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.
Except it wasn’t private and confidential information unless those who provided it had wished it to remain that way.
This again...
Imagine out of the blue being smacked in the face with these allegations. It was absolutely the correct and right thing to do not to respond both from a personal and legal standpoint.
The ABC were running the story regardless, and were entitled to do so, and STILL haven’t been sued because……nothing Russell Jackson reported is / was defamatory.
Not criticising them for not responding, and that’s entirely fair enough, but the story didn’t break without any notice being given - not that notice is actually required.
They could but I’d be amazed.
On what grounds? HFC didn't make any allegations. HFC didn't publish any allegations.
Sorry mate, this is just false. The club only received the report about a week or so before the ABC report went public, and all reporting to date suggests that they were talking to the press concurrently with Egan.
Would be great if the Club asks the past players if they wish to be involved in framing how that will look moving forward, be a big step forward in healing the fragile relationship.
No need to be sorry.
He’s working for the enemy (the AFL) now.
Was thinking more the players involved in the claims.
He’s working for the enemy (the AFL) now.
This is correct and you don’t have to be Einstein to work out who stood to make the most out of the Binmada report being sent to the ABC, and it wasn’t the players.No need to be sorry.
Yes the club received the Egan Report and passed it onto that AFL.
However the truth telling conversations with Egan had commenced in May (see paragraph 182 of the Federal Court Statement of Claim) and it may have taken 4-5 months to collate the information and furnish the Binmada report.
The Binmada report was provided to the Hawthorn Football club in August 2022. (See paragraph 183 of the Federal Court Statement of Claim)
This is easily verifiable. Defence said it was received in September 2022. There may be a day or two in it, but it’s clearly 3 weeks before the ABC article.
To suggest they weren’t annoyed that after the club received it, and around 10 days later passed it onto the AFL, who then sat on it for another 10 days during the finals of 2022, would be…..incorrect, perhaps false
They spoke to the ABC well after they’d spoken to Egan, and roughly 3 weeks after the Report had been submitted.
Apologies, I meant the AFL receiving the report which was 10 days as you’ve mentioned.No need to be sorry.
Yes the club received the Egan Report and passed it onto the AFL.
However the truth telling conversations with Egan had commenced in May (see paragraph 182 of the Federal Court Statement of Claim) and it may have taken 4-5 months to collate the information and furnish the Binmada report.
The Binmada report was provided to the Hawthorn Football club in August 2022. (See paragraph 183 of the Federal Court Statement of Claim)
This is easily verifiable. Defence said it was received in September 2022. There may be a day or two in it, but it’s clearly 3 weeks before the ABC article.
To suggest they weren’t annoyed that after the club received it, and around 10 days later passed it onto the AFL, who then sat on it for another 10 days during the finals of 2022, would be…..incorrect, perhaps false
They spoke to the ABC well after they’d spoken to Egan, and roughly 3 weeks after the Report had been submitted.
The report wasn’t sent to ABC, Jackson was alerted fairly early on by someone I think you suspect who, that there were some serious allegations and he pursued them with all original reporting and interviews.
Yes, which is why they would be responsible for the actions of the accused while at the club, and pay a settlement to accusers.
It was soon after it was penned.
Nah
I don’t need to hear from you, you want to know what I do.
