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.

 

[western royboy]

So Fages has been afforded no natural justice in a case based on him nodding at a meeting attended by this upstanding citizen allegedly responsible for a serious crime involving fraud whilst the CEO of the Murray Valley Aboriginal Collective.

Different Egan’s - Leon - Hawthorn employee

Phil - Binmada

 

[martinson]

dont know why people here are getting hung up on the nodding of the head thing.

the thing that is material to fagan is:

a) his presence at the alleged meeting
b) the content of the alleged meeting being as the plaintiffs allege

i really dont care one way or the other if he nodded or not. what i do care about is whether fagan was present when burt and clarkson had the meeting. if the events occurred as alleged, fagan was at best complicit in what was done and at worst played an active role in organising and communicating the content of said meeting.

fagan denies that it ever occured and i doubt this ever reaches the trial stage. what actually happened we will almost definitely never know.

I believe they all deny any such meeting occurred. Or any meeting in fact.

WR, Phil Egan was the author of the report outlined on the ABC which caused Fagan and Clarkson to step aside was he not ?

 

[T Rick]

Different Egan’s - Leon - Hawthorn employee

Phil - Binmada

Thanks for that clarification

 

[T Rick]

dont know why people here are getting hung up on the nodding of the head thing.

the thing that is material to fagan is:

a) his presence at the alleged meeting
b) the content of the alleged meeting being as the plaintiffs allege

i really dont care one way or the other if he nodded or not. what i do care about is whether fagan was present when burt and clarkson had the meeting. if the events occurred as alleged, fagan was at best complicit in what was done and at worst played an active role in organising and communicating the content of said meeting.

fagan denies that it ever occured and i doubt this ever reaches the trial stage. what actually happened we will almost definitely never know.

So Fages is allegedly at a meeting where he allegedly nods his head when others at the meeting allegedly say things that they deny saying. Probably explains why he has such a poor relationship with our Indigenous players and is noted for his poor people management qualities. No wonder he has stated he is happy for this to be tested under proper court processes.

 

[wantok]

These allegations have highlighted differences in reactions to expectations in a professional footballing environment between indigenous and non indigenous players. It seems a managed environment and team before all culture does not suit some indigenous players. No doubt discussions are held with all listed players from time to time. Issues arise with many young draftees that need to be addressed. Drugs,damaging relationships and associations and performance expectations being a few. Hawthorn embraced recruitment of indigenous players during this period after being tardy in their adoption previously. These allegations will possibly have the opposite outcome to that envisaged by the Claimants. I fear Clubs will look long and hard about drafting indigenous talent. Why provide opportunity for young players if you risk this type of outcome?

On SM-A525F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SizeMatters]

The number of ignorant and biased commentary in this thread is concerning.

It’s before the courts. Let it play out.

note: I don’t have a “side” and find it sickening so many across society have labelled the First Nation named in these court proceedings as “money grabbers” and “sensitive”.

 

[Maboo]

I have backed Fages in from day one and still do, but what was said in that meeting and what followed afterwards is truly horrendous if true. I hope the coaches are called as witnesses because this has gone on for too long without a right of reply

 

[Jivlain]

Mod hat on

There are a number of serious, detailed allegations reflecting a pattern of behaviour and a culture. This is now a matter for the courts. Fagan's own part in these incidents looks to be minor (at most) though, given his role at the time, it goes to the culture of the club, hence, is relevant.

Baselessly suggesting that these claims are spurious cash-grabs is deeply inappropriate.

Let's say I am being bullied at work. I go to HR about it and they do not take adequate action to resolve the issue. My subsequent claim is against my employer, who has a legal duty to my safety at work. That is why the suit is against Hawthorn, not "because that's where the money is".

 

[alscotoz2]

Mod hat on

There are a number of serious, detailed allegations reflecting a pattern of behaviour and a culture. This is now a matter for the courts. Fagan's own part in these incidents looks to be minor (at most) though, given his role at the time, it goes to the culture of the club, hence, is relevant.

Baselessly suggesting that these claims are spurious cash-grabs is deeply inappropriate.

Let's say I am being bullied at work. I go to HR about it and they do not take adequate action to resolve the issue. My subsequent claim is against my employer, who has a legal duty to my safety at work. That is why the suit is against Hawthorn, not "because that's where the money is".

Correct

 

[The Flying Belgian]

The number of ignorant and biased commentary in this thread is concerning.

It’s before the courts. Let it play out.

note: I don’t have a “side” and find it sickening so many across society have labelled the First Nation named in these court proceedings as “money grabbers” and “sensitive”.

Often I'll invoke Wittgenstein's famous quote: "whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent". Sure that's an oversimplification, but the literal interpretation applies here more than most - this is a private matter where we are possession of so few "facts", discussing it is futile.

 

[T Rick]

Mod hat on

There are a number of serious, detailed allegations reflecting a pattern of behaviour and a culture. This is now a matter for the courts. Fagan's own part in these incidents looks to be minor (at most) though, given his role at the time, it goes to the culture of the club, hence, is relevant.

Baselessly suggesting that these claims are spurious cash-grabs is deeply inappropriate.

Let's say I am being bullied at work. I go to HR about it and they do not take adequate action to resolve the issue. My subsequent claim is against my employer, who has a legal duty to my safety at work. That is why the suit is against Hawthorn, not "because that's where the money is".

Up until now we have only heard one side of this alleged racism claim ad-nauseum. The allegations have been provided to us via the media and the release of a seriously flawed and leaked Hawthorn review. Now the "detailed allegations" have been made public via a statement of claim. The earlier AFL investigation found no case to answer and the subsequent HRC attempts at mediation were abandoned. At no point was Chris Fagan allowed any input into the original Hawthorn Review or ever been able to publicly provide context or his version of events - he has in many ways been denied all semblance of natural justice up until this point in time. The typical media pile on was totally skewed and epitomised by Mark Robinson at his Slobbo worst. For Fagan, appearing as a witness in a Federal Court trial will be incredibly stressful but at least there will now be a legal onus of proof required by the claimants. I am genuinely concerned for Fagan's well-being. He could literally "walk on water" and yet still come out of this process tainted by association.

 

[BangyBangy]

Mod hat on

There are a number of serious, detailed allegations reflecting a pattern of behaviour and a culture. This is now a matter for the courts. Fagan's own part in these incidents looks to be minor (at most) though, given his role at the time, it goes to the culture of the club, hence, is relevant.

Baselessly suggesting that these claims are spurious cash-grabs is deeply inappropriate.

Let's say I am being bullied at work. I go to HR about it and they do not take adequate action to resolve the issue. My subsequent claim is against my employer, who has a legal duty to my safety at work. That is why the suit is against Hawthorn, not "because that's where the money is".

If you were being bullied at work, would you go to Worksafe or the ABC?

 

[T Rick]

Time to repost this:

 

[western royboy]

If you were being bullied at work, would you go to Worksafe or the ABC?

If you wanted some light shone on it because you feared it would be covered up…

 

[martinson]

If you wanted some light shone on it because you feared it would be covered up…

This has already gone through a long process with nobody publicly being any the wiser.

The flipside of that is you would go to the ABC if you wanted to stir up a hornet's nest and and have one side of the story put out there .

Honestly ,this fear of a cover up has long had its shelf life.

 

[martinson]

If you wanted some light shone on it because you feared it would be covered up…

There's nothing in it for the AFL to cover it up once the allegations have been made and a report filed and made public. With a full ABC pile on. Plus the guy in The Age.

Everyone was watching the AFL like a hawk.

They tried their best and the complainants never fronted ( apologies if I have that wrong )

The accused have maintained (privately) and reading into anything they've said publicly that none of it ever happened.

Interested to see if this ever gets to any sort of full disclosure in the Federal Court.

 

[BangyBangy]

If you wanted some light shone on it because you feared it would be covered up…

Yeah, that's a fair point.

I would have been happy to see this go straight to court from the get go.

 

[western royboy]

There's nothing in it for the AFL to cover it up once the allegations have been made and a report filed and made public. With a full ABC pile on. Plus the guy in The Age.

Everyone was watching the AFL like a hawk.

They tried their best and the complainants never fronted ( apologies if I have that wrong )

The accused have maintained (privately) and reading into anything they've said publicly that none of it ever happened.

Interested to see if this ever gets to any sort of full disclosure in the Federal Court.

How did the issue become public?

Have any of the allegations that were in the initial story written by Russell Jackson based upon what came out of the Hawthorn commissioned Binmada report changed at all?

With the greatest respect the AFL’s sole interest from day one was to shut everything down. The investigations they conducted were redundant at best and a waste of time and money. It went to the HRC where it could not be successfully mediated so we end up here. One party has made a claim, my understanding is that the parties have denied the claims and so it will be up the Hawthorn Lawyers to decide what they do. Do they fight it in open court or negotiate their way out if it?

I can’t see it going to court.

 

[martinson]

How did the issue become public?

Have any of the allegations that were in the initial story written by Russell Jackson based upon what came out of the Hawthorn commissioned Binmada report changed at all?

With the greatest respect the AFL’s sole interest from day one was to shut everything down. The investigations they conducted were redundant at best and a waste of time and money. It went to the HRC where it could not be successfully mediated so we end up here. One party has made a claim, my understanding is that the parties have denied the claims and so it will be up the Hawthorn Lawyers to decide what they do. Do they fight it in open court or negotiate their way out if it?

I can’t see it going to court.

They're perfectly happy to fight it in open court if they have to is my understanding.

As someone said ,recollections may vary.

I hope it never gets there for all involved.

 

[western royboy]

They're perfectly happy to fight it in open court if they have to is my understanding.

As someone said ,recollections may vary.

I hope it never gets there for all involved.

Unless Hawthorn fold early it’s got another two and a half years to run. Take that as a fact.

 

[martinson]

Unless Hawthorn fold early it’s got another two and a half years to run. Take that as a fact.

Well I guess the cost and mental trauma for anyone involved comes into it then doesn't it.

 

[T Rick]

Unless Hawthorn fold early it’s got another two and a half years to run. Take that as a fact.

Now that the complainants have lodged their statement of claim, what is the next step in the legal process?

 

[martinson]

Now that the complainants have lodged their statement of claim, what is the next step in the legal process?

It's not my area of expertise but I would imagine you have 28 days to file a response after which if both parties are litigious it could be at least another 12 months before it gets to mediation. WR is right. Unless settled you're looking at 2-3 years.