News The Hawthorn Allegations

[ElliottsMaggies]

It actually can make a big difference.

You’ve got 3 individuals who have told there stories and now you’ve got 3 individuals who emphatically deny these claims. So who do you believe?

No one can be sure of the truth apart from those parties involved.

If the allegations against the 3 men are true then they have no place in AFL football and all would need to resign from there positions immediately, but if these allegations are in fact found out to be false as these 3 men are claiming then the 3 who have made the accusation should be held to account also.

It’s just a messy situation and I feel the AFL have handled this appallingly.

I agree it's messy, it's sad for everyone involved & it's been handled poorly.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Yet Warner(like every other hack) makes no suggestion as to an alternative path the AFL should or could have taken. Once the report was out, what would have been a better course of action than appointing an independent panel? And once the complainants(for want of a better word) refused to participate, unless some amazing piece of evidence was uncovered(extremely unlikely), "no adverse finding" was almost a certainty.

It has been a disaster so far, not sure it was avoidable.

A legal system kinda works because participating parties are compelled to recognise it.

It shouldn’t have taken the AFL 8 months to realise that this process was never going to work because at least one of the participating parties wasn’t going to recognise the process it was running. And why would they? What could any process established by the AFL offer - no matter how independent - compared with established legal pathways?

There are limits to the AFL’s jurisdiction as a governing body.

If a murder occurs within the four walls of a footy club - what are people going to do? “Quick call the AFL!”? Obviously not.

What’s happened in this case is clearly less obvious than murder, but that’s why you have people overseeing organisational governance to make those decisions.

Why couldn’t the AFL come to the conclusion seven months ago that this was never going to work?

 

[Pie eyed]

I'm confused with this whole saga. On AFL 360 tonight, a statement said that two of the accusers "Zac" and "Bailey" aren't even indigenous. So who are these two people, and what are they accusing Hawthorn of doing to them, as l thought this was solely a report into the racism towards some of the past indigenous players and their famalies?

Reading outside the "Lines" being constantly rearranged by the various media outlets and "journalists"
Sticking solely to the publicly available information which is actually attributable to a real person and can be backed up by actual footage of the statement being made, or written submission by the the actual person it is being attributed to.
Discounting any opinion, speculation or theory being expounded in the media or on social media.

It appears that the whole saga comes down to statements being made to an internal self assessment by the Hawthorn FC by some, under the impression they will never have to be substantiated, which they now either regret or cannot substantiate.
The whole thing got out of hand in the current "racially charged" football media environment and now the many who nailed their flags to various flagpoles for a 6 month period of pearl clutching, exacerbated moralistic huffing and puffing and "definitive" statement making are left looking like buffoons.

Therefore the result cannot and will not ever be seen by them as anything more than a "gross coverup" of whatever fictional scenario they had concocted in their mind and more importantly most expounded publically.

 

[manicpie]

A legal system kinda works because participating parties are compelled to recognise it.

It shouldn’t have taken the AFL 8 months to realise that this process was never going to work because at least one of the participating parties wasn’t going to recognise the process it was running. And why would they? What could any process established by the AFL offer - no matter how independent - compared with established legal pathways?

There are limits to the AFL’s jurisdiction as a governing body.

If a murder occurs within the four walls of a footy club - what are people going to do? “Quick call the AFL!”? Obviously not.

What’s happened in this case is clearly less obvious than murder, but that’s why you have people overseeing organisational governance to make those decisions.

Why couldn’t the AFL come to the conclusion seven months ago that this was never going to work?

Because the AFL knew that the whole thing was never going to get anywhere from the start but they had to let the circus do it's performance. Let it go to the HRC where it belongs.

 

[Pie eyed]

Why couldn’t the AFL come to the conclusion seven months ago that this was never going to work?

It has taken a court 4 years to conclude that 22 eye witnesses, all telling the same story, to the court and and having previously made written submissions to a Government enquiry to the same effect, support a finding of "truth" as a defense against Defamation in the BRS stupidity.

I would assume that at the very least before you can wrap up any "investigation" you need to prove you tried to contact and get a statement from the complaint/s.
That would involve multiple attempts to contact then interview people through various intermediaries, who then would be getting opinion from other various "experts" which would have to pass on "advise" to all involved etc etc.

Apparently all of them said they did not want to take part in the process.

There is 6 months.

So at this point without any formal claims to take to the accused what do you do?


Farce is very true.

 

[sideswipe]

A legal system kinda works because participating parties are compelled to recognise it.

It shouldn’t have taken the AFL 8 months to realise that this process was never going to work because at least one of the participating parties wasn’t going to recognise the process it was running. And why would they? What could any process established by the AFL offer - no matter how independent - compared with established legal pathways?

There are limits to the AFL’s jurisdiction as a governing body.

If a murder occurs within the four walls of a footy club - what are people going to do? “Quick call the AFL!”? Obviously not.

What’s happened in this case is clearly less obvious than murder, but that’s why you have people overseeing organisational governance to make those decisions.

Why couldn’t the AFL come to the conclusion seven months ago that this was never going to work?

Appointing an independent panel to investigate was entirely appropriate. They had to act. That it took time, well, the panel members weren’t sitting on their hands. Things take time.

Are you suggesting the AFL should have said, “we have been given this report but we can’t take it further because various parties won’t participate. So we will leave it to them to take action as they see fit”?

Or a few months in, the afl steps in and says, “looks like we are getting nowhere. We are going to wrap things up.”?

Yeah, either of those would have gone down well.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

Turns out the deal came together because Fagan gave them notice of impending Supreme Court action to have the whole thing shut down and 24 hrs for them to take action to stop all the complainants being named in that action.

 

[cityslick1]

Considering the accused were not even interviewed by the 'independent' AFL inquiry, I don't understand how any findings could be made, let alone 'no adverse' findings.

It really just looks like the AFL have wiped their hands of it, and it will now be taken to the HRC.

big disparities between what Gil said in his presser vs what Robbo is reporting in the Sun. "The accusers - and all parties - are happy with the conclusion and agreed findings of this, no further action from us required".

vs... "the accusers were offered a compromise / settlement over the weekend and flatly refused it. Will head to HRC now".

AFL has pivoted again to protect brand & key stakeholders, making this someone else's issue to deal with now.

 

[sr36]

big disparities between what Gil said in his presser vs what Robbo is reporting in the Sun. "The accusers - and all parties - are happy with the conclusion and agreed findings of this, no further action from us required".

vs... "the accusers were offered a compromise / settlement over the weekend and flatly refused it. Will head to HRC now".

AFL has pivoted again to protect brand & key stakeholders, making this someone else's issue to deal with now.

They don't have the investigative powers or powers to enforce an attempt at mediation to deal with it. Nothing else they can do.

 

[cityslick1]

They don't have the investigative powers or powers to enforce an attempt at mediation to deal with it. Nothing else they can do.

not 100% sure on that. Inhouse... sure, but what organisation is? They do have plenty of cash and legal advisors though. & if it was the NBA, I reckon they wouldve outsourced resources asap to deal with a matter like this properly, taken control, liaised with relevant regulatory bodies and shown proper governance in resolving the matter. AFL seem v happy to say "nothing to see here" again. NBA once stripped the license from an owner for racist remarks, remember. The AFL wouldnt even penalise Essendon's administration for the drugs scandal...

I obv dont have all the facts, but I fear the AFL are all about damage control and limitation, period. In terms of where it sits in a list priorities, equitable solutions & taking responsibility for behaviours in their workplace are more like Carlton - outside of the top eight...

 

[sr36]

not 100% sure on that. Inhouse... yes. But they have plenty of cash. & if it was the NBA, I reckon they wouldve outsourced resources asap to deal with a matter like this properly, and shown proper governance in resolving the matter. They once stripped the license from an owner for racist remarks, remember. The AFL wouldnt even penalise Essendon's administration for the drugs scandal...

They had no power to get accusers to testify or hand over documents or to get the accused to testify unconditionally - they asked for conditions - the release of documents and the accusers weren't willing to release all of them - nor would the accused agree and couldn't be compelled to participate in a mediation. An AFL inquiry couldn't cut the mustard, because they don't have the powers.

 

[sideswipe]

not 100% sure on that. Inhouse... sure, but what organisation is? They do have plenty of cash and legal advisors though. & if it was the NBA, I reckon they wouldve outsourced resources asap to deal with a matter like this properly, taken control, liaised with relevant regulatory bodies and shown proper governance in resolving the matter. AFL seem v happy to say "nothing to see here" again. NBA once stripped the license from an owner for racist remarks, remember. The AFL wouldnt even penalise Essendon's administration for the drugs scandal...

I obv dont have all the facts, but I fear the AFL are all about damage control and limitation, period. In a range of priorities, Equitable solutions & taking responsibility for behaviours in their workplace are more like Carlton - outside of the top eight...

Feel free to suggest what more could they have done other than appoint an entriely independent and expert panel to investigate?

 

[sideswipe]

They had no power to get accusers to testify or hand over documents or to get the accused to testify unconditionally - they asked for conditions - the release of documents and the accusers weren't willing to release all of them - nor would the accused agree and couldn't be compelled to participate in a mediation. An AFL inquiry couldn't cut the mustard, because they don't have the powers.

They had to do something. And this ultimately unsatisfactory process was their only real choice. Say if they did uncover evidence of "bad stuff", then I guess they could have handed out punishments or made a complaint to the HRC on behalf of the victims. But they couldn't do anything themselves without first investigating it.

That the complainants chose not to participate rendered the whole exercise pretty impotent, but it still had to be done.

 

[sr36]

They had to do something. And this ultimately unsatisfactory process was their only real choice. Say if they did uncover evidence of "bad stuff", then I guess they could have handed out punishments or made a complaint to the HRC on behalf of the victims. But they couldn't do anything themselves without first investigating it.

That the complainants chose not to participate rendered the whole exercise pretty impotent, but it still had to be done.

Agree. But it was futile from the start when accusers said they weren't willing to participate in an AFL inquiry and the AFL immediately stated that they were going to push on with an inquiry with or without the accusers. That early part needed some more thorough attempts at negotiation, rather than we're in charge and this is what we're doing. Probably wouldn't have made a difference though and it did put the accused in a position where they couldn't win, they could only lose.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

big disparities between what Gil said in his presser vs what Robbo is reporting in the Sun. "The accusers - and all parties - are happy with the conclusion and agreed findings of this, no further action from us required".

vs... "the accusers were offered a compromise / settlement over the weekend and flatly refused it. Will head to HRC now".

AFL has pivoted again to protect brand & key stakeholders, making this someone else's issue to deal with now.

Both using different words to say the same thing.

There was no conclusion (for a variety of reasons) & now it's up to the HRC to sort it out.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Agree. But it was futile from the start when accusers said they weren't willing to participate in an AFL inquiry and the AFL immediately stated that they were going to push on with an inquiry with or without the accusers. That early part needed some more thorough attempts at negotiation, rather than we're in charge and this is what we're doing. Probably wouldn't have made a difference though and it did put the accused in a position where they couldn't win, they could only lose.

Not only did the accusers not wish to participate in the AFL inquiry, the accused were also not interviewed.

How the AFL could then say there were no 'adverse' findings is ludicrous..

...there were no findings..

 

[sr36]

Not only did the accusers not wish to participate in the AFL inquiry, the accused were also not interviewed.

How the AFL could then say there were no 'adverse' findings is ludicrous..

...there were no findings..

It was a disciplinary hearing. It's binary. There's either adverse findings or no adverse findings. Thus there were no adverse findings.

 

[sideswipe]

Not only did the accusers not wish to participate in the AFL inquiry, the accused were also not interviewed.

How the AFL could then say there were no 'adverse' findings is ludicrous..

...there were no findings..

Not ludicrous at all. It is a legal term enshrined in legislation. Inquiries Act 2014.

Edit: what Sr said. Now I feel dirty.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

It was a disciplinary hearing. It's binary. There's either adverse findings or no adverse findings. Thus there were no adverse findings.

Yes, but it's being interpreted that no 'adverse' findings means the accused were innocent.

 

[sideswipe]

Yes, but it's being interpreted that no 'adverse' findings means the accused were innocent.

Only by stupid people.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Not ludicrous at all. It is a legal term enshrined in legislation. Inquiries Act 2014.

Edit: what Sr said. Now I feel dirty.

But that's not how it's being interpreted by the public...the public aren't aware of the Inquiries Act 2014 they hear 'no adverse' findings & take that as the accused have done nothing wrong & they are vindicated.

Followed up by Gil saying the accusers are happy with the conclusion, giving the impression they are satisfied & that's the end of it.

And none of that is true.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Agree. But it was futile from the start when accusers said they weren't willing to participate in an AFL inquiry and the AFL immediately stated that they were going to push on with an inquiry with or without the accusers. That early part needed some more thorough attempts at negotiation, rather than we're in charge and this is what we're doing. Probably wouldn't have made a difference though and it did put the accused in a position where they couldn't win, they could only lose.

Isn't the refusal of the accusers to participate really on them rather than the AFL? The issue dealt with events that alleged occurred at an AFL club and therefore it seems logical that the AFL should oversee the process of dealing with it. If the accusers choose not to participate in the process surely any lack of progress with their cases is their responsibility?

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

It was a disciplinary hearing. It's binary. There's either adverse findings or no adverse findings. Thus there were no adverse findings.

Or if there are no findings then ipso facto there can be no adverse findings!

 

[sr36]

Isn't the refusal of the accusers to participate really on them rather than the AFL? The issue dealt with events that alleged occurred at an AFL club and therefore it seems logical that the AFL should oversee the process of dealing with it. If the accusers choose not to participate in the process surely any lack of progress with their cases is their responsibility?

I would argue that the AFL were responsible for trying to resolve/investigate it. Did they make an effort to try to get participation - or did they just say this is how we're doing it whether you like it or not. From the outside, it seemed like the latter.

 

[sideswipe]

But that's not how it's being interpreted by the public...the public aren't aware of the Inquiries Act 2014 they hear 'no adverse' findings & take that as the accused have done nothing wrong & they are vindicated.

Followed up by Gil saying the accusers are happy with the conclusion, giving the impression they are satisfied & that's the end of it.

And none of that is true.

i think you are underestimating the public. There has been enough talk from lawyers of taking the matter to the HRC that anyone with half a brain knows that the AFL investigation is over, but the matter isn't finished.