Bah bah sacked and De Belin charged

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
I am not going to tell everyone what the right or wrong answer is here.

But once again, for anyone advocating suspension until the conclusion of the trial:

Would you have supported the NRL if they suspended Brett Stewart for the 18 months (i.e. two entire seasons) between the time he was charged, and the verdict?

Yes or No?
Ranger that is a tough one. Answer probably is “No” but that doesn’t make it right. The game is bigger than any individual and the NRL has failed to recognise this and now the game’s marketability and social respect is seriously being jeopardised . Soon sponsors will start bailing out. I fear for the future of game due to the bumbling fools administrating the game. The NRL has been too forgiving relenting to external pressures afraid to loose stars. They are inconsistent applying reactive patchwork reactions which appear to appease those with influence. Time for published clear and transparent rules. Frankly these problems will just keep growing if not fixed. So I believe that players charged with “serious offences” (which needs to be defined) shouldn’t be playing but on full pay and definitely should not be centre stage playing origin.
 
I saw a comment somewhere else this debate was happening which raises another potential issue.

“If this were to become the norm, I can only imagine what this will result in, in the future. Next you’ll have Cooper Crooks or Cameron Smith’s on rape charges the eve of a grand final….. promptly after betting plunges on the opposite team.”

There’s just too many intricacies with playing judge Judy for the NRL to do it justly. Unless there is damning evidence (video, photo or multiple unbiased witnesses) the NRL must leave it to the courts.
 
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/ga...-sponsors-go-cold-on-nrl-20190216-p50ya3.html

The NRL could have lost more than $10 million in potential sponsorships during the off-season alone as the reputational hit from player behaviour strips revenue from clubs.

All of the teams spoken to by The Sun-Herald about the fallout resulting from behavioural issues said sponsors had been spooked by the Ben Barba and Jack de Belin incidents and new business was increasingly difficult to come by as the sagas threatened to drag on throughout the season.


South Sydney chief executive Blake Solly estimated the damage at "north of $10 million" and said attracting new corporate dollars to the table was becoming a slog.

"It's been more difficult to attract new sponsors," he said. "It's slightly easier to retain existing sponsors because they see all the positives about the sport because they're already in it; they can see 95 per cent of the players in the game are fantastic and great role models.

"Clubs take a lot of players from difficult environments and challenged youths and they become great people with careers, home owners, family men. Existing sponsors know that and understand what we mean to the community we're in and continue to support it.

"New sponsors are the ones who feel that rugby league at the moment is too big a risk for them."

Titans chairman Dennis Watt said the NRL's Net Promoter Score (NSP), a measure of a company's relationship with its consumers, had dipped 13 points, which equated to about $6.5 million in revenue being left at the gate.

"It all goes to the brand," Watt said. "In this last little while, it’s dropped by 13 points. A point is apparently equivalent to $500,000. That’s us measured against soccer, the AFL and the rest.

"When you are talking about 13 points at $500,000 a point, that’s $6.5 million lost to the game in potential sponsorship. Clubs are saying they are on the verge of signing major sponsors and sponsors are walking away because of the stench around rugby league.

"That’s simply unfair for the vast majority of people in the game; it’s not a true reflection because it’s a tiny minority. And some of those cases obviously have to be adjudicated by courts."

Canberra chief executive Don Furner said the club had some solid sponsorships in place but would dread to be going to market for a new major signing given the current predicament of the league.

"We're OK but I'd hate to be looking for a couple of major sponsors right now. It would be a very hard sell," Furner said.

"The other thing is apart from all the off-field troubles, there are so many opportunities now compared to say 10 or 15 years ago. It used to be maybe cricket, NRL and AFL. Now there's a women's team in every code as well, [and] basketball, netball."

Furner said it was not uncommon for major sponsors to insert clauses where they can walk away from any big deals if a player brought their company into disrepute.

Watt said there could be even more longer-term financial pain unless the NRL altered the perceptions about portions of its playing group.

"As a game, when we get through this broadcast rights period, we don’t know where our next feed is coming from," Watt said. "We don’t know what the future is on that front.

"Nobody can guarantee the same level of funding will be forthcoming. The world of broadcasting is changing dramatically."

Wests Tigers chair Marina Go said the NRL should reflect community standards even if it meant sidelining players during court proceedings, citing a Herald poll that was overwhelmingly in favour of the standing down of the accused.

“That is the corporate standard. You look at teachers. A teacher accused of an incident of being inappropriate is immediately stood down. That is the community expectation.

“Peter Fitzsimons from your paper ran a poll asking people whether the player should be stood down or not ... it was running at 86 per cent. That is massive. That tells you everything; we need to listen to community expectations.”
 
Gee, this situation is a mess. Whatever decision the NRL takes will have people furious.
Personally, I'm in the camp of a person being innocent unless a court of law rules otherwise. Every player who has pleaded not guilty and awaiting trial should be allowed to continue his profession.
I've read calls for the NRL to ban players facing "serious" crimes. What denotes a "serious" crime? Who decides that? And bringing such "serious" crimes to court can take years. Surely that is not fair on the accused? What if he is acquitted? How can the NRL compensate him and his club for the time he's spent on the sidelines?
I've also read calls that every case should be judged on its merits. Again, is this fair? Is the same person/committee who decides that (just using an example) de Belin should be banned going to be the same person/committee that decides the fate of a player in years to come? No. They will have a different idea of what a suitable punishment is.
I've read calls to financially punish clubs if they have a misbehaving player? Again, this is not fair. A club is only responsible for the time they have a player in their 'control'. No club, no company and no employer is responsible for what an employee does away from work.
 
Totally agree that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence etc. However, we had a discussion at work the other day about being stood down in the interim, and how many other professions would basically suspend you (generally with pay) if you were facing serious charges like de Belin’s.

I’m an ambo, so of course the first job mentioned was paramedic - no way you’d be working on road with those charges pending. Teachers, cops, ADF personnel...there are plenty of occupations where you would be given an impromptu holiday, either due to the nature/reputation of the organisation, or because your job involves contact with the general public/kids/ other vulnerable populations.

I don’t think you can rightly suspend someone without pay, given the right to the presumption of innocence. But I do think that de Belin and co. should be stood down, and the idea of then fining them the amounts paid while suspended (if found guilty) certainly has merit. If you’re not guilty, sweet - you keep the money, and your employer did the right thing for your welfare by giving you the time off to properly prepare your defence away from the public eye.

Standing these blokes down with pay until the court case is finalised is all well and good, until someone with only 12 months to go on their contract spends 24 months in court...

Who pays the other 12 months, and at what rate?
 
Standing these blokes down with pay until the court case is finalised is all well and good, until someone with only 12 months to go on their contract spends 24 months in court...

Who pays the other 12 months, and at what rate?
When the contracts over, that's it. No club would sign a player facing such a charge (not even a 2 time Dally M winner).
 
Standing these blokes down with pay until the court case is finalised is all well and good, until someone with only 12 months to go on their contract spends 24 months in court...

Who pays the other 12 months, and at what rate?

Fair point, but maybe that’s a deterrent as well - don’t commit crimes if you’re about to come off contract?
 
If players are convicted of DV, they should be kicked from the game and never return.
If they are charged with assault/rape etc same deal. It should be black and white. No Todd Greenflog grey area where the CEO is helping mates get off drink driving charges.
I don't think you can apply the same rule to being charged, to that of being convicted. That is the conundrum facing the NRL.
Sure, ban them if they are convicted, but until any accused has his or her day in court they are not guilty.
 
Manly were fined $100,000 by the NRL at the time of the Brett Stewart incident. And that was on top of suspending him for 4 games.

This has been answered earlier by more informed people than me V8 .... But I believe Manly were fined because of poor behavour at an official Manly season launch .... and not fined because of Snake's being charged .....
 
As to the suggestion that an employee facing a criminal charge should be stood down on full pay . . .
That's all very well if you are employed by the Government (a paramedic was the example used) with 'unlimited' money, or a large organisation - but what if that person worked for one of the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that are the lifeblood of our Australian way of life? That would send many of these small companies broke.
 
I am not going to tell everyone what the right or wrong answer is here.

But once again, for anyone advocating suspension until the conclusion of the trial:

Would you have supported the NRL if they suspended Brett Stewart for the 18 months (i.e. two entire seasons) between the time he was charged, and the verdict?

Yes or No?
No.
I know this is not the point but Brett ended up on the sidelines anyway due to injury. I believe his mental state could have contributed to this injuries as the guy was tried and hung by the NRL and the media.
Brett's case was different to all these current issues. The only reason this case went to court was because of the media pursuit. No evidence. No DNA. No witnesses, including the father. A virtually silent girl and a fraudster father who in the end, did not even attend the court case relating to his daughter.
One of Sydney's top judges - name eludes me - declared this years later.
Maybe individual cases can be treated on evidence and severity, by an external overseer, not Greenberg!
No Manly bias in this post. I have no sympathy for Walker whatsoever.
 
As to the suggestion that an employee facing a criminal charge should be stood down on full pay . . .
That's all very well if you are employed by the Government (a paramedic was the example used) with 'unlimited' money, or a large organisation - but what if that person worked for one of the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that are the lifeblood of our Australian way of life? That would send many of these small companies broke.

True - but I did also make the point that it’s usually due to the profile of the organisation, or its role with the general public, that gets people stood down.That wouldn’t apply to a lot of small businesses - and, TBH, if the local plumber’s apprentice is facing criminal charges, for example, it’s probably not going to be relevant. He’s poking around my toilet, not my person. Boss’ discretion whether to sack him straight up or not, really.

On the other hand, if your job requires you to maintain a Working With Children Check, and you’re charged with one of the relevant offences that would lose you your clearance - I’d expect most employers would probably sack you without a second thought. Same as drink/drug driving charges lose plenty of people their jobs.
 
It’s a massive can of worms!!

And opens up huge litigation ( think Brett Stewart) if they suspend a player who is then found not guilty.

Only one way forward and that’s the law of our land , innocent until proven guilty.
 
The only way they can make this work is if it becomes a standard contractual requirement and all players agree to it when they have a contract registered with the NRL - i.e. if you get charged with an offence you are stood down until the matter is resolved. How they balance all that with salary caps, player squad numbers etc is another can of worms.

Otherwise it only seems fair that they continue to play until such time they have their day in court and prove their innocence, or otherwise.
 
Heaven help us if the union
As to the suggestion that an employee facing a criminal charge should be stood down on full pay . . .
That's all very well if you are employed by the Government (a paramedic was the example used) with 'unlimited' money, or a large organisation - but what if that person worked for one of the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that are the lifeblood of our Australian way of life? That would send many of these small companies broke.

Heaven help us if the unions got involved in something like this, they would also demand a loading on any suspension on full pay.
 
The only way they can make this work is if it becomes a standard contractual requirement and all players agree to it when they have a contract registered with the NRL - i.e. if you get charged with an offence you are stood down until the matter is resolved. How they balance all that with salary caps, player squad numbers etc is another can of worms.

Otherwise it only seems fair that they continue to play until such time they have their day in court and prove their innocence, or otherwise.
Like someone has said, imagine GF week and a fraudster like Snakes case comes forward: pay me $500k or I'll say 5 of your stars gangbanged a young girl against her will etc etc.
It's a messy situation but like Mark says above innocent until guilty is the "best" we can do
 
Like someone has said, imagine GF week and a fraudster like Snakes case comes forward: pay me $500k or I'll say 5 of your stars gangbanged a young girl against her will etc etc.
It's a messy situation but like Mark says above innocent until guilty is the "best" we can do
I hear you and it is possible, but the key to the situation is that they have to be charged by the police i.e. there has to be some sort of evidence to mount a case. Straight up attempts at blackmail wouldn't get far without some complicity by the player/s.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom