Rumour Multiple GWS players are set to be suspended to start the 2025 season after distasteful costumes and skits from their post-season function

[Carringbush2010]

My understanding of venues offering "Private Function" is that it implies attendance is restricted exclusively for invitees, not necessarily an 'anything goes" policy within that room that is bound by some strict confidentiality agreement.

I worked for years in a club that regularly had private functions, often involving well known sporting and entertainment celebrities, and even politicians at times. Whilst it never got really debaucherous - although there were some activities that went on that would be regarded as highly questionable today - we as employees were never bound by some confidentiality clause.

Any expectation of strict privacy in the sense that you're suggesting went out when they allowed people to carry devices with cameras, recording equipment etc everywhere they go. And trying to take those off people nowadays would be nearly as hard as trying to take semi-automatic weapons off Americans.

Ok then, I can see the definition is somewhat compromised from a face value definition of private.

I guess in that case the players couldn't have reasonably expected complete privacy and risked being exposed. Which I've conceded several times

In that case, in future, I'd argue footy players playing dress up at pubs shouldn't really be doing that because they risk exposure (as we've established exposure can't eliminated). Someone somewhere is going to take offence to something so best not go to the pub at all.

Does this explain it for you Dogs_R_Us ?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Ok then, I can see the definition is somewhat compromised from a face value definition of private.

I guess in that case the players couldn't have reasonably expected complete privacy and risked being exposed. Which I've conceded several times

In that case, in future, I'd argue footy players playing dress up at pubs shouldn't really be doing that because they risk exposure (as we've established exposure can't eliminated). Someone somewhere is going to take offence to something so best not go to the pub at all.

Does this explain it for you Dogs_R_Us ?

Sure. Find somewhere safe from technology if you are worried about exposure

 

[Carringbush2010]

Sure. Find somewhere safe from technology if you are worried about exposure

Which is basically impossible, and that's a big societal problem.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I was with you until it was mentioned that the complaint was made directly to the club, and I was interested to see if you would concede some ground.

The fact that you doubled down was disappointing as you seemed to be making some fair arguments.

One could argue that making a complaint directly to the club could also be considered private in nature, so it is hardly escalating the situation...

I think you've misinterpreted, I never mentioned about any individual complaining directly to the club, afaik the complainant(s) complained to the AFL. Not directly to the club.

As I said earlier, ideally the players inform the establishment BEFORE their cringy behaviour (should've happened), the establishment should have the right to deny or allow, and from there (if the behaviour is allowed by establishment to go ahead) the staff have the choice to work the shift or not.

I think that's fair enough, and if it would've happened that way, the public doesn't know and we're not here discussing it.

Yeah I know it didn't go that way and that's not how it normally works when hiring a private room for function, I'm saying it SHOULD'VE happened that way.

 

[EagleShore]

We've been over this, If you can't comprehend my point, then we should leave it there.

Honestly mate, they will never get it because I think it's a reflection of a different world view and/or political mindset. There could be an IQ factor as well.

Some people just cannot understand the true complexities of an issue like this in terms of the broader implications of policing and punishing such behaviour (particularly to the extent that the AFL did with game bans and huge fines) that neither breaks any law nor was meant for public consumption.

 

[Romeoh1]

Ok then, I can see the definition is somewhat compromised from a face value definition of private.

I guess in that case the players couldn't have reasonably expected complete privacy and risked being exposed. Which I've conceded several times

In that case, in future, I'd argue footy players playing dress up at pubs shouldn't really be doing that because they risk exposure (as we've established exposure can't eliminated). Someone somewhere is going to take offence to something so best not go to the pub at all.

Does this explain it for you Dogs_R_Us ?

Sheesh - what’s with the catastrophising?
Isn’t this the first mad Monday issue in quite some time? I don’t know- ever even? Doesn’t that tell you most of the players/clubs know where to draw the line? Carry on as usual I’d say to all the rest, and gws can lift their game.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Sheesh - what’s with the catastrophising?
Isn’t this the first mad Monday issue in quite some time? I don’t know- ever even? Doesn’t that tell you most of the players/clubs know where to draw the line? Carry on as usual I’d say to all the rest, and gws can lift their game.

Catastrophising, lol.

It's not that at all, it's merely stating the possibility. Wouldn't be surprised if clubs and managers request players 'don't do dress ups in public at pubs', because it's a possibility that someone may see it and be offended.

If you wanna call that hyperbole then well that's on you.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Catastrophising, lol.

It's not that at all, it's merely stating the possibility. Wouldn't be surprised if clubs and managers request players 'don't do dress ups in public at pubs', because it's a possibility that someone may see it and be offended.

If you wanna call that hyperbole then well that's on you.

I’d rather they said “… because someone’s going to recognise you, and film you, or record you, and we’ll get to hear about it, and whether you or we like it or not, there could be repercussions. That’s just the world we live in, and the price we pay for being well known.”

 

[Romeoh1]

Catastrophising, lol.

It's not that at all, it's merely stating the possibility. Wouldn't be surprised if clubs and managers request players 'don't do dress ups in public at pubs', because it's a possibility that someone may see it and be offended.

If you wanna call that hyperbole then well that's on you.

Sure it is- please give me the list of other mad Mondays where players have been fined.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I’d rather they said “… because someone’s going to recognise you, and film you, or record you, and we’ll get to hear about it, and whether you or we like it or not, there could be repercussions. That’s just the world we live in.”

Yep, that sums it up, thanks Dogs_R_Us

 

[Carringbush2010]

Sure it is- please give me the list of other mad Mondays where players have been fined.

Not yet, but let's not pretend it's not possible, and given the very scrutiny like environment society is these days, willing to bet we'll see a 'watering down' of such events.

 

[iameviljez]

Sheesh - what’s with the catastrophising?
Isn’t this the first mad Monday issue in quite some time? I don’t know- ever even? Doesn’t that tell you most of the players/clubs know where to draw the line? Carry on as usual I’d say to all the rest, and gws can lift their game.

Since the dressups thing started with Geelong in the late 2000s (at least AFAIK), this is the first one I can think of. And even then, if it weren't for the skit, I don't think it would have gone public like it has.

 

[Romeoh1]

I’d rather they said “… because someone’s going to recognise you, and film you, or record you, and we’ll get to hear about it, and whether you or we like it or not, there could be repercussions. That’s just the world we live in, and the price we pay for being well known.”

But do you seriously think the clubs haven’t already been giving these guidelines for years now? Isn’t this the sort of thing that is on the players’ radar all the time now?
And a handful of gws players are the only ones who haven’t understood the message? What does that tell us? More about that group of 6 players who didn’t get it, or more about the 99% who get it? I’m actually pretty chuffed that the vast majority of the players do have a clue.

 

[Sherrinator]

Came here to check up on the Hawthorn scandal 20th hand victims. Did not disappoint

 

[Sherrinator]

Sure it is- please give me the list of other mad Mondays where players have been fined.

Most bartenders don’t use blackmail tactics i guess

 

[Sherrinator]

Which is basically impossible, and that's a big societal problem.

Stop blaming others for your screen addiction

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Most bartenders don’t use blackmail tactics i guess

This.

No evidence of it happening before may well be because no one has bothered to report it.

 

[gambinotosserflog]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/te...t/news-story/5d443947be0764d2b6c47706fb334d7e

There you have it.

Making one joke in a private setting that the person working at the bar hears is worthy of a 4 game AFL suspension

This is East German Stasi bullshit. What a joke. Used to live across the road from The Wooly Bay hotel. Hope it gets boycotted.

 

[WillHayward]

Lots of morally and ethically superior intellectual folk on here.

Regardless.

This has GWS flag written all over it.

 

[Consolaçao]

I don't accept that because if you're going to take a commercial stance over ethics you have to apply it across the board not pick and choose when to do it which us what they've done.

They also won't own it and be honest about why they are applying the penalties. The CEO of the afl who is ex ex lawyer no less is standing there blatantly pretending the afl cares about women's rights or domestic violence etc when the afl couldn't care less about it (their approach to gambling shows it).

If anything I'm most annoyed at the journalists. When he started spouting this they should have interrupted him, pointed out the gambling issue and asked him why the afl is being hypocritical. And when he refused to answer it properly (which is likely) the journalists should have all walked out of the press conference and refused to their editors to cover the story. Sure the afl probably would have put a spin press conference on their website anyway but at least the journalists wouldn't be condoning such lies and spin and they would be forcing the afl to own their own falsehood.

Unfortunately most people don't know how to critically think and base their views on how the media frames stories to them so this matters. As a society we need to demand a hell of a lot better from both our sporting bodies like the afl and the media. It's obvious why society has such a problem dealing with these issues when it doesn't stand up for ethics.

Mostly agree with that.

The challenge for journalists though is that any criticism of the process, or a principled defence of players' freedom to be d***heads in private is going to be willfully misinterpreted by swathes of people as defence of rape or some other nonsense.

Think about it: if you were a journalist in a highly competitive industry, would you threaten your career by making the above arguments and copping an absolute pile-on from everyone else who feels the same incentives as you do to conform to the lowest-risk perspective? Or would you just play a small target and tow the line?

Maybe I was a bit rough on journalists. I don't applaud their cowardice, but I understand it. I still reckon the buck stops with the people.

 

[iameviljez]

Most bartenders don’t use blackmail tactics i guess

Complaining to the parent organisation isn't blackmail, that would only be if they used the threat to extort money... which is a ****ing long bow to draw.

 

[Chief]

It's the most ludicrous thing to suggest people can't do things because someone might get upset about it.

You think people can't get upset about "things"?

 

[Bostonian]

You think people can't get upset about "things"?

Get upset over whatever you want.

Doesn't mean anyone else has to give a toss about why or what you're upset over.

 

[Chief]

Get upset over whatever you want.

Doesn't mean anyone else has to give a toss about why or what you're upset over.

I think many people see care and consideration for others as being a part of a civil society.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I think many people see care and consideration for others as being a part of a civil society.

Depends on if that person is also part of the same social contract. Of course no one would want to upset others, but there is a level to what hurting someone's feelings generates as a social punishment in response. Would you execute someone for upsetting someone? Of course not. Would you imprison someone? I'd hope not. Would you fine someone for upsetting someone else? I'd say absolutely not, and here appears to be the line that the morally repugnant among us begin to draw. That because someone is upset, the person upsetting is deserving of a financial or greater penalty. The only thing the social contract (in my opinion) demands of someone who has upset someone else is an apology or a sense of empathy. Demanding anything more is cruel and unusual.