NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 2

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf


DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[the big lebowski]

You can start here:

Article

newsroom.nt.gov.au

I'll follow up any questions you have, maybe here maybe somewhere else.

Thanks. Read.

I don’t really have questions. More comments, probably from a point of view that will antagonise a few, so I’ll refrain.

One positive I guess we’d all agree on is that the info states that there will be more money poured into programs and support to help prevent crime from occurring in the first place

 

[Kwality]

Yes I think it is outside the realms of what people imagine managing or coaching a football team involves.

& any investigation does not have a recording of what was said when, it seems to me there are totally different (opposing) recollections of what was said, and was meant, i.e what one party took from the comments of the other.

 

[blackshadow]

100% this. The arbitrary timeline clearly was designed to meet the AFL’s purpose.

It therefore removed all trust from the players.

It would also remove their trust in the panel doing the review. If they were willing to accept the arbitrary timeline then clearly they have already kowtowed to the AFL before the review even commenced. What else may they kowtow to?

Oh FFS

This is something that’s happening in the real world.

It’s not just the complainants interests that’s need to be considered. There are also people who have hung, drawn and quartered by the media and the pitchfork brigade - they deserve the opportunity to have their side heard too in a timely manner.

It can’t be allowed to fester on and on.

 

[Laphroaig]

100% this. The arbitrary timeline clearly was designed to meet the AFL’s purpose.

This is and always has been true. The AFL response to any bad optics is first to try "nothing to see here". And if that can not be done, to make it go away as quickly as possible, while pretending that the measures to make it go away are actually quite wonderful initiatives.

It therefore removed all trust from the players.

It would also remove their trust in the panel doing the review. If they were willing to accept the arbitrary timeline then clearly they have already kowtowed to the AFL before the review even commenced. What else may they kowtow to?

But this is unmitigated nonsense.

Riddle me this. Of all of the people with skin in this battle, who benefits in any way from NOT getting it done quickly?

Not the AFL. Not the accused coaches. Not the alleged victims.

"My clients are traumatised and might choose to not participate". The only purpose(s) served by that line are legal strategy in the court of public opinion, or intentional prolongment of this step, which we might hypothesise will morph into intentional prolongment of future steps too.

How exactly does this make life better for those who feel agrieved and traumatised? Make it go on longer. That'll minimise the trauma.

 

[Kram]

Damn thought it was gonna make it off the bat.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

No they wouldn’t. The Hawks report wasn’t a bilateral investigation. It’s remit was only to record experiences of past players, not investigate the veracity of their recollections. Jackson the same, he’s reported the first hand statements of those involved, nothing more. He provided an opportunity for the accused to respond and they declined.

An investigation that clears the coaches disgraces nobody except maybe the player/partners involved. But that would require egregious mistruths to have been put forward as fact. And most likely the answe r lies somewhere on the middle.

I’d say that, if an investigation gets the coaches off, that’s when the likes of Jackson and Egan would go after it and the AFL hard. Which would also be when the sponsors would start feeling heat in the boardrooms and drop off as well.

A scandal of this magnitude with so many moving parts to titillate the public can’t be swept away.

It might feel right now that “everything is quiet, people have forgotten about it” but it’s the classic “calm before the storm”.

If the AFL review exonerates the coaches without the victims even playing a part in the review, Jackson, who has their ear and trust will be able to release as many articles as he wants.

Once the media and the wider public get a hold of it again, the story is gone from the AFL realm and into the realm of “The Project”. Sponsors don’t like being in that realm.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

This is and always has been true. The AFL response to any bad optics is first to try "nothing to see here". And if that can not be done, to make it go away as quickly as possible, while pretending that the measures to make it go away are actually quite wonderful initiatives.



But this is unmitigated nonsense.

Riddle me this. Of all of the people with skin in this battle, who benefits in any way from NOT getting it done quickly?

Not the AFL. Not the accused coaches. Not the alleged victims.

"My clients are traumatised and might choose to not participate". The only purpose(s) served by that line are legal strategy in the court of public opinion, or intentional prolongment of this step, which we might hypothesise will morph into intentional prolongment of future steps too.

How exactly does this make life better for those who feel agrieved and traumatised? Make it go on longer. That'll minimise the trauma.

In a Machiavellian lawyers world it’s a very smart move.

Pretty much invalidates a report before it’s done as they can point at any findings they don’t like and say “we didn’t participate in the report..” If anyone goes hard at them for not participating? “We don’t trust the process, are still traumatized”. So those questioning look like arseholes.

Pretty good checkmate by them if you look at the strategy side of things. Not even the AFL can spin out if it.

 

[sr36]

In a Machiavellian lawyers world it’s a very smart move.

Pretty much invalidates a report before it’s done as they can point at any findings they don’t like and say “we didn’t participate in the report.. If anyone goes hard at them for not participating? “We don’t trust the process, are still traumatized”. So those questioning look like arseholes.

Pretty good checkmate by them if you look at the strategy side of things. Not even the AFL can spin out if it.

Plus it helps maximise a settlement offer by focusing on trauma. The offer will be based more on potential damages to the brand, rather than a courtroom one which is focuses on potential damages to the players.

 

[the big lebowski]

In a Machiavellian lawyers world it’s a very smart move.

Pretty much invalidates a report before it’s done as they can point at any findings they don’t like and say “we didn’t participate in the report.. If anyone goes hard at them for not participating? “We don’t trust the process, are still traumatized”. So those questioning look like arseholes.

Pretty good checkmate by them if you look at the strategy side of things. Not even the AFL can spin out if it.

This is the best chance for the accusers to get a win.

There would only be two reasons to not participate.

1: their case is so strong that they want to bypass this investigation and go straight to a civil case - probably would have already started if this were the case.

2: their case is so poor and there are things they don’t want coming out which they know will impact their standing - slight chance this is the case if the accusers never intended to go further with anything, but ultimately I don’t see it as realistic.

I just can’t see either being case. I’ll be shocked if they don’t participate.

If they didn’t, and the investigation cleared the accused, it would be do so because their were reasons things were done. At which point the accused will be able to tell their story publicly if they want.

Few are going to care what Jackson has to say if

1: the investigation has cleared the accused
2: the accusers haven’t commenced the next step such as civil proceedings

All IMO

 

[sr36]

This is the best chance for the accusers to get a win.

There would only be two reasons to not participate.

1: their case is so strong that they want to bypass this investigation and go straight to a civil case - probably would have already started if this were the case.

2: their case is so poor and there are things they don’t want coming out which they know will impact their standing - slight chance this is the case if the accusers never intended to go further with anything, but ultimately I don’t see it as realistic.

I just can’t see either being case. I’ll be shocked if they don’t participate.

If they didn’t, and the investigation cleared the accused, it would be do so because their were reasons things were done. At which point the accused will be able to tell their story publicly if they want.

Few are going to care what Jackson has to say if

1: the investigation has cleared the accused
2: the accusers haven’t commenced the next step such as civil proceedings

All IMO

I agree with the first half and think they'll participate and that the lawyers are simply playing a game to make the industry look worse - they're trying to get the best settlement for their clients.

I don't agree with the second half, anything other than harsh consequences will result in the anti-racism movement kicking it into overdrive and switching from the coaches to the whole industry. This isn't just an AFL story that will disappear without action. This is an industry that will be ridiculed globally for ongoing and not just historical issues.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

This is the best chance for the accusers to get a win.

There would only be two reasons to not participate.

1: their case is so strong that they want to bypass this investigation and go straight to a civil case - probably would have already started if this were the case.

2: their case is so poor and there are things they don’t want coming out which they know will impact their standing - slight chance this is the case if the accusers never intended to go further with anything, but ultimately I don’t see it as realistic.

I just can’t see either being case. I’ll be shocked if they don’t participate.

If they didn’t, and the investigation cleared the accused, it would be do so because their were reasons things were done. At which point the accused will be able to tell their story publicly if they want.

Few are going to care what Jackson has to say if

1: the investigation has cleared the accused
2: the accusers haven’t commenced the next step such as civil proceedings

All IMO

I’d turn around the question on why the wouldn’t participate and ask why would they?

To use a footy analogy, it’d be like beating an interstate team up at home and then at half time, agreeing to play the 2nd half in their home state.

If you are a lawyer of the accused, why would you risk it all by putting themselves at the mercy of an AFL report? Everyone on this thread is suspicious of the AFL and their ability to sweep things under the carpet (no matter what their views are on this matter), so you bet your bottom dollar a lawyer would be.

It’s much safer ground for the accused having this continue to play out in the wider non-AFL arena. They can’t lose there and with a Walkley award winning journalist continuing to pump out stories on their behalf to the ABC, they won’t lose in that arena.

Risk it all by putting people into an AFL review? If you want to win, why would you do that if you don’t have to?

 

[the big lebowski]

I agree and think they'll participate and that the lawyers are simply playing a game to make the industry look worse - they're trying to get the best settlement for their clients.

Which brings mediation into play.

That said, there is nothing to suggest the accusers want mediation at this point (other than maybe their choice of lawyer and that’s a long bow to draw).

We just don’t know what the other side of the story is and that’s just too big a piece of the puzzle to really know how it plays out.

 

[the big lebowski]

I’d turn around the question on why the wouldn’t participate and ask why would they?

To use a footy analogy, it’d be like beating an interstate team up at home and then at half time, agreeing to play the 2nd half in their home state.

If you are a lawyer of the accused, why would you risk it all by putting themselves at the mercy of an AFL report? Everyone on this thread is suspicious of the AFL and their ability to sweep things under the carpet (no matter what their views are on this matter), so you bet your bottom dollar a lawyer would be.

It’s much safer ground for the accused having this continue to play out in the wider non-AFL arena. They can’t lose there and with a Walkley award winning journalist continuing to pump out stories on their behalf to the ABC, they won’t lose in that arena.

Risk it all by putting people into an AFL review? If you want to win, why would you do that if you don’t have to?

Why wouldn’t they?

What’s their next step if the don’t participate?

1: nothing - ok they aren’t taking it further so everyone moves on, maybe the accused go after the abc

2: they commence civil proceedings - as I said it’s possible they are that confident in their case they sue, but

• they won’t be anonymous any longer
• they will have to sit in a witness chair and give evidence
• they will be attacked by the defences high priced lawyers
• their evidence will be challenged
• there is the potential for damaging evidence to come out against them
• the outcome is not certain, whereas they almost have a blank cheque from hawthorn/afl right now
• the jury won’t be 50% indigenous

I completely disagree with your premise

 

[sr36]

Which brings mediation into play.

That said, there is nothing to suggest the accusers want mediation at this point (other than maybe their choice of lawyer and that’s a long bow to draw).

We just don’t know what the other side of the story is and that’s just too big a piece of the puzzle to really know how it plays out.

I added a second half to the previous post, as essentially I can't really see a positive outcome for Hawthorn or the coaches without a retraction. And there's little hope of that. A he said/she said scenario results in a big loss in the current climate.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Why wouldn’t they?

What’s their next step if the don’t participate?

1: nothing - ok they aren’t taking it further so everyone moves on, maybe the accused go after the abc

2: they commence civil proceedings - as I said it’s possible they are that confident in their case they sue, but

• they won’t be anonymous any longer
• they will have to sit in a witness chair and give evidence
• they will be attacked by the defences high priced lawyers
• their evidence will be challenged
• there is the potential for damaging evidence to come out against them
• the outcome is not certain, whereas they almost have a blank cheque from hawthorn/afl right now
• the jury won’t be 50% indigenous

I completely disagree with your premise

That’s the thing, doing things this way and playing things out in public means they hold all the cards.

There’s no rush or timeline. For them, it will be about causing maximum damage at the best time and it’s an approach where they can’t really lose.

AFL release a report they didn’t participate in “exonerating” Clarko? Day after, here comes an explosive follow-up article how their trauma is being compounded by all of this. Then release more and more until heads roll and sponsors go. Any compensation they’d be entitled to also goes up if trauma keeps compounding.

These sorts of scandals are messy, the AFL can’t tie a bow around it.

 

[the big lebowski]

I added a second half to the previous post, as essentially I can't really see a positive outcome for Hawthorn or the coaches without a retraction. And there's little hope of that. A he said/she said scenario is a big loss in the current climate.

I understand the concept of critical mass.

It’s a possibility here.

But also a non possibility.

We just don’t know the other side of the story.

 

[the big lebowski]

That’s the thing, doing things this way and playing things out in public means they hold all the cards.

There’s no rush or timeline. For them, it will be about causing maximum damage at the best time and it’s an approach where they can’t really lose.

AFL release a report they didn’t participate in “exonerating” Clarko? Day after, here comes an explosive follow-up article how their trauma is being compounded by all of this. Then release more and more until heads roll and sponsors go. Any compensation they’d be entitled to also goes up if trauma keeps compounding.

These sorts of scandals are messy, the AFL can’t tie a bow around it.

Who is providing compensation if not the afl/hawthorn? If the report clears hawthorn, why would they provide compensation in the future?

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Who is providing compensation if not the afl/hawthorn? If the report clears hawthorn, why would they provide compensation in the future?

It’s a report they are not participating in though so it’s invalid to them and the wider public.

So if things don’t go their way, Jackson will be able to release as many articles as needed to ram their point home and have an added dimension to them of sticking the boots into the AFL over their attempted “white-washing” report and trying to push it out quickly: it would actually be a good scenario for them in a way as the currency they are dealing with (outrage) will grow even more if the AFL’s grubby fingers are on this.

After all this it could play out a variety of ways. In England for Yorkshire and the ECB, it went all the way to parliament. I don’t even think compensation is something driving this. I think it’s more people involved like Jackson see this as a crusade, his “seminal moment” as a journalist in the fight against racism.

That’s why I see the pressure ramping up on Jackson. Maybe he’ll have a few too many reds on Twitter again and say something he shouldn't?

 

[blackshadow]

Why wouldn’t they?

What’s their next step if the don’t participate?

1: nothing - ok they aren’t taking it further so everyone moves on, maybe the accused go after the abc

2: they commence civil proceedings - as I said it’s possible they are that confident in their case they sue, but

• they won’t be anonymous any longer
• they will have to sit in a witness chair and give evidence
• they will be attacked by the defences high priced lawyers
• their evidence will be challenged
• there is the potential for damaging evidence to come out against them
• the outcome is not certain, whereas they almost have a blank cheque from hawthorn/afl right now
• the jury won’t be 50% indigenous

I completely disagree with your premise

Agreed.

If you want to talk about a home ground advantage the accusers will never have a more friendly forum than the one that’s been set up for the AFL review.

 

[the big lebowski]

It’s a report they are not participating in though so it’s invalid to them and the wider public.

So if things don’t go their way, Jackson will be able to release as many articles as needed to ram their point home and have an added dimension to them of sticking the boots into the AFL over their attempted “white-washing” report and trying to push it out quickly: it would actually be a good scenario for them in a way as the currency they are dealing with (outrage) will grow even more if the AFL’s grubby fingers are on this.

After all this it could play out a variety of ways. In England for Yorkshire and the ECB, it went all the way to parliament. I don’t even think compensation is something driving this. I think it’s more people involved like Jackson see this as a crusade, his “seminal moment” as a journalist in the fight against racism.

That’s why I see the pressure ramping up on Jackson. Maybe he’ll have a few too many reds on Twitter again and say something he shouldn't?

So to summarise

- we agree that if compo doesn’t come from the afl via this investigation then the only form of compo will be civil. So if they don’t participate, they’ll need to sue.

I just can’t see any form of critical mass forming without any form of investigation finding in favour of the accusers, be it civil or via this process.

 

[the big lebowski]

Agreed.

If you want to talk about a home ground advantage the accusers will never have a more friendly forum than the one that’s been set up for the AFL review.

Yeah, hence I’ll eat my hat if they don’t participate.

 

[sr36]

I understand the concept of critical mass.

It’s a possibility here.

But also a non possibility.

We just don’t know the other side of the story.

In terms of justice the other side of the story matters, but in terms of what is likely to happen?

If the other side of the story is it didn't happen at all. It's he said/she said and the public, the media and sponsors will back the Aboriginal voices and the anti-racism movement kicks in really hard.

If they try to completely discredit the player's accounts - well that's about as high risk a strategy as you can get.

If the other side of the story is mitigation and explanation of events to justify them, it's really difficult to imagine that events can be mitigated to the point where there isn't a finding of inappropriate intrusion into the personal lives of the players.

Which gets reported globally as: An Independent Inquiry into racism at an Australian Football Club, involving pressuring abortions, confiscating SIM cards and not allowing indigenous players to contact their indigenous partners or friends has come to a finding of Inappropriate conduct from the Hawthorn Football Club. Good night Irene. The world is watching this one and if that cops a lettuce leaf slap, we won't have seen anything yet in terms of the media reporting on this one.

 

[the big lebowski]

Also, there might be a difference in the goals of the accusers, hence 5 have one lawyer, and 1 has a different lawyer.

 

[mcnulty]

So if things don’t go their way, Jackson will be able to release as many articles as needed

To an increasingly bored and disengaged audience. What did you yourself say about the publics attention span? If they don’t participate, people will simply move on.

 

[the big lebowski]

In terms of justice the other side of the story matters, but in terms of what is likely to happen?

If the other side of the story is it didn't happen at all. It's he said/she said and the public, the media and sponsors will back the Aboriginal voices and the anti-racism movement kicks in really hard.

If they try to completely discredit the player's accounts - well that's about as high risk a strategy as you can get.

If the other side of the story is mitigation and explanation of events to justify them, it's really difficult to imagine that events can be mitigated to the point where there isn't a finding of inappropriate intrusion into the personal lives of the players.

Which gets reported globally as: An Independent Inquiry into racism at an Australian Football Club, involving pressuring abortions, confiscating SIM cards and not allowing indigenous players to contact their indigenous partners or friends has come to a finding of Inappropriate conduct from the Hawthorn Football Club. Good night Irene. The world is watching this one and if that cops a lettuce leaf slap, we won't have seen anything yet in terms of the media reporting on this one.

Maybe. But I think you’re drawing your own conclusions without 50% of the story, and are fixated with a cancel culture outcome occurring.

Which may well happen.

But may well not happen.

If it happened as alleged then we all agree the accused are gone from footy.

If the public are told that’s not what happened, very few will be agitating. Certainly not enough to make a difference imo.