NRL Players and family members in hot water

JayPee said:
There would be heat because Mams incident is more serious than radleys. Radleys punishment is viewed as excessive so of course there is going to be limited outrage about them doing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah it ‘seems’ on the surface. You dig a little under and he issue isn’t that There’s a punishment, it’s that the Roosters are actually limiting his penalty by halving what it sounds like he’s being punished and getting salary cap exemptions as a result. So basically the Roosters get benefits instead of being negatively affected.

And let’s not forget the dude’s head knock history, they probably planned to sit him out 10 weeks anyway.

Not bad for a guy who has still only ‘allegedly’ did something wrong.
 
The club shouldn't be impacted because of a dickhead; Radley should be carrying the can for his actions.

Dragons applied and got $239,000 cap relief for De Belin- which was his salary for the rest of the year so they could get a like for like player.

I don't want clubs to be deterred from punishing players.
 
Sproj said:
Yeah it ‘seems’ on the surface. You dig a little under and he issue isn’t that There’s a punishment, it’s that the Roosters are actually limiting his penalty by halving what it sounds like he’s being punished and getting salary cap exemptions as a result. So basically the Roosters get benefits instead of being negatively affected.

And let’s not forget the dude’s head knock history, they probably planned to sit him out 10 weeks anyway.

Not bad for a guy who has still only ‘allegedly’ did something wrong.
Click to expand...
He has played lately. It does come into the spotlight how he is viewed as a player now by them. I would not be surprised if they werent exactly crying foul from a football point of view. His head knocks have clearly slowed him down as a player and he just looks old now on the field.

If I was there cap guy I would not be crying about it but then again the guys at the top might love him. He is apparently well liked.
 
1910 said:
The club shouldn't be impacted because of a dickhead; Radley should be carrying the can for his actions.

Dragons applied and got $239,000 cap relief for De Belin- which was his salary for the rest of the year so they could get a like for like player.

I don't want clubs to be deterred from punishing players.
Click to expand...
Was de belin the no fault stand down?
 
1910 said:
The club shouldn't be impacted because of a dickhead; Radley should be carrying the can for his actions.

Dragons applied and got $239,000 cap relief for De Belin- which was his salary for the rest of the year so they could get a like for like player.

I don't want clubs to be deterred from punishing players.
Click to expand...

Clubs sign the dickheads though
 
broncsgoat said:
Don’t be obtuse.

That’s literally a bloke saying he’s not playing on the weekend… what else is he going to talk about? He spends his life training for and playing footy
Click to expand...
What are you on about?

He messaged someone and told them he was playing and starting, and told them that backing him for first try scorer and anytime try scorer was a great bet, at a time the info wasn't available to the public.

If he'd simply said he was playing and/or starting, it's probably a bit of a non issue, but when they start talking about backing Smith for try scorer bets, it's more than just a bloke talking about footy imo. It's starting to cross a bit of a grey line.

If anyone is obtuse, it's Smith for the way he worded that conversation.
 
ivanhungryjak said:
I see Weidler (Nein) and Ritchie (Newscorpse) have been working overtime producing the Radley good guy stories…
I’m sure uncle Nick is pleased.
Click to expand...
Yes running with the young guy made a mistake. Like he got to the Sunshine Coast and all of a sudden thought he'd try coke for the first time and suddenly knew who to ring to hook him up.
 
OXY-351 said:
What are you on about?

He messaged someone and told them he was playing and starting, and told them that backing him for first try scorer and anytime try scorer was a great bet, at a time the info wasn't available to the public.

If he'd simply said he was playing and/or starting, it's probably a bit of a non issue, but when they start talking about backing Smith for try scorer bets, it's more than just a bloke talking about footy imo. It's starting to cross a bit of a grey line.

If anyone is obtuse, it's Smith for the way he worded that conversation.
Click to expand...
The big thing for me is the information he passes that he’s starting - the bet is for first try scorer - that is a big piece of knowledge. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t common knowledge at the time.
The proof is also in the odds - first old mate got on at over nine bucks - by the time the second dude got on, it was about half that.
 
ivanhungryjak said:
The big thing for me is the information he passes that he’s starting - the bet is for first try scorer - that is a big piece of knowledge. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t common knowledge at the time.
The proof is also in the odds - first old mate got on at over nine bucks - by the time the second dude got on, it was about half that.
Click to expand...

The first bloke got over $90 for the first try scorer bet, because he wasn't even listed as in the 17 at that stage, let alone starting. It definitely wasn't common knowledge he was starting at that stage, but hey, apparently it's just a bloke discussing some random footy stuff.
 
The one that might see him actually get in trouble is when he initiated the conversation with the second bloke.

The first one is his mate asking if he's starting, then he puts the bet on and shows him.

Next text is him contacting a bloke to tell him he's starting and that hes at huge odds to score... and then tells him to put the bet on.

That guy put $200 on first try scorer at $91 for an $18k return.

In the game he does end up taking a run from dummy half as well... he's been in two conversations about first try scorer and knows the huge odds, so I'd say he took a shot with that in the back of his mind purely because he could go back and gloat with his mates who had money on it.

Hes not being charged for match fixing either... hes been charged with using insider knowledge for betting
 
BroncsFan said:
The one that might see him actually get in trouble is when he initiated the conversation with the second bloke.

The first one is his mate asking if he's starting, then he puts the bet on and shows him.

Next text is him contacting a bloke to tell him he's starting and that hes at huge odds to score... and then tells him to put the bet on.

That guy put $200 on first try scorer at $91 for an $18k return.

In the game he does end up taking a run from dummy half as well... he's been in two conversations about first try scorer and knows the huge odds, so I'd say he took a shot with that in the back of his mind purely because he could go back and gloat with his mates who had money on it.

Hes not being charged for match fixing either... hes been charged with using insider knowledge for betting
Click to expand...
Agreed. The first one isn't too bad, second one is clearly insider betting for mine.

I don't think Smiths actions in the game could be considered "match fixing". He attempts to go over from dummy half all the time. But yeah, will never know if he did that because of the bets or not.

Anyone can call me obtuse all they want, but he gave away info that wasn't publicly known at the time, multiple people put bets on the game because of that info (who knows how many more than just the 2 people put bets on), and in one of the cases, Smith initiated the talk of betting on him. It's clearly insider betting.

Smith is just stupid to put it in writing the way he did.
 
Smith never tells him to put the bet on
in the 2nd exchange if you read it. He will get a small fine at most.
 
JayPee said:
Smith never tells him to put the bet on
in the 2nd exchange if you read it. He will get a small fine at most.
Click to expand...
Technically I guess not.

But he initiates the contact and says "I'm paying $91 for first try scorer".

Then old mate asks if he should back it, to which Smith replies and says "I'm starting". To me that's a fairly clear indication to back it. I'd back Smith at $91 if I knew he was starting.

Smith initiated the contact, then told old mate he was starting, at a time that info wasn't publicly known.

He's given away info that wasn't publicly known at the time, and someone used that info to put a bet on (and even worse that Smith initiated the contact).

I don't think it's the crime of the century, but I just can't see how it's not insider betting, and he clearly has mates in the media because the overall consensus seemed to be downplaying it.
 
Look I love a punt, and am just annoyed I'm also not a drug dealer, because I would love some inside info from Smith on when he's playing and when he's not.
 
New Posts

Unread

Back
Top