CEO Craig Kelly accused of racism

[Mr Miyagi]

Wait. How da fug would Fevola know?! FFS Collingwood, if true tighten up the leaks.

[SLORT]

Not an ex-player, please. No more jobs for mates. But definitely not a Bridie O’Donnell!

Probably gettin ahead of ourselves, but who would you then recommend? Remember, it's CEO, not President, so they'd need have to have some relevant business admin and sports (or entertainment) experience.

[Mr Miyagi]

Fevola and SEN are full of . The club was very quick to categorically deny the rumour, issuing a statement thus arvo. How quickly they responded says it all.

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/brendan- ... c-15788953

[SLORT]

"But when contacted by 7NEWS.com.au, a spokesperson for Collingwood confirmed Kelly remained in his role at the club." ~ I wouldn't call that much of a denial. A "spokesperson".

If media are spreading bullshit rumors then I'd rather that a person of authority from the club not only deny the allegation but threaten the accuser and their outlet with some legal action of our own. Pricks trying to kick us when we're down is simply not on.

[scoobydoo]

^ happy now?
You don’t respond to dickh&@ds.

[Brodies Dad]

Is there any way Wright can replace Kelly?

Kelly must have been reading the Do Worse report by mistake.

[Piesnchess]

FFS, isnt this shit now yesterdays news , get over it. sigh.

[David]

The discussion about this seems to have followed a pretty common pattern online when allegations of racism at the club come out in which, if there are's any room for doubt (or even the slightest push-back from the accused), the complainant basically gets demonised. The word for that is prejudice.

Cleaver may well be an attention-seeker or troublemaker or whatever (though, and I wish I didn't have to write this, you can't just assume that based on how they identify). But what's really at stake here is whether they're telling the truth.

If Kelly really did say and do those things, then his position would obviously be untenable – and it would, frankly, just be bad luck for him that he ran into someone from outside the old boys' club culture ("woke millennial" or otherwise) who didn't find that stuff acceptable. At that point, if everything alleged occurred, then casting aspersions on Cleaver's character would be nothing more than a distraction and an exercise in shooting the messenger.

By the same token, Kelly deserves the presumption of innocence until (or unless) the claims are proven, and it is of course possible that things didn't occur precisely (or at all) as Cleaver is claiming. The tricky thing that people seem to find hard to manage is that we don't actually need to assume that the complaints are vexatious in order to do that. As observers, it's not on us to decide who the bad guy is. It may be unsatisfying, but when we don't actually know what happened – and it seems safe to say that no-one here does – all we can ask for is that credible allegations be taken seriously, investigated and dealt with through proper channels.

[Mr Miyagi]

It’s a nice distraction for the AFL and journos who don’t want to report on all the sh*t going on at Melbourne.

[piffdog]

If Kelly really did say and do those things, then his position would obviously be untenable – and it would, frankly, just be bad luck for him that he ran into someone from outside the old boys' club culture ("woke millennial" or otherwise) who didn't find that stuff acceptable.

Not sure if it's bad luck or tone deaf. As 'old boys club' as plenty would like footy establishments to still be, society as a whole is moving on from all this kind of stuff. I dont trash talk amongst my mates about the same things I did when I was 20. Surely Kelly doesnt still conduct himself the same way he did when he was 20?? (although I echo your disclaimer that none of us really know...).

I liked Malcolm Gladwell's "Talking to strangers", which explores something similar. The gist is that you typically don't know what other people think or feel and occasionally two immiscible characters try to mix with bad consequences. If you arent conscious of others, you are implicitly demanding that they accept yout views/behaviours. Doesn't mean we have to walk on eggshells, but probably does mean some self-awareness is called for. I wonder if that's where Kelly has let himself down? Who knows...

[The Black and White Lion]

Does anyone have the key to the paywall? Pies in court in the Age today

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/obj ... 5k8hy.html

[SLORT]

Just some highlights ~

"The Magpies deny all 11 complaints lodged by Cleaver, including that there was unlawful discrimination and that he was bullied, and have called for the case to be struck out.

In court documents, Cleaver alleges the club breached several laws, including the discrimination acts involving equal opportunity, race and disability. He alleges he suffered “hurt, humiliation and distress” and “economic loss” after he was sacked.

Through lawyer Henry Skene, of Seyfarth Shaw Australia, the Magpies claim Cleaver’s statement “includes various allegations of fact and law which are objectionable, irrelevant, vague, embarrassing and liable to be struck out”."

"The Magpies say Cleaver was sacked “solely because it was satisfied that he had engaged in misconduct”.

The Magpies say this misconduct included false allegations that Kelly had told him to “go throw a boomerang”."

"The case was due to have a directions hearing on August 27, but judge Karl Blake has ordered the parties to enter mediation but not before October 9.

If mediation is unsuccessful, the court says the case will “be listed before Judge Blake for case management”.

The two parties failed to find common ground in mediation earlier this year."

Sounds to me like the club will probably offer some sort of non-disclosure, monetary disbursement to make the problem go away. Otherwise it's a bit he said they said. The interesting thing was Browne saying ~ “We’re backing in Craig Kelly. We intend to fight these proceedings and see them through to a judgment. He [Cleaver] was with us for six months – [a] fairly short period of time. As a result of some other conduct, which came to light as a result of me examining his role, his employment was terminated – I terminated it.” I think I'd rather it just got swept away in mediation rather than drawn out a la Hawthorn.

[stui magpie]

Lets keep in mind here that, from what I've read, Cleaver has already taken this to Fair Work Australia for unfair dismissal. The parties went through mediation there, didn't settle as (apparently) Cleaver wanted more zeroes in the amount than we were prepared to pay. Following the mediation, the case wasn't sent to a Commissioner for hearing, either because Cleaver decided not to proceed or because FWA decided he didn't have a case.

Next option is unlawful dismissal which is where the discrimination angle comes in. Personally I don't believe a word of it. I've investigated enough of these kinds of things to know there can often be a distinct difference between what is said and what is heard, depending on the disposition of the listener.

The classic line when someone is told "That is not what they said" is the response "Well, maybe not those words but that's what they meant"

[Magpie Russ]

"My hope is that Collingwood will be strong enough not to settle, do not encourage unproven allegations." -- Leigh Matthews (3AW)

[The Black and White Lion]

^ thanks @SLORT . It's interesting that some of the he said she said argument is part of the CFC argument for why his employment was terminated. Just sounds like this case is double or nothing.