JDB Federal Court Challenge

[manly al]

The outcome and ramifications of this ruling could be as significant and profound as the Terry Hill Draft policy ruling back in the 90 "s where the ruling was in the players favour . Different circumstances and legal applications this time but largely the issue again seems to be whether [ in this instance anyway ] a sporting governing body can have complete autonomy and discretion to make and impose a set ruling on a registered individual club player. Or whether that specific player has had his entitlement and opportunity to common law provisions removed or restricted in the general sense . Then of course the moral , commercial and overall code "s best interests issues to take into account. Complexed case this one and a lot riding on it in so many ways .

 

[Sue]

Would love to know what "best commercial lawyers in the country" would of suggested Greensprog use his teenage daughters touch footys teams comments as relevant when determining immediate changes in NRL policy.
Wow.

I suggest the more meaningful matters at the in camera hearing might be more relevant.

And people, especially idiots like Toddy , say ad hoc things all the time under the pressure of the courtroom. I’ve spent a fair bit of time in them and you would be surprised what goes down believe me.Not everything is straight off the script, in fact more often it isn’t.The courtroom can be a very emotional place for witnesses not used to being cross examined.The reason barristers exist is to confuse and harass witnesses into saying stupid or untruthful things.

And at three thousand bucks a court hour and years of experience I’d suggest they have a little more idea than we do about conducting a Federal Court hearing.
All I’m saying is that lambasting a legal argument conducted by professionals when we don’t know what has been presented and what the actual finer matters of fact and law are at issue is a bit silly.

Having said all that I hope he has his ass handed to him big time.

 

[Woodsie]

Two things ... if a major sponsor pulls out ... and you sign a new major sponsor ... have you lost anything ?? ... are Melb saying they are $500k less in sponsorship this year than last ..... ??

.. and as I said before ... I am not certain that a judge will consider "financial" reasons a suitable justification or a compelling argument for denying a person natural justice .....

 

[Sue]

Batty you can prepare punters as much as you like. I’ve done this **** and you never really know what someone will say under pressure. The one fact not an issue is that Todd is a fool. I have no doubt his little daughter story was the ad hoc blitherings of an incompetent.
It does sound totally ridiculous but the case will swing on things with a bit more gravitas than his idiot comment.
In reality the effect on heart and minds of the average league punter of all this bad publicity is basically unquantifiable.At best you can have anecdotal stories like Toddy’s fairytale thrown around or bull**** fan surveys.

What can be measured a lot more easily is the dollars and cents sponsorship and commercial effects and this is what the NRL will be really hanging their hat on.They will have had actual submissions from key parties outlining this in camera. Will it be enough is the question.

 

[Supreme Leader]

Hi Guys, on a cruise ship heading to Hawaii! Drinks package awesome! anyway was having Dinner last night and I shared a table with a Mosman Barrister, and we discussed this case. He said he'd love to working on this case and reckon he was surprised that all the players stood down didn't file a group action. He reckon that it is wrongful dismissal, and that the clubs would have a case as well for damages to their brands. I pointed out that the NRL actually owns the brand, but he said it would reach further as each club would have been affected by bad PR, it would have cost sponsors, gate takings, player willingness to join the club, other internal player welfare to which our club could claim damages. He also says that this no fault stand down is a joke on the basis that, with everyone presumption of innocents, stand them down is actually a presumption that the player had done something bad? Unfortunately the Barrister is a St George supporter but catching up for a drink for this weekends game, so if you have any specific questions you would like me to ask, send them through!

 

[ManEagle]

Hi Guys, on a cruise ship heading to Hawaii! Drinks package awesome! anyway was having Dinner last night and I shared a table with a Mosman Barrister, and we discussed this case. He said he'd love to working on this case and reckon he was surprised that all the players stood down didn't file a group action. He reckon that it is wrongful dismissal, and that the clubs would have a case as well for damages to their brands. I pointed out that the NRL actually owns the brand, but he said it would reach further as each club would have been affected by bad PR, it would have cost sponsors, gate takings, player willingness to join the club, other internal player welfare to which our club could claim damages. He also says that this no fault stand down is a joke on the basis that, with everyone presumption of innocents, stand them down is actually a presumption that the player had done something bad? Unfortunately the Barrister is a St George supporter but catching up for a drink for this weekends game, so if you have any specific questions you would like me to ask, send them through!

All that sounds good but one thing is they weren't dismissed, but stood down pending investigation / court case with pay, that isn't uncommon but the rest are good points ?
My other issue and question, what the hell is a Barrister from Mosman doing following St George...A bloody travesty

 

[Sue]

Not sure how it helps De Bellin if your man says all the bad publicity not only effects the NRLs brand but St George and every other clubs brand, sponsorship, gate takings and player welfare. Sounds like those effects are EXACTLY what the NRL is claiming and more. He should be taking the NRLs brief, not De Bellin.The circumstances he describes does not help the players in question one iota. It hurts them.

Surely he is not claiming the NRLs stance is having these dramatic effects on sponsorship etc as opposed to player behaviour and fans and sponsors will leave the game in droves to protest the breakdown of due process in modern society. I don’t agree with the rule one bit but to say the implementation of the rule itself is causing the damage to the game and clubs and not the overall issue of poor player behaviour is lunacy. People are sick of the grub behaviour , they just want it dealt with in a better manner than Todd and his hamfisted morons have come up with.
If he is claiming that then more drink is needed... and quickly.

 

[47MVEagle]

Possible reasons for sponsors not resigning with the Storm:

1. Cooper Cronk moved to the Roosters in 2018.
2. Billy Slater retired in 2019.
3. Rumours of Cameron Smith cheating on his wife in 2017.
4. The "big 3" no longer being mates due to #3 above.

That's before you start going back through their rich tapestry of lies that resulted in them being stripped of 2 premierships due to systemic salary cap cheating.

 

[Sue]

Sure sponsors may be avoiding the NRL and that data may be there in a financial sense. They might have the Storms CEO saying his club has had 4 companies refuse to be involved with the NRL because of player misconduct... But it's all irrelevant unless you have sponsors admitting it.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Who knows. I find it odd that not 1 media outlet named one sponsor rep...? Surely word gets around from major sponsors like Crown...?

You've got to ask yourself why they (the NRL) were attempting to use the NPS as a defence for their policy change ... if they already had admissions from sponsors.

Why did Todd, when asked did he have any evidence of damage to the game as a direct result of player misbehavior, did he feel it relevant to explain his daughters touch footy teams opinion on the matter...rather than just directly link the sponsor loss.

I just find this whole situation consistent with the NRL/Greenbergs time as CEO. They are a knee jerk, media pressured administration who make decisions based on Todd looking players in the eye or Todds determination of whether players receive testimonials or not. Whether some players can retire and some can't.... Whether there's been too many penalties or not enough.

JDB was charged in early December... Yet the NRL introduced the no fault standown policy (without even having the details nutted out) just 3 days before the start of the season and gave the players union 3 hours to mount a response ... All without consultation with DeBelin.
That doesn't sound like a company who was making a calculated decision based on sponsors comments ... It reaks of incompetence and stinks of a knee jerk reaction.

Time will tell. Hope he gets hung out to dry....

I’m with you all the way. I’m just saying they will have a professional case to put forward. Whether they have sufficient evidence is another matter
The man is a total fool... but a dangerous one.... this will hurt him badly if he loses but it won’t be a killer blow unfortunately as he will have the out of saying he was trying to protect the game and a lot of people will buy it.

Personally I think this is minor in my eyes compared to the real damage he is doing to the game at every level.At worst this fiasco will be viewed as a hamfisted attempt at fixing a big problem with good intentions.

We will need a smoking gun to get him ... let’s hope we get it soon. Beatty may fall on his sword but we ain’t rid of the Turd yet regardless of the result.

 

[HappilyManly]

https://www.sportsradio.com.au/de-b...rovide-anti-violence-against-women-education/


Jack de Belin’s lawyer claims NRL failed to provide anti-violence against women education
3 HOURS AGO

Jack de Belin’s lawyers have claimed the NRL failed him by not providing appropriate anti-violence against women education programs.

Marcus Einfeld QC made the claims in Federal court as de Belin fights the NRL and ARL Commission’s decision to stand the Dragons forward down while he fights charges of aggravated sexual assault.

The comments were made during closing arguments with Einfled QC also saying that controversy could sometimes be good for sport.

Former NRL player Joel Cain refutes any claim that the NRL doesn’t educate players appropriately, pointing out that the NRL does an extraordinary amount of work with players and their welfare.

“I’ve seen it first hand, the amount the NRL does for NRL players, they can’t possibly do any more, they can’t,” he said.



“Paul Heptonstall and Tony McFadyen, they head up the welfare unit [at the NRL], their heart breaks every time something happens because they physically can’t do any more, they are giving these blokes every opportunity it’s unbelievable.”

Jamie Soward played more than 200 NRL games and has sat through NRL mandatory education sessions which cover off a range of topics, including how to treat women, and says subtle improvements could be made.

“My suggestion would be to do it in smaller groups, because they’re done in larger groups and typically in a Rugby League environment, blokes get embarrassed about maybe asking a question or even saying anything to do in those situations,” Soward said.

“In a large group, you just clock off and wait for it to be finished before walking out,”

“[Players] need to have responsibility for their actions, you can’t hold their hand 24/7, and I was disappointed their lawyer used that in his defense.”
----
WTF

Is JDB part of the human race, part of society, a cognisant mammal ?
Did the NRL have to teach him how to dress himself and to drive on the left ?

I've worked in dozens of Companies and have never had them brief me on Federal and State criminal offences to determine what behavioural courses to attend to be a lawful citizen

 

[40 years an eagle]

Why on earth would his legal team go in this direction?

Doesn't saying the NRL failed him by not educating him on how to treat women insinuate he has done something wrong?

Seems absurd to me.

 

[Sue]

Absolutely 100 per cent HM

So now the nanny state requires us to actually tell people over and over again it is not ok to hurt women!!
Is he an animal? Does he have a mother or sister ?

It was always going to be raised as an excuse ( it always is) and the fact rubbish like this gains credence whatsoever is an indictment on the “ no personal responsibility “ world we live in.

And as 40 years says it actually conveys guilt, not a victim of toddy’s law.
Todd’s ridiculous rule has taken the focus of the real problem of player behaviour and violence against women ..... too much sympathy for a lot of these clowns in my opinion just because idiot Todd has overextended.

Forget the rape charge. He was gangbanging a woman with a mate with a pregnant wife at home in a drunken pickle and she heads to hospital and cops.Leaving out the consent issue it was a grub act regardless of it being criminal or not. Since when have you had to do a criminal act to get suspended from a work place !!Just like Walker. Chasing your Mrs around the front yard over a video game. Forget whether it was criminal or not . Grub act from a repeat offender.

I’m all for the NRL getting tough but this stupid rule when a simple “suspension for a being a goose and leave the rest to the courts” approach would have sufficed has given a lot of these clowns some cover. Suspend them for 6 or 8 weeks for being a goose, get the message across that it’s bad behaviour and let the courts finish them off if they are guilty of anything more.

Not that hard Toddy.

 

[Bearfax]

All we have to do is look at AFL and how they run their game. They are positive, progressive, consistent and but for the early years of a new club where assistance is needed, they are equitable. The NRL are negative, reactionary, inconsistent with all matters in the game and play favourites. That is what is bringing the game down. The administration of the League has been on a downward path since 1996-7.

 

[yokahontas]

Why on earth would his legal team go in this direction?

Doesn't saying the NRL failed him by not educating him on how to treat women insinuate he has done something wrong?

Seems absurd to me.

Yep. Absolutely gobsmacked when I heard this - surely if you’re innocent, it would be “I know how to treat women, I have a mum/sister/grandma/fiancé, there’s no way I’d do what I’m being accused of”.

That statement sounds like they know there’s going to be some fairly irrefutable evidence he’s treated women poorly (not necessarily from the alleged victim, just going from what I’ve heard locally about his public behaviour on the drink), and they’re already trying to lay a platform for mitigation. WTAF?!

 

[Bearfax]

Absolutely 100 per cent HM

So now the nanny state requires us to actually tell people over and over again it is not ok to hurt women!!
Is he an animal? Does he have a mother or sister ?

It was always going to be raised as an excuse ( it always is) and the fact rubbish like this gains credence whatsoever is an indictment on the “ no personal responsibility “ world we live in.

And as 40 years says it actually conveys guilt, not a victim of toddy’s law.
Todd’s ridiculous rule has taken the focus of the real problem of player behaviour and violence against women ..... too much sympathy for a lot of these clowns in my opinion just because idiot Todd has overextended.

Forget the rape charge. He was gangbanging a woman with a pregnant wife at home. Leaving out the consent issue it was a grub act.Just like Walker. Chasing your Mrs around the front yard over a video game. Forget the criminal stuff. Grub act from a repeat offender.

I’m all for the NRL getting tough but this stupid rule when a simple “suspension for a being a goose and leave the rest to the courts approach” would have sufficed has given a lot of these clowns some cover.

Good points Sue.

But the crux is being found guilty.

Also in law in determining a case, prior matters cant be used as evidence. The offence must be determined in isolation. Once guilt is proven though, prior matters can be raised and do have a bearing on sentence.

Sure sometimes this is detrimental to proving someone is guilty (such as with a serial offender facing a charge as if its his or her first), but even serial offenders have the right to justice. Its not perfect but its far better than the alternative.

The issue, as you well noted, is how the League deals with matters after guilt has been proven. In that area the administrators have been profoundly negligent, given their inconsistent actions to such offending. The thought that Greenberg looked a player in the eye to determine whether he should be allowed to play, is as naïve as Gallop's looking into Carney's eyes when the kid started getting into trouble. Such childish decision making alone demonstrates that neither should have been anywhere near the running of the game.

 

[Bearfax]

Yep. Absolutely gobsmacked when I heard this - surely if you’re innocent, it would be “I know how to treat women, I have a mum/sister/grandma/fiancé, there’s no way I’d do what I’m being accused of”.

That statement sounds like they know there’s going to be some fairly irrefutable evidence he’s treated women poorly (not necessarily from the alleged victim, just going from what I’ve heard locally about his public behaviour on the drink), and they’re already trying to lay a platform for mitigation. WTAF?!

Perhaps so Yoka. But none of us can read minds and such comments again have no bearing on the case they face. If they are found guilty, sure such comments should be considered detrimental in sentencing. But not before.

 

[Sue]

Good points Sue.

But the crux is being found guilty.

Also in law in determining a case, prior matters cant be used as evidence. The offence must be determined in isolation. Once guilt is proven though, prior matters can be raised and do have a bearing on sentence.

Sure sometimes this is detrimental to proving someone is guilty (such as with a serial offender facing a charge as if its his or her first), but even serial offenders have the right to justice. Its not perfect but its far better than the alternative.

The issue, as you well noted, is how the League deals with matters after guilt has been proven. In that area the administrators have been profoundly negligent, given their inconsistent actions to such offending. The thought that Greenberg looked a player in the eye to determine whether he should be allowed to play, is as naïve as Gallop's looking into Carney's eyes when the kid started getting into trouble. Such inconsistency demonstrates that neither should have been anywhere near the running of the game.

That is not the crux. Ask Pearce Carney Barber all suspended with no criminal charge.

You keep mixing the issue Bear. People get suspended / pay with leave / sacked all the time over non criminal indiscretions. God help us all if it requires a criminal conviction to get rid of a person from any workplace for a while or for good, let alone a rugby league workplace !

This right to innocence until proven guilty has ZERO to do with workplace law. It applies to the CRIMINAL TRIAL at hand and that’s it .Not sure why that’s so difficult to understand. To suggest otherwise is totally false. An employer does not require a criminal conviction to sanction an employee.Ramifications in the workplace are determined by the employment contract.Tbis is what they are arguing about. Whether Todd’s law is legally part of that employment contract. His presumption of innocence regarding the sexual assault trial has never been forfeited.

Today’s rule just confused a simple issue. If he simply suspended him for being a goose this goes away.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Absolutely 100 per cent HM

So now the nanny state requires us to actually tell people over and over again it is not ok to hurt women!!
Is he an animal? Does he have a mother or sister ?

It was always going to be raised as an excuse ( it always is) and the fact rubbish like this gains credence whatsoever is an indictment on the “ no personal responsibility “ world we live in.

And as 40 years says it actually conveys guilt, not a victim of toddy’s law.
Todd’s ridiculous rule has taken the focus of the real problem of player behaviour and violence against women ..... too much sympathy for a lot of these clowns in my opinion just because idiot Todd has overextended.

Forget the rape charge. He was gangbanging a woman with a mate with a pregnant wife at home in a drunken pickle and she heads to hospital and cops.Leaving out the consent issue it was a grub act regardless of it being criminal or not. Since when have you had to do a criminal act to get suspended from a work place !!Just like Walker. Chasing your Mrs around the front yard over a video game. Forget whether it was criminal or not . Grub act from a repeat offender.

I’m all for the NRL getting tough but this stupid rule when a simple “suspension for a being a goose and leave the rest to the courts” approach would have sufficed has given a lot of these clowns some cover. Suspend them for 6 or 8 weeks for being a goose, get the message across that it’s bad behaviour and let the courts finish them off if they are guilty of anything more.

Not that hard Toddy.

And that’s all that should have really happened!

Then they wouldn’t be spending gazillions on court costs.

 

[yokahontas]

Perhaps so Yoka. But none of us can read minds and such comments again have no bearing on the case they face. If they are found guilty, sure such comments should be considered detrimental in sentencing. But not before.

True, but what may have a bearing is evidence as to his behaviour on the night in question, in the lead up to the incident. Quite apart from the numerous people who observed his behaviour (including towards women), every chance that at least one of the venues he visited has CCTV footage that may be used - for one reason or another - in his criminal trial. That’s the sort of thing his lawyers may be trying to pre-emptively make excuses for.

 

[mave]

Sounds like Todd and DeBelin deserve each other.