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DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[RUNVS]

Not quite, Clarko got defamed and now is getting compensated as per my original predicted outcome

Except a lot of the Aboriginal players who played under him disagree.

Sounds like the AFL did not want to accuse one of their most decorated coaches of racism.

 

[Engimal v3]

Not quite, Clarko got defamed and now is getting compensated as per my original predicted outcome

What I don't necessarily understand is how he was defamed by Hawthorn. It was Jackson's report that broke the news. News of Hawthorn's report was leaked, wasn't it?

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

What I don't necessarily understand is how he was defamed by Hawthorn. It was Jackson's report that broke the news. News of Hawthorn's report was leaked, wasn't it?

I think Hawthorn definitely threw Clarko and Fagan under the bus and hence the libel against the footy club

 

[Philhawk]

I don't know where to start with that article.

A lot of things to unpack in terms of responsibilities, but nice to see Caro throwing in some jokes.

- Hood saying "that's not what we're about" (when asking whether North might take action against Hawthorn) - after begging for handouts most of this past 12 months.

- Clarko saying he believes the saga is what led to JHF leaving the club.

Tough to decide which one is funnier.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Hawthorn should be forced to pay their compo to Clarko and Fagan etc out of their soft cap imo

 

[RUNVS]

Hawthorn should be forced to pay their compo to Clarko and Fagan etc out of their soft cap imo

Clarkson should be paying Hawthorn after driving their list off a cliff.

 

[yeahmate]

What I don't necessarily understand is how he was defamed by Hawthorn. It was Jackson's report that broke the news. News of Hawthorn's report was leaked, wasn't it?

Hawthorn commissioned the report and then made it "public" (when they disclosed it externally to the afl)

 

[SSSSSS]

Far out I may as well buy a North membership at this point.

 

[RUNVS]

Hawthorn commissioned the report and then made it "public" (when they disclosed it externally to the afl)

They kind of had to. Could you imagine the PR disaster it would have been had they received the results of the report and tried to silence them, only for the report to get leaked?

 

[vindaloo]

Hawthorn commissioned the report and then made it "public" (when they disclosed it externally to the afl)

And history will tell us they were never interviewed or part of the process. What a disgrace. The Lynch mobs who wanted him hung drawn and quartered have apologised I've got no doubt.

 

[Chief]

then made it "public" (when they disclosed it externally to the afl)

I don't know what the danger quotes around the word public are for.

 

[Chief]

And history will tell us they were never interviewed or part of the process.

That wasn't what the process was about.

When they got the opportunity to discuss it they sued to avoid it.

 

[yeahmate]

I don't know what the danger quotes around the word public are for.

was only to emphasise that its being used here as a legal term for the purpose of establishing defamation and not in the ordinary parlance that a punter would consider to be the public

 

[Chief]

was only to emphasise that its being used here as a legal term for the purpose of establishing defamation and not in the ordinary parlance that a punter would consider to be the public

OK you mean published or communicated.

Hawks communication to the AFL was part of their responsibilities which their employees would have agreed to be subject to.

 

[SSSSSS]

So the AFL is tapping Hawthorn on the shoulder to make compensatory payments to

The coaches who did no wrong.

And the players who had no wrong done to them?

It's the fined for 'not tanking' saga all over again. AFL throwing cash to make the problem go away.

 

[yeahmate]

OK you mean published or communicated.

Hawks communication to the AFL was part of their responsibilities which their employees would have agreed to be subject to.

Doesnt really change things if the communication was defamatory though. They stuffed up passing it to a third party at that point if they didnt want to get sued. Should have stamped it as a draft and then expanded the scope of the report to give those accused the opportunity to respond before releasing it externally if they were concerned about legal liability. hopefully they notified their insurers at that point otherwise they could now be paying out of club coffers and not covered under their policy

 

[smish]

I think we should get Damien Barrett's opinion on this matter

 

[vindaloo]

That wasn't what the process was about.

When they got the opportunity to discuss it they sued to avoid it.

I didn't follow it. Seems like a mess.
Didn't The ABC journalist with a typical greens/left agenda mislead claiming the ex player at the centre of the worst allegation was indigenous, but in fact was half Maori and his partner white?

Typical of the abc, they've had a pretty bad past year or so our taxpayer funded organisation have.

 

[Chief]

Doesnt really change things if the communication was defamatory though. They stuffed up passing it to a third party at that point if they didnt want to get sued.

As I said, I can't see this being an issue unless they didn't include this sort of report in their contract with the coaches.

The courts mostly prefer the sports industry keep these disputes in-house, decided under the terms of their contracts and laws of their codes.

Should have stamped it as a draft and then expanded the scope of the report to give those accused the opportunity to respond before releasing it externally if they were concerned about legal liability. hopefully they notified their insurers at that point otherwise they could now be paying out of club coffers and not covered under their policy

It was passed to the AFL under the rules of the league. It was passed to the AFL so it could investigated.

Otherwise anyone making a claim under internal procedures is risking a defamation case.

If this report was outside the contemplation of anyone when the contract was signed, they might have a case against Hawthorn and the AFL.

 

[Chief]

The ABC journalist with a typical greens/left agenda

Yeah OK. That's what it was about.

 

[Chief]

I think we should get Damien Barrett's opinion on this matter

Or, indeed, a fully qualified barista. But it may be too latte for that.

 

[Vindicater]

I think we should get Damien Barrett's opinion on this matter

If...

Then...

 

[CD Xbow]

Hawthorn should be forced to pay their compo to Clarko and Fagan etc out of their soft cap imo

I'm not sure Hawthorn actually defamed them at all so I don't really see they deserve compo. Clarko seems to have got into the North Melbourne hand out mentality very quickly.

Defamation is more likely to be done by the accusers, perhaps even by the writer of the report (if claims weren't true) and certainly the media that published these startling claims.

Looks like Hawks are being asked to pay out both sides! Totally bizarre.

 

[sr36]

I'm not sure Hawthorn actually defamed them at all so I don't really see they deserve compo. Clarko seems to have got into the North Melbourne hand out mentality very quickly.

Defamation is more likely to be done by the accusers, perhaps even by the writer of the report (if claims weren't true) and certainly the media that published these startling claims.

Looks like Hawks are being asked to pay out both sides! Totally bizarre.

Hawks want it to go away with as little exposure as possible and they'll pay for it to occur. Why wouldn't the coaches lawyer advise them to hit the Hawks up?

 

[SSSSSS]

Hawks want it to go away with as little exposure as possible and they'll pay for it to occur. Why wouldn't the coaches lawyer advise them to hit the Hawks up?

Reading the article it seems the AFL want it to go away.

Implying that the AFL will punish the Hawks if they drag it through the courts.

This is the same AFL that found there was no wrongdoing...tanking doesn't exist...tried to sweep the PED scandal under the rug etc.