NEWS Milford Discussion Thread

[McHunt]

Is this likely to end up being a "no fault stand down" type of situation?

Milf isn't in court until October (I believe?) and you'd think he'll be pleading not guilty (pending the possible sentence for the crime and impact on his career), so it could end up dragging out if it goes to court.

I think it's a bit risky to sack him prior to a guilty verdict, due to the perception and precedent it sets. It could also be met with legal action from Milf if he's eventually found not guilty.

I cant quite recall the timeline, but how did the Barba sacking from cowboys play out??

I think they may have sacked him based on findings from the integrity unit investigation or did he plead guilty straight away?


If we were to sack him before his court appearance or before the integrity unit are finished then it could become an unwanted precedent and would likely be done just to save a few bucks.


Do we want Milf's contract off the books? Yes

Do we want to set a precedent to sack every player that is charged (prior to a guilty verdict)? Not necessarily

While Milford is contracted to the Broncos, he's currently on holidays until he starts at Souths. According to the RLPA the club actually has no right to contact him in this period. In terms of severing his holiday pay, that's not the usual course of action either. It would be more typical to suspend the employee with pay until the result of the court action. Given that there's nothing he's doing that could be suspended I'm not sure what the club can do unless they can determine he's in breach of a term of his contract.

 

[BroncsFan]

While Milford is contracted to the Broncos, he's currently on holidays until he starts at Souths. According to the RLPA the club actually has no right to contact him in this period. In terms of severing his holiday pay, that's not the usual course of action either. It would be more typical to suspend the employee with pay until the result of the court action. Given that there's nothing he's doing that could be suspended I'm not sure what the club can do unless they can determine he's in breach of a term of his contract.

So sounds like a wait and see then, and if something falls out of the integrity unit investigation or Milf pleads guilty then that would be sufficient to sack him... likely citing a clause in his contract about legal matters, club in disrepute, etc... whether that happens before Nov 1 is anyone's guess though.

If the integrity unit do a wait and see, and Milf goes on a 'no fault stand down' then he'll keep getting paid... fortunate for us it would be souths paying him from November 1.

 

[BroncosFever]

Didn't the NRL stand down Jack De Bellin from St George until he was legally cleared?

Can see that happening here with Milford

 

[McHunt]

Didn't the NRL stand down Jack De Bellin from St George until he was legally cleared?

Can see that happening here with Milford

How do you “stand down” someone on holidays?

 

[BroncosFever]

How do you “stand down” someone on holidays?

I am talking about once he starts his contract with Souths, we can't stand him down until he is proven guilty I wouldn't think, given the hearing is late in October.. essentially we have no grounds to stand him down

 

[broncsgoat]

You can assault someone without actually touching them. Theres a pretty broad spectrum that it could fall under.

I mean Haas assaulted a female officer technically when he threatened her.

I'm not saying this is what happened but it does seem very out of character for Mudfrog

 

[Kimlo]

You can assault someone without actually touching them. Theres a pretty broad spectrum that it could fall under.

I mean Haas assaulted a female officer technically when he threatened her.

I'm not saying this is what happened but it does seem very out of character for Mudfrog

I'm no lawyer but one of the charges is assault occasioning bodily harm which I believe means caused an injury. But you're right this could be a simple push and shove, I'm not judging him yet.

 

[Jason Simmons]

I am talking about once he starts his contract with Souths, we can't stand him down until he is proven guilty I wouldn't think, given the hearing is late in October.. essentially we have no grounds to stand him down

His first mention date will be in October, no hearing date will be set down that fast.

 

[broncsgoat]

I'm no lawyer but one of the charges is assault occasioning bodily harm which I believe means caused an injury. But you're right this could be a simple push and shove, I'm not judging him yet.

Oh yeah good point.

I might be victim blaming here but if they just jogged and minded their own business nothing would have happened.

This is assuming milf wasn't getting physical with the mrs though but yeah theres only really speculation until theres footage.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Let's wait for some more details on the nature of these "assaults" before we string up the rope.

What's your take on this @Jason Simmons ?

FTV has outstanding CCTV coverage, thanks to the Brisbane City Council safety camera network, so in all likelihood this matter was captured on camera, with good quality footage for a change.

The charge of AOBH requires by definition some bodily injury that interferes with health and comfort, so real injury, not just ‘pain’, ie: cuts, bruises, contusions, broken things etc. So if he has been charged with 3x AOBH, by definition it is being alleged he caused actual bodily injury to 3 separate persons.

There was a comment I saw from one of the journos, might have been Garry, that this allegedly occurred in a ‘DV’ setting. A circumstance of aggravation (COA) to a charge of common assault, AOBH or wilful damage is that it is to be alleged to be a ‘DV’ offence as well, ie: not just an assault between two randoms, it was an assault, AOBH or a wilful damage offence done where there was a domestic violence aspect to the matter.

The assault etc doesn’t have to be against a person who is an aggrieved in a DVO per se, but they have to be present, or some other applicable scenario, such as the assault of a relative of an aggrieved who is not a named person in the DVO. So it will be interesting to see if that is alleged when Milford goes to court. The effect of the COA is to make the offence more serious than a simpliciter offence, with a consequential more significant penalty if found guilty. If it is the case and Milford found guilty, he is in a lot of trouble…

Now I of course have no idea whether the charges are ‘DV offence’ or not, but if they are, Garry just told us that Milford is a named respondent in a DVO. Against who I don’t know, but he / she must have been present or he allegedly assaulted someone / some people related to someone who is…

So there is a bit to play out yet, but either way, Milf had better hope he hasn’t frittered away too much on the ‘brickies laptop’. He has some serious trouble ahead.

 

[Sproj]

How do you “stand down” someone on holidays?

Can’t use their Maccas card.

 

[M.B.88]

You never get found “innocent” in a criminal trial. It’s guilty or not guilty…

That was my point... Innocent isn't the same as not guilty

 

[Kimlo]

That was my point... Innocent isn't the same as not guilty

In a criminal sense, not guilty is the same as innocent. Innocent until proven guilty, so if they never find you guilty you were innocent the whole time.

That's in a criminal sense though, how society wants to judge him is a different matter.

 

[IceWorks]

Well this could be a sudden end to a career. It's looking Ben Barba like potentially, not good.

 

[M.B.88]

In a criminal sense, not guilty is the same as innocent. Innocent until proven guilty, so if they never find you guilty you were innocent the whole time.

That's in a criminal sense though, how society wants to judge him is a different matter.

That's my point. Regardless, people get off charges on the basis of the system failing to find them guilty. That doesn't mean they're innocent in the truth of what actually happened, it means the system failed. Happens all the time. Simply saying they're "innocent" is naive.

 

[McHunt]

FTV has outstanding CCTV coverage, thanks to the Brisbane City Council safety camera network, so in all likelihood this matter was captured on camera, with good quality footage for a change.

The charge of AOBH requires by definition some bodily injury that interferes with health and comfort, so real injury, not just ‘pain’, ie: cuts, bruises, contusions, broken things etc. So if he has been charged with 3x AOBH, by definition it is being alleged he caused actual bodily injury to 3 separate persons.

There was a comment I saw from one of the journos, might have been Garry, that this allegedly occurred in a ‘DV’ setting. A circumstance of aggravation (COA) to a charge of common assault, AOBH or wilful damage is that it is to be alleged to be a ‘DV’ offence as well, ie: not just an assault between two randoms, it was an assault, AOBH or a wilful damage offence done where there was a domestic violence aspect to the matter.

The assault etc doesn’t have to be against a person who is an aggrieved in a DVO per se, but they have to be present, or some other applicable scenario, such as the assault of a relative of an aggrieved who is not a named person in the DVO. So it will be interesting to see if that is alleged when Milford goes to court. The effect of the COA is to make the offence more serious than a simpliciter offence, with a consequential more significant penalty if found guilty. If it is the case and Milford found guilty, he is in a lot of trouble…

Now I of course have no idea whether the charges are ‘DV offence’ or not, but if they are, Garry just told us that Milford is a named respondent in a DVO. Against who I don’t know, but he / she must have been present or he allegedly assaulted someone / some people related to someone who is…

So there is a bit to play out yet, but either way, Milf had better hope he hasn’t frittered away too much on the ‘brickies laptop’. He has some serious trouble ahead.

Sounds like he’s in bacon and cheese McDouble trouble.

 

[Sproj]

Sounds like he’s in bacon and cheese McDouble trouble.

If he isn't an NRL player anymore, he might become a Mcthickmilf

 

[McHunt]

If he isn't an NRL player anymore, he might become a Mcthickmilf