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.

 

[Yardie]

No.
You labeling him as disingenuous without being in full possession of the facts is what's 'so sure of yourself'.
Perhaps Matthews IS aware of the context of the conversation, because Fagan gave him his version of events.
I just think it's outlandish to begin taking shots at Lethal with zero knowledge that he is, in fact, incorrect in his assertion.

I don't understand why you are being so defensive. Matthews decided to insert himself into the conversation, but I'm sure that was done as his role as a Brisbane (not Hawthorn) Director. In this case his interests lie with Brisbane and not Hawthorn.

 

[Yardie]

I'm not pulling out the tar and feathers for anyone right now.
And re Matthews, his knowledge comes directly from an involved party.
Yours doesn't.
I don't think that makes him privy to the truth, but it sure as hell doesn't make him just some dope who should shut their mouth for your edification.

Looking forward to hearing all parties and won't sling shit at any of them until I do.
Would be nice if others would do the same.

You do understand that the quotes being used are directly from an involved party. It's from the court documents!

 

[DogDaySonny]

You do understand that the quotes being used are directly from an involved party. It's from the court documents!

Surely this isn’t hard to understand. Just because it is in the submissions, that doesn’t mean it is true and accurate. And that’s doubly the case when well over a year after this first broke, the accused still haven’t been able to present their arguments.

So, you know, just chill. And wait until we see how the case progresses before we dig trenches and start fighting in this forum. Which is just about the most ineffective thing anyone can do with this.

 

[SJT76]

Reading the last few posts made me think about the difficulties HFC may face in compiling their defence without access to Clarkson and Fagan to explain their actions. I know there is a lot of bad blood, but since Clarkson and Fagan are not parties to the case, the only way they get to explain their actions is through the HFC.

 

[Mississippi]

I'm not pulling out the tar and feathers for anyone right now.
And re Matthews, his knowledge comes directly from an involved party.
Yours doesn't.
I don't think that makes him privy to the truth, but it sure as hell doesn't make him just some dope who should shut their mouth for your edification.

Looking forward to hearing all parties and won't sling shit at any of them until I do.
Would be nice if others would do the same.

So, I’ll ask the question again.
You said you’re going with Matthew’s’ knowledge.
All we know he said is that Fagan was nodding - the statement of claim is by inference damming.
So what’s his knowledge that you’re going with?

And by the way, don’t assume I don’t have any knowledge of the matter.

 

[brad sue well]

As someone has said before, Fagan was the head of the football department and the most senior in the room and if he didn’t like what was being done it was his responsibility to intervene.

* For whatever reason Clarkson is and was volatile in a press conference and everyone knows that it was Fagan who needed to sit at the back behind all the journalists and be his minder.

 

[flinchfree]

So, I’ll ask the question again.
You said you’re going with Matthew’s’ knowledge.
All we know he said is that Fagan was nodding - the statement of claim is by inference damming.
So what’s his knowledge that you’re going with?

And by the way, don’t assume I don’t have any knowledge of the matter.

It's dumb of me to engage, as I'd be clearly just making up shit to entertain you.

Having said that, why the **** not.

Unless he has nodding disease, It's entirely possible that Fagan nodded in these moments but not restricted to:
1. As Carl entered the room and others greeted him.
2. Some request made to him to do something like fetch the Minties.
3. Or more widely, to any single point at anything said in that meeting, from the description of Carl's improved play and development to any of the other things said including the sordid accusations.

It's impossible to know whether he even nodded purposefully to a made statement and not some other instructive motion, like encouraging any of the other participants to continue in what they were saying - without necessarily being in agreement with any particular statement.

I mean honestly, it's such a uniquely dumb ****ing accusation I'm absolutely amazed it's even included in the complaint.
You're going with a read on what it meant and when it was rendered, based on believing the sequence of events and statements as described by the players.

If Fagan told Matthews that the accusations are entirely horseshit, and that he has no idea why he was named other than being described as nodding at some point, then yeah, I can totally believe the incredulity that emanated from Lethal when he was engaged on the subject.

All this time later, and with the way this has all unfolded, I'm stunned anyone on here wants to go making assumptions other than there are some very hurt men with shit on their chest that needs unloading.
Lets not pretend to know whose truth is real and whose is not, including now trying to paint Leigh Matthews in an unfavorable light because he supported Fagan.

 

[Yardie]

Surely this isn’t hard to understand. Just because it is in the submissions, that doesn’t mean it is true and accurate. And that’s doubly the case when well over a year after this first broke, the accused still haven’t been able to present their arguments.

So, you know, just chill. And wait until we see how the case progresses before we dig trenches and start fighting in this forum. Which is just about the most ineffective thing anyone can do with this.

I never said it is true and accurate. Was responding to the following:
And re Matthews, his knowledge comes directly from an involved party.
Yours doesn't.

 

[HedgeFund]

As it hasn't been resolved the courts are the right place for it to be sorted out. The claims will see the light of day.
I actually think folks are going to be a bit disappointed by the evidence presented in court.

Whose evidence in particular?

Given you yourself have stated the courts are the place to sort it out (which logically infers Phil Egan’s information gathering exercise is now completely irrelevant), and now the claims will see the light of day….

Which witnesses evidence are you essentially prejudging as likely to leave folks “disappointed”?

 

[Mississippi]

It's dumb of me to engage, as I'd be clearly just making up shit to entertain you.

Having said that, why the **** not.

Unless he has nodding disease, It's entirely possible that Fagan nodded in these moments but not restricted to:
1. As Carl entered the room and others greeted him.
2. Some request made to him to do something like fetch the Minties.
3. Or more widely, to any single point at anything said in that meeting, from the description of Carl's improved play and development to any of the other things said including the sordid accusations.

Or If he even nodded purposefully to a made statement and not some other instructive motion, like encouraging any of the other participants to continue in what they were saying - not necessarily in agreement with any particular statement.

I mean honestly, it's such a uniquely dumb ****ing accusation I'm absolutely amazed it's even included in the complaint.
You're going with a read on what it meant and when it was rendered, based on believing the sequence of events and statements as described by the players.

If Fagan told Matthews that the accusations are entirely horseshit, and that he has no idea why he was named other than being described as nodding at some point, then yeah, I can totally believe the incredulity that emanated from Lethal when he was engaged on the subject.

All this time later, and with the way this has all unfolded, I'm stunned anyone on here wants to go making assumptions other than there are some very hurt men with shit on their chest that needs unloading.
Lets not pretend to know whose truth is real and whose is not, including now trying to paint Leigh Matthews in an unfavorable light because he supported Fagan

It's dumb of me to engage, as I'd be clearly just making up shit to entertain you.

Having said that, why the **** not.

Unless he has nodding disease, It's entirely possible that Fagan nodded in these moments but not restricted to:
1. As Carl entered the room and others greeted him.
2. Some request made to him to do something like fetch the Minties.
3. Or more widely, to any single point at anything said in that meeting, from the description of Carl's improved play and development to any of the other things said including the sordid accusations.

Or whether he even nodded purposefully to a made statement and instead not some other instructive motion, like encouraging any of the other participants to continue in what they were saying - not necessarily in agreement with any particular statement.

I mean honestly, it's such a uniquely dumb ****ing accusation I'm absolutely amazed it's even included in the complaint.
You're going with a read on what it meant and when it was rendered, based on believing the sequence of events and statements as described by the players.

If Fagan told Matthews that the accusations are entirely horseshit, and that he has no idea why he was named other than being described as nodding at some point, then yeah, I can totally believe the incredulity that emanated from Lethal when he was engaged on the subject.

All this time later, and with the way this has all unfolded, I'm stunned anyone on here wants to go making assumptions other than there are some very hurt men with shit on their chest that needs unloading.
Lets not pretend to know whose truth is real and whose is not, including now trying to paint Leigh Matthews in an unfavorable light because he supported Fagan.

OK, so that’s Matthews’ knowledge you’re going with.
Thanks for clearing that up.

My read is, from the point of view of Fagan’s lawyers, they’d be advising Fagan “to tell Leigh to shut the f*ck up and stop making admissions on your behalf”.

 

[flinchfree]

As someone has said before, Fagan was the head of the football department and the most senior in the room and if he didn’t like what was being done it was his responsibility to intervene.

* For whatever reason Clarkson is and was volatile in a press conference and everyone knows that it was Fagan who needed to sit at the back behind all the journalists and be his minder.

You again are assuming something was being done Fagan didn't like.
Maybe wait.

 

[flinchfree]

OK, so that’s Matthews’ knowledge you’re going with.
Thanks for clearing that up.

My read is, from the point of view of Fagan’s lawyers, they’d be advising Fagan “to tell Leigh to shut the f*ck up and stop making admissions on your behalf”.

You're a loony.

 

[Flag08]

This thread is going well…
There is no way anybody is giving evidence in court. The club will not want to see the complainant’s stories torn to shreds in public or have the reasons for their various exits from the club questioned. That would be less than helpful for all concerned. If certain lawyers weren’t involved it would have settled long ago. It still will.

 

[Mercy Seat]

With respect to Yardie - No.

Matthews was loyally inferring that all Fagan did was nod his head - no offence there.
Read my post #7,168 - or better still do yourself a favour and read the statement of claim which is freely available and can be downloaded from this forum.

Fagan was a club leader who sat in in a meeting for an hour or so where some outrageous things were purportedly said to the indigenous players. Fagan just sitting there and nodding his head signified his agreement with those offensive remarks directed to his players and their families.

Matthews should have just butted out. His comment was unhelpful and mischievous.
I wouldn’t like to be in Fagan’s shoes if he’s cross examined on the matter (which will inevitably happen if the matter goes to hearing).

There is a version of this story that is completely different to what’s been presented in the court documents. Context which completely changes it significantly. I’m not saying it’s true or not, but from everything I’ve heard, the coaches, club, former players at the club, many people around the situation are all to some degree aligned with it.

And as a result, people like Leigh are absolutely filthy that it’s even got to this point. Former premiership hawks are filthy.

So that’s why Leigh has said his piece on radio a few times. Agree that it doesn’t help the situation at all, and I’m sure he’s been advised to keep quiet, but people are human and how they react to perceived “injustices” to people they really care about is by speaking out.

 

[flinchfree]

This thread is going well…
There is no way anybody is giving evidence in court. The club will not want to see the complainant’s stories torn to shreds in public or have the reasons for their various exits from the club questioned. That would be less than helpful for all concerned. If certain lawyers weren’t involved it would have settled long ago. It still will.

I reckon there is zero chance Clarko, Fagan and Burt will not insist on this going to court and getting their own statements on record.
They just couldn't allow what has now been shared with the public to be unchallenged and still desire to work professionally and have any kind of positive personal reputation.

Don't think our Club is in any way advantaged by trying to pay this to go away.
The stench of paying this to disappear would be staining for a long, long time.
Far better for the wider public to hear everyone's account and perhaps be able to understand how each could have had their own read on things.

 

[Flag08]

I reckon there is zero chance Clarko, Fagan and Burt will not insist on this going to court and getting their own statements on record.
They just couldn't allow what has now been shared with the public to be unchallenged and still desire to work professionally and have any kind of positive personal reputation.

Don't think our Club is in any way advantaged by trying to pay this to go away.
The stench of paying this to disappear would be staining for a long, long time.
Far better for the wider public to hear everyone's account and perhaps be able to understand how each could have had their own read on things.

Clarko, Fages and Burt have no say on whether it goes to court.

 

[HedgeFund]

Is there no one else who is following this that’s thinking it’s more about the plaintiff’s seeking an open acknowledgment of the culture of the club at the time, and the need to apologise for the environment that existed, rather than the demand for significant compensation?

Why do people think it’s about what the club has to pay in order to “make it go away”?

As far as I can tell, the sticking point at the HRC / mediation was the staff and club would not agree to an apology or acknowledgment of any racially discriminatory treatment.

Perhaps it’s not as much about money as many may think

 

[flinchfree]

Clarko, Fages and Burt have no say on whether it goes to court.

Of course they will.
If Hawthorn settles, Clarko Fages and Burt will immediately bring suit against both the accusing players and the Hawthorn Football Club.
There is zero, zero chance this now disappears quietly.

 

[kazzooka]

No.
You labeling him as disingenuous without being in full possession of the facts is what's 'so sure of yourself'.
Perhaps Matthews IS aware of the context of the conversation, because Fagan gave him his version of events.
I just think it's outlandish to begin taking shots at Lethal with zero knowledge that he is, in fact, incorrect in his assertion.

It doesn't really matter about the nod. It's that he was present at the meeting and did not object to the things being said to Peterson. Therefore statements made by Clarkson were not his own personal opinion only, it was a united group of Clarkson, Fagan and Burt delivering this information to Peterson. If you switch it from Clarkson speaking to Fagan and Clarkson nodding it's the same thing.

Also remember at the time Clarkson and Fagan reported to Fagan, he was their boss. Obviously we know Clarkson had far more power and decision making, but ultimately official chain of reporting, Fagan was in charge and responsible for Clarkson and Burt's actions.

 

[SJT76]

Of course they will.
If Hawthorn settles, Clarko Fages and Burt will immediately bring suit against both the accusing players and the Hawthorn Football Club.
There is zero, zero chance this now disappears quietly.

For what?

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

This thread is going well…
There is no way anybody is giving evidence in court. The club will not want to see the complainant’s stories torn to shreds in public or have the reasons for their various exits from the club questioned. That would be less than helpful for all concerned. If certain lawyers weren’t involved it would have settled long ago. It still will.

So does it settle out of court with money or apologies? Does it need both?

If it’s not money, and apologies are granted, where/how are the lawyers going to get some dosh?

 

[flinchfree]

It doesn't really matter about the nod. It's that he was present at the meeting and did not object to the things being said to Peterson. Therefore statements made by Clarkson were not his own personal opinion only, it was a united group of Clarkson, Fagan and Burt delivering this information to Peterson. If you switch it from Clarkson speaking to Fagan and Clarkson nodding it's the same thing.

Also remember at the time Clarkson and Fagan reported to Fagan, he was their boss. Obviously we know Clarkson had far more power and decision making, but ultimately official chain of reporting, Fagan was in charge and responsible for Clarkson and Burt's actions.

Exactly.
My entire posting on this matter has been about how inane the referencing of 'the nod' is. The aggrieved parties are somehow suggesting the nod - taken from some moment in time not described - is some crucial indicator of why Fagan is party to what was allegedly said and proves his support for the kind of Club ethos that could allow Indigenous players to be singled out for specific negative treatment.

What it really screams to me is reaching. For any way possible to drag in collectively a large enough group of Hawthorn employed peoples such that the larger conspiracy of active racist treatment can be more generally associated. The fewer the participants, the more easily the Club can describe the activity as rogue or isolated behaviour and not indicative of the whole.

Do you think if such a reference to nodding was missing, and that Fagan was instead merely listed as a participant/attendee in the meeting, Lethal would have lost his shit?
He, like i, think long bows have been drawn in order to present the most negative light in which all this could be painted, including how to tie Fagan in most colorfully to the events.
And that one only does so if you think the substance of the rest of your accusations are not sufficiently strong to convince.

 

[NewkTheLot]

As someone has said before, Fagan was the head of the football department and the most senior in the room and if he didn’t like what was being done it was his responsibility to intervene.

* For whatever reason Clarkson is and was volatile in a press conference and everyone knows that it was Fagan who needed to sit at the back behind all the journalists and be his minder.

I’d invite you and the person who liked your post to check who the head of the football department was at the time Carl Peterson was at the club.

As a hint, it’s not the person you’ve named but rather someone else who despite being named very early on has skated through all of this despite still being very prominent in the AFL community. Wonder why?

 

[Brishawk]

Exactly.
My entire posting on this matter has been about how inane the referencing of 'the nod' is. The aggrieved parties are somehow suggesting the nod - taken from some moment in time not described - is some crucial indicator of why Fagan is party to what was allegedly said and proves his support for the kind of Club ethos that could allow Indigenous players to be singled out for specific negative treatment.

What it really screams to me is reaching. For any way possible to drag in collectively a large enough group of Hawthorn employed peoples such that the larger conspiracy of active racist treatment can be more generally associated. The fewer the participants, the more easily the Club can describe the activity as rogue or isolated behaviour and not indicative of the whole.

Do you think if such a reference to nodding was missing, and that Fagan was instead merely listed as a participant/attendee in the meeting, Lethal would have lost his shit?
He, like i, think long bows have been drawn in order to present the most negative light in which all this could be painted, including how to tie Fagan in most colorfully to the events.
And that one only does so if you think the substance of the rest of your accusations are not sufficiently strong to convince.

Matthews said fagan was accused of nodding. That isnt true. It is a straw man argument. He is being described as endorsing what was said by clarkson and burt. The accusations are against the club.

 

[Brishawk]

I’d invite you and the person who liked your post to check who the head of the football department was at the time Carl Peterson was at the club.

As a hint, it’s not the person you’ve named but rather someone else who despite being named very early on has skated through all of this despite still being very prominent in the AFL community. Wonder why?

Correct, fagan’s title was head of coaching and development. The other person is not named as he was not a witness or perpetrator of the behaviour in question but he and other senior figures at the club at the time were responsible for ensuring their employees were acting in accordance with the responsibilities under the law and under the afl’s policies.