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.

 

[threesixpio]

Please don't spread crap about Aboriginal conception and childbearing. You have no idea what you are talking about. 'Many' Just ridiculous.

Thank god Clarko was around to whitesplain medical complications to the natives

 

[Bill Keenon]

It still is

White males made the rules for EVERY major team sport the peoples of the world love so much.

 

[Yardie]

Who isn't aware of that? But that wouldn't make any difference if what he says is true about the reason Fagan has been named.

It would if he is only getting one side of the story. And can be seen as having bias due to his position.

Leigh may be a Hawthorn Legend but he has chosen to be on Brisbane's Board and not ours.

 

[Adebisi]

Anyone know if Clarko and Fagan are on the same page with it all?
Or is their relationship fractured now?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

And yes - what Clarko did to Sam Mitchell was abominable (hand in phones when his little one was going in and out of emergency)

Yeah it’s weird that people can’t see that Clarko is a very weird, controlling little man when you look at this, the buying a dog for Birchall without asking him and the going to a young woman’s house to escort a bloke going to break up with her (confirmed by Burt). I’m not saying he’s a racist but he’s absolutely an odd cat.

 

[threesixpio]

Yeah it’s weird that people can’t see that Clarko is a very weird, controlling little man when you look at this, the buying a dog for Birchall without asking him and the going to a young woman’s house to escort a bloke going to break up with her (confirmed by Burt). I’m not saying he’s a racist but he’s absolutely an odd cat.

Yeah he was eccentric and undoubtedly a really loving guy - but boundaries FFS!

 

[smish]

The 60 days to file a claim with the Federal Court ends Friday week (26/07). Any word on what's happening?

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Not much really

We could see some media grandstanding a day or two prior to the expiry and a possible saving of face for all involved with an ‘agreement’ by all parties, delivered by the AFL.

 

[brad sue well]

Ex-Hawks set to take racism complaint to Federal Court

Alastair Clarkson and Chris Fagan aren't expected to be named when First Nations players lodge documents in the Federal Court on Friday

www.afl.com.au

 

[Bugs1977]

I don't like the sounds of 'the Hawthorn Football Club may be listed as the sole defendant'. Probably a good thing that money was put aside earlier this year.

I understand if the defendants are proven guilty we have to cop our fair whack but it's almost like Hawthorn Clarko + others are totally different people to the North Melbourne Clarko + others because they're no longer employed by us.

 

[VernonSpots]

I don't like the sounds of 'the Hawthorn Football Club may be listed as the sole defendant'. Probably a good thing that money was put aside earlier this year.

I understand if the defendants are proven guilty we have to cop our fair whack but it's almost like Hawthorn Clarko + others are totally different people to the North Melbourne Clarko + others because they're no longer employed by us.

I personally agree with it. Individuals were largely doing their jobs for HFC. It is the corporate entity that takes responsibilities unless those individuals were engaging in criminal / grossly negligent behaviour. And even if they were, the Corporate entity still shares responsibility of the governance frameworks were not appropriately in place to "catch it".

I still think from 10k foot view, that wrongs were done but noone willingly thought they were doing anything wrong at the time (if that makes sense). If my thoughts are correct, I think it's unfair for the individuals in Clarko / Fagan / Burt to have their lives ruined further than they have already.

HFC may have a case and financial penalty to answer here. That is not inappropriate.

 

[flinchfree]

I personally agree with it. Individuals were largely doing their jobs for HFC. It is the corporate entity that takes responsibilities unless those individuals were engaging in criminal / grossly negligent behaviour. And even if they were, the Corporate entity still shares responsibility of the governance frameworks were not appropriately in place to "catch it".

I still think from 10k foot view, that wrongs were done but noone willingly thought they were doing anything wrong at the time (if that makes sense). If my thoughts are correct, I think it's unfair for the individuals in Clarko / Fagan / Burt to have their lives ruined further than they have already.

HFC may have a case and financial penalty to answer here. That is not inappropriate.

I find it completely inappropriate that no individuals have been found to have acted inappropriately, or have a case to answer for as investigated by any of the many bodies to have looked in to the allegations , or have been seen to have acted in a racist fashion, and yet the Club should be tarnished for these non acts.
Absolutely, unequivocally, inappropriate.

 

[HairyO]

I find it completely inappropriate that no individuals have been found to have acted inappropriately, or have a case to answer for as investigated by any of the many bodies to have looked in to the allegations , or have been seen to have acted in a racist fashion, and yet the Club should be tarnished for these non acts.
Absolutely, unequivocally, inappropriate.

It is bizarre.

"No-one actually did anything very wrong, but the club should have done more to stop ??? from happening".

 

[Jet_black]

My personal opinion is that this will get tossed out. Not because there may not be a case but the apparent unwillingness of those affected to want nothing less than a formal apology and monetary compensation. Given the AFL has already decided not to pursue Clarkson, Fagan and Burt, it is hard to see the federal court taking an opposite view.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Goal post appears to have changed. At first it appeared to be against the coaches. Now it is more against the club.

Kind of feels like they’re clutching at straws.

 

[Philhawk]

I find it completely inappropriate that no individuals have been found to have acted inappropriately, or have a case to answer for as investigated by any of the many bodies to have looked in to the allegations , or have been seen to have acted in a racist fashion, and yet the Club should be tarnished for these non acts.
Absolutely, unequivocally, inappropriate.

It had to get to this point. The individuals were never going to stick their hand up unilaterally and admit to anything unless forced.

I hope the club recognizes that something wrong has clearly occurred under its watch and maintains a generous settlement, no matter what occurs during the trial.

Part of me thinks the trial won’t go the way the defendants would like, which is why I think the best course of action would be to maintain the same amount of settlement offered even in the event the club “wins” the trial.

 

[Bugs1977]

It had to get to this point. The individuals were never going to stick their hand up unilaterally and admit to anything unless forced.

I hope the club recognizes that something wrong has clearly occurred under its watch and maintains a generous settlement, no matter what occurs during the trial.

Part of me thinks the trial won’t go the way the defendants would like, which is why I think the best course of action would be to maintain the same amount of settlement offered even in the event the club “wins” the trial.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure if the defendants were to lose the trial and the club paid a settlement anyways then that could be seen as an admission of fault. This opening the chances of a re-trial.

 

[Flag08]

It had to get to this point. The individuals were never going to stick their hand up unilaterally and admit to anything unless forced.

I hope the club recognizes that something wrong has clearly occurred under its watch and maintains a generous settlement, no matter what occurs during the trial.

Part of me thinks the trial won’t go the way the defendants would like, which is why I think the best course of action would be to maintain the same amount of settlement offered even in the event the club “wins” the trial.

We’ve offered a settlement. It’s been rejected. Can’t have cake and eat too. Given the lack of evidence, we have been more than generous to date. If they prove their point in court, then fair enough.

 

[Philhawk]

We’ve offered a settlement. It’s been rejected. Can’t have cake and eat too. Given the lack of evidence, we have been more than generous to date. If they prove their point in court, then fair enough.

And my point is, even if the claimants lose in court, still offer the same settlement afterwards in good faith.

 

[Philhawk]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure if the defendants were to lose the trial and the club paid a settlement anyways then that could be seen as an admission of fault. This opening the chances of a re-trial.

Oh really? I didn’t realise this.

 

[DogDaySonny]

And my point is, even if the claimants lose in court, still offer the same settlement afterwards in good faith.

So you're saying the club should make the same offer that was previously rejected as not generous enough (despite public denials by the players that any money had ever been wanted), and that after (hypothetically) winning a lawsuit claiming the club was in the wrong and finding the club owes the players nothing, then make the same previously rejected offer?

How can you be so eager to give away member money to people who want it but have no basis to claim it?

 

[VernonSpots]

I find it completely inappropriate that no individuals have been found to have acted inappropriately, or have a case to answer for as investigated by any of the many bodies to have looked in to the allegations , or have been seen to have acted in a racist fashion, and yet the Club should be tarnished for these non acts.
Absolutely, unequivocally, inappropriate.

That's not true. Wrongs may have been done but the responsibility lies with he Employer imo unless it's criminal or gross negligence.

I don't believe that individuals who believe they are doing their job should have their lives ruined while their employer goes on as if it's nothing. Again, I am making assumptions here and giving benefit of doubt that people believed they "were doing their jobs" but point is valid.

 

[Todman]

I think the complainants are in so deep they can't afford to back away.

 

[Philhawk]

So you're saying the club should make the same offer that was previously rejected as not generous enough (despite public denials by the players that any money had ever been wanted), and that after (hypothetically) winning a lawsuit claiming the club was in the wrong and finding the club owes the players nothing, then make the same previously rejected offer?

How can you be so eager to give away member money to people who want it but have no basis to claim it?

Because something wrong occurred at the club.

That’s why we’ve offered the sum in the first place.

I don’t think anyone at the club believes they are blameless.

There’s an opportunity to deal with a verdict, even if we “win” in a respectful way that attempts to bring closure and healing to those involved. Not by doing victory laps.

 

[smish]

So if the club is cleared, I dare say the HFC will be suing the ABC and other media outlets to the hilt?