binman

Exactly. What's all this palaver about the player's, and God forbid their families, being obligated to participate in further interviews. Leaving aside not bring obligated to, why on earth would they want to given how woefully the afl has proven to be in dealing with cultural issues. The focus should not be on pagan and clarkson. It should be on the overall situation. Specifics distract from the central problem. Sure it is important Pagan and Carkson have the opportunity to put their side of the story forward. The AFL investigation will give them that chance. No doubt they will consider media interviews too. And of course they both have the right to pursue legal action to clear their name by suing the ABC for defamation, the same way Roberts sued the AGE.

Sure, it has no credibility. And? That's not the players problem.

Says who? Why are the players obligated to do anything? There is no court case or legal action - yet. Just an AFL investigation. The Hawks, and Pagan and Clarkson will respond to the AFL investigation, people can hear what they have to say and decide for themselves if they believe them. If Pagan and Clarkson want to pursue legal action to clear their name they can sue the ABC for defamation. And if the players sue the hawks, then they'll get their chance their to put their side of the story and the player's side of things will be 'fully tested'.

Totally agree with all of the above. I'd add that it won't be long before some tool in the media will says clarkson and pagan are the real victims.

Was thinking exactly the same thing. I'd add that the AFL were happy to leave it there, even though from the get go there was talk of cultural insensitivities. Which opened the door for the ****knuckles running the camp to take the age to court for their reporting on the camp. And the Age folded, only for eddy to reveal more of what went on and basically backing up Sam McClure's initial reporting.

I assume you are suggesting we can't afford naughton? We would have had to pay Jackson close to 750 to keep him i would have thought, so we have that money and 600k for Grundy is peanuts, so that's not an issue either. If Tomlinson went to the dogs, for example, that's 600k out the door for starters. I'm assuming an advantage of having four long term contracts in Salem, Gus, Tracc and Oliver is that it creates opportunities for some creative accounting in terms of balancing the books. For example they might have paid a big chunk up front so they had space nect year (for example to pay Jackson).

Just a clarifying question - was this an attempt at humour? If yes, I don't get it. If no, I don't get it.

Burt was a welfare officer?

And you even have your very own theme song:

I remember reading last year that he was super keen to remain a forward and saw himself as a career forward

I had to check the article to make sure the quote was referring specifically to including 'an experienced football administrator'. It is. The quote is from AFL Coaches Association chief executive Alistair Nicholson, who inadvertently highlights a couple of key issues. Firstly, a football administrator, experienced or otherwise, does not necessarily have 'deep experience in managing the wellbeing of players'. Sure, the well being of players would be a priority for any football administrator, but the welfare of players is not the key focus of a football administrators role, and therefore few would have 'deep experience' in that space. Case in point - wasn't Burt an experienced football administrator? Who does have 'deep experience in managing the wellbeing of players', not to mention the requisite training (hopefully)? Experienced specialist welfare officers working at AFL clubs. Surely that is who Alistair Nicholson should be recommending be on the panel. Which goes to the second issue. Where was the welfare officer involvement in the cases highlighted in the ABC article?

Some random thoughts about this situation, now that the initial shock has subsided. The focus on Clarkson and Fagan is unfortunate as it obscures the real issues - cultural safety and systemic racism As an example of cultural safety, Hodge seemed to suggest getting advice from the club about cutting ties to girlfriends and or perceived bad influences was standard operating procedure when he came to the club. Some might say that is evidence of it not being racist to do the same for Aboriginal players, but that ignores the completely different cultural context for Aboriginal and non Aboriginal players and the inter generational trauma Aboriginal people experience as result of colonialization, genocide (ie efforts to wipe out Aboriginal people), forced removal from their land and forced separation of family (and any number of other issues, such as systemic poverty) Bottom line, it hard to imagine a scenario where having ANY conversation with an Aboriginal player that is any way suggesting disconnecting from family would be culturally appropriate and safe (which, to be clear, is not to say that welfare concerns cannot be addressed with Aboriginal players - they just have be done in a culturally safe way) The Crows camp fiasco is another example of what happens when there is a complete lack of cultural competence This thread is a good example of the broader discussion on this topic - the focus on Clarkson and Fagan has meant the discussion has mostly been about the specific 'accusations' leveled against them, and the fairness or otherwise of how those accusations were leveled and concepts such as right of reply and natural justice The focus on Clarkson and Fagan is understandable as it is newsworthy and has implications for the AFL - it is the reason the ABC report highlighted their involvement But as i say, the focus on them obscures the real issue - cultural safety and systemic racism Was the focus on Clarkson and Fagan by the ABC fair? No, not really - but it is standard media stuff, as was releasing it in GF week for maximum impact (and thanks to 15 plus years of having to battle and scrape to justify its existence, ABC have just as much pressure on them as any media outlet to generate clicks) The report and the ABC reporting have been conflated - as has been noted by several posters the TOR of the report was to interview Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island hawks players about their experience at the club and document the feedback The Hawks have obviously read the report and determined an investigation is required and wisely handballed it to the AFL The ABC article was, as i understand it, was not a rehash of the leaked report - there is no evidence the report was leaked The ABC interviewed players and families themselves - and given we are talking about small pool of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island hawks players in the timeframe of the report there was always going to be a cross over One assumes the ABC did all the legal checks and approvals before publishing; and if so it is hard to see what recourse Clarkson and Pagan have in terms of potential defamation claims (the ABC were reporting information they believed to be correct, which as i understand it is a good start to a defamation defense) I can't see how the Hawks or individual players could be exposed to defamation, given neither party publicized the accusations (the players spoke to a reporter, but the ABC reported and published those comments)

AFL grand final 2022: The Bart Cummings preparation that had the Geelong Cats trained to the minute (theage.com.au)

Great name for a goth speed metal band

He'll probably end up living in Glen Waverley, or is that Mount Waverley?

Yep. Things such as this don't happen in a vacuum

Just beat it Luke.

C'mon faulty, don't be that person. This issue is too serious for culture wars palaver. It just distracts from the issue at hand The tone of this thread has been measured and almost to a poster, people have qualified their views with variations of 'if true'. Leaving aside the polemics, if the allegations are true, what is your view on the situation (as opposed to your view on other's responses)?

Slander by who? The ABC?

Hardly. The players families represent more than word.

Not just them, but the club as well. If true, then any number of work place laws have likely been broken, not least the responsibility to ensure a safe working environment.

Gil McLachlan doing presser now. Streaming on the Age now 'On face value, it's hard to find more serious allegations'

And? How does that go to the issue of whether it is resolved or not? Again, the Hawks can choose to accept the finding of the report they commissioned and act accordingly. That's to say, resolve this as best they can. The three key people alleged to have behaved so horrifically are no longer at the club, so nothing direcly to resolve there from a Hawthorn perspective (ie they don't have to sack anyone). But i will be totally shocked if they don't make a serious and meaningful attempt to find a path to resolution with the players and their families. Even if you mean resolved in legal sense, i'm no lawyer but guilty people often deny wrong doing. Doesn't always stop them being found guilty By the by, you didn't initially ask if the authors of the report spoke to the alleged perpetrators. You asked who the authors of the report were. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but an implication one could could draw from that question is you are somehow questioning the professionalism of the report's authors and therefore their findings.

So you said. And i''ll repeat: What does that mean? Resolved in what sense - a legal sense? If resolved in the sense of the Hawks taking responsibility for their behaviour, choosing to accept the findings of a report they they themselves commissioned, and choosing to believe their ex players and partners, then that is wholly up to the Hawthorn Football Club. By the by, what the hell does independent witnesses mean? Independent of whom? And i'll add. what point are you trying to make about the authors of the review? What's your motivation for asking that question? By the by, one assumes it would be easy enough for you to answer your own question. Try google.

What does that mean? Resolved in what sense - a legal sense? If resolved in the sense of the Hawks taking responsibility for their behaviour, choosing to accept the findings of a report they they themselves commissioned, and choosing to believe their ex players and partners, then that is wholly up to the Hawthorn Football Club. By the by, what the hell does independent witnesses mean? Independent of whom?