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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[sr36]

$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.

I don't think the player involved in the abortion claim is part of it.

 

[HairyO]

$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.

Barely enough for a new pair of jeans...

 

[hawkman]

Barely enough for a new pair of jeans...

Should be fine for an untorn pair. A torn pair it might be a struggle to buy one

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Barely enough for a new pair of jeans...

Jeff, is that you?

I'd thought an ex premier would have better things to do with his time than post on Big Footy!

 

[Great8]

Barely enough for a new pair of jeans...

Enough to buy some more Golliwogs for your collection though Jeff

 

[JGreezy]

I don't think the player involved in the abortion claim is part of it.

He is.

It is the second player from the article who isn't involved. The non-indigenous player.

 

[JGreezy]

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.

Clubs are bringing 19 year old kids from remote communities across the country to play for them. Your attitude seems to be to tell them "sink or swim".

They take on a bigger support role than your standard business, and rightly so.

One of the complaints in the original article was that the Hawks brought a kid over from WA and a Hawks staff member let them live in their spare room. The player then tried to move his family into the spare room. When the Hawks said that they would need their own place if moving a family in, the player said that they felt unsupported.

It seems that you think that they should have made them feel unsupported earlier.

I think what's really going on is that a handful of people on here spammed the early threads with all sorts of speculative nonsense and now have mud on their face.

 

[sr36]

Clubs are bringing 19 year old kids from remote communities across the country to play for them. Your attitude seems to be to tell them "sink or swim".

They take on a bigger support role than your standard business, and rightly so.

One of the complaints in the original article was that the Hawks brought a kid over from WA and a Hawks staff member let them live in their spare room. The player then tried to move his family into the spare room. When the Hawks said that they would need their own place if moving a family in, the player said that they felt unsupported.

It seems that you think that they should have made them feel unsupported earlier.

I think what's really going on is that a handful of people on here spammed the early threads with all sorts of speculative nonsense and now have mud on their face.

The club has to offer support - my point is it shouldn't be the performance manager (coach) taking on the role. The power relationship makes it inappropriate and the coaches aren't necessarily trained for it. They hire a welfare department for support and set up structures within the organisation to help support them, none of which should be on the same hierarchical line as the coach, not just to safeguard against things like this, but to make it more likely that players are more open with issues that they're facing, so that the club can support them more effectively.

And the support shouldn't be coercive regardless of whether it's the club or the coach. I'm saying sink or swim in terms of supported players making their own informed social chooses which may or may not benefit their career.

 

[Chief]

Modern definition of all the -isms are now based on feelings.

Nope.

 

[420]

Thread needs a debunked tag

 

[Elixuh]

The club has to offer support - my point is it shouldn't be the performance manager (coach) taking on the role. The power relationship makes it inappropriate and the coaches aren't necessarily trained for it. They hire a welfare department for support and set up structures within the organisation to help support them, none of which should be on the same hierarchical line as the coach, not just to safeguard against things like this, but to make it more likely that players are more open with issues that they're facing, so that the club can support them more effectively.

And the support shouldn't be coercive regardless of whether it's the club or the coach. I'm saying sink or swim in terms of supported players making their own informed social chooses which may or may not benefit their career.

Most if not all welfare departments are not resourced with the expertise to deal with these issues either. They’re no more capable than the coaches or other employees.

 

[phantom13]

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.

If you ever watched the Amazon doco about player agents at trade week youd know they do absolutely FA even during contract negotiation time.

 

[Elixuh]

If you ever watched the Amazon doco about player agents at trade week youd know they do absolutely FA even during contract negotiation time.

They’re like real estate agents. They’ve managed to convince society that they’re actually necessary when they’re of next to no utility or worth.

 

[M Malice]

If a young player seeks out the senior coach for life advice is the coach supposed to say, ah no can't offer you any advice other than that is the welfare departments issue go and talk to Joe Blow in welfare.

 

[phantom13]

They’re like real estate agents. They’ve managed to convince society that they’re actually necessary when they’re of next to no utility or worth.

The bloke that was managing Bobby Hill when he wanted to get to Essendon literally did a morning call with his coffee on the beach, went to the pub, went to his office and made another call at about 4pm, then called Bobby to say "not happening mate, did everything we could".

Im sure the US world isnt all Jerry Maguire and Ballers but they do seem to do a shitload more for their clients than this mob of ex players and grifters.

 

[phantom13]

If a young player seeks out the senior coach for life advice is the coach supposed to say, ah no can't offer you any advice other than that is the welfare departments issue go and talk to Joe Blow in welfare.

I manage staff and i can say there is a very clear line for when i would say "im not really equipped to help you with this but i can recommend/talk to x to help".

I realise the AFL isnt like an office job so its probably not quite as clear cut but its still an employer and they need to have processes in place.

 

[sr36]

Most if not all welfare departments are not resourced with the expertise to deal with these issues either. They’re no more capable than the coaches or other employees.

What do you mean by these issues? And why is it appropriate for the coach to be the one responsible for working with these issues.

 

[M Malice]

I manage staff and i can say there is a very clear line for when i would say "im not really equipped to help you with this but i can recommend/talk to x to help".

I realise the AFL isnt like an office job so its probably not quite as clear cut but its still an employer and they need to have processes in place.

IMO a footy club is a unique environment, ie. not comparable to "normal" business settings.

I would think the young player would be miffed if the coach did what you suggested, he would think the coach was unsupportive and disinterested in his personal life, runs the risk of losing the players respect... which is what every coach of recent times says is a vital role ie. get to know the player and not view him as merely a football commodity.

Every club sees themselves as a "family club", it is mentioned regularly.

 

[Elixuh]

What do you mean by these issues? And why is it appropriate for the coach to be the one responsible for working with these issues.

I’m not saying it is more appropriate for the coach to be the one responsible. I’m saying that you’re massively overestimating the resourcing and expertise of welfare departments.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The bloke that was managing Bobby Hill when he wanted to get to Essendon literally did a morning call with his coffee on the beach, went to the pub, went to his office and made another call at about 4pm, then called Bobby to say "not happening mate, did everything we could".

Im sure the US world isnt all Jerry Maguire and Ballers but they do seem to do a shitload more for their clients than this mob of ex players and grifters.

To be fair , both of those calls were probably to Dodo, and it probably was not happening.

 

[sr36]

If a young player seeks out the senior coach for life advice is the coach supposed to say, ah no can't offer you any advice other than that is the welfare departments issue go and talk to Joe Blow in welfare.

Depends on what it pertains to. It seems to me that people are looking for stiuations where the line between professional and personal is blurry and then using that to say that their can't be a line.

Regardless of where the line is, I think we'd all agree that what is alleged - a boss persuading an employee to have an abortion or break up with his partner to benefit their career is on the wrong side of the line.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

It is still interesting to me that the ABC (Russell Jackson) chose to publish the story to begin with.

Egan's report is total piece of incoherent rubbish and we have now had two properly independent reviews (lead by KCs no less) finding no evidence of racist behavior by the club or the coaches.

The ABC must have known that they would be forced to back up the claims at some stage? What hard evidence (if any?) do they have that is unknown to anyone else?

Or did they just do a Dennis Denuto and publish the story based on the "vibe" (honestly nothing would surprise me with the Activism Broadcasting Corporation these days)

Its actually sad to see what the ABC has become. They are about as impartial as Sky News these days.

 

[HairyO]

Nope.

Yep. Feeling offended is now something we have to care about. And stamp out.

 

[phantom13]

IMO a footy club is a unique environment, ie. not comparable to "normal" business settings.

I would think the young player would be miffed if the coach did what you suggested, he would think the coach was unsupportive and disinterested in his personal life, runs the risk of losing the players respect... which is what every coach of recent times says is a vital role ie. get to know the player and not view him as merely a football commodity.

Every club sees themselves as a "family club", it is mentioned regularly.

Its unique to a degree but its still governed as a workplace and im fairly certain still fall under WHS guidelines.

I think youre way off on how the player would feel too. Im not suggesting the coach would say "not my problem mate" im suggesting they would say "I appreciate you coming to me, im not qualified nor equipped to help but ill support you by bringing in X person and ill be there through that process."

I had a junior staffer come to me with a racial vilification claim a few years ago, i had no real idea on what the next steps were so i directed them to HR and scheduled a meeting with our HR rep (which i also attended). I ended up being their support witness through the process and offered support but the whole process and outcome were not my area at all so i brought in someone to assist is who suitably qualified.

This mechanism might be different at an AFL club but that principle has to be the same, otherwise you have Clarko or whoever doing shit they would have absolutely no idea about.

To be fair , both of those calls were probably to Dodo, and it probably was not happening.

Possibly but two calls in a 10 hour day during your only REAL busy time, with a 3 hour pub lunch in the middle doesnt seem like "everything we could do".

 

[M Malice]

Depends on what it pertains to. It seems to me that people are looking for stiuations where the line between professional and personal is blurry and then using that to say that their can't be a line.

Regardless of where the line is, I think we'd all agree that what is alleged - a boss persuading an employee to have an abortion or break up with his partner to benefit their career is on the wrong side of the line.

I agree with the bolded particularly the "persuading" although I would suggest that is highly unlikely exactly what happened, a lot of nuance in this story that hasn't been divulged as yet, it needs to get to Federal Court and both sides of the incident/s need to be flushed out under sworn testimony.