NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 3

[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

AFL Ends Investigation - 'Imperfect resolution' as Hawks probe ends, no one charged

DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The Bolded bits below but both good posts.

One outcome to this is likely an admission from Hawthorn that they did not have appropriate systems and processes in place to provide players with cultural safety.

Coaches and general employees of clubs do not have the training, experience or expertise to provide interventions into the personal lives of players or to entirely understand the cultural implications for any actions they may take.

The challenge then is how do you manage this in the future. If you want to remove the organisational risk then there needs to be clear rules in place so that coaches do not involve themselves in the personal lives of players and so that if a player comes to a coach with a personal issue, they are redirected to another employee who can provide the player with a list of people/organisations that can privately assist them with whatever the issue is.

I don't really know how I feel about the above. The AFL is an abnormal workplace and the line between the work environment and private life has always been blended. I know from the information I've gotten over the years that coaches can have a profound impact on the personal lives of players, especially those who have troubled personal lives and need help. I mean imagine the work that North has done with Tarryn Thomas to try and help him. But on the flip side, the Hawthorn review has shown that it can lead to undesirable circumstances and/or disgruntled players.

I think the level of input coaches have into the personal lives and personal development of players is completely undersold and not well understood. I mean, one former Lions player (I won't mention their name or cultural background) came to the coaches complaining that his phone didn't work and the coaches figured out that he hadn't paid his phone bill. The player didn't know that you had to pay a phone bill or how to do it. The coach spent time with the player teaching him how to find his phone bill, how to set up direct debit etc.

It is pretty simple - educate rather than coerce. And if the player doesn't prepare well enough to succeed in the profession - they get delisted. Selecting a player in the draft doesn't give a club paternalistic rights over that player.

The nature of elite sport means that decisions in a player's personal life can have a bigger impact on job performance and being fully prepared than in most jobs, but it doesn't give coaches more rights to interfere in the personal lives of players than managers have in other industries.

The historical nature of coercion of players in footy doesn't make it acceptable, just as the historical nature of racial abuse in footy doesn't make it acceptable.

You note Education rather than Coercion.
Coaches are selectors and quasi list-managers - setting expectations for players to "Be their best". If the player doesn't do what they are asked (e.g., stop midweek partying, turn up to training on time and prepared and appear at club sanctioned events), they may not be selected. Is that Education or Coercion?

Something that's bugged me for a while - where the hell are the Player Agent/Managers in all this?

IMO, that's where significant improvements could be made. The Player Agent/Manager is already working for the player - their interests align with getting their client the best treatment/preparation/outcome possible. Bringing the Agent/Manager into this conversation removes the conflict between coaches (best for the club), and players (best for themselves) interests.

Importantly (a learning for me from this issue), it puts the 'senior' figure broaching these concerns as someone on the players side, and provides an additional layer of separation between club and player. While the message (and indeed outcome) may well be the same; the delivery is more clearly aligned in a way for communal benefit (player/agent) than confrontational/coercive (player/club)

From the outside, it looks like Player Agents do little for their clients other than at contract time, negotiating a deal, handling the paperwork and taking a cut of their earnings/marketing/etc. Perhaps it's time to move to a more professional environment, where they represent all the players' interests in a far more active interaction.

 

[sr36]

I won't comment on the accusations because as I said in my original post, I don't know any of the details.

It is disingenuous to compare the work environment of an AFL club with a manager in an ordinary work environment. They're not the same. And if you think they are then that is a flawed conceptual argument not rooted in reality. Either that or you lack awareness of the issues players and their partners bring directly to club employees/officials. I think you would be shocked as to the level of deep involvement club employees have with the partners of some players, eg I know firsthand that there is a player who plays for a Victorian club and at the request of the player and partner, the partner has weekly one on one meetings with the clubs footy boss. That is anything but a normal work environment.

I also think you're arguing a much narrower point than my original post which you quoted. No one is arguing that coaches should be able to coerce players in relation to their personal lives. We agree with you. However, not all challenges or issues will be borne out of overtly coercive actions in an AFL environment. In fact most won't.

I think it's really dangerous to suggest that the AFL managers should be given more scope in terms of encroachment on worker's private lives, which is what this is about. Examples of players being granted unusual requests doesn't change that.

Regardless of a history of coaches being a controlling figure, if clubs aren't unblurring the line between professional and personal, then they're nuts.

 

[Elixuh]

I think it's really dangerous to suggest that the AFL managers should be given more scope in terms of encroachment on worker's private lives, which is what this is about. Examples of players being granted unusual requests doesn't change that.

Regardless of a history of coaches being a controlling figure, if clubs aren't unblurring the line between professional and personal, then they're nuts.

I'm not suggesting or arguing that they should. I'm telling you that they do. At every single club. That was entirely the point of my original post - posing the question of how this can be resolved in the future.

I've noticed on this thread and others that you have made a habit of making arguments in response to things that people aren't saying and then coming full circle just to restate what the original post you quoted was saying. It is very hard to follow to actually engage with you.

 

[JackOutback]

Oh yes, we must all be careful with our head nodding, many different variants, was it accompanied by a shoulder shrug, was it a slow or fast nod... Hopefully we will find out how serious the nod was in Federal Court.

You do understand that there could be different meanings behind nodding along to, say, an innocuous statement and nodding vigorously along to a vile racist statement. I know people are latching on to this because it sounds funny but it all really does depend on what he was agreeing with.

 

[Elixuh]

The Bolded bits below but both good posts.





You note Education rather than Coercion.
Coaches are selectors and quasi list-managers - setting expectations for players to "Be their best". If the player doesn't do what they are asked (e.g., stop midweek partying, turn up to training on time and prepared and appear at club sanctioned events), they may not be selected. Is that Education or Coercion?

Something that's bugged me for a while - where the hell are the Player Agent/Managers in all this?

IMO, that's where significant improvements could be made. The Player Agent/Manager is already working for the player - their interests align with getting their client the best treatment/preparation/outcome possible. Bringing the Agent/Manager into this conversation removes the conflict between coaches (best for the club), and players (best for themselves) interests.

Importantly (a learning for me from this issue), it puts the 'senior' figure broaching these concerns as someone on the players side, and provides an additional layer of separation between club and player. While the message (and indeed outcome) may well be the same; the delivery is more clearly aligned in a way for communal benefit (player/agent) than confrontational/coercive (player/club)

From the outside, it looks like Player Agents do little for their clients other than at contract time, negotiating a deal, handling the paperwork and taking a cut of their earnings/marketing/etc. Perhaps it's time to move to a more professional environment, where they represent all the players' interests in a far more active interaction.

The role of list managers is to negotiate on behalf of players for financial and geographical outcomes. They would be even less equipped and resourced to deal with players' personal issues and with far less structural oversight.

I think you either have to take the view that the risk of overstepping and having disgruntled players is outweighed by the positive outcomes for players (eg you help 100 but completely mess it up with 1, is that ok?) and then the job is actively working to improve your systems and processes to accommodate all players as best you can.

Or you say we will never be equipped to properly help all players without the downside risk so we need to set clear rules for club employees / player relations and players are to be diverted to external resources and expected to deal with these issues largely by themselves (in comparison to how its done now). The downside to that is obvious, but may be necessary.

IMO it'll fall somewhere in between and clubs will need to be better at recognising that for certain players or vulnerable players things will have to be done in a much different manner, including involving external and AFL resources.

 

[sr36]

You note Education rather than Coercion.
Coaches are selectors and quasi list-managers - setting expectations for players to "Be their best". If the player doesn't do what they are asked (e.g., stop midweek partying, turn up to training on time and prepared and appear at club sanctioned events), they may not be selected. Is that Education or Coercion?

The bolded are informing the player of standard workplace expectations - they're an expectation in all jobs. That's educating players about what is expected of them. If someone is partying mid-week and still performing - would they be dropped? That's crossing into personal lives.

I don't think the blurry bit is to do with coaches - that's easy - it's the tradition of player driven, whole team commitments, where it gets blurry.

 

[M Malice]

You do understand that there could be different meanings behind nodding along to, say, an innocuous statement and nodding vigorously along to a vile racist statement. I know people are latching on to this because it sounds funny but it all really does depend on what he was agreeing with.

We are now in the area of thought crime.

 

[sr36]

I'm not suggesting or arguing that they should. I'm telling you that they do. At every single club. That was entirely the point of my original post - posing the question of how this can be resolved in the future.

I've noticed on this thread and others that you have made a habit of making arguments in response to things that people aren't saying and then coming full circle just to restate what the original post you quoted was saying. It is very hard to follow to actually engage with you.

I'd suggest that you assume a response is an argument.

I bolded the following in your initial post and was responding to that. I wasn't saying I thought you were wrong at all. I was saying that I think it's clear that work and private shouldn't be "blended" in the way that it often has been in the AFL. And that I think it's very simple to not be so blended. Clubs have welfare divisions that can be completely separate from performance managers. It's as simple as a coach passing on a concern to the people employed to do the job:

I don't really know how I feel about the above. The AFL is an abnormal workplace and the line between the work environment and private life has always been blended. I know from the information I've gotten over the years that coaches can have a profound impact on the personal lives of players, especially those who have troubled personal lives and need help. I mean imagine the work that North has done with Tarryn Thomas to try and help him. But on the flip side, the Hawthorn review has shown that it can lead to undesirable circumstances and/or disgruntled players.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The bolded are informing the player of standard workplace expectations - they're an expectation in all jobs. That's educating players about what is expected of them. If someone is partying mid-week and still performing - would they be dropped? That's crossing into personal lives.

I don't think the blurry bit is to do with coaches - that's easy - it's the tradition of player driven, whole team commitments, where it gets blurry.

Not talking the current case at all here.

If a talented player is going off the rails, is it better for the coach and club to let him throw away his career, or should they get involved and help get the kid back on track.

What would the kid find the better action 15 years later?

Personally i don't regret any times where I've been pushed into achieving.

 

[skipper kelly]

There's a difference between expecting behaviours and coercing behaviours and there's also the question of what behaviours are expected and whether the expectations are appropriate or discriminatory.

It depends on the behaviours.

 

[sr36]

Not talking the current case at all here.

If a talented player is going off the rails, is it better for the coach and club to let him throw away his career, or should they get involved and help get the kid back on track.

What would the kid find the better action 15 years later?

Personally i don't regret any times where I've been pushed into achieving.

Clubs have welfare departments that should help the player prioritise things in their life. And that priority might not always be footy. Some players will choose other tracks or choose to spread their priorities rather than being fully committed to becoming the best player that they can become - and that's up to them.

Footy clubs are now big enough that coaches can just be the performance managers without doing everything from running raffles to stopping at the supermarket to buy 3 quarter time oranges on the way to work. They don't have to be father figures and shouldn't be.

 

[HairyO]

We are now in the area of thought crime.

Now? It has been the case the entire time. If only the coaches had treated the players differently based on the colour of their skin from the beginning, we would be in a far better place.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Not talking the current case at all here.

If a talented player is going off the rails, is it better for the coach and club to let him throw away his career, or should they get involved and help get the kid back on track.

What would the kid find the better action 15 years later?

Personally i don't regret any times where I've been pushed into achieving.

...and this is the crux of the issue.

The coaches probably give similar speeches to 3-4 players a year, when "negative influences" are noted:
Some take it on board, change habits and have a career. Some take it on board, change habits and still don't.
Some ignore it, get cut and then when they are older regret not listening. Others ignore it, but still have a long, celebrated career.
Some see it as advice/education - don't feel compelled to change. Others see it as instruction/coercion and feel obligated to comply.

One of the complainants was quite effusive in his praise of Clarkson et al influencing his life during - and post - his Hawthorn career, publishing a 'lifestyle' article a few years after thanking the efforts of the coaches in trying to turn his life around. Now, 15 years later he is part of the group seeking damages for the same interactions. It's his right to change his mind.

Previously, I've lived my life to the fact that all people deserve to be treated the same. Now, I understand that in failing to see someone's skin colour, culture, religious beliefs or other heritage - I may have done them a disservice. I don't pretend to understand their background, so all I can do is try to be more aware of my actions generally and apologise when called out from their perspective.

 

[sr36]

...and this is the crux of the issue.

The coaches probably give similar speeches to 3-4 players a year, when "negative influences" are noted:
Some take it on board, change habits and have a career. Some take it on board, change habits and still don't.
Some ignore it, get cut and then when they are older regret not listening. Others ignore it, but still have a long, celebrated career.
Some see it as advice/education - don't feel compelled to change. Others see it as instruction/coercion and feel obligated to comply.

One of the complainants was quite effusive in his praise of Clarkson et al influencing his life during - and post - his Hawthorn career, publishing a 'lifestyle' article a few years after thanking the efforts of the coaches in trying to turn his life around. Now, 15 years later he is part of the group seeking damages for the same interactions. It's his right to change his mind.

Previously, I've lived my life to the fact that all people deserve to be treated the same. Now, I understand that in failing to see someone's skin colour, culture, religious beliefs or other heritage - I may have done them a disservice. I don't pretend to understand their background, so all I can do is try to be more aware of my actions generally and apologise when called out from their perspective.

To me the crux of it is that it applies to any career and AFL clubs don't have special rights over their players. Just leave player's personal choices and consequences to the welfare department of the club whose job it is and keep it separate from the performance managers with the ability to select, hire and fire players. I'd say most clubs are doing that by now. Different however in the time in question.

 

[HairyO]

To me the crux of it is that it applies to any career and AFL clubs don't have special rights over their players. Just leave player's personal choices and consequences to the welfare department of the club whose job it is and keep it separate from the performance managers with the ability to select, hire and fire players. I'd say most clubs are doing that by now. Different however in the time in question.

And this is when we see ex players complaining about how they felt abandoned by their coaches...

 

[sr36]

And this is when we see ex players complaining about how they felt abandoned by their coaches...

Just like they feel abonded by the coach when he directs their medical issue to the club doctor...

Clubs hire counsellors and psychologists for this stuff. It's not the coaches job. There are professionals employed to work with players who don't have the hiring and firing powers that make this sort of thing fraught.

Clubs set up a mentor system, champion role models and have a welfare system with counsellors, psycholigist and cultural liason officers in place to help players get the best out of themselves and thrive within the club environment- some players make choices that aren't in the betterment of their career - that's just life. It's their choice how heavily they prioritise footy as it is with all of us and our careers. It just isn't and definitely shouldn't be the coaches job to monitor and police private lives - any coach doing so is over-reaching.

 

[JackOutback]

We are now in the area of thought crime.

Nodding is a form of communication, it certainly isn’t a thought. If Clarkson asked Fagan if he thought the player should abort his baby and he nodded, are you really going to argue he didn’t endorse the action? That’s why the context matters, we need to know if he was agreeing to something specific.

If you ask someone a question and they nod, do you sit there perplexed, thinking ‘c’mon man, I don’t read minds’? Life must be very difficult for you at times, if so.

 

[M Malice]

Nodding is a form of communication, it certainly isn’t a thought. If Clarkson asked Fagan if he thought the player should abort his baby and he nodded, are you really going to argue he didn’t endorse the action? That’s why the context matters, we need to know if he was agreeing to something specific.

If you ask someone a question and they nod, do you sit there perplexed, thinking ‘c’mon man, I don’t read minds’? Life must be very difficult for you at times, if so.

This whole case as Leigh Matthews said >
“A player didn’t even turn up. The confidentiality the accused kept has not been matched by the confidentialities of the accusers and their legal people. Chris Fagan never even got in the same room. The complaint for Chris Fagan is he nodded his head once in a meeting.

“How petty. That is the complaint. And the reputational damage …. It’s shambolic and it’s disgusting. It’s a beat-up.”
______________________________________________
I hope Chris Fagan brings in character witnesses when this goes to Federal court.

As in get every Indigenous player that has been on the Lions list during Chris Fagan's time to testify as to whether they have witnessed or been subject to any racist behaviour from Fagan during his time at the Lions, same goes for his time at the Hawks... excepting his accusers of course who would be giving their own version of events if it ends up in Federal Court anyhow.

If I had to guess the boys would all have similar testimony/experiences to Shaun Burgoyne and his very positive view of his time at the Hawks.

 

[blackshadow]

We are now in the area of thought crime.

Heaven forbid if there’s a nod… just imagine if there was a nudge or a wink!

 

[M Malice]

Heaven forbid if there’s a nod… just imagine if there was a nudge or a wink!

Or an eye roll would be even more abhorrent.

 

[blackshadow]

Or an eye roll would be even more abhorrent.

Oh the horror…

 

[SaintsSeptember]

...and this is the crux of the issue.

The coaches probably give similar speeches to 3-4 players a year, when "negative influences" are noted:
Some take it on board, change habits and have a career. Some take it on board, change habits and still don't.
Some ignore it, get cut and then when they are older regret not listening. Others ignore it, but still have a long, celebrated career.
Some see it as advice/education - don't feel compelled to change. Others see it as instruction/coercion and feel obligated to comply.

One of the complainants was quite effusive in his praise of Clarkson et al influencing his life during - and post - his Hawthorn career, publishing a 'lifestyle' article a few years after thanking the efforts of the coaches in trying to turn his life around. Now, 15 years later he is part of the group seeking damages for the same interactions. It's his right to change his mind.

Previously, I've lived my life to the fact that all people deserve to be treated the same. Now, I understand that in failing to see someone's skin colour, culture, religious beliefs or other heritage - I may have done them a disservice. I don't pretend to understand their background, so all I can do is try to be more aware of my actions generally and apologise when called out from their perspective.

Its my right to consider he may be seeing $$$

 

[Osho]

Heaven forbid if there’s a nod… just imagine if there was a nudge or a wink!

Say no more!

 

[Elixuh]

 

[Simon Crawshay]

$300k for 6 people (if that's how I read it not $300k each) is a total lowball offer. Would barely cover legal costs.

Makes me think that the players have got sweet FA actual evidence that they can use to back the more sensalationist claims up and the club isn't too worried about them.

Also makes me think that Clarko/Fages/Burt could be in for a very big payday from the ABC/HFC/players/whoever else you care to mention.

Especially Fages, it seems he was done exceptionally dirty in this whole sorry saga.