Club statement: Katie Brennan

[westdog54]

I'm not disagreeing with this but playing devil's advocate, what if a male tennis player lodged the same complaint because he has to play best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets for the same prize money as women?

Our hardline stance has only been taken because we failed miserably in our first tribunal hearing. A more pathetic, inept performance I haven't seen, and as others have pointed out we have a long list of poorly handled off-field issues the last couple of years

I don't mind our hardline stance with the media but we must acknowledge that we've been the architects of our own issues more often than not. And frankly we need to lift our off-field game significantly, from the top down.

The men play 5 sets for four tournaments a year, plus Davis cup. Quite frankly I'm sick of it being as big an issue as it is.

If the men have an issue then they can have their press conferences at Grand Slams run for 40% longer than the women's.

[Bulldog4life]

I'm not disagreeing with this but playing devil's advocate, what if a male tennis player lodged the same complaint because he has to play best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets for the same prize money as women?

Our hardline stance has only been taken because we failed miserably in our first tribunal hearing. A more pathetic, inept performance I haven't seen, and as others have pointed out we have a long list of poorly handled off-field issues the last couple of years

I don't mind our hardline stance with the media but we must acknowledge that we've been the architects of our own issues more often than not. And frankly we need to lift our off-field game significantly, from the top down.

You were there Sedat? Or is it just what you read in the HUN? I take believing what I read in the HUN with a very small grain of salt.

[Sedat]

You were there Sedat? Or is it just what you read in the HUN? I take believing what I read in the HUN with a very small grain of salt.

Reporting on tribunal hearings are not opinion pieces. And all media reports on what took place on Tuesday night reflect very poorly on us - quite simply we let Katie down horribly.

[bornadog]

What are they going to do? Fine her? Suspend her twice?

If she wins, she over turns her suspension, so at least she doesn't miss game one or have a record.

I'm not disagreeing with this but playing devil's advocate, what if a male tennis player lodged the same complaint because he has to play best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets for the same prize money as women?

Really bad example, sorry I don't get this? We are talking about punishment for a report and if Katie was a man she would be fined, simple as that.

Reporting on tribunal hearings are not opinion pieces. And all media reports on what took place on Tuesday night reflect very poorly on us - quite simply we let Katie down horribly.

You were there Sedat? Or is it just what you read in the HUN? I take believing what I read in the HUN with a very small grain of salt.

What else could we have done better on Tuesday? We could only argue the charge of rough conduct, but the tribunal and the MRP had made up their minds. B4L is correct about right wing papers like the HUN

I followed the media right through both hearings and some of the media reports were ridiclous. Have a look at some comments from Sam Mclure.

As I said before, I am proud the club is taking this all the way.

[Greystache]

The men play 5 sets for four tournaments a year, plus Davis cup. Quite frankly I'm sick of it being as big an issue as it is.

If the men have an issue then they can have their press conferences at Grand Slams run for 40% longer than the women's.

That is just a bizarre statement. You're outraged when you see something that's discriminatory against women, but tell everyone to get over it when something is discriminatory against men.

The grand slams are the only 4 tournaments a year when men and women earn the same. That's because they're the only tournaments when the men and women play the same tournament. The men's draw actually funds the women's draw, and the women's draw loses money. Not only do the women work for less than half the hours the men do, there's far less time for advertising, the price of the ads sold during women's matches is lower, ratings are lower, ticket sales are driven by who the male players are on the same card, and the revenue generated from it doesn't cover it's costs. Yet they still get paid the same, and people should just get over it because well just coz?

I don't have any problem with the threshold for suspension being lower for AFLW than AFL given the men play more than 3 times the number of matches and the opportunities for a minor incident to occur is greatly increased. If AFLW players needed to be sighted 3 times before receiving a suspension then effectively they could get reported every second game before missing the last game of the season. That would be obscene. I don't think the incident with Brennan was worth a penalty, but that argument was lost with our inept defence, the gender discrimination argument is rubbish given it's not like for like scenario.

[bornadog]

I don't think the incident with Brennan was worth a penalty, but that argument was lost with our inept defence, the gender discrimination argument is rubbish given it's not like for like scenario.

Well we will see what the Human Rights Commission think, as not many of us on this board are lawyers.

[hujsh]

That is just a bizarre statement. You're outraged when you see something that's discriminatory against women, but tell everyone to get over it when something is discriminatory against men.

If it were technically discrimination. According to the Human Rights Commission

Discrimination is treating, or proposing to treat, someone unfavourably because of a personal characteristic protected by the law.

Seeing that the women get as much as men doesn't really count as discrimination.

[Greystache]

Well we will see what the Human Rights Commission think, as not many of us on this board are lawyers.

The AHRC can find whatever they like, they have appalling form at being anything resembling neutral. I would be staggered if they didn't find in favour of a gay high profile woman taking on a bunch of white blokes in suits. The details of the case will probably be irrelevant. I don't take the AFL's side on anything, but they'll lose a case when they're not in the wrong.

[Greystache]

If it were technically discrimination. According to the Human Rights Commission[I]



Seeing that the women get as much as men doesn't really count as discrimination.

The conditions forced upon the men to earn the same money as women are far more arduous, based purely on sex. That's the definition of discrimination.

[hujsh]

The conditions forced upon the men to earn the same money as women are far more arduous, based purely on sex. That's the definition of discrimination.

But they aren't put out or worse off. They're entirely unaffected. It just means the best man and best woman get the same reward. The time on court may be different but surely they both put in plenty of hours and effort outside of that.

[Greystache]

But they aren't put out or worse off. They're entirely unaffected. It just means the best man and best woman get the same reward. The time on court may be different but surely they both put in plenty of hours and effort outside of that.

Yes they are. The men have to work on average twice the hours the women do to earn the same wage. The wear and tear on their bodies and the cost of that on their longer term career and earning potential is significant. If the male players only had to meet the conditions of the women players they would be able to earn significantly more money during their careers by extending them. Their careers are impacted by the conditions placed on them purely for being men. It's discrimination whether you justify it or not.

Players don't get paid to train, they do it because it increases their chances of success in their work place (being on court), it's the same as people choosing to go to university or doing further professional development outside of their day job to increase their chances of success in their profession. No one gets paid for those hours, they do it because they think the pay off will come in time.

[Sedat]

That is just a bizarre statement. You're outraged when you see something that's discriminatory against women, but tell everyone to get over it when something is discriminatory against men.

The grand slams are the only 4 tournaments a year when men and women earn the same. That's because they're the only tournaments when the men and women play the same tournament. The men's draw actually funds the women's draw, and the women's draw loses money. Not only do the women work for less than half the hours the men do, there's far less time for advertising, the price of the ads sold during women's matches is lower, ratings are lower, ticket sales are driven by who the male players are on the same card, and the revenue generated from it doesn't cover it's costs. Yet they still get paid the same, and people should just get over it because well just coz?

I don't have any problem with the threshold for suspension being lower for AFLW than AFL given the men play more than 3 times the number of matches and the opportunities for a minor incident to occur is greatly increased. If AFLW players needed to be sighted 3 times before receiving a suspension then effectively they could get reported every second game before missing the last game of the season. That would be obscene. I don't think the incident with Brennan was worth a penalty, but that argument was lost with our inept defence, the gender discrimination argument is rubbish given it's not like for like scenario.

Thank you for understanding the context of my tennis analogy. I thought it was pretty clear what the analogy was trying to outline but the waters were muddied somewhat. The decision by Katie to fight this in the HRC is her right to do so, and I absolutely see merit in her stance. I'm just pointing out other examples of potential sex discrimination that could be mounted in other sports but haven't been.

For such a fundamentally important issue as equality, why wasn't anything raised prior? This issue has been part of the AFLW rules for 2 seasons now, and yet it has only been raised as a sex discrimination case now, after a shambolic failed tribunal hearing by us.

The rules may well need to be re-written in relation to this issue. But I'm not applauding the performance of our senior management if indeed a change of rules is the end result. And I'm certainly not proud of the amateur way we handled Katie's initial defence case against what was a borderline and very beatable MRP finding. I expect much, much better from our senior management.

[boydogs]

if Katie was a man she would be fined, simple as that.

Why do you think the rules are different?

The AFL have something against women? Maybe, but not sure why they would
The Women earn less, and therefore are less able to meet the fines? Possibly
Someone different wrote the rules for the two leagues? Quite likely
The season is shorter, and therefore multiple reprimands in the one season is more serious? Yeah maybe

Another reason I think is quite believable - the AFL want the women's game to be cleaner, to promote the game to women and not have them fearing getting hurt. Is that discrimination against women? Maybe it's discrimination against men, that they are more exposed to dangerous tackles given the lesser punishment for offenders

I wasn't allowed to play footy as a kid because my Mum was too worried about me getting hurt. If the game were as sanitised as it is today, things may have been different

[hujsh]

Yes they are. The men have to work on average twice the hours the women do to earn the same wage. The wear and tear on their bodies and the cost of that on their longer term career and earning potential is significant. If the male players only had to meet the conditions of the women players they would be able to earn significantly more money during their careers by extending them. Their careers are impacted by the conditions placed on them purely for being men. It's discrimination whether you justify it or not.

Players don't get paid to train, they do it because it increases their chances of success in their work place (being on court), it's the same as people choosing to go to university or doing further professional development outside of their day job to increase their chances of success in their profession. No one gets paid for those hours, they do it because they think the pay off will come in time.

But they always played longer matches so they haven't lost anything. Training's also not optional in a sporting field. Sure, they aren't directly paid for it like an AFL player is but I don't think it lines up quite right with Uni or training courses and the like.

If anything I'm coming around to the idea that men's tennis should be 3 sets though. My assumption has been that the actual physical strain and stress is roughly the same for the men in 5 sets as the women in 3. Hence why women's tennis going to 5 sets hasn't been practical. If that's wrong I'd be happy to see the evidence otherwise.

[bornadog]

Why do you think the rules are different?

The AFL have something against women? Maybe, but not sure why they would
The Women earn less, and therefore are less able to meet the fines?

The AFL make up rules without thinking of the long term consequences. No body in AFL House would have thought a player would be suspended for two matches due to rough tackles and one of the matches would be a GF. They should have thought out the rule before they implemented it.

I will tell you one thing the women go in hard and hit hard.