Bah bah sacked and De Belin charged

The voices in Greenturds head must be reaching a crescendo ATM with all the competing issues tugging his tiny tired and decrepit brain this way and that leading to his eyes spinning in his head like a poker machine , if he does this then that will turn these people against me but if I do that then this whole other group will be outraged
OMG Todd what to do ?come on think Todd think!!
I know I've got it !,,,
It's all Manlys fault ,Dylan Walker has to pay the price, case closed ,decision made, job done ,tick the box,strong leadership displayed!

Actually I don't think even Greenburg with his Pathological hatred of Manly could pull that one off and as terrible as the JDB and DW cases are I am enjoying watching that slimey charelton squirm in trying to make some sort of decision that doesn't contradict all his previous corrupt decisions but at the same time pleases the public, the press ,the players ,the players assoc ,the clubs,the sponsors,the legal fraternity,and the morally outraged ,,,and the list goes on
Hopefully this will be the final straw that rids the game of this hopeless administrative Z grader
 
47MVEagle said:
It's almost like Toddles was saying "if you don't stand yourself down, I'll huff & I'll puff & I'll...ummmm...."
Click to expand...
You give him too much credit. Todd is a politician, he is just posturing to appease the court of public opinion. He doesn't have the cojones to stand him down and he is just trying to spin this to portray himself as a tough leader knowing full well that the law is on De Belins side and they will call his bluff. But he tried, he tried really hard you know. There will be another line drawn in the sand very shortly by Todd, just up from the other ones he has drawn recently. Don't mess with Todd's lines.
 
ARLC chairman Peter Beattie spoke to Channel 9.

“Above a certain line, based on the severity of the offence and we have to determine that yet, but say for example an offence that brings a penalty of 10 years, then above that if you’re charged with that then it’s an automatic stand down. No fault, no presumption of guilt. A presumption of innocence. Below that then Todd still has the discretion. But we’re still to finalise that.”

When it was put to him that things will become murky below that line, Beattie said: “Well that is a matter for the discretion of the CEO. We have a good CEO in Todd Greenberg.”

The move to stand down players before court cases are over has already been opposed by the Rugby League Players Association.

“They’re absolutely right and that’s why this will be no fault,” Beattie said.

“That is, we’ll make no determination about a player’s guilt or innocence — that’s a matter for the court. As far as we’re concerned, they’re presumed to be innocent. This is a no fault provision.”



LOL ....sounds a well thought out plan. I'd be interested to know how many players in the history of Rugby League have been sentenced to jail terms in excess of 10 years ??
 
Zimbalist said:
Either that or he actually believes he is untouchable. These idiots live in a bubble.
Court will sort it out, but the amount of players that get off on sexual assault and DV is disproportionate.
Why not lead with your chin on this one...I bet he has a lot of backslappers egging him on
Click to expand...

I think neither. He would’ve been strongly advised by his legal representatives to not do anything that could be construed in any way as knowledge/admission of guilt, and agreeing to stand down would be seen as such, especially by the media and general public.

And I don’t doubt it would’ve also been mentioned that if the NRL stand him down and he’s later found not guilty, he can potentially sue. That would be off the table if he voluntarily does it.
 
Chip and Chase said:
ARLC chairman Peter Beattie spoke to Channel 9.

“Above a certain line, based on the severity of the offence and we have to determine that yet, but say for example an offence that brings a penalty of 10 years, then above that if you’re charged with that then it’s an automatic stand down. No fault, no presumption of guilt. A presumption of innocence. Below that then Todd still has the discretion. But we’re still to finalise that.”

When it was put to him that things will become murky below that line, Beattie said: “Well that is a matter for the discretion of the CEO. We have a good CEO in Todd Greenberg.”

The move to stand down players before court cases are over has already been opposed by the Rugby League Players Association.

“They’re absolutely right and that’s why this will be no fault,” Beattie said.

“That is, we’ll make no determination about a player’s guilt or innocence — that’s a matter for the court. As far as we’re concerned, they’re presumed to be innocent. This is a no fault provision.”



LOL ....sounds a well thought out plan. I'd be interested to know how many players in the history of Rugby League have been sentenced to jail terms in excess of 10 years ??
Click to expand...

automatic stand down for crimes that brings 10 years and dicression for lesser crimes really, it should be automatic for all or none.

Todd by what Beattie just said will continue to be given power here, he will discriminate some clubs ie us over say favoured clubs like Souths and players like GI.

Until Todd leaves the game NRL is only going to continue one way that is down hill.
 
Last edited:
Initially I adopted the stance that he should be allowed to play until the matter goes to court, however I have changed my opinion.
Debelin, has brought the game into disrepute, whether he's guilty or innocent, this is not a situation where he was caught drink driving, which happens to numerous law abiding citizens in our society. This was a situation where a married man with a heavily pregnant wife at home was out on the town in the early hours of the morning with some mates picking up a woman almost ten years younger than him, to take her somewhere for group sex, consensual or not.
This is different to Bret Stewart, he was crucified with far less accusations thrown at him , and he was just going home after taking a taxi from where he was drinking, his only crime was that he was in his rightful place at the wrong time.
Whether DeBelin is guilty or not in the eyes of the law doesn't really matter , he certainly is guilty of stupidity, he has already brought the game into disrepute for allowing himself to be put in this situation and the game can't carry this weight.
 
Peter C said:
Initially I adopted the stance that he should be allowed to play until the matter goes to court, however I have changed my opinion.
Debelin, has brought the game into disrepute, whether he's guilty or innocent, this is not a situation where he was caught drink driving, which happens to numerous law abiding citizens in our society. This was a situation where a married man with a heavily pregnant wife at home was out on the town in the early hours of the morning with some mates picking up a woman almost ten years younger than him, to take her somewhere for group sex, consensual or not.
This is different to Bret Stewart, he was crucified with far less accusations thrown at him , and he was just going home after taking a taxi from where he was drinking, his only crime was that he was in his rightful place at the wrong time.
Whether DeBelin is guilty or not in the eyes of the law doesn't really matter , he certainly is guilty of stupidity, he has already brought the game into disrepute for allowing himself to be put in this situation and the game can't carry this weight.
Click to expand...
I must admit that I go back and forth on what should happen. To be honest, I don’t think it would matter who the NRL CEO was, this matter would test anyone holding that position. Todd gives us so much ammunition on so many topics, but I think this one is genuinely tough.

If they make the call to stand De Belin and walker down until their matters are resolved, I won’t complain.
 
Aaaaand once again the nrl goes into a season in complete chaos thanks to a total lack of leadership on all fronts from bill and ben the flower pot men. What a fuking joke our sport has become under the lack of leadership from thise grandstanding self flagellating imbeciles.
 
Peter C said:
Initially I adopted the stance that he should be allowed to play until the matter goes to court, however I have changed my opinion.
Debelin, has brought the game into disrepute, whether he's guilty or innocent, this is not a situation where he was caught drink driving, which happens to numerous law abiding citizens in our society. This was a situation where a married man with a heavily pregnant wife at home was out on the town in the early hours of the morning with some mates picking up a woman almost ten years younger than him, to take her somewhere for group sex, consensual or not.
This is different to Bret Stewart, he was crucified with far less accusations thrown at him , and he was just going home after taking a taxi from where he was drinking, his only crime was that he was in his rightful place at the wrong time.
Whether DeBelin is guilty or not in the eyes of the law doesn't really matter , he certainly is guilty of stupidity, he has already brought the game into disrepute for allowing himself to be put in this situation and the game can't carry this weight.
Click to expand...

What if the woman's accusations are proven to be complete bullsh1t?

What if the situation was actually that De Belin's young reserve grade mate fancied this woman & had convinced her to come to the nightclub with him & they had actually stopped off at the apartment to get changed & the woman did go to the bathroom as reported but they then left to continue on to the night club & there was in fact no sexual activity of any kind?

All we know is what we've read in the media.
 
47MVEagle said:
What if the woman's accusations are proven to be complete bullsh1t?

What if the situation was actually that De Belin's young reserve grade mate fancied this woman & had convinced her to come to the nightclub with him & they had actually stopped off at the apartment to get changed & the woman did go to the bathroom as reported but they then left to continue on to the night club & there was in fact no sexual activity of any kind?

All we know is what we've read in the media.
Click to expand...
I think it was reported and said in court that she went to the hospital shortly after the alleged rape so a procedure would have been performed to assess her alleged injuries (and DNA sample taken).
 
47MVEagle said:
What if the woman's accusations are proven to be complete bullsh1t?

What if the situation was actually that De Belin's young reserve grade mate fancied this woman & had convinced her to come to the nightclub with him & they had actually stopped off at the apartment to get changed & the woman did go to the bathroom as reported but they then left to continue on to the night club & there was in fact no sexual activity of any kind?

All we know is what we've read in the media.
Click to expand...

I have been told a little more than what’s been reported in the media, from someone who was at the same venue as de Belin & co. prior to the incident - the word used to describe his behaviour towards women was ‘disgusting’, and the group as ‘out of control’. So in terms of what was mentioned above about the disrepute angle, for a guy with a pregnant partner at home to be publicly heavily intoxicated and all over a number of young ladies...yeah, I think it satisfies the criteria. Not a good look at all. He does have that reputation locally as a lecherous arsehole when under the influence.
 
Ranga said:
I think it was reported and said in court that she went to the hospital shortly after the alleged rape so a procedure would have been performed to assess her alleged injuries (and DNA sample taken).
Click to expand...

But we dont know what the result of the rape test was, only that she had one done.
 
Batty said:
This got me thinking.

Imagine your a few weeks out from the grandfinal... And even though he hasn't done anything, your star player gets accused of rape. NRL stands him down. I realise this probably never going to happen... But if these are the rules then it's always a possibility.

We live in a strange world, filled with crazy people. I think it's fraught with danger to stand down someone who hasn't been proven guilty by a court of law.

To me, regardless of how terrible the accusation, if the police see the accused not being a danger to society, he should be afforded the presumption of innocence until he's had his day in court.

Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...
Yep, it is theoretically possible that a ‘stand down’ stance will be manipulated by those with nefarious motives. However, the NRL (or any other code) would not be thinking about whether the player involved is guilty or not guilty but rather what damage to the game’s brand results from allowing someone, who is facing serious criminal charges, from playing.

The bloody difficult question to answer in all this is, at what point is the NRL able to take the action it seems necessary to protect its brand? Perhaps the relevant point is at the time guilt or innocence is determined but the damage to the NRL’s brand occurs irrespective of the outcome.

The other thing i have been thinking about is, I am not convinced that a player being stood down pending resolution of criminal proceedings prejudices their case. I mean, I don’t think a jury member will think “Todd Greenberg stood this fella down, he must be guilty.” Others with more experience of juries and how members think (eg the criminal lawyers and those who have been defendants among us) will be more qualified than me to opine on this though.

I think the NRL is damned which ever way it goes on this issue ...
 
Ranga said:
I am not convinced that a player being stood down pending resolution of criminal proceedings prejudices their case. I mean, I don’t think a jury member will think “Todd Greenberg stood this fella down, he must be guilty.” Others with more experience of juries and how members think (eg the criminal lawyers and those who have been defendants among us) will be more qualified than me to opine on this though.
Click to expand...
de Belin has not been given his chance yet to speak. His only opportunity in his defence has been to plead 'not guilty' and to defy the call to stand down voluntarily. We have only heard allegations against him, which are very serious. But it will be many months before we hear his side. In that time the vast majority of people will believe the one side of the story that they have heard. It must be a living hell for anybody accused of a crime to be forced to remain silent. It's easy to say there is a presumption of innocence but the real perception is to pre-judge him on the only information publicly released, by a police prosecutor at a bail hearing.
By refusing to step down voluntarily de Belin has not further weakened the perception in people's opinions that he is guilty.
 
The Who said:
de Belin has not been given his chance yet to speak. His only opportunity in his defence has been to plead 'not guilty' and to defy the call to stand down voluntarily. We have only heard allegations against him, which are very serious. But it will be many months before we hear his side. In that time the vast majority of people will believe the one side of the story that they have heard. It must be a living hell for anybody accused of a crime to be forced to remain silent. It's easy to say there is a presumption of innocence but the real perception is to pre-judge him on the only information publicly released, by a police prosecutor at a bail hearing.
By refusing to step down voluntarily de Belin has not further weakened the perception in people's opinions that he is guilty.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you there on De Belin not voluntarily stepping down. He would have been so stupid to. But the NRL standing someone down, do you think this will impact people’s genuinely held opinions any more than having his face being splashed across the front and back page following him being charged? I don’t know the answer to this question - as a former court reporter and media man you would have more insight than me.
 
Debelin's lawyer can easily petition for a media blackout like Pell had for 3 months till his case was heard.:wait:

The DT etc will have saturation coverage of him otherwise and continue to fuel social media 😕
 
Ranga said:
Interesting. Scott Bolton will be suspended for 6 weeks for what he did in a bindi night club. He pleaded guilty to common assault but the court did not record a conviction.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...n/news-story/c5c83baf07086ba9ea061f2b1af2a521
Click to expand...
OK. If this is the bar set by the NRL then there are going to be a lot of suspended players.
Or is this punishment just for cases involving women?
What about drink-drive, fraud, stealing, assault against men etc?
I fear that this punishment is due to media pressure and such future punishments won't be sustained.
Of course, it means that Walker will be suspended regardless of the court findings.
It's opened a real can of worms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 348 (members: 12, guests: 336)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Online statistics

Members online
12
Guests online
336
Total visitors
348
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom