News Review into racism at Collingwood

[TKiL]

I think that was listed as one of the good first steps taken by the club. "Important and positive steps have been taken by the Club in the past few years. This has included the appointment of a First Nations person to the board, the introduction of new policies that more directly target racism and the appointment of a new CEO who has a commitment to making changes."

Thanks for clarifying - might delete my original post.

 

[HeathySure]

Ed needs to resign now. This lack of competence and ethics as a leader would get him fired from most public companies.

It will however be a plus if he wants to be president of the USA

 

[Mkcaptain]

This really strikes me as a review telling me that water is wet. It is utterly necessary and an important step in dragging the club to where we want it to go, but the shock and the outrage at it’s conclusions I find baffling.

Agreed completely but I can understand the media/public response given the circumstances the review was called under. Collingwood commissioned the review last year when it was under intense scrutiny from Lumumba's allegations of racism, and you had the current coach and former coach denying that Collingwood was a racist environment. A response which has been made to look foolish when they must have known (as we did) that this would be the findings from an in depth investigation into the club's history.

In hindsight the club would have been far better off to bite the bullet and commission this review in 2017 as part of the club's cultural review. It would have created a lot of short term pain for the club but would have prevented this escalated response.

 

[TradeDraft]

Guess Massive Changes are Needed at the Club

 

[jmac70]

I read an anonymous statement from an AFL club in The Age this morning saying that whenever a racial issue popped up, Coillingwood was never far away. Hard to argue with that really.

I can go back as far as the Syd Jackson controversy in the early 70s. I watched Jackson, with his back to the umpire and surrounded by players), punch Lee Adamson in the face as they were both on the ground. I have no doubt Jackson would have been racially abused during his career, but the Adamson matter was a Carlton confection, probably by that loathsome a-hole, George Harris.

I was sitting in the front row of the Sherrin Stand as Nicky Winmar lifted his jumper. Ditto when Robert Muir was abused by bone-toting social club members. I remember the Monkhurst scandal too. Tony Shaw was in the thick of it at one stage also, but I can't remember those details.

Our supporter base has been involved too, but no more than any other club. During the Adam Goodes booing times, Carlton, North Melbourne, Essendon, West Coast supporters were also a disgrace as was the AFL itself. If Adam Goodes were to come out today and make a comment, the offensive racist trolls would materialise out of thin air. And there would be plenty here as well.

Good on Coliingwood for initiating the report. Now it's been tabled, the Club needs to swiftly announce its plans to make changes. I suspect many of the recommendations would have been made before the report was even tabled.

I'm not commenting on Eddie or the Board. There is an AGM this week is there not? I suspect we'll hear a lot about this at that meeting. The Club has had a couple of months to prepare a response and they have released this report to coincide with that.

Interesting times ahead.

The report was released to the board before Christmas. It has been “obtained” by News Corp and released today.

These findings should have been released properly by the club via a press conference. It’a shambolic that we hear via the media. I’ve never been more disengaged and ashamed of the club.

 

[Scodog10]

That's a fair point but to me it depends on who is doing the perceiving. Reading that I would assume that the perception is coming from the victims of racist incidents themselves. In which case my opinion is that the distinction isn't particularly relevant if its a recurring theme from victims. I'm not entirely sure how the report could be in a position to make factual findings about whether the response was about damage control. That would involve needing to make a definitive call about the intentions behind the responses, on the balance of probabilities you could reasonably assume the intention was damage control, but without discounting the chance that it was a genuine response I think all that we are left with are the victims' perceptions of the situation

But if that perception is coming from parties to the situation other than the victims then I'd agree that point shouldn't be jumped on as strongly as it has been.

Based on my read of the report, specifically the feedback from within, they were capable of factually stating it happened. For instance they interview members of the football department who say they were directed to handle it a certain way to protect the brand etc. it was also stated that the club was observed reacting to public complaints more than internal yet it only added to the perception. It doesn’t quite add up.

Setting that aside though you’re absolutely right if it’s the victim that’s perceiving that then it’s redundant. I’m probably just not as confident.

 

[jackcass]

I'd like to know why it has been leaked, rather than released by the club.

Very frustrating that it takes a leak for the information to start to filter through.

It's clear now that Ed fell on his sword because of this report. Why not say that at the beginning? Why not say that the report has been received and the findings show that the club handled things inadequately under his watch?

Always been a supporter of Eddie, but this sh*t drives me crazy. Just be transparent FFS.

Only consideration is that the board wanted time to digest the findings and work through next directions before releasing it formally. Not uncommon. I guess we'll see it tabled at the AGM now.

 

[TradeDraft]

It is worthy of its own thread.

The ABC story is some difficult reading, but I admit to wanting something more (i.e. the report) to flesh out those disturbing dot points.

Still, the implications are clear, and I'd say they are especially clear for the President.

Media be loving this.

Won't Read Newspaper,Watch News. Just Ignore all Media Outlets

 

[Anzacday]

It was clear that Mr. Lumumba, understandably given his history at the Club, did not wish to engage in a review process

And this is why he isn’t entitled to a copy, (as per his tweet) of the review simply because he asked for one, (IMO)

 

[Mkcaptain]

Based on my read of the report, specifically the feedback from within, they were capable of factually stating it happened. For instance they interview members of the football department who say they were directed to handle it a certain way to protect the brand etc. it was also stated that the club was observed reacting to public complaints more than internal yet it only added to the perception.

Setting that aside though you’re absolutely right if it’s the victim that’s perceiving that then it’s redundant. I’m probably just not as confident.

Okay I definitely shouldn't have commented without yet reading the report and knowing the evidence they had to draw on. That perception vs factual distinction is a lot more interesting in that context.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Media be loving this.

Won't Read Newspaper,Watch News. Just Ignore all Media Outlets

 

[MagpieJoel]

Only consideration is that the board wanted time to digest the findings and work through next directions before releasing it formally. Not uncommon. I guess we'll see it tabled at the AGM now.

Of course, but they have had over a month. That's too long in this day and age.

 

[Antz]

Media be loving this.

Won't Read Newspaper,Watch News. Just Ignore all Media Outlets

The review reveals the truth about what has happened at Collingwood in the last few years. The media is entitled to their opinion in regards to this. I also hate the media but they can't make up this story as this review reveals the truth. The club deserves to be criticised for their handling of racism in this instance.

 

[jmac70]

We are at real risk of the Collingwood brand becoming a symbol of racism. Swift action must be taken today!

Still no comment from the club. Why?

 

[Maggie5]

Given some of the posts in the Australia thread, I found this conclusion from the report interesting.

 

[Scodog10]

Okay I definitely shouldn't have commented without yet reading the report and knowing the evidence they had to draw on. That perception vs factual distinction is a lot more interesting in that context.

My read on it only and I could be wide of the mark in which case I’m happy to acknowledge that! Main take away for me though is that there have been systemic issues with racism within our club for too long and I almost totally endorse the findings (from an outside perspective).

The one that stands out is recommendation 9 because I want the clubs employment strategy to value excellence in a football context over and above all else so long as that fits with recommendation 11. Using a practical example the next coach of a generation is on the market, but if he/ she has the wrong values then we pass.

 

[Apples]

I suspect that the Club would have planned to release the report at the AGM.

If the report was only given to the Board in the lead-up to Christmas, it's understandable that all members would want to digest its findings over the holiday period.

There has been no mention in the press, or here for that matter, that Collingwood actually makes a positive influence to indigenous lives through its foundations and through its outreach programmes with the Salvation Army. I'm the first to admit there are areas that need to be improved, but over the last 5 years, the Club has made significant cultural changes and many of these have been led by Eddie.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[NoobPie]

Only consideration is that the board wanted time to digest the findings and work through next directions before releasing it formally. Not uncommon. I guess we'll see it tabled at the AGM now.

By "not uncommon" you mean standard practice

 

[jackcass]

Of course, but they have had over a month. That's too long in this day and age.

Not really, especially if you factor in the Christmas - New Year period.

 

[Mkcaptain]

The review reveals the truth about what has happened at Collingwood in the last few years. The media is entitled to their opinion in regards to this. I also hate the media but they can't make up this story as this review reveals the truth. The club deserves to be criticised for their handling of racism in this instance.

Does it? I didn't think it focussed on a specific time period? Although a lack of corrective action during the last few years is an indictment on the board.

 

[jackcass]

By "not uncommon" you mean standard practice

Pretty much. Government departments are notoriously slow to release these types of reviews. Big business not too much better.

 

[jmac70]

Pretty much. Government departments are notoriously slow to release these types of reviews. Big business not too much better.

You can’t possibly justify the circumstances around the release of the report.

 

[jackcass]

Does it? I didn't think it focussed on a specific time period? Although a lack of corrective action during the last few years is an indictment on the board.

Have to start somewhere and the report does suggest they've been working toward improvement.

 

[jmac70]

Let’s be really clear here, the club did not release the report.

 

[Apples]

Just thinking, how many clubs have had an Aboriginal captain?
Collingwood: Mark Williams
Geelong: Polly Farmer
GC: Stephen May (co-captain)
Were Gavin Wanganeen, Michael Long, Andrew McLeod

Andrew Mcleod

Age

48

Ht

181cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.8

5star

K

13.1

5star

HB

6.7

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

2.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

10.8

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

1.0

1star

T

1.6

4star

captains?