JDB Federal Court Challenge

  • 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.
The worst part about that was that every man and his dog knew the real reason Snake got suspended. The NRL made up that being drunk excuse to avoid the legal minefield we're currently seeing. If Snake was really suspended for bringing the game into disrepute by being drunk at the Manly season launch, why wasn't Choc suspended as well for getting drunk at the same function and punching a club sponsor?

Gallop: I suspended Brett Stewart for being accused of rape, but so as not to imply that I was pre-judging his guilt (even though I obviously assumed he was guilty) I told everyone it was because he was drunk. I bet nobody will ever do anything as unfair as that, especially after history shows he was actually innocent.... my bad...

Greenberg: Hold my beer.
 
Brett Stewart was the anomaly rather than the rule. The reality is he got 4 weeks suspension. It was a mistake and they happen.He had just been made face of league and they overreacted. Hindsight is always easy.

It was the cops and DPP who destroyed Brett after that. I can fully understand the resentmentment Brett had for Gallop but the NRL had nothing to do with that case going two years.

I can’t think of too many others who can say they have been too hardly done by. Blokes like Carney and Barber are serial pests who I have no sympathy for and would have been sacked well before in other organisations.In fact there are quite a few who have got off lightly like Mr Lodge.

Bottom line is the old rule with common sense works fine. In the real world you have to make decisions in the best interests of your business , clients ,and other employees.If that means making a judgement call on grub behaviour without waiting for it to be deemed criminal or meet criminal burden of proof then so be it.

This happens every day in workplaces around the country! I’ve had to sack two or three blokes for bad behaviour over the years.None of the behaviour was criminal. It’s called the real world.Not some nanny state that protects the rights of the problem child and no one else.It allows businesses to function.Not sure why the NRL should be held to different standards.

Lot of people confusing their hate for Toddy ( which I have plenty of ) with pragmatic decision making and making DeBellin a poster boy for Toddy hate.

If we had a well respected CEO exercising his discretion well under the old rule penalising goose behaviour no one would give a second thought about dickheds like De Bellin whinging about getting 8 weeks suspension for acting like a fool and claiming he wasn’t told how to treat women ffs.Let the courts do the rest down the track.The fans would back him to the hilt because in general people are sick of grubs taking focus off a game they love.

Get rid of him , get someone who can do the job without obvious bias and without ridiculous rules tying sanctionable behaviour to criminality and this all goes away. The AFL deal with the stuff all the time with a minimum of fuss because they have a capable CEO and a well respected functioning Comission and the fans respect that.
 
Last edited:
Agree with everything you say regarding difference between workplace and criminal situations...

The NRL has the right to standown whoever they like, for whatever they want...but ... I would think that process has to be detailed in a contract that the players would of signed....? Otherwise - why do we have workplace agreements. Why have players unions to speak on the players behalf if they have no say.

The NRL introduced a policy change, with zero detail, 3 days before season kick off, with practically no consultation from the players union....and when asked about why this change was implemented, one of the CEO's primary responses was that his daughters touch footy team wasn't happy about player behaviour.

The wording of the players contract says that basically “ they agree to abide by the rules of the NRL as changed from time to time” so the NRL had the right to change the rules under the contract and the players are bound by it.The contracts basically reflect the latest bargaining agreement with the players but their ability to change the rules if they feel it is necessary is not in question.The clubs were consulted and all bar Saints agreed to it, including us.The Storm CEO is the only one appearing but it’s important to note and often forgotten that every club other than Saints agreed.

But any new rule has to be a condition that is legal and that’s what they are in court fighting over - the nrl is asserting its right to protect its brand and sponsors while De Bellin is asserting the condition is a breach of natural justice .... and also the fact he has not been told it is wrong to rape women apparently. The court is basically deciding if the new clause can be added to the contract. It is also very important to note that the onus is on De Bellin, not the NRL, to prove he has been wronged.

Basically a mess that Toddy and Beatoff have unnecessarily created. The old system was fine if the CEO was competent.
 
Last edited:
Yep that’s how it’s basically worded like a lot of contracts of its type.
And yes all that you mentioned would be considered in differing degrees for sure. I’d say the dominant issues though would be the NRL have a right to protect their business and De Bellin has a right to basic natural justice.

But the onus of proof is on De Bellin as he is the plaintiff to prove on the balance of probabilities that the rule is unlawful so he had to make the running.Makes it tougher to win.
 
Last edited:
A lot of what you say Sue I agree with. The problem as I see it though is that I know, again from personal experience, and we saw it with Stewart, that the Media don't report the news, they interpret the news. They do it to titillate the public, to sell their stories, which I know you realise. They also do it to use the Goebbels trick of manipulating the public into accepting certain values and issues to the benefit of their backers. Its the old Hitler claim from Mein Kampf (and yes I've read quite a bit of it) that if you tell a big lie often enough it becomes the truth. I've seen how they can manipulate information to push a certain agenda, so I am very wary of any reporting of such matters. There are exceptions and I recall an outstanding article on Stewart and the incident background by the SMH that gave a substantial overview of Stewart and the alleged victim and family. It was patently obvious it was a set up for cash. I've come across that many many times in the past.

Secondly the police and DPP are in a no win situation with issues involving high profile people being accused of serious matters, especially relating to sex and violence. They are confronted with this teenager and her stepfather accusing Brett of certain things. They suspect its a set up and perhaps ordinarily they would be less willing to charge, especially when they knew the step father's fraudulent past. But this is a matter that will go public, front page, with a media spin, pressure groups wanting action already assuming guilt, and a NRL promoting Brett in their publicity as the Face of the Game. High profile figures are much more under scrutiny than we normal citizens.

Are many rugby league players goof balls. A large proportion are from the lower socio-economic areas with lower education and few options in life. But they have a skill and put all their efforts into that. Many footballers these days have limited social involvement and those that succeed are doted on by fans, including a lot of young women. Their world is skewed. Many are kids in adult bodies, and most are in their teens and early twenties and that's who you tend to associate with. You tend to behave as your friends behave and these guys have a lot of energy and yes end up getting into goof ball behaviours. If there is a fault, it is the failure of the League to recognise just how easily mislead these guys can become. They are football smart but they are also inexperienced socially to the norms. They often don't have sensible wiser friends to guide them such as people like you Sue (and I'm not being facetious).

I remember as a young lad being tempted to involve myself in suspect behaviours. Fortunately most of the time I had good friends, sensible parents, and I didn't have anything special about myself that would cause adulation and temptation. That woman I described also guided me into appropriate relationship behaviours, that you don't know instinctively. I still did some goof ball things, most young guys I know did, but we learned our lessons without having to face a potential loss of our dreams.

Are many Rugby League players goof balls? Not Menzies, not Lyon, not King, not Stewart. But even in our team there are a few more than Walker. If the League was truly interested in the players, rather than consider them commodities, their money that they throw around to look after Teams salary cap issues etc could be used to assist in helping these guys to grow up and realise they are not God's gift, but just good at football. At the moment if we got rid of the guys displaying goof ball behaviour, our ranks would be significantly diminished.
 
Last edited:
Yep that’s how it’s basically worded like a lot of contracts of its type.
And yes all that you mentioned would be considered in differing degrees for sure. I’d say the dominant issues though would be the NRL have a right to protect their business and De Bellin has a right to basic natural justice.

But the onus of proof is on De Bellin as he is the plaintiff to prove on the balance of probabilities that the rule is unlawful so he had to make the running.Makes it tougher to win.


I see where you are coming on this one and yes the onus is on DeBellin but given precedence the onus is also on the NRL to somehow find a way to bypass a constitutional right. This type of case has been heard before with similar arguments and has been lost because the issues presented could not supersede the fundamental right of the assumption of innocence and therefore no action should be taken to deny that person of those rights. Certainly, especially in serial sex assault matters, there is the right of the authorities to deny that person certain freedoms that places women or children at risk, but that law already exists and such people are already monitored even if they don't reoffend. As an example I had to in my role as a parole officer ensure that a young woman, with an infant, was made fully aware of a parolee's serious sexual assault past, when she entered a relationship with him. When it comes to protecting a person from physical or serious psychological harm the obligation is to protect the potential victim. But DeBellin has no sexual assault past matters, though if found guilty, he will be on the registry and monitoring of the police for the rest of his days. But the issue of 'image', which is the NRL argument, has been thrown out before.
 
The wording of the players contract says that basically “ they agree to abide by the rules of the NRL as changed from time to time” so the NRL had the right to change the rules under the contract and the players are bound by it..

That is correct, but again there has to be proof that they did not abide by the rules. Same issue. They have the right to deal with a matter proved, but not disputed, until proof is forthcoming. Same principle as an employer sacking someone, because he thinks the person stole some property or a boyfriend telling his partner to leave because he thinks she is playing up. Hardly justice, even though it happens. But in legal issues including contracts, any suspected breach has to be proved before cancellation has occurred, otherwise the other party is in breach

Look at it this way. DeBellin is suspended until his court case. Now these matters can often take a year, sometimes two. Stewarts took over a year. Now lets look at the scenario of DeBellin not being found guilty. He now has the right to sue the NRL for big money because he has been denied his right to play, to potentially earn more through sponsorship, representation etc, even if they continued to pay him. His value in future has diminished. The NRL would argue with their no fault issue that it was for the protection of the image of the game, and was related to his behaviour. A court would quickly throw out that claim because of the verdict and maintain that though the behaviour may not have been moral, it wasn't something the NRL should be involved with. The Brett Stewart issue was avoided somewhat because the NRL could see the inherent danger of ongoing suspension and ceased the suspension after 4 weeks on the premise that it was because he was drunk and putting the League in a bad light. Stewart I believe sued the Telegraph and could also have sued the League. It cost Stewart a huge amount of his earning to cover the costs of court, which he never recovered.

Now if DeBellin is found guilty, he suffers gaol and the potentially permanent disqualification from the game. Justice has been served, without having to pre-judge
 
Last edited:
Brett Stewart was the anomaly rather than the rule. The reality is he got 4 weeks suspension. It was a mistake and they happen.He had just been made face of league and they overreacted. Hindsight is always easy.

It was the cops and DPP who destroyed Brett after that. I can fully understand the resentmentment Brett had for Gallop but the NRL had nothing to do with that case going two years.

I can’t think of too many others who can say they have been too hardly done by. Blokes like Carney and Barber are serial pests who I have no sympathy for and would have been sacked well before in other organisations.In fact there are quite a few who have got off lightly like Mr Lodge.

Bottom line is the old rule with common sense works fine. In the real world you have to make decisions in the best interests of your business , clients ,and other employees.If that means making a judgement call on grub behaviour without waiting for it to be deemed criminal or meet criminal burden of proof then so be it.

This happens every day in workplaces around the country! I’ve had to sack two or three blokes for bad behaviour over the years.None of the behaviour was criminal. It’s called the real world.Not some nanny state that protects the rights of the problem child and no one else.It allows businesses to function.Not sure why the NRL should be held to different standards.

Lot of people confusing their hate for Toddy ( which I have plenty of ) with pragmatic decision making and making DeBellin a poster boy for Toddy hate.

If we had a well respected CEO exercising his discretion well under the old rule penalising goose behaviour no one would give a second thought about dickheds like De Bellin whinging about getting 8 weeks suspension for acting like a fool and claiming he wasn’t told how to treat women ffs.Let the courts do the rest down the track.The fans would back him to the hilt because in general people are sick of grubs taking focus off a game they love.

Get rid of him , get someone who can do the job without obvious bias and without ridiculous rules tying sanctionable behaviour to criminality and this all goes away. The AFL deal with the stuff all the time with a minimum of fuss because they have a capable CEO and a well respected functioning Comission and the fans respect that.

Hi Sue, I think you must have forgot with Brett Stewart was that when the incident happened and when he was the face of the seasons NRL commercials, they took that away along with the $400K payout for the commercials and then he lost his 3rd party marketing ability which would have earnt him circa $2.5 mil over 2 years (he had ads going with 3 sports companies and all 3 cancelled). That's why Snake is pissed. As they say mud sticks but it has consequences as well.
 
Notwithstanding the validity of your comment Supreme Leader, I have to commend Sue on her cogent arguments without allowing it to get personal, but sticking to the issues. Many find that difficult. I don't have to agree to be impressed Sue and some of what you had to say has me thinking. Thant's what debating is all about, learning from others that don't necessarily agree with you. I also have to apologise regarding something you mentioned, that I may have at least once not fully read all you wrote. You are right. I skimmed which was very naughty. But I'm trying to concentrate on this next tome I'm writing and I use this and other forums as a diversion and bit of fun. Doesn't mean I'm not serious about what I was saying but in the end I was just enjoying the challenge. I work on the principle to question everything and to accept nothing fully. I believe our legal system is the best in the World but it has flaws. One is what I often told my clients. Often justice is a question of what you can afford. That unfortunately is something we are stuck with for now. But in conclusion thankyou Sue for the debate. Best I've had in quite a while.
 
Notwithstanding the validity of your comment Supreme Leader, I have to commend Sue on her cogent arguments without allowing it to get personal, but sticking to the issues. Many find that difficult. I don't have to agree to be impressed Sue and some of what you had to say has me thinking. Thant's what debating is all about, learning from others that don't necessarily agree with you. I also have to apologise regarding something you mentioned, that I may have at least once not fully read all you wrote. You are right. I skimmed which was very naughty. But I'm trying to concentrate on this next tome I'm writing and I use this and other forums as a diversion and bit of fun. Doesn't mean I'm not serious about what I was saying but in the end I was just enjoying the challenge. I work on the principle to question everything and to accept nothing fully. I believe our legal system is the best in the World but it has flaws. One is what I often told my clients. Often justice is a question of what you can afford. That unfortunately is something we are stuck with for now. But in conclusion thankyou Sue for the debate. Best I've had in quite a while.

Just fyi... and it probably doesn't matter, but member sue is in fact (wait for it) A MAN!

I think he was originally sue-ridgepipe, then a site melt down led him to change it to susan, and not tattooing his password on his arm lead to yet another account...sue.

Oh.... he's also the Attorney General. (ok, that bit he isn't)

I dunno if he cares whether I say this or not, I doubt it, but I've enjoyed his posts over the years, as I do most of y'all. (lol @ y'all)
 
Well I guess that ruins my chances of a date. Kidding. At 68 issues of the heart are long ago passed. Personally don't care one way or the other male or female...gosh I must be getting old.
 
Well I guess that ruins my chances of a date. Kidding. At 68 issues of the heart are long ago passed. Personally don't care one way or the other male or female...gosh I must be getting old.

True...true.

It was interesting reading what you both had to say and the way it was said. Hopefully your books are as good..? :)
 
True...true.

It was interesting reading what you both had to say and the way it was said. Hopefully your books are as good..? :)


BIG PUSH

You know of the first one SCENT OF THE BEAST. Award winner but sales are slow. Very long 700 pages. Very positive responses from those who have read it. Three international book reviewers give it the thumbs up. On Amazon, Kindle under my true name Ron Chinchen. Give it a go. Horror police drama in the Kimberley


Any thing to boost sales.
 
Well I guess that ruins my chances of a date. Kidding. At 68 issues of the heart are long ago passed. Personally don't care one way or the other male or female...gosh I must be getting old.
Yep. I’m a bloke Bear lol . A big ugly one too lol

Also wrote a book. Non fiction about futures trading and the people I have met here and in the US doing it. Sold pretty good for a non fiction job. It was called “ Confessions of a Futures Trader” ( and I didn’t choose the name lol )
Always good to lock horns with you. Intelligent stuff as usual from your good self . Different views make life interesting.

More importantly that was the real Manly tonight. Throw in some attacking class from Tommy and we win plenty of games. Just lacked that touch of finishing tonight. Loved the look on the boys faces after losing that - no smiling acceptance like last year Stony f...ing silence.

The ingredients are there.
 
https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/sp...38dee0e03be60842d10?__twitter_impression=true

Storm boss emails reveals anger at ‘summer of hell’
b8edb42378f0222bb9e3610924529ffe

Storm chairman Bart Campbell arrives at the Jack de Belin hearing



Buried deep in the reams of documents lodged by the ARL Commission and NRL with the Federal Court last week is a series of emails that highlight the deep frustration and concern Melbourne chair and owner Bart Campbell felt with rugby league as the code grappled with player misbehaviour.

----

Did the hearings continue this week? No tweets or reports at all that I can see :wasntme:

 
https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/sp...38dee0e03be60842d10?__twitter_impression=true

Storm boss emails reveals anger at ‘summer of hell’
b8edb42378f0222bb9e3610924529ffe

Storm chairman Bart Campbell arrives at the Jack de Belin hearing



Buried deep in the reams of documents lodged by the ARL Commission and NRL with the Federal Court last week is a series of emails that highlight the deep frustration and concern Melbourne chair and owner Bart Campbell felt with rugby league as the code grappled with player misbehaviour.

----

Did the hearings continue this week? No tweets or reports at all that I can see :wasntme:


So what Bart Campbell. We all dislike these news stories about player behaviour. But that is NOT THE POINT. They have a right of presumption of innocence until their court date. If found guilty do with them as you feel fit, but to prejudge is shameful. The NRL is trying to confuse the issue. They are showing how inept they have been in addressing the problem after the players have been convicted (Lodge perfect example), by attacking players before their day in court. These guys are really poor reps of the game. They should have been addressing the issue ages ago but sat on their a..s and now want to return to the knee jerk behaviour and respond to the witch hunt mentality of the ill-informed and crucify like they did to Stewart. Fruit cakes the lot of them.
 
Hi Sue, I think you must have forgot with Brett Stewart was that when the incident happened and when he was the face of the seasons NRL commercials, they took that away along with the $400K payout for the commercials and then he lost his 3rd party marketing ability which would have earnt him circa $2.5 mil over 2 years (he had ads going with 3 sports companies and all 3 cancelled). That's why Snake is pissed. As they say mud sticks but it has consequences as well.

I think the fact that Gallop never once reached out to Snake during the 2 years his court case dragged on, or even when he was exonerated of the charges, was a factor too.
 
I think the fact that Gallop never once reached out to Snake during the 2 years his court case dragged on, or even when he was exonerated of the charges, was a factor too.
whats the latest developments on this? is there a likelihood he will be permitted to play before DW's court case?
 
Andrew Webster's latest opinion column in the SMH nails this whole farce perfectly.

I hope De Bellend wins and is awarded hefty compensation too.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 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