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

Remove this Banner Ad

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.

3FB2C172-49CC-4619-8AE6-C93597A89870.jpeg
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I believe a player manager also complained about the coaches during the time when these incidents were happening.
 
I believe a player manager also complained about the coaches during the time when these incidents were happening.
The people who have come out in the report have paved the way for others to come forward who have potentially witnessed this happening.

And either didn’t feel comfortable bringing it forward or didn’t realise the full extent of it.

Clarko will most likely do everything to protect his money and reputation.

Might all end up in flames though
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Why feed it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Presuming it was my post you were originally referring to. I don't need to feed anything - this thread is full of people who sincerely mean that kind of thing. I was just mocking it.
 
The other downside with the aggressive heavy-handed denial is that, because it's an outright statement - and shows not an ounce of empathy - the reaction from the players is likely also to be equally aggressive and retaliatory.
I'd imagine the response from the players and their advisers will be - "F*ck you, Clarkson, if that's the way you want to play it ..!"

I thought the same thing until I had time to read his full statement, there are several aspects that show about as much empathy as you can given the legal context now. I'm proud that our club gave the alleged victims a platform. Clarkson has every right to defend himself. I read his second statement more in response to some pretty unprofessional media reporting - leveled at those reporters, not the alleged victims.
 
Please don’t run guessing games of who the assistant could be.

It’s in the public domain if you know where to look, but we’re not going to be going on a witch hunt in here.
 
I think the point I’ve made a few times is that we do need to get away from football having some sort of exceptionalism. It’s a workplace and there are great big red lines that shouldn’t be crossed in any workplace.

I agree with you to an extent. It is a workplace, but at the same time it’s also the next direct step after school for a number of - quite often - immature teenagers.

It’s a more demanding environment than most young adults would enter straight after school. Contrast it with uni, TAFE, apprenticeships, retail sales, etc. and you can see a clear difference. Hence why I don’t think it’s ‘exceptionalI’, but it is unique.

The issue is that clubs don’t have appropriate structures in place to support and mentor these lads from a very early age. It makes sense to me that in many cases the boys would turn to coaches as they are the closest to mentors they have at hand. Unfortunately coaches often aren’t trained well enough in this area.
 
Please don’t run guessing games of who the assistant could be.

It’s in the public domain if you know where to look, but we’re not going to be going on a witch hunt in here.

My question, which appears to have been deleted, was whether non-indigenous people contributed to the report? I frankly do not care who the corroborating witness might be.
 
The issue is that clubs don’t have appropriate structures in place to support and mentor these lads from a very early age. It makes sense to me that in many cases the boys would turn to coaches as they are the closest to mentors they have at hand. Unfortunately coaches often aren’t trained well enough in this area.

Which is why someone's point many pages back was incredibly valid - all clubs should have independent mental health professionals on hand for players.
 
My question, which appears to have been deleted, was whether non-indigenous people contributed to the report? I frankly do not care who the corroborating witness might be.

Yes - one person did as they caught wind of the report and wanted to provide back up to those making accusations.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

How dare Clarkson defend himself in what has been a one sided case so far. Both sides need to be heard.

You're missing my point entirely. I doubt whether you even read my post entirely.
Of course Clarkson defends himself, as he's absolutely entitled to and as he's done previously and as he will in due course when proceedings eventually happen.

But this legally drafted denial overnight, is strategically silly and unnecessarily. He's just shooting himself in the foot (in my view).
 
Last edited:
This is a really good post.

But what dumbfounds me is the ridiculous lawyer-speak aggressive denial from Clarkson overnight.
Why did he do that?
He's already issued his denial personally and via lawyers and commented that he hasn't had the advantage of seeing the report.
And because this latest denial is a global one, he's just setting himself up. Is he denying he even met players and wives and families in their home?

He will look silly when he ultimately concedes that, well. yes, he did actually go to various homes and speak to wives etc but that, in his view, they misconstrued what he was actually saying. When those facts eventually come out, as they surely will, then the public response is - "OK, then, so Clarkson has been a bit disingenuous with his denials".
That's not a good look.

The other downside with the aggressive heavy-handed denial is that, because it's an outright statement - and shows not an ounce of empathy - the reaction from the players is likely also to be equally aggressive and retaliatory.
I'd imagine the response from the players and their advisers will be - "F*ck you, Clarkson, if that's the way you want to play it ..!"
Where did Clarkson deny that he ever met or visited players and their wives in their homes?? His statement say nothing of the sort or even remotely implies that.

"However, as the allegations against me have been spread widely and sometimes presented as indisputable matters of fact, I must state that my clear memory of the matters reported is very different."

Thats basically the only time he really addresses the allegations head on.
 
I agree with you to an extent. It is a workplace, but at the same time it’s also the next direct step after school for a number of - quite often - immature teenagers.

It’s a more demanding environment than most young adults would enter straight after school. Contrast it with uni, TAFE, apprenticeships, retail sales, etc. and you can see a clear difference. Hence why I don’t think it’s ‘exceptionalI’, but it is unique.

The issue is that clubs don’t have appropriate structures in place to support and mentor these lads from a very early age. It makes sense to me that in many cases the boys would turn to coaches as they are the closest to mentors they have at hand. Unfortunately coaches often aren’t trained well enough in this area.

Yes, it has aspects that are unique and each club should have support networks for players. But those big red lines are real and one of the them is you stay the **** out of reproductive matters.
 
Please don’t run guessing games of who the assistant could be.

It’s in the public domain if you know where to look, but we’re not going to be going on a witch hunt in here.
Can i ask, are people allowed to post articles about past players views on their time at the club? Say Rioli's or Burgoyne, Bateman, that might have relevance to what we are talking about?
 
You're missing my point entirely. I doubt whether you even read my post entirely.
Of course Clarkson defends himself, as he's absolutely entitled to and as he's done previously and as he will in due course when proceedings eventually happen.

But this legally drafted denial overnight, is strategically silly and unnecessarily. He's just shooting himself in the foot (in my view).

I get that you think it's strategically not the best way forward, as you think it will incite (my word) a negative response from the alleged victim(s). Maybe.

Unnecessary? The media was going coco bananas, some career journalists included. It was, in my humble opinion, necessary.
 
Can i ask, are people allowed to post articles about past players views on their time at the club? Say Rioli's or Burgoyne, Bateman, that might have relevance to what we are talking about?
If they weren't present during the conversations, how is it relevant?
 
Can i ask, are people allowed to post articles about past players views on their time at the club? Say Rioli's or Burgoyne, Bateman, that might have relevance to what we are talking about?
Would rather we didn’t go down the path of the process of elimination, and as the things captured in the report were only done under the cover of anonymity I’m not sure that any commentary given by players to the media either during or after their time at the Hawks would carry an weight in regards to the allegations. If that’s the angle you’re looking at.

So that’s a no.
 
What a load of crap. The one non-indigenous person that caught wind of it happened to trash them as well. Hit piece.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I can see how it went down, a person figures out what's going on and approaches the report writer and offers input. Bit hard to say nah mate, I'm not meant to talk to you even though you have relevant and important input. However, it was out of the scope/terms of reference of the report, so not ideal and I can see the aspect that is unfair.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top