Manase Fainu

[Ranga]

Yes but meanwhile with those monies set aside for Fainu we cannot sign anyone decent as a replacement. We should be going all out for Starling from Raiders but can't now because we locked into Fainu till middle/late next year.

I think his original contract was until the end of 2021, so we were always stuck with the contract for next year (not sure how much he is on though).

 

[Shoe1]

What about the “deny fault, keep playing rule” that burgess used regularly during his playing career?

 

[ManlyArmy]

What about the “deny fault, keep playing rule” that burgess used regularly during his playing career?

No more waivers and favours now that Greenberg is gone

 

[The Who]

The rule will have to be reviewed if de Belin is found not guilty. There will be such a public outcry about the NRL withholding employment for two years to an innocent player -- which is why the rule flies in the face of our judicial system of being innocent until proven otherwise.

 

[ManlyArmy]

The rule will have to be reviewed if de Belin is found not guilty. There will be such a public outcry about the NRL withholding employment for two years to an innocent player -- which is why the rule flies in the face of our judicial system of being innocent until proven otherwise.

I thought de Belin already took the stand down rule to court and the challenge was thrown out by the courts.

Smarter decision to try and get it removed would have been to wait until his case is over if found not guilty.

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

I thought de Belin already took the stand down rule to court and the challenge was thrown out by the courts.

Smarter decision to try and get it removed would have been to wait until his case is over if found not guilty.

Info on no fault rule court decision:

Rugby League’s no fault rule is ‘reasonably necessary’ says the Federal Court

Key issues: The Federal Court has concluded that the National Rugby League (NRL) lawfully stood down Jack de Belin under their new “no fault stand down” rule while he awaits a verdict in criminal proceedings. The decision of Perry J...

www.hopgoodganim.com.au

.

 

[Shoe1]

I thought de Belin already took the stand down rule to court and the challenge was thrown out by the courts.

Smarter decision to try and get it removed would have been to wait until his case is over if found not guilty.

Yeah concentrate on the rape case champ, why waste time taking the the nrl to court?

 

[Bearfax]

I thought de Belin already took the stand down rule to court and the challenge was thrown out by the courts.

Smarter decision to try and get it removed would have been to wait until his case is over if found not guilty.
[/QUOTE

It was and the decision by the High Court judge amazed me given the issue of presumption of innocence. My opinion, it was a decision contrary to the principles upon which our legal system rests and should have been appealed against. But one of the flaws in our otherwise better than most legal system is that the costs become prohibitive for all but the wealthy, government officials and businesses. Perfect example was Brett Stewart and the huge costs he faced just to prove his innocence.

 

[mickqld]

Starling re-signed with the Raiders weeks ago.

Yep and that's when we should have been chasing him hard instead of re signing Fainu. Why if Fainu has another year to run were we prioritising his signature beyond 2021. No sense.

 

[mickqld]

The rule will have to be reviewed if de Belin is found not guilty. There will be such a public outcry about the NRL withholding employment for two years to an innocent player -- which is why the rule flies in the face of our judicial system of being innocent until proven otherwise.

He may be found not guilty. That doesn't mean he's innocent.

 

[The Who]

I find this reasoning by the judge flabbergasting:

• Although presumed innocent, de Belin is nonetheless clearly associated with an act of serious sexual violence against a woman as a result of the charge, and a reasonable person may think there is a reasonable basis for the charge and a subsequent risk that he is guilty.

So, to me this says that if you are charged with something you are probably guilty. Wow! Doesn't this contradict her honours first three words "although presumed innocent"?
How is de Belin clearly associated with something when there has been no evidence given, and he has always maintained his innocence?

The other factor I find amazing about this "rule" is that is can encompass the discretion of the CEO of the NRL. How can a "rule" include discretion?

 

[The Who]

He may be found not guilty. That doesn't mean he's innocent.

He is already presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

 

[Bearfax]

Yep and that's when we should have been chasing him hard instead of re signing Fainu. Why if Fainu has another year to run were we prioritising his signature beyond 2021. No sense.

I think in this case one needs to read between the lines so to speak and extrapolate

1. The trial is in July so a result will be known at that time
2.The No Fault scenario wont impact on him if he is found not guilty or the matter is dismissed through insufficient evidence. It may also happen that the policy will be dropped
3. Manly have extended Fainu's contract, knowing that if he is convicted he will face a few years imprisonment definitely

What I read here are two possibilities. The first and least likely is that the NRL will drop the No Fault policy. I don't think this will happen..at least not at this stage...and I don't think Manly are relying on this if they are buying Foran for a year to cover the spot with Cust.

The more likely possibility, and more like a probability, is that Manly officials know more about this case than we all do, and know or are very confident Fainu will not be convicted. Though Manly does make mistakes, they are run by business oriented people. They are not going to invest on a hunch, a gamble. They are not going to waste money on what seems to us such a maybe situation. No question about it. They know something we don't know and they are confident he'll walk.

 

[madmax]

Yes but meanwhile with those monies set aside for Fainu we cannot sign anyone decent as a replacement. We should be going all out for Starling from Raiders but can't now because we locked into Fainu till middle/late next year.

Mick....Starling has resigned with the Raiders until 2023.

 

[Shoe1]

If fainu innocent we get him in an extended contract at reasonable unders.

if fainu guilty his contract is torn up, money saved.

His bro has signed and we have the family goodwill.

 

[Bearfax]

If fainu innocent we get him in an extended contract at reasonable unders.

if fainu guilty his contract is torn up, money saved.

His bro has signed and we have the family goodwill.

And why were other clubs so anxious to sign him knowing he faces potential gaol.

 

[Bearfax]

If fainu innocent we get him in an extended contract at reasonable unders.

if fainu guilty his contract is torn up, money saved.

His bro has signed and we have the family goodwill.

Not sure of the legal implications of signing a contract document with someone who is facing trial and a potential term of imprisonment. I guess it depends on the wording. Certainly if he was gaoled on an existing contract when the offence occurred after signing the contract, Manly would have cause for termination. He remains with Manly at present because he is meeting his obligations training etc. But Manly have extended his contract, albeit for less money when knowing he faces trial. I'm not sure where the law lies with such a situation and its unclear in normal RL contracts. An unusual scenario.

 

[ManlyArmy]

And why were other clubs so anxious to sign him knowing he faces potential gaol.

Hard to say if clubs would've enquired about his services, mainly because no club could've approached him until 1st November this year.

 

[Shoe1]

Not sure of the legal implications of signing a contract document with someone who is facing trial and a potential term of imprisonment. I guess it depends on the wording. Certainly if he was gaoled on an existing contract when the offence occurred after signing the contract, Manly would have cause for termination. He remains with Manly at present because he is meeting his obligations training etc. But Manly have extended his contract, albeit for less money when knowing he faces trial. I'm not sure where the law lies with such a situation and its unclear in normal RL contracts. An unusual scenario.

Jamil was cut as soon as he was convicted from memory. Something about bringing the game into disrepute.

 

[Scorpio]

Hard to say if clubs would've enquired about his services, mainly because no club could've approached him until 1st November this year.

You say that but the Warriors signed AFB surprisingly quickly after he asked for a release...