It just adds another angle to the story. If he was Buckley with another woman from another walk of life he might get papped a few times and that's it.
In the world we live in now though a relationship with a subordinate is a very slippery slope. Two AFL execs lost their jobs because of it. Politicians have a ban on it. Lots of other corporate areas frown on it. And then it throws more fuel on the reporting fire with the who is on who's side stuff.
Ok here's a proforma:
If you want minimum coverage, bring no public attention on to you and your wife's relationship, to the point where most people wouldn't know if you were married or not. We'll call that the Simon Goodwin model.
If you want medium coverage, have the odd dabble on the red carpet, have people know your wife's name but not much more than that. Move on with someone outside of football. We will call that the Nathan Buckley model.
And if you want maximum coverage, bring her up regularly in press conferences, reference her in your Grand Final speech, add her in to the theme for your Big Freeze slide outfit, basically just keep her in the public eye as much as you can. Then just to top it off have an affair with a staffer at the club you coach. That will get you maximum coverage, the Hardwick model.
I've no issue with people seeing this sort of coverage as distasteful or disliking the way the media handles such matters. In a perfect world this would be no-ones business. But it's a slimy world and the reality is if you don't see why the coverage of Hardwick is what it is and how it has been created, then you are naive about the way the media works.
And let's not pretend we are any different. The posts about Gary Rohan and the Geelong physio on this very forum have been at least as distasteful as anything said about the Hardwick split by anyone else.m
