News Hawthorn Racism Review - No player name speculation - opposition posters tread very carefully

[Strapping Young Lad]

Wrong. Hawks did what they had to do by the rules of the AFL.

Correct. For reference below, once the HFC had the report outlining serious allegations they were duty bound by the AFL’s protocol to hand over the report to the AFL integrity unit.

I will pin this post, as it seems to be a constant query.

 

[DogDaySonny]

Gil: "Mate, you're the only guy that no one will cry about so, please, please, pretty please will you just say it's all your fault?"

Jeff: "response fails to pass rating filters"

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Can confirm 1st round pick is definitely on the table

Absolutely ridiculous if it eventuates, and we should be headed to court.

Melbourne tank, no draft sanctions.
Crows camp, no draft sanctions.
Collingwood do better report, no draft sanctions.

Are the AFL forgetting they achieved nothing in 8 months, after initially doing nothing when the Rioli’s claims first hit the AGE?

 

[matey]

I’m holding my hat on what Gowers spoke about the other day which should override everything else …….. our intentions as a club!

 

[Rhayader]

Draft sanctions would be be a blow for the welfare and morale of the current playing group. They had nothing to do with any of this, but such a punishment would stifle them and undermine their hard work and development as a team.

As for things being on the table, I’m sure “everything” is on the table at this point. The “investigation” is will determine what options get accepted (in theory at least… I suspect it’s already largely decided, they are just busy reverse engineering the process)

 

[Bugs1977]

In your recap you are inserting an extra step at (2). The welfare check and the report were one and the same.

From my understanding (and also from Gowers statement) the welfare check was done to check in on the wellbeing of past First Nations players and staff and to see if they needed any extra support. This is something that the HFC could action with in reason and if not then refer it to the AFL. The Commissioned Report of that welfare check was then handed to the AFL (which is protocol) because the grave findings from that welfare check (above the clubs pay grade). Call it whatever you like (welfare check / Commissioned Report) the fact of the matter and the point I was trying to make by separating the two is that the welfare check likely didn't need a confidentiality clause inserted so ex-players / partners would participate whereas when it was handed over to the AFL (calling it a Commissioned Report) the grey area was that maybe it should've had a confidentiality clause inserted. The thing I'm asking is does all that warrant a loss of draft picks. My answer is f**k no it doesn't.

 

[TylerDurden]

I'd say we'd have to trade out our future first to GC to get back into the first round.
Go from say pick 3 to pick 7.
Not as dire as it could be.

 

[eldorado]

The only possible grounds for such a sanction is that if the AFL found that the club, via its employees Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, HAD committed serious ethical breaches, and the club is therefore liable.

The AFL has already found NO behavioural or ethical breaches by those three.

So...what is the club actually guilty of then? Opening a can of worms the AFL didn't want opened? Actually trying to be a responsible corporation?

If they try to sting us, it's time for court.

 

[badgrill]

I'd say we'd have to trade out our future first to GC to get back into the first round.
Go from say pick 3 to pick 7.
Not as dire as it could be.

Unless they put in some fine print around us not being allowed to do that. Or banned us altogether from the draft...

 

[Stranglers]

From my understanding (and also from Gowers statement) the welfare check was done to check in on the wellbeing of past First Nations players and staff and to see if they needed any extra support. This is something that the HFC could action with in reason and if not then refer it to the AFL. The Commissioned Report of that welfare check was then handed to the AFL (which is protocol) because the grave findings from that welfare check (above the clubs pay grade). Call it whatever you like (welfare check / Commissioned Report) the fact of the matter and the point I was trying to make by separating the two is that the welfare check likely didn't need a confidentiality clause inserted so ex-players / partners would participate whereas when it was handed over to the AFL (calling it a Commissioned Report) the grey area was that maybe it should've had a confidentiality clause inserted. The thing I'm asking is does all that warrant a loss of draft picks. My answer is f**k no it doesn't.

I think some of the above falls under the "checks and balances" line the media is so fond of trotting out. In an ideal world:

1) we wouldn't have commissioned Egan's firm to carry out the report due to a clear conflict of interest. Still flabbergasted that the club would have gone down that road to be honest given the history there.

2) there would have been at least a short term confidentiality clause built in for any participant.

3) there should have been something in the terms of reference where HFC was notified of any serious complaint being made so that the opportunity was there to short-circuit the process and notify the AFL as per their guidelines.

I think the club naively believed that all would be well so didn't really consider the above. Easy to say in hindsight of course. Also difficult to see how the AFL could sheet all the blame to the HFC when the source of the main issue (ie the leak) remains unknown.

Nothing would surprise me in terms of sanctions. The AFL exists under its own system of logic.

 

[kenneje]

The only possible grounds for such a sanction is that if the AFL found that the club, via its employees Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, HAD committed serious ethical breaches, and the club is therefore liable.

The AFL has already found NO behavioural or ethical breaches by those three.

So...what is the club actually guilty of then? Opening a can of worms the AFL didn't want opened? Actually trying to be a responsible corporation?

If they try to sting us, it's time for court.

The potential punishment threats and what is public knowledge just don't add up.

If a first round pick is on the table, there would have to be something we don't know of. My head keeps going to the 'leak', but as Malcolm Speed explained last week there wasn't actually a leak, the ABC journo went out to interview without the report.

 

[A1fromDay1]

So let me get this straight, we are going to issue apologies to all involved including Clarko & Co.

Essendon drug scandal - Hird, Dank & Robinson all got the sack and were found guilty thus club penatlies of a first & second round pick all the while being gifted pick 1 the following year.

Hawthorn Racism Report - Issue apologies to all involved, no individual involved at the time gets any penalties, the president Newbold remains on the AFL commission yet somehow we get the same penalty as essendon?

Get the f#@k outta here

 

[hfc70]

The only possible grounds for such a sanction is that if the AFL found that the club, via its employees Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, HAD committed serious ethical breaches, and the club is therefore liable.

The AFL has already found NO behavioural or ethical breaches by those three.

So...what is the club actually guilty of then? Opening a can of worms the AFL didn't want opened? Actually trying to be a responsible corporation?

If they try to sting us, it's time for court.

Well said.

We will rollover, that's for sure.

This cannot go unchallenged - what a joke

 

[SJT76]

Best I’ve been able to come up with is a failure to keep it confidential. Basically that are vicariously liable for the information being released no matter the source. Makes little sense to me though

 

[TylerDurden]

Well said.

We will rollover, that's for sure.

This cannot go unchallenged - what a joke

Correct. We ain't taking on city hall. Never ends well.

 

[HeHateMe]

On the table doesn't mean they will go through with it but if it happens, Imagine being a current player or coach you did nothing wrong but are being punished.

 

[A1fromDay1]

On the table doesn't mean they will go through with it but if it happens, Imagine being a current player or coach you did nothing wrong but are being punished.

Imagine being punished while the two accused Clarko & Fagan are free to carry on with their million dollar contracts with other AFL clubs

 

[almuz]

Sorry to intrude but I've heard some whispers and I thought I'd share them.

Hearing it's first round pick this year and next year's second.

$1,000,000

Public apology to all involved including Fagan, Burt and Clarkson.

Hawthorn will accept because they don't want to be on the AFL'S s**t list.

Enjoy your afternoon's.

This is either a burner account or you’ve been hanging out with Flogstradamus too much

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

i will personally bankroll our legal battle against the AFL if they go for picks. im sure my 0.0000002BTC will be worth millions by the time it gets to court

 

[Bill Keenon]

Luke Hodge, as reported by Fox Sports on 31 May: Hodge had accepted an invitation to be part of the independent investigation after the allegations were first revealed [and] provided a statement in December last year ...

“I felt initially the accusations didn’t match up to the three gentlemen or the culture of the football club that I knew ...

“I spoke to a lot of Indigenous and non-Indigenous players and they all had the same feeling.

“I felt I was in a position to answer questions … I had nothing to hide. That’s the reason I put my hand up.

“I gave the report what I’d seen through my 16 years at the football club.

“A lot of people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, put their hands up to tell their story.”


Luke Hodge, as reported by SEN on 3 June: Hodge had been a participant in the independent investigation and had signed a confidentiality clause ...

“I know Cyril is the biggest name out of the lot but those guys were teammates ...

“Carl was 2009/10, Jermaine was 2015/16. But yeah, Cyril is obviously the one who had the longest relationship with us so to hear the stories that they’ve told and how they’ve felt, a lot of it did come to a shock because when I left Hawthorn and when Cyril left Hawthorn a year later, I had text messages back and forth… it took me by surprise.

“But in saying that, you don’t divulge all your feelings to people… you did feel for them and how they felt but as I said, I think I’m the same as everyone, we’ve heard one side of the story… I think everyone sits back and wants to hear the other side.”

 

[westhawk]

It's the Kangaroos supporter's punishment they have been having wet dreams about it.

Just like they have wet dreams about being relevant again and climbing out of the bottom 2 on the ladder that they continue to occupy year after year

 

[mookieb]

This is the AFL's worst nightmare. The only way to possibly escape from a racism scandal is for someone to be blamed and punished. If no-one is punished then this nightmare doesn't end. Clearing all accused parties involved opens up claims of white washing and systemic racism which allows perpetrators to go unpunished (this is already happening) or the AFL turning a blind eye. If the scandal drags on then the debacle grows.

It's a tricky situation because the 3 involved are all vehemently claiming their innocence and the accusers are stating the opposite. I'm assuming the AFL would have wanted an agreement through mediation where some sort of apology and compensation would be issued as it's likely the truth of the story falls somewhere in the middle of both parties.

The AFL are incompetent, image obsessed and should be blamed as much as anyone for this debacle. But given the AFL believe they do nothing wrong then obviously someone else must be at fault and likely they have the Hawks in their sights. I reckon we get fine only, one that is small enough that they accept because they (like the AFL) will want this all to go away.

 

[ZACK WILD]

On the table doesn't mean they will go through with it but if it happens, Imagine being a current player or coach you did nothing wrong but are being punished.

Yes l know how that feels

 

[westhawk]

Absolutely ridiculous if it eventuates, and we should be headed to court.

Melbourne tank, no draft sanctions.
Crows camp, no draft sanctions.
Collingwood do better report, no draft sanctions.

No chance we will lose draft picks. People have to stop listening to the maggots in the media who want that to happen. The AFL will want a quick resolution that we won’t contest and it draws on longer. I can guarantee that any sanctions will be challenged in court by the HFC.

 

[badgrill]

Yes l know how that feels

you're a current player or coach?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The only possible grounds for such a sanction is that if the AFL found that the club, via its employees Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, HAD committed serious ethical breaches, and the club is therefore liable.

The AFL has already found NO behavioural or ethical breaches by those three.

So...what is the club actually guilty of then? Opening a can of worms the AFL didn't want opened? Actually trying to be a responsible corporation?

If they try to sting us, it's time for court.

This has been my question all along, I've said little on this subject because I've never known what questions to ask.

I would really like to know why everything is the club's fault. None of that is being explained to my satisfaction.