‘Not personal': AFL CEO Andrew Dillon explains executive reshuffle
AFL chief Andrew Dillon insists there's nothing personal in the demotion of Laura Kane while brushing off fierce criticism of the umpiring standard.
Dillon has gone on the Friday hustings after his reshuffle of the AFL executive cost Indigenous identity Tanya Hosch her role and pushed Kane down the pecking order.
Kane's job has been split, with the 34-year-old no longer overseeing key football areas.
'It was a big, big role,' Dillon told SEN radio on Friday. 'Decisions affect people but they're not personal. It's actually about what's the right thing for the AFL, not just for now, because the AFL's in an incredible position at the moment.
' ... We have now got a structure that actually allows us to continue to be successful for the next three to five years and that was the thinking.'
In a separate interview on ABC Radio, Dillon rejected the notion that unconscious gender bias was a factor in Kane's dealings with clubs and subsequent demotion.
'It's not a gender thing,' he said. 'Laura has broken down a lot of barriers. She is an incredibly talented administrator.'
Hosch's position of inclusion and social policy manager will no longer exist as a separate role once the first Indigenous member of the AFL executive leaves on 6 June.
Instead, the existing corporate affairs portfolio will include First Nations engagement and inclusion.
Asked about Hosch's departure, Dillon said on SEN: 'What we will have now is more voices and more leaders all across the industry in all of the work that Tanya was doing.'
The AFL boss also launched in defence of the standard of umpiring this season which has attracted great scrutiny.
Dillon described the umpiring fraternity as 'incredibly talented ... great decision-makers'.
Sign up to From the Pocket: AFL Weekly
Jonathan Horn brings expert analysis on the week's biggest AFL stories
after newsletter promotion
'You strive for perfection but you know you're now going to get that in umpiring,' he said. 'We don't get it with the players either. But you have to do to is get as close as you can and that is a continued work in progress.
'You can pick out isolated incidents of any game and say that it's battling. What you have to do is actually look at all nine games over the weekend ... picking isolated incidents isn't the way that you judge the umpires.'
Dillon said the system of four field umpires, which some pundits believe has created inconsistency, would prove its worth.
'We're a couple of seasons into the four umpires, it's a work in progress,' he said. 'What it does have, it allows ... umpires to be in better positions to make the calls. It's less physically taxing on them.
'When we brought the four umpires in, we expanded the list so we have a number of umpires who are in the early parts of their career. So I think over the medium and longer term it's going to be successful.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
6 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Stuart Broad to work with South Africa ahead of World Test Championship final
It is understood Broad – who claimed 604 wickets in 167 Tests, putting him fifth on the all-time list – will join South Africa's squad on June 9 at Lord's and work as a consultant for the day at training. This will be Broad's first coaching role, with the 38-year-old having been a television pundit for Sky Sports since retiring from professional cricket at the end of the 2023 Ashes. Stuart Broad was frequently at his best against Australia (Mike Egerton/PA) Broad bowed out in memorable fashion, hitting the last ball he faced for six and then claiming a wicket with his final delivery to help England claim a thrilling 2-2 series draw at the Kia Oval. He was frequently at his best against Australia and finished with 153 wickets against them – the most by any bowler in Tests – which included eight of his 20 five-wicket match hauls and one 10-for. South Africa will be hoping some of Broad's magic can rub off on the likes of Kagiso Rabada and Marco Jansen in their first appearance in the World Test Championship final, which starts on June 11 at Lord's.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why the feverish talk of ousting Badenoch already? Tory MPs know the future looks dire
Back in 1997, the former minister and famous political diarist Alan Clark identified a potentially fatal flaw in the Conservative party's leadership system. No, not the controversial membership vote – William Hague did not introduce that until 1998. For Clark, eloquent reactionary that he was, the problem was giving MPs the vote and formal mechanisms to challenge the leader when the old 'magic circle' was abolished in the 1960s. The problem, as Clark saw it, was that it would turn the question of the leadership into a pageant without end. The press would always be able to speculate about a contest, and MPs looking to puff themselves up would have an easy way to do so. Over time, the party's old norms of internal discipline would, said Clark, be worn away. A quarter of a century on, events lend credence to his depressing thesis. It was once said of the Conservative party that loyalty was its secret weapon; nobody says that today. In the 1990s, Clark could write of the foolishness of leadership hopefuls who missed their chance, waiting for a better shot at a job that had only fallen vacant a handful of times since the second world war; as it stands, David Cameron was the last Tory leader to remain in post for an entire parliament. There is surely no disputing that the Conservative party has become a highly unstable institution, and few institutions benefit from being unstable. But there is a compelling counter-argument: which of the recently deposed Tory leaders did not deserve to go? Boris Johnson fell because he could not command enough support from his MPs to staff a government; Theresa May because she could not steer the government through Brexit; Liz Truss because she tanked the party's economic reputation (and its polling). Whatever you think about Partygate, or Brexit, or the mini-budget, in each case the leader was failing at their most essential function: delivering victory for, or failing that securing the survival of, the Conservative and Unionist party. This is the context in which the current, increasingly feverish speculation about Kemi Badenoch's leadership is taking place. Her supporters can fairly claim that the Tories have made a vice of leadership contests, and that their woman has not yet been in the job a year. Her critics can, equally fairly, make the case that she is failing at the most basic job of any Conservative leader: survival. Last month's local elections were a shattering rout. Overall, the party lost two-thirds of the seats it was defending; in several counties, it went from near-hegemonic control to single-digit shares of the vote. That has shaken complacent MPs out of the notion that if they held on in 2024, they had a 'safe seat'; many have also just lost the councillors who formed the core of their local activist base. Were next year's elections to play out the same way, the Conservative machine would be disembowelled across another broad swath of England. Worse still, it could suffer humiliating reversals in Edinburgh and Cardiff. Across much of mainland Britain, the Tories would suddenly be in a potentially fatal position: no longer being the most plausible rightwing option on the ballot paper. Badenoch's allies insist that she needs time to turn the ship around. That was always an argument with a clock on it, but it has been worn thinner still by the brutal fact that the Conservatives have actually started going backwards. In May, the party actually under-polled last year's (already catastrophic) general election performance. The polls also tell their own story. Prior to the conclusion of the leadership contest in November, the Tories' share was rising as Labour's fell. Almost immediately afterwards, its polling went into a nosedive – with Reform UK the main beneficiary. Fairly or unfairly, the balance of opinion inside the party seems to be not whether there will be a challenge to Badenoch's leadership, but when. The most obvious opening is in November, when she marks her first anniversary as leader: the point at which the party's rules stop protecting a new leader from being challenged. The window of maximum danger runs from then until next May's local elections and their aftermath; if she survives that, it's harder to imagine MPs finding the will to depose her later. But the Conservative party's internal rules are much more flexible than Labour's. That one-year immunity from challenge? It's just a rule of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, and they can change it. If the parliamentary party gets its heart set on removing a leader, it can. With such a shrunken parliamentary party, the threshold of letters to the 1922 chairman needed to trigger a contest is lower than it was in the comparative salad days of the last parliament. Yet both wings of the party took heavy punishment at the general election, and the current balance of the parliamentary party favours neither. Badenoch won last November by consolidating her own supporters with the anti-Robert Jenrick vote. The key question is whether that second group will decide to move, either because of a plausible challenge from one of their own (James Cleverly 2.0?), or because Jenrick starts to look like the lesser of two evils – a possibility Badenoch increases every time she inches towards his positions on issues such as the European convention on human rights. Whether a new leader will save the party is another question entirely. The Tory party was once described as an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide; today, it increasingly resembles a state of absolute regicide. Henry Hill is deputy editor of ConservativeHome
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Erin Patterson talks about family rift at fatal mushroom lunch trial
Erin Patterson, the Australian woman accused of murdering her people with a poisoned beef Wellington, took the stand on Monday to give evidence about her fractured relationship with her estranged husband and his family. Ms Patterson, 50, is charged with deliberately serving death cap mushrooms to her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson and Heather's husband Ian during a 2023 lunch at her house in Victoria. Ian Wilkinson was the only guest to survive. She spoke of a rift with her separated husband and his family. 'A bit more distance or space between us,' Ms Patterson said. She had started to have 'concerns' that her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, no longer wanted her involved with his family. 'Perhaps I wasn't being invited to so many things,' she said, describing their relationship at the time as 'functional'. Ms Patterson also spoke about the highs and lows of her relationship with Mr Patterson, telling the court they had separated several times following the birth of their son in 2009. 'Obviously our relationship was struggling to cause a separation, it was really important to both of us to cooperate about [our son] and make it as easy on him as possible,' she said. 'Primarily what we struggled with over the entire course of our relationship ... it was, we just couldn't communicate well when we disagreed about something. We could never communicate in a way that would make each of us feel heard and understood.' Ms Patterson met her husband in 2004 while working at the Monash council, a local government authority, and early in the relationship she was a 'fundamentalist atheist' trying to convert him despite his Christian faith. But a service at the Korumburra Baptist Church, led by Mr Patterson's uncle, Ian Wilkinson, and centred on 'faith, hope and love', had a profound effect on her. 'I had what can be best described as like a spiritual experience,' she said. 'I had been approaching religion as an intellectual exercise up until that. Does it make sense? Is it rational? But I had what I would call a religious experience there and it quite overwhelmed me.' Ms Patterson told the court she had envisioned her Leongatha home as the 'final house' and even designed the initial layout herself. 'I was involved right from the beginning of the design. Simon and I were involved through the whole design process. I drew a design first myself in Microsoft Paint,' she said. 'I saw it as the final house, meaning I wanted it to be a house where the children would grow up, where when they moved away for university or work they could come back and stay whenever they want, bring their children. and I'd grow old there. That's what I hoped.' She admitted to struggling with 'low self-esteem' for much of her adult life, which worsened as she grew older. 'I had been fighting a never-ending battle of low self-esteem most of my adult life,' she said. 'And the further inroads I made into being middle aged, the less I felt good about myself, I suppose. Put on my weight, could handle exercise less.' The trial continues.
