’m naive here and someone can help me out, but I’ve read a few times that the alleged victims may have just had a grudge against the club and even some suggesting they’re just looking for a payout etc in all this.

If this was all a COMPLETE fabrication from disgruntled ex employees (and it would be a fair fabrication of a story), in the hope of getting a payout or some type of compensation from the club/AFL etc, would it have not been in their best interests to play that out behind the scenes instead of so public the way it has?

I assume that if they were found to be “lying” in what could effectively end up costing the careers of multiple people than they too could be liable for damages etc.

It makes no sense to me for them to want to play this out publicly if they were just “disgruntled ex employees looking for a payout” which I have read or seen insinuated a few times via social media etc.

 

[dlanod]

Maybe I’m naive here and someone can help me out, but I’ve read a few times that the alleged victims may have just had a grudge against the club and even some suggesting they’re just looking for a payout etc in all this.

If this was all a COMPLETE fabrication from disgruntled ex employees (and it would be a fair fabrication of a story), in the hope of getting a payout or some type of compensation from the club/AFL etc, would it have not been in their best interests to play that out behind the scenes instead of so public the way it has?

I assume that if they were found to be “lying” in what could effectively end up costing the careers of multiple people than they too could be liable for damages etc.

It makes no sense to me for them to want to play this out publicly if they were just “disgruntled ex employees looking for a payout” which I have read or seen insinuated a few times via social media etc.

Where have you read it? There will be a lot of attempted muddying of the waters by various club supporters to justify a lack of a response. Random posts on FB or BF have next to no credibility.

 

[On the quiet]

You would think young Indigenous players at Hawthorn would have confided in a guy like Shaun Burgoyne? If he knows nothing of it that makes me confused.

Yes I thought about this also.

I have absolutely no evidence to support this statement, but it would not surprise if there is an unintentional separation or worse divide among many clubs with the core senior group of players and the fringe and reserve grade players. They frequently play on different days at different grounds or even different states, they travel separately have different 'captain runs' and depending on the facilitates of the club likely have separate indoor sessions such as gym, match reviews/previews etc. Some clubs are probably better than others regarding hosting and accommodating young interstate draftees.

In addition, the fact that the complainants at the time were very young, most likely shy indigenous young men, apparently no indigenous welfare officers existed at the time, probably told by the club not to say anything, it is a possibility that someone of Shaun Burgoyne's status was just not aware of it.

 

[Squizz89]

Where have you read it? There will be a lot of attempted muddying of the waters by various club supporters to justify a lack of a response. Random posts on FB or BF have next to no credibility.

Yeah mostly on FB pages and Twitter mate which I guess is my fault for giving it much credence. But my question to them would be the same. Why would they choose to play it out this way? Might need to stay off the social media platforms regarding this one for a bit! Feel dumber after reading it.

 

[lioninthesand]

Has anyone considered the alleged victims may not want to participate in the Kings Council/AFL investigation?

They may have been happy to participate in a First Nations led review or speak with what they felt was a trust worthy ABC reporter, but will they want to participate and throw themselves at the mercy of a KC and the AFL investigation?

That is a massive step up, their names will likely leak, they and their families would surely weigh up the risk vs reward in them taking on the machine.

If they are unwilling, which honestly wouldn’t surprise me, I wonder where that leaves things?

*im not suggesting they wouldn’t participate for fear of being outed as Liers or their story won’t stack up etc, more, just the actual months of rigour the families would face and potentially, to what end?

 

[haystark]

Has anyone considered the alleged victims may not want to participate in the Kings Council/AFL investigation?

They may have been happy to participate in a First Nations led review or speak with what they felt was a trust worthy ABC reporter, but will they want to participate and throw themselves at the mercy of a KC and the AFL investigation?

That is a massive step up, their names will likely leak, they and their families would surely weigh up the risk vs reward in them taking on the machine.

If they are unwilling, which honestly wouldn’t surprise me, I wonder where that leaves things?

*im not suggesting they wouldn’t participate for fear of being outed as Liers or their story won’t stack up etc, more, just the actual months of rigour the families would face and potentially, to what end?

Hardly see how it's fair they can remain anonymous and not partake in an investigation but still expect their version of the truth be accepted.