Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice Hawthorn culture and Fagan

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

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.
 
Last edited:
How can Hawthorn be punished if the people responsible are no longer at the club, and if the people in control of the club had no knowledge of what was going on?

At Essendon, the people responsible and in charge were still at the club, so the club was punished. Note: there were no draft sanctions, just individuals punished.
Britzoon I think Howard tried a similar argument when he refused to apologise for the stolen generation.

Any Government for instance has to take responsibility for whatever the predecessors did.

I get your argument but it just won't wash. If the club is responsible for serious misdemeanors it will pay.
 
I would almost guarantee civil actions will result - that = going to court…whether you get there or settle out it’s still legal
Just out of curiosity - who does Fages sue for defamation?
I doubt it can be Hawthorn because they didn't publicly release their report.
I doubt it can be the AFL because they didn't release the Hawthorn report.
I doubt it can be the accusers in the Hawthorn review because they participated in a "truth telling" exercise on the basis of annonomity.
So does that just leave the ABC and the journalist who did his own research and published the allegations and names of Clarkson and Fagan?

Did the ABC have access to the Hawthorn report handed to the AFL and if so, who provided that to the ABC?
 
Comes under their Umbrella - “if proven” they will wear a sanction no doubt about it - this isn’t a rogue act - it’s collusion between several key members of the football department
I understand that part.

I don't understand what type of punishment Hawthorn could face (if the people involved are found guilty).


Regardless, I'm really trying to stay out of this, until the review is conducted and we see what the results/fall out is?
 
Britzoon I think Howard tried a similar argument when he refused to apologise for the stolen generation.

Any Government for instance has to take responsibility for whatever the predecessors did.

I get your argument but it just won't wash. If the club is responsible for serious misdemeanors it will pay.
Please don't try and make such comparisons between me and other such individuals.

I'm NOT making an argument, I'm asking a question because I don't understand.

Think I'll go back to lurking on this thread.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Please don't try and make such comparisons between me and other such individuals.

I'm NOT making an argument, I'm asking a question because I don't understand.

Think I'll go back to lurking on this thread.

Whoa, he wasn’t comparing you to Howard.

He was using a historical example of where the lines were blurred in terms of who is responsible when an organisation has been found to have done something wrong but the leadership has since changed.
 
This was my understanding as well - which still begs the question of how the original review did not uncover these stories. It’s pretty bizarre when you think about it.
Not everyone willing to participate in a club report, but maybe ok with talking to a journalist? Not totally out of the realm of possibility
 
Just out of curiosity - who does Fages sue for defamation?
I doubt it can be Hawthorn because they didn't publicly release their report.
I doubt it can be the AFL because they didn't release the Hawthorn report.
I doubt it can be the accusers in the Hawthorn review because they participated in a "truth telling" exercise on the basis of annonomity.
So does that just leave the ABC and the journalist who did his own research and published the allegations and names of Clarkson and Fagan?

Did the ABC have access to the Hawthorn report handed to the AFL and if so, who provided that to the ABC?
The ABC hasn't made clear what access it had to anything Rick. The timing was kind of odd with the ABC publishing its findings and the AFL coming out the next day and saying oh yeah btw Hawthorn have done a review , we can't tell you what's in it even though we've had it for a couple of weeks ( hmmm I wonder how long ) and it's really harrowing for us as well.

If the claims in the ABC report are untrue, coerced or any sort of embellishment of what's been said Fagan ,Clarkson and Burt will have a significant defamation action against them. Because they published their names first and foremost and names are suppressed generally in the legal world with anyone disclosing identities facing jail. As Hinch and others have found.
Please don't try and make such comparisons between me and other such individuals.

I'm NOT making an argument, I'm asking a question because I don't understand.

Think I'll go back to lurking on this thread.
Sorry mate. I think you've completely misinterpreted my response.
 
Just out of curiosity - who does Fages sue for defamation?
I doubt it can be Hawthorn because they didn't publicly release their report.
I doubt it can be the AFL because they didn't release the Hawthorn report.
I doubt it can be the accusers in the Hawthorn review because they participated in a "truth telling" exercise on the basis of annonomity.
So does that just leave the ABC and the journalist who did his own research and published the allegations and names of Clarkson and Fagan?

Did the ABC have access to the Hawthorn report handed to the AFL and if so, who provided that to the ABC?
I think the author of the report might have some nervousness given it appears to be at best an incomplete review
 
I think the author of the report might have some nervousness given it appears to be at best an incomplete review

Report wasn't published though. I don't practice defamation law so if someone knows better please correct me, but the audience for any 'defamation' by the report writers are those who were delivered the report i.e. senior people at Hawthorn and at the AFL. I don't think there could be substantial damages for that - but I did my torts course 14 years ago so could be wrong.

Noting who actually has the capacity to pay, ABC would be the ones who would be sued.
 
Report wasn't published though. I don't practice defamation law so if someone knows better please correct me, but the audience for any 'defamation' by the report writers are those who were delivered the report i.e. senior people at Hawthorn and at the AFL. I don't think there could be substantial damages for that - but I did my torts course 14 years ago so could be wrong.

Noting who actually has the capacity to pay, ABC would be the ones who would be sued.
Correct. The contents of the Hawthorn report have yet to be divulged let alone made public. No one has been defamed.

Re the ABC report it would be pointless suing the subjects of the report even in the remote chance they flat out lied. They didn't publish or distribute it apart from their financial status.
 
I'm sorry but I have a real issue with the lack of loyalty and empathy you (and some others around here) are showing a man that has given his heart and soul to this club. To effectively kick him to the way side because times got a little tough just screams weak leadership to me.
Have you considered asking people questions to understand better what they think instead of assuming you know what others' motivations are?
 
Correct. The contents of the Hawthorn report have yet to be divulged let alone made public. No one has been defamed.

Re the ABC report it would be pointless suing the subjects of the report even in the remote chance they flat out lied. They didn't publish or distribute it apart from their financial status.
i.e. suing individuals is pointless unless they are wealthy. Unless you have a point to prove and are happy to bear the costs.

But I think we've all got ahead of ourselves. There's a lot needs to happen before anyone gets sued.
 
i.e. suing individuals is pointless unless they are wealthy. Unless you have a point to prove and are happy to bear the costs.

But I think we've all got ahead of ourselves. There's a lot needs to happen before anyone gets sued.
I am of the view that civil action by the parties allegedly aggrieved in the report is inevitable. Defamation actions would only result if those claims are proven to be unsubstantiated. I hope I am wrong.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I am of the view that civil action by the parties allegedly aggrieved in the report is inevitable. Defamation actions would only result if those claims are proven to be unsubstantiated. I hope I am wrong.
I think it's inevitable as well but it all depends on what slant the AFL takes on this mess and right at the moment they don't have any insights or answers.
 
i dont get why any poster here would need to display loyalty to fagan. as far as im aware none of us personally know him with the possible exception of mighty lions.

at the end of the day the fagan we know is the projection of the man he puts forward in public. it is the same as any other public figure / influencer type. who they are when nobody is looking could be an entirely different character to this. to show loyalty to a figure in a position like this is imo rather silly regardless of their achievements
 
i dont get why any poster here would need to display loyalty to fagan. as far as im aware none of us personally know him with the possible exception of mighty lions.

at the end of the day the fagan we know is the projection of the man he puts forward in public. it is the same as any other public figure / influencer type. who they are when nobody is looking could be an entirely different character to this. to show loyalty to a figure in a position like this is imo rather silly regardless of their achievements
I have known one player on our list since birth, he loves the man and as I rate this lad and his family in the highest esteem possible I am more than confident that he is a man of the utmost integrity so I’m happy to back him in.
 
i dont get why any poster here would need to display loyalty to fagan. as far as im aware none of us personally know him with the possible exception of mighty lions.

at the end of the day the fagan we know is the projection of the man he puts forward in public. it is the same as any other public figure / influencer type. who they are when nobody is looking could be an entirely different character to this. to show loyalty to a figure in a position like this is imo rather silly regardless of their achievements
the contrary is believing currently unfounded accusations that in no way reflects anything public of Clarko and fagan anyone has ever seen, they must be fantastic actors if you believe them to be some sort of extreme racists
 
Report wasn't published though. I don't practice defamation law so if someone knows better please correct me, but the audience for any 'defamation' by the report writers are those who were delivered the report i.e. senior people at Hawthorn and at the AFL. I don't think there could be substantial damages for that - but I did my torts course 14 years ago so could be wrong.

Noting who actually has the capacity to pay, ABC would be the ones who would be sued.
While any person publishing defamatory allegations might be liable for publications that are the natural and probable consequence of the allegations made, the people making the allegations and the report writer will not be pursued. That leaves the ABC and the person who leaked the key contents of the report (clearly a person who knew its contents and holds no love for Clarkson/Fagan or the AFL - given its GF week) as the only real targets.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I think it's inevitable as well but it all depends on what slant the AFL takes on this mess and right at the moment they don't have any insights or answers.
Defamation action if taken would be against the ABC and its Reporter. Any other individual in the Media who has repeated the claims as truthful or made derogatory statements against the individuals could also be in the firing line. There are recent examples of this with the Laming actions. HAWTHORN and the AFL have not published any names or indeed directly referred to any coercive behaviour. If the ABC Claims are proven the Claimants could choose to seek compensation from Hawthorn and the AFL. Either way this is destined for the Courts.

Sent from my SM-A525F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Not everyone willing to participate in a club report, but maybe ok with talking to a journalist? Not totally out of the realm of possibility

And the players who spoke to the Hawks people and the ABC are under no obligation to participate in a formal review.

They might feel just getting their story told is enough as it will cause change irrespective of any review outcome.

They have legal rep now and they may be advised not to get involved because it's going to be messy and eat into years of their life. Wouldn't that be a disaster.
 
Do you think the afl would've investigated this properly, or binned the report and had a few people sign non-disclosure agreements? You must've been born yesterday.
Not sure what you’re trying to say. You saying you trust the AFL?

This hasn’t been investigated properly. That’s fact. How can something be investigated properly if they haven’t interviewed the accused and haven’t even carried out an ‘independent’ review??

Unless I’m missing something. There’s been an external report put through to the AFL. The AFL didn’t release this. A journo did. Now it’s actually being ‘properly’ and ‘independently’ investigated. The AFL isn’t going to just come out and rubbish the claims. That’s up to the accused. And both Fagan and Clarkson have categorically denied wrongdoing. I know who I believe based on my info.

It’s gutter journalism. Don’t care what anyone thinks. The article should never have seen the light of day without context and proper investigation.
 
Not sure what you’re trying to say. You saying you trust the AFL?

This hasn’t been investigated properly. That’s fact. How can something be investigated properly if they haven’t interviewed the accused and haven’t even carried out an ‘independent’ review??

Unless I’m missing something. There’s been an external report put through to the AFL. The AFL didn’t release this. A journo did. Now it’s actually being ‘properly’ and ‘independently’ investigated. The AFL isn’t going to just come out and rubbish the claims. That’s up to the accused. And both Fagan and Clarkson have categorically denied wrongdoing. I know who I believe based on my info.

It’s gutter journalism. Don’t care what anyone thinks. The article should never have seen the light of day without context and proper investigation.
My understanding is that Russell Jackson didn't leak/release the external report commissioned by Hawthorn, instead he got wind of the contents and sought out interviews from several past First Nations Hawthorn players, thus his published article is their personal accounts as relayed to him.

The Journalist in question specializes in cases regarding Sexual Abuse and Racial Injustice, he isn't some unethical ambulance chaser writing hit pieces for hire. I find it very ironic that many have asked for Fagan to be given the benefit of the doubt and to suspend judgement, yet there are those here who don't afford Russell Jackson the same, despite having a very credible resume.

Once again, I highly doubt there would be so much antagonism against Russell Jackson's reporting if the issue didn't involve the club.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice Hawthorn culture and Fagan


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top