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.

 

[Sausages]

The key word here is accused, although the emerging consensus here appears to be that they're the real victims.

You ascribe one party with an automatic assumption of victimhood.

In reality, right now, there is simply the accused and the aggrieved, reporting party.

To the best of my knowledge, there is extremely limited proof or supporting statements on the full dossier of alleged offences.

I'm not saying they didn't happen as described - I'm simply pointing out, that in the rush to embrace the aggrieved parties, we do so at the expense of due process.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Reading some pages in this thread proves otherwise.
Posters have been questioned or attacked due to saying things like let's wait and see what comes from further investigation, let's hear both sides .
That would suggest some are pretty quick to back the accusers in.
How this thread festered before the full story has been revealed is quite alarming and just shows there are many in society clearly not confident on the integrity of the findings or systems that judge on these matters.
There was a wall built in this thread , if you didn't side with the accusers ,people where outraged.
I stand where I always have stood and that is wait until the matter has been investigated properly, otherwise how do you make a judgement.

See my post above, I was going to post earlier today.
Pretty much how I read the room with some posters.

I think there's a wall between people not capable of understanding the complex predicament and those who can

The club can't wait for the outcome which won't come out until until next year. We have to start preparations for Fagan not to be our coach next year so we can prepare for next season the best we can and based on there being a slim chance he'll come out clean enough to be put in a position of power at an AFL club.

Nothing to do with siding with or against the victims

 

[Required]

I stayed away for a day. This post bought me back.

Love the idea and this is my 2c to add to yours.

Use the mega dollar media deal to create the additional two list spots per team and make the spots valid for two years not one. Can call it a rookie C category or whatever.

Means from year two of the program there are four kids in these positions. While they won't all be best mates it's a group that hopefully can work together.

Apply the standard rookie rules re moving onto the main list.

Each club now has a indigenous liaison person so their welfare will be monitored and supported.

Even if these players don't make it into the main list they have learnt how it works and that knowledge goes back to their families and communities.

So the communities of both the clubs and the players are learning about each other.

That's gotta be a good thing right?

If nothing actually concrete is done, its all just talk. Theres numerous threads going on this drama and no one is offering solutions, just opinions on guilt, consequences.

Your suggestions are excellent. Liaison officer etc. It would be a positive outcome, something real, which at this point seems to have escaped everyone. People are focussing on blame, guilt, outrage etc, instead of how we provide a better outcome in the future. Giving more opportunities and support for these kids should be a broader discussion. It should be discussed now, and implimented for the 2023 season, not 'down the track'.
.

 

[Tom14]

How do we know they wish to remain anonymous? The individuals in question could well be happy to come forward publicly, but are being advised not to, potentially for the reasons you put forward and/or to solidify their position.

This is the issue - there is such limited visibility surrounding the whole saga.

If there's a media circus, a racist Q-Anon pile on, I'm sympathetic. But I'm not responsible for what other people do. And my position is that were that to occur, it would only strengthen their case anyway.

You'd take short odds on the possibility for a venomous email or two having been dropped on the Lions inbox, or North's inbox, if not directly to Fagan or Clarkson. Certainly there is acrimony and vitriol currently largely held in abeyance, but primed to be unleashed should there not be a satisfactory explanation forthcoming.

But if part of that explanation cannot be delivered to the public due to privacy concerns, some people will have been crucified potentially unjustly.

And for some reason, wide avenues of people are ok with that, because they fear on behalf of the victims.

My fear is for neither the victims nor the accused, rather it is for the capacity of facts to be buried behind closed doors.

For those old enough to remember, recall the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Over 2 years, 238 public hearings were held. Imagine the difference in the outcomes had the entirety of that process been held in similar, shadowy circumstances as this investigation.Imagine had those ABC reporters not handed over the fulsomeness of their investigation, preferring instead to "protect the anonymity" of informers and information.

In supporting anonymity, you risk undermining the very values you are trying to protect.

Pretty easy to assume they wish to remain anonymous for now because the publication kept them anonymous. Its far easier to do a story with identified witnesses going on record - protecting anonymity creates additional hurdles for verification and legal review.

The AFL process will undoubtedly speak to them directly though, what is the public interest in their names being known? We know how indigenous players get racially abused now just for playing the game, what do you think would happen to these former players?

 

[Gadzorks]

There are three separate groups involved in this - the players, the coaches and the clubs.

Each of these will now have to find their own pathway through this independently of each other.

Nothing to do with taking sides.

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

I think there's a wall between people not capable of understanding the complex predicament and those who can

The club can't wait for the outcome which won't come out until until next year. We have to start preparations for Fagan not to be our coach next year so we can prepare for next season the best we can and based on there being a slim chance he'll come out clean enough to be put in a position of power at an AFL club.

Nothing to do with siding with or against the victims

Okay yes , in regards to our coaching role I agree the club should prepare.
I was refering to myself or others making assumptions on whether Fagan or others are guilty in these matters without reasonable and thorough interviews of all parties involved.

 

[Maboo]

What do the power dynamics in this scenario look like to you? Are Clarkson, Fagan and co in the same situation as these former players?

Power dynamics are irrelevant, if Fagan wasn’t involved, the stigma of being called out in public as a racist just won’t go away. When Hawthorn realised how bad this report was going to be they should have been consulted at least. But nah let’s just carry on, only one side of the story counts.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Okay yes , in regards to our coaching role I agree the club should prepare.
I was refering to myself or others making assumptions on whether Fagan or others are guilty in these matters without reasonable and thorough interviews of all parties involved.

I really don't get it. I haven't seen people say he's guilty or even a bad person just that the events described are horrible and if true the perpetrators deserve serious punishment

At the same time we also have those questioning the motives of the journalist and victims which would be equally as wrong as calling Fagan a bad person

 

[martinson]

If we appoint say Stone as an interim and Fages' position is untenable by the time the season starts we're stuck with Stone for the year.

But if we appoint a new coach from outside the club that opens up the issue of recompense/damages for Fages if he's totally exonerated and didn't resign. And in which case Fages would never have deserved to be replaced anyway.

I'm sure the club is trying to work through all these scenarios and will be forced to name an interim coach soonish. We're between a rock and a hard place at present but the reality is that this inquiry may not be concluded before the season starts and we need to factor in whether we're happy enough for our interim to be coaching for season 2023.

 

[Ceebee]

One thing I have learnt through my life is that there is always two sides to a story .

 

[lioninthesand]

Reading some pages in this thread proves otherwise.
Posters have been questioned or attacked due to saying things like let's wait and see what comes from further investigation, let's hear both sides .
That would suggest some are pretty quick to back the accusers in.
How this thread festered before the full story has been revealed is quite alarming and just shows there are many in society clearly not confident on the integrity of the findings or systems that judge on these matters.
There was a wall built in this thread , if you didn't side with the accusers ,people where outraged.
I stand where I always have stood and that is wait until the matter has been investigated properly, otherwise how do you make a judgement.

See my post above, I was going to post earlier today.
Pretty much how I read the room with some posters.

Yeah I read you post. I disagree, you are overstating things.

No one ‘attacked’ anyone for suggesting we wait for facts etc. no one rushed to call Fagan guilty. Some gave speculative credence to the inital reports and said the found the allegation hard to read, some worried we would need a new coach if he was guilty/not guilty because of reputational damage etc, which is all reasonable discussion.

If anything I think there has been a stronger movement to tarnish and question the other party involved.

I think what you want is the complete protection and sheltering of someone from our tribe, so any comment that isn’t that, is assumed to be siding with the alleged victims.

 

[Required]

I stayed away for a day. This post bought me back.

Love the idea and this is my 2c to add to yours.

Use the mega dollar media deal to create the additional two list spots per team and make the spots valid for two years not one. Can call it a rookie C category or whatever.

Means from year two of the program there are four kids in these positions. While they won't all be best mates it's a group that hopefully can work together.

Apply the standard rookie rules re moving onto the main list.

Each club now has a indigenous liaison person so their welfare will be monitored and supported.

Even if these players don't make it into the main list they have learnt how it works and that knowledge goes back to their families and communities.

So the communities of both the clubs and the players are learning about each other.

That's gotta be a good thing right?

I started a thread where people can discuss the above ideas in the 'footy industry' forum, if youd like to contribute.. Dont think im allowed to post a link to a different discussion, but you will find it there.

 

[Sausages]

Pretty easy to assume they wish to remain anonymous for now because the publication kept them anonymous. Its far easier to do a story with identified witnesses going on record - protecting anonymity creates additional hurdles for verification and legal review.

The AFL process will undoubtedly speak to them directly though, what is the public interest in their names being known? We know how indigenous players get racially abused now just for playing the game, what do you think would happen to these former players?

Because the language being used doesn't stack up Tom.

Usually, in a scenario like this, the report would say "(A) former Hawthorn AFL player(s) allege...."

What is stated is they were (and I quote) "in each case, the player was a young First Nations draftee in his first five years with the club."

Why that choice of language?

Does it matter that they were First Nation's people? Is this somehow relevant, beyond fanning moral outrage? If this occurred to any person, in any workplace, wouldn't we be equally abhorred?

We speak of culturally safe environments, yet retreat at earliest opportunity to sensationalising the subject matter in an effort to highlight wrongdoing.

The relevant facts themselves should be used to achieve a fair and judicious outcome, rather than journalistic or corporate hyperbole Yet, in the absence of relevant facts, it is all we are left with.

Gil is a CEO - it's his job to provide a balanced and nuanced public response to this crisis. But when the CEO of an organisation is unable to verify relevant details which dramatically impact the public and business perception of that organisation, we have a problem.

Sure, I know the AFL would want to make the best of it - but sweeping it under the carpet and making it go away would be a damn sight harder if you or another journo/reporting officer/concerned health official etc could just contact the aggrieved and ask if a heavy brown paper bag had been offered to you.

The whole thing is redolent of every party trying to maximise their positive impact in whatever way seems most appropriate.

Whereas I'd just prefer the facts to make that determination, rather than legal and corporate posturing.

 

[Lions time]

I think there's a wall between people not capable of understanding the complex predicament and those who can

The club can't wait for the outcome which won't come out until until next year. We have to start preparations for Fagan not to be our coach next year so we can prepare for next season the best we can and based on there being a slim chance he'll come out clean enough to be put in a position of power at an AFL club.

Nothing to do with siding with or against the victims

Fagan will coach next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[carnthemlions]

I think there's a wall between people not capable of understanding the complex predicament and those who can

The club can't wait for the outcome which won't come out until until next year. We have to start preparations for Fagan not to be our coach next year so we can prepare for next season the best we can and based on there being a slim chance he'll come out clean enough to be put in a position of power at an AFL club.

Nothing to do with siding with or against the victims

That's the other thing. I don't think people realise what a precarious situation the club is in as a small fry heavily dependent on government funding for its future viability. It's not Collingwood, and chances are there will be significant internal and external pressure to get this sorted quickly and quietly.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Reading some pages in this thread proves otherwise.
Posters have been questioned or attacked due to saying things like let's wait and see what comes from further investigation, let's hear both sides .
That would suggest some are pretty quick to back the accusers in.
How this thread festered before the full story has been revealed is quite alarming and just shows there are many in society clearly not confident on the integrity of the findings or systems that judge on these matters.
There was a wall built in this thread , if you didn't side with the accusers ,people where outraged.
I stand where I always have stood and that is wait until the matter has been investigated properly, otherwise how do you make a judgement.

See my post above, I was going to post earlier today.
Pretty much how I read the room with some posters.

Same people who had Zorko sacked 4 weeks ago.

 

[carnthemlions]

How do we know they wish to remain anonymous? The individuals in question could well be happy to come forward publicly, but are being advised not to, potentially for the reasons you put forward and/or to solidify their position.

This is the issue - there is such limited visibility surrounding the whole saga.

If there's a media circus, a racist Q-Anon pile on, I'm sympathetic. But I'm not responsible for what other people do. And my position is that were that to occur, it would only strengthen their case anyway.

You'd take short odds on the possibility for a venomous email or two having been dropped on the Lions inbox, or North's inbox, if not directly to Fagan or Clarkson. Certainly there is acrimony and vitriol currently largely held in abeyance, but primed to be unleashed should there not be a satisfactory explanation forthcoming.

But if part of that explanation cannot be delivered to the public due to privacy concerns, some people will have been crucified potentially unjustly.

And for some reason, wide avenues of people are ok with that, because they fear on behalf of the victims.

My fear is for neither the victims nor the accused, rather it is for the capacity of facts to be buried behind closed doors.

For those old enough to remember, recall the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Over 2 years, 238 public hearings were held. Imagine the difference in the outcomes had the entirety of that process been held in similar, shadowy circumstances as this investigation.Imagine had those ABC reporters not handed over the fulsomeness of their investigation, preferring instead to "protect the anonymity" of informers and information.

In supporting anonymity, you risk undermining the very values you are trying to protect.

This explains it a lot better than I can. Less talk, more listening Sausages.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Same people who had Zorko sacked 4 weeks ago.

He hasn't re-signed yet....

 

[carnthemlions]

Same people who had Zorko sacked 4 weeks ago.

Anyone trying to make this some weird Lions supporter victim complex thing is so far off base it's mind boggling.

 

[Sausages]

This explains it a lot better than I can. Less talk, more listening Sausages.

Jesus dude, relax.

That exact same sentence can be interpreted in a variety of ways lol.

Hence my point on visibility.

 

[Tom14]

Because the language being used doesn't stack up Tom.

Usually, in a scenario like this, the report would say "(A) former Hawthorn AFL player(s) allege...."

What is stated is they were (and I quote) "in each case, the player was a young First Nations draftee in his first five years with the club."

Why that choice of language?

Does it matter that they were First Nation's people? Is this somehow relevant, beyond fanning moral outrage? If this occurred to any person, in any workplace, wouldn't we be equally abhorred?

We speak of culturally safe environments, yet retreat at earliest opportunity to sensationalising the subject matter in an effort to highlight wrongdoing.

The relevant facts themselves should be used to achieve a fair and judicious outcome, rather than journalistic or corporate hyperbole Yet, in the absence of relevant facts, it is all we are left with.

Gil is a CEO - it's his job to provide a balanced and nuanced public response to this crisis. But when the CEO of an organisation is unable to verify relevant details which dramatically impact the public and business perception of that organisation, we have a problem.

Sure, I know the AFL would want to make the best of it - but sweeping it under the carpet and making it go away would be a damn sight harder if you or another journo/reporting officer/concerned health official etc could just contact the aggrieved and ask if a heavy brown paper bag had been offered to you.

The whole thing is redolent of every party trying to maximise their positive impact in whatever way seems most appropriate.

Whereas I'd just prefer the facts to make that determination, rather than legal and corporate posturing.

Yes it does matter. The entire point of the hawthorn review was to investigate the treatment of first nations people (players, staff, etc) at the club. I don't understand what is sensationalist about reporting this. Pressuring white private school boys to separate from their partners is also wrong and bad, but that is not what the hawthorn review was looking into.

Pressuing indigenous players to separate from their families, or allegedly pressuring them to have an abortion, carries extra cultural sensitivities and impacts given the history of the treatment of indigenous people in this country. It's not the same as the stolen generation of course, but the same strain of paternalism comes through here, if these allegations are substantiated.

My question here is that if Fagan wasn't named as potentially involved, do you think you would be so strong on this issue? A lot of wanting to poke holes in the media report in this thread and I'm not sure we'd see nearly as much of it if someone we have generally liked and respected for his work out our club wasn't named in the report.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the report with Fagan being involved, but if you took his name out from everything I've read about the Hawthorn football club in the last year its very believable that something like this could have happened.

 

[Thomasno]

If we appoint say Stone as an interim and Fages' position is untenable by the time the season starts we're stuck with Stone for the year.

But if we appoint a new coach from outside the club that opens up the issue of recompense/damages for Fages if he's totally exonerated and didn't resign. And in which case Fages would never have deserved to be replaced anyway.

I'm sure the club is trying to work through all these scenarios and will be forced to name an interim coach soonish. We're between a rock and a hard place at present but the reality is that this inquiry may not be concluded before the season starts and we need to factor in whether we're happy enough for our interim to be coaching for season 2023.

The answer is no, I’m not sure we’d be happy with Stone at the helm all year.

Can you not appoint a senior coach mid-year?

 

[carnthemlions]

Jesus dude, relax.

That exact same sentence can be interpreted in a variety of ways lol.

Hence my point on visibility.

At least read the thread.

 

[martinson]

The answer is no, I’m not sure we’d be happy with Stone at the helm all year.

Can you not appoint a senior coach mid-year?

Well of course you can.

But that would imply more upheaval.

If Stone was winning games could be a different story.

 

[Sausages]

Yes it does matter. The entire point of the hawthorn review was to investigate the treatment of first nations people (players, staff, etc) at the club. I don't understand what is sensationalist about reporting this. Pressuring white private school boys to separate from their partners is also wrong and bad, but that is not what the hawthorn review was looking into.

Pressuing indigenous players to separate from their families, or allegedly pressuring them to have an abortion, carries extra cultural sensitivities and impacts given the history of the treatment of indigenous people in this country. It's not the same as the stolen generation of course, but the same strain of paternalism comes through here, if these allegations are substantiated.

My questiion here is that if Fagan wasn't named as potentially involved, do you think you would be so strong on this issue? A lot of wanting to poke holes in the media report in this thread and I'm not sure we'd see nearly as much of it if someone we have generally liked and respected for his work out our club wasn't named in the report.

If Fagan wasn't named I wouldn't have a vested interest and I'm unashamed to admit that.

And I'm not trying to poke holes in the media report as such, I'm addressing the simmering, emotive conclusions that everyone is assuming by advocating transparency as soon as reasonably possible.

Neither am I unsympathetic to the experiences of indigenous players in the AFL and I am certain every club has its skeletons - hell, we all do as individuals, never mind as conglomerates.

I am simply concerned that Trial by Media is exactly the scenario happening here, everyone knows it, but to put forward a manner in which this could be done more judiciously and equitably for everyone concerned - and let's be frank, that's a whole lot more people than just the named and their current/former footy club - appears somehow controversial.

I get the need to protect the innocent.

I understand the desire to punish the guilty.

I just don't agree with the redacting of relevant facts from parties I would otherwise consider have a need to know. And no, a relevant party AT THIS TIME isn't me or the general footy public.