5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Yep He was just stumbling along in his day job and happened randomly upon this story.

No, he was working on it for months prior.

2 hours ago, sue said:

Gil's announcement contained many 'odd' sentences, so carefully worded that you wondered what they were hiding. Reminded me of Yes Minister.

A golden opportunity was missed when they picked another "Old boy" to replace Gil. 

So at least 3 former hawk officials have had their reputations damaged forever. Not to mention the damage it has done to them physically and mentally. I so no upside to any of this. 

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

So at least 3 former hawk officials have had their reputations damaged forever. Not to mention the damage it has done to them physically and mentally. I so no upside to any of this. 

And the damage to the complainants?

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

How long before the defamation suits.....

Well in a defamation suit, while I am not an expert, I thought damages to a large degree centre around lost income. I don’t think given his contract, he could demonstrate much lost earnings.

I don’t think pain and suffering is a big component in Australia, but maybe I am wrong on that.

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

Tell me about it. As a migrant I copped it in the neighbourhood as well as at school. The ones who copped it worse were English migrants aka poms.

Back then when we copped abuse we gave it back in return.

Sorry to hear that. Such behaviour should not be tolerated, but that is not quite the same level of racism as having 90% of your family murdered as has happened to several people I know.  They see racism as being much worse than something you can simply 'give abuse back in return'.  You do too I trust.

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Well in a defamation suit, while I am not an expert, I thought damages to a large degree centre around lost income. I don’t think given his contract, he could demonstrate much lost earnings.

I don’t think pain and suffering is a big component in Australia, but maybe I am wrong on that.

At this point why would you increase the pain of the court proceedings. 

for an investigation that completed before it really started, i'd be curious what the combined legal fees (for all parties - afl, hfc, complainants and accused) added up to over the 8 months. It must be multiple millions. and all for what, so far?  and how many more for any follow on actions?    just really curious.

Edited May 31, 20232 yr by daisycutter
typo

10 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Well in a defamation suit, while I am not an expert, I thought damages to a large degree centre around lost income. I don’t think given his contract, he could demonstrate much lost earnings.

I don’t think pain and suffering is a big component in Australia, but maybe I am wrong on that.

I would have thought his professional reputation might be worth a few $$$

14 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Surely there is no happy ending for anyone in this

Lawyers will be smiling once the defamation actions get under way

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

taken action on this debacle 7 1/2 months ago and at least tried to save the reputation of an AFL legend. or pub locally back Clarko etc and take some action action the hawks so they can be accountable for their own [censored]

What "action"?

6 minutes ago, old55 said:

What "action"?

mate, I tried to answer your question twice and clearly stated what the AFL could have done.  I don't actually work for them so any more detail you'll have to email them

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Well in a defamation suit, while I am not an expert, I thought damages to a large degree centre around lost income. I don’t think given his contract, he could demonstrate much lost earnings.

I don’t think pain and suffering is a big component in Australia, but maybe I am wrong on that.

Its part of it but I would't say the major part unless there is a major correlation as Geoffrey Rush and Rebel Wilson tried to argue.

15 minutes ago, DubDee said:

mate, I tried to answer your question twice and clearly stated what the AFL could have done.  I don't actually work for them so any more detail you'll have to email them

You critiqued the AFL performance and I asked you what they could have done differently and you replied with some vague undefined "action". OK I accept that you don't know what they could have done differently

 

1 hour ago, sue said:

Sorry to hear that. Such behaviour should not be tolerated, but that is not quite the same level of racism as having 90% of your family murdered as has happened to several people I know.  They see racism as being much worse than something you can simply 'give abuse back in return'.  You do too I trust.

Not sure I want to be friends with you then

3 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Not sure I want to be friends with you then

very droll.  But I'm happy to murder relatives of people I don't know as well, so watch out.

I know this thread is a circus but I didn't expect it to start going all Keyser Soze.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I would have thought his professional reputation might be worth a few $$$

The reputation bit is everything in Oz defamation. If he can prove that the allegations have lowered his reputation in the eyes of others - that some people now believe him to be racist - then a handsome settlement awaits. 

I've been involved in two defamation proceedings (on either side of the fence) and won them both.

A sporting publication defamed me on their front page, saying I was an "unprofessional journalist who likes to hit the bottle of Scotch before he hits the keyboard"!

It was complete BS - I drink bourbon, not scotch 😆

I have a simple question about last night. Why didn't we hear from the Chair of the Independent Panel? The whole point of their appointment by the AFL was to give us independence and clarity. The Panel gets disbanded because it could not finish its work, mediation was rejected, etc..... An eminently qualified KC could surely have handled the press conference and the AFL CEO could have had his say after that....

When the Panel was appointed the AFL's statement included

It is also vitally important that the panel is able to complete its work independently of the AFL.

The AFL then rides in and takes the matter back into its own hands......

With hindsight (which is always handy) Gil could at least have admitted that establishing the panel wasn't a great idea. Those involved that could afford it were always going to "lawyer up".

 

 

1 hour ago, Grapeviney said:

A sporting publication defamed me on their front page, saying I was an "unprofessional journalist who likes to hit the bottle of Scotch before he hits the keyboard"!

It was complete BS - I drink bourbon, not scotch 😆

Identifying the problem is an important step in the self-improvement process. I wish you all the best @Grapeviney.

i'd love to get the carpet cleaning contract at afl house.

would keep me gainfully employed for decades

The AFL has just issued this official press release regarding their involvement in the Hawthorn affair.

 

2 hours ago, Grapeviney said:

The reputation bit is everything in Oz defamation. If he can prove that the allegations have lowered his reputation in the eyes of others - that some people now believe him to be racist - then a handsome settlement awaits. 

I've been involved in two defamation proceedings (on either side of the fence) and won them both.

A sporting publication defamed me on their front page, saying I was an "unprofessional journalist who likes to hit the bottle of Scotch before he hits the keyboard"!

It was complete BS - I drink bourbon, not scotch 😆

Were you represented by the respected Firm of Messrs Daniels & Beam Esquires ?

1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

I have a simple question about last night. Why didn't we hear from the Chair of the Independent Panel? The whole point of their appointment by the AFL was to give us independence and clarity. The Panel gets disbanded because it could not finish its work, mediation was rejected, etc..... An eminently qualified KC could surely have handled the press conference and the AFL CEO could have had his say after that....

When the Panel was appointed the AFL's statement included

It is also vitally important that the panel is able to complete its work independently of the AFL.

The AFL then rides in and takes the matter back into its own hands......

With hindsight (which is always handy) Gil could at least have admitted that establishing the panel wasn't a great idea. Those involved that could afford it were always going to "lawyer up".

 

 

Given the panel was there to advise the AFL and because the panel investigation did not conclude in its process, but was agreed by the complainants to end the process, then that is for Gil to announce. 

The core line that Gil said that jumped out at me was ‘No adverse findings have been made’

His announcement would have been combed over by lawyers so the specific language that ‘no adverse findings have been made’ suggests that the investigation is halted before it could complete its work (from all the reasons you mentioned).

He didn’t say ‘no adverse findings have been established’ or ‘there are no adverse findings at the conclusion of the investigation’.

Instead the statement is: the panel is not stating any adverse findings. 

So essentially we are at the exact same place we were last year when the panel was announced that nothing has been proved or disproved. 

This is quite an enjoyable re-read.

Very few didn't jump to conclusions.