36 minutes ago, Satan said:

Viney talked about his days at melbourne , dealing with bad situations

That’s one relief, a club languishing at the bottom end of the ladder in turmoil - and it’s not us for a change .

Disastrous for North.

As for Clarkson, what he's going through is incredibly tough, either way (i.e. whether the accusations against him are fully true, partly true or fully false). AFL coaching is hard at the best of times. Craig McRae is probably the only current AFL coach who hasn't had the heat of the media, fans and/or industry turned on him at some point, and for some coaches it's been far worse than others (e.g. Goodwin, Fagan, Hinkley, Hardwick, Dew, Longmuir, before them Cameron, Buckley, Ratten, the list goes on).

50 minutes ago, binman said:

1. Agree.

2. Strongly disagree. The 'accusers' don't owe anyone anything. They voluntarliy agreed to participate in a HFC initiated process. 

3. Agree. But if they want to so, then they need to seek damges from the HFC and/or the media for its reporting.

HFC and media organisations will just say it was their duty to report. So how can you sue people who have not much to risk? It will have to come, and I believe it will come, from the AFL. 

I feel for him. This investigation was supposed to be completed by December – it is ridiculous. It has dragged on this long, and of course he has been under pressure, no matter what the truth of the matters alleged may be. I feel for him. It can’t be easy to take the step that he has just taken.

1 hour ago, binman said:

I said it at the time - and i'll say it again now.

It was of course wholly predictable that the media would focus on the alleged actions of Fagan and Clarkson because they are perfect click bait - but the focus on them from the get go was, and remains, a dangerous furphy.

(to be crystal clear I’m not suggesting Clarkson and/or Fagan did not do the things they have been accused of in the report, or minimising those allegations in any way. But we don’t know the specifics – they are contested and presumably will be addressed in any investigation. However, WE DO KNOW from the report there was poor cultural practices at the HFC and examples of very questionable cultural competency).

But not only is the hyper focus on Clarkson and Fagan unfair on them, it completely distracts from the critical questions that should be asked – was Hawthorn culturally unsafe, what quality and governance system were in place to make sure what has been alleged could not happen, what policies and procedures were in place, was there systemic racism at play etc.  

I have been involved in  accreditation, audit and review processes for a long time. One of the fundamentals of quality reviewing and auditing is that unless an individual is actively disregarding policy (and the obligation is on the org to make sure employees are aware of all relevant policies and how to comply with them), the fault falls on the organisation – in short if there is some system break down or poor practice it is the org not the individual who is at fault.  

For the sake of argument, let’s say that broadly speaking some of the more salacious specifics are contested. But it is accepted that senior coaching staff met with young Aboriginal players IN THEIR HOMES to discuss sensitive family related issues (like living arrangements, relationships) WITHOUT them having their own support networks present or involving family (even at that point in time, involving family was accepted good cultural practice – at least it was in the community sector where I work. One only needs to listen to Kozzie talk about his contract negotiations to understand why).

The first question should not be what specifically those coaches said or did in those meetings, but rather were they operating in accordance with the club policies and within HFC cultural practice frameworks – and did they even exist (and if so what ongoing training did staff receive to help them understand them and build cultural competencies and how are/were they reviewed to ensure staff are complying with them)?

What were the supervision practices in place to provide a forum to explore exactly such practice issues and support fidelity and adherence with the relevant policies?   

Another question is did Hawthorn, as part of accepted good governance, regularly review their cultural policies and practices? A related question is why did these issues take so long to come to light (at the minimum suggesting players did not feel comfortable raising issues)?

What were their complaints policies, were players aware of the complaint policies, were they encouraged and supported to make complaints, was the environment supportive of them doing so, what was the exit interview policy, what was the compliant management system, were these polices and systems adhered to etc etc.  

Very few, if any of these questions have been asked by the media. Almost all the focus and criticism has been on Fagan and Clarkson. It should be on HAWTHORN, who have copped very little blow back. 

And unhelpfully the focus has now drilled down on specifics that are always going to be grey, contestable and dependant on perception. 

For example Clarkson framed his discussion about partners as being an example of caring for his players. And that sounds reasonable. But from a cultural perspective, such a conversation is likely to be traumatic for an Aboriginal player (for example because family members were part of the stolen generation), particularly a young player trying to find his feet and a regular senior spot. And that is not even factoring in enormous power imbalance at play.

Maybe Clarkson didn’t understand the cultural sensitivities?   But if not, that’s on HAWTHORN, not Clarkson – unless of course Hawthorn can point to a strong cultural competence system and a rigorous process of ensuring compliance with that system. I may be wrong, but I’ll bet my bottom dollar they didn’t have one in place. And if they did, it failed because they clearly didn’t act at the time. 

The media has been playing the man, not the ball – and the Hawthorn Football Club (the ball in this hamfsited analogy) should be ashamed they have not forcefully pushed back on this narrative and accepted their responsibility but instead allowed two former employees, one of whom their President is in open conflict with, to basically be the fall guys. 

I'm not trying to make Fagan and Clarkson the victims here (which by the by raises yet another reason why the focus on them is so damaging -  the commentary has devolved into how unfair it has been on Fagan and Clarkson and debating their innocence or guilt).  The actual victims are the Aboriginal players and their families. That is where the focus should be

But they are victims not of Clarkson and Fagan’s, butr their employers – the Hawthorn Football Club. It is the Hawthorn Football Club who is responsible for ensuring a safe working environment for all it staff - players and coaches alike.

And it is the Hawthorn board and senior management who should be bearing the brunt of all of this, not two of their ex employees.

A good summary.  But I'm wondering where Tanya Hosch, GM of Inclusion and Social Policy  at the AFL is involved in all of this.

Surely her role, and experienece and insight, should have assisted in delivering a best practice approach.  I just wonder how that process has been hijacked within the AFL?

In other words, what's the point of her position when the AFL have failed their biggest test since Goodes disgrace.

I hope she is handling this situation OK

1 hour ago, Satan said:

Viney talked about his days at melbourne , dealing with bad situations

Probably didn't think he'd be going through this stuff again different scenarios but still involved a coach 

2 hours ago, deefender said:

Sometimes offence is taken when none was given.

Sometimes genuine offence is caused when genuinely none is intended.

On the other hand, sometimes people say and do things which they really should know better.

 

Trial by media strikes again. 

Edited May 18, 20232 yr by Ethan Tremblay

20 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Sometimes genuine offence is caused when genuinely none is intended.

On the other hand, sometimes people say and do things which they really should know better.

And some people are easily offended (not saying that’s the case here)

At least the AFL support the Voice.  lol you couldnt make this [censored] up

Like I needed another reason to hate the AFL commission.

Edited May 18, 20232 yr by Jibroni

2 hours ago, Damo said:

HFC and media organisations will just say it was their duty to report. So how can you sue people who have not much to risk? It will have to come, and I believe it will come, from the AFL. 

As i understand defamation, it is the publishing of alleged defamatory statements that is actionable.

The media have an obligation to have some level of confidence that what has been said is truthful if it chooses to publish potentially defamatory comments - or i assume at the least include some sort of disclaimer.

I'm sure the ABC would have done their due diligence in their initial exclusive report, but if they didn't i would have thought they could be sued for defamation. If they are sued for defamation, truth would be their defense and that would be tested out in court.  

And surely Hawthorn had a responsibility to properly manage how the information came out - my memory is that sat on the report until forced to release it when the ABC were going to run with the story.

So perhaps they can't be sued for defamation, but surely there is some legal remedy for the appalling way they have handled this situation. 

Hawthorn are the villains here.

And the AFL too because it happened on their watch and in the context of their pathetic response to the national shame of Goodes being booed.  

 

Put yourself in the position of North Melbourne forward Nick Larkey.

He turns 25 next month. He has been in the AFL for six years. He’s played 80 games; of those 80 he’s won just 19. When he plays on Saturday, he will do so under the guidance of his fourth coach in 16 games. The prime years of his career are being wasted.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-decision-north-players-must-make-after-clarkson-bombshell-20230518-p5d9f8.html

No one could blame any North Melbourne player who wanted to leave.

By Kane Cornes - didn't take long

Is North now in free fall?

Hawthorn have an Elephant outside the room at the moment. Media too s$#t scared to mention his name at the moment, as am i, JK......

Unfortunately whenever there is a hint of racism around things tend to amp up in a big way & sometimes fairness, evidence & rationality goes out the window.

Constant mis-references of North Melbourne as Hawthorn.... Even by Todd in the recent presser and by Clarko often in his team preps... maybe a bit more to it and indication of where their headspace are at? 

borderline parody comedy if it wasn't so personally serious

 

6 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

this is gil's legacy - started with the goodes booing racism scandal, ended with hawthorn's racism investigation scandal

Absolutely - he has a lot to answer for.

14 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Put yourself in the position of North Melbourne forward Nick Larkey.

He turns 25 next month. He has been in the AFL for six years. He’s played 80 games; of those 80 he’s won just 19. When he plays on Saturday, he will do so under the guidance of his fourth coach in 16 games. The prime years of his career are being wasted.

 

He is welcome to follow fellow North forward Ben Brown's lead and come win a flag with Melbourne.

 

 

Had a look over at Big Footy as well as some of the comments here.

Lots of conflation going on in my view.

There is the process & what happened.

They aren't the same thing.

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Thats a bit sad.....

The only losers in all this are North.

16 minutes ago, layzie said:

The only losers in all this are North.

A club who can least afford it too.