NRL Players and family members in hot water

[holdzy]

If he is guilty, he will rot in a cell, and justice will have been served.
If he is innocent, the NRL will be a few million out of pocket, and will have to backpeddle on the whole "standing players down" thing or make it a part of the player registration contract.

Or, he's guilty, but still gets away with it.

Or, he's innocent, but still gets punished (with jail).

The system is often wrong both ways.

 

[Midean]

no they won't be ... unless they are dumb ***** and settle any potential law suit.

hell JDB even dropped his case against the NRL for the stand down policy in the high courty

Didnt they implement the stand down policy because of the De'Belin case? I would assume that means there was no clause prior to that. Could be a financial hit for the NRL in this one case.

 

[Foordy]

Didnt they implement the stand down policy because of the De'Belin case? I would assume that means there was no clause prior to that. Could be a financial hit for the NRL in this one case.

they introduced it because of many off field incidents, this case was likely the final straw though.

I actually thought that he withdrew his case against the ARLC over their no-fault stand-down policy. but he actually lost in federal court

'We had to act': NRL star Jack de Belin loses court battle over playing ban

NRL star Jack de Belin's ban continues after the Federal Court of Australia ruled against his challenge to the code's no-fault stand-down policy.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Midean]

they introduced it because of many off field incidents, this case was likely the final straw though.

I actually thought that he withdrew his case against the ARLC over their no-fault stand-down policy. but he actually lost in federal court

'We had to act': NRL star Jack de Belin loses court battle over playing ban

NRL star Jack de Belin's ban continues after the Federal Court of Australia ruled against his challenge to the code's no-fault stand-down policy.

www.abc.net.au

"The Court accepted that nothing short of a rule precluding Mr de Belin and others charged in the future with serious offences of a similar nature from taking to the field was likely to address the clear and present danger established by the evidence," she said in a written summary of the decision."
That seems pretty damning to me.
Like it sounds like they have got some pretty concrete evidence against him, and the fact that his appeal was overturned is even more evidence of that. Jack be fucked methinks.
Its a murky affair all around, and appears this is a first in sports anywhere in the world.

 

[Dash]

Full salary doesn't equate to earning potential. If he is found innocent, he will be paid far far more than a couple hundred thousand.
Lost revenue in the prime of his career, time you cannot get back.

What lost revenue? He's still getting paid, and there's already talk about teams chasing him for next year, so minimal loss in future earnings. At best he can argue Origin payments and a little sponsorship money (and let's be honest, he's getting **** all of that).

 

[Midean]

What lost revenue? He's still getting paid, and there's already talk about teams chasing him for next year, so minimal loss in future earnings. At best he can argue Origin payments and a little sponsorship money (and let's be honest, he's getting **** all of that).

Think mate. Prime of his career, earning potential, contract values.
His Lawyer was pushing his case against the NRL based on his future contract potential being lost due to having to sit out.

If he was allowed to play, he could have back to back Dally M performing years, taking his contract from 400k a season, to 1 million a season. He has been denied that opportunity ( as well as potential rep duties) when he has not even been found guilty yet.

Not only that, but he is in his prime footy playing years, so you cannot argue that he can just play well after the court case, As he has lost entire seasons of his maximum earning potential sitting on the sideline.
Not hard to grasp.

 

[Dash]

Think mate. Prime of his career, earning potential, contract values.
His Lawyer was pushing his case against the NRL based on his future contract potential being lost due to having to sit out.

If he was allowed to play, he could have back to back Dally M performing years, taking his contract from 400k a season, to 1 million a season. He has been denied that opportunity ( as well as potential rep duties) when he has not even been found guilty yet.

Not only that, but he is in his prime footy playing years, so you cannot argue that he can just play well after the court case, As he has lost entire seasons of his maximum earning potential sitting on the sideline.
Not hard to grasp.

And if he had wheels he could be a bicycle.

 

[Midean]

And if he had wheels he could be a bicycle.

We are done here.
His lawyer launched a case against the NRL for the reasons i stated in my last post.

 

[john1420]

Again, not my point of view, its the law.
That being said, i too agree the NRL has done the right thing morally, but it should probably be written into player contracts moving forward that if you **** up big time and find yourself in a Debelin situation, that you will be stood down until it runs its course. If only to avoid a monster payout should he be found innocent.

I see both sides of this argument, it really is a tough one.
But Midean, you seem to be confusing workplace law and criminal law.
You talk about your opinion not being your "point of view, but the law".
This is not right. Your opinion is very much your point of view.
The law (criminal) is innocent until proven guilty, and Jack has not been denied this any way - that is why he is not currently in prison.
What the NRL has done with Jack is a matter of workplace law, and people are stood down on full pay pending investigation regularly. Jack's age and occupation make the potential negative hit for him bigger than others, but that is a matter of circumstance and doesn't change what the NRL is allowed to do.
My thinking on this is that the NRL has made the "least bad" decision of the available bad options. I don't see the NRL as having a good option here, and failing to take it.
I also think the NRL has the right to do what they did, under law, but all of this really is just my point of view, and yours is yours.
If Jack is found not guilty and he sues the NRL for something, then good on him, but that in itself doesn't make what the NRL did wrong.

 

[mrslong]

It's not that hard to find out they got nothing.

That’s the problem with rape cases, you never have any evidence.

By the way, you can start making out with a bloke and once you start getting into it realise he’s actually not good, or is being rough - so you change your mind. If he decides that’s not fair then makes you have sex with him, that’s actually rape.

So “being slutty all night” does not mean you want to have sex with someone, are asking for it, or “should” give it up.

 

[Twbapony]

If that is the can mrslong then throw the book at him. It's obvious that everyone in here is willing to string him up by his scrotum from a tower crane if he is guilty, and that is the point IF HE IS GUILTY! Others have put forward that some women file false claim to damage a mans reputation, take advantage of his financial position, or even for revenge for a real or imagined slight and if that is the case he has been horribly maligned by his employers, the media and general public. I hate how the system work, the police should be allowed to do what they do quietly and without this media circus, and once they have their evidence they have a closed court case, jurors under NDA's and only once guilt or innocence has been confirmed then the world knows the who,s and whens. This would protect both parties and stop this polarising of people on matters that are not yet known.

 

[mrslong]

If that is the can mrslong then throw the book at him. It's obvious that everyone in here is willing to string him up by his scrotum from a tower crane if he is guilty, and that is the point IF HE IS GUILTY! Others have put forward that some women file false claim to damage a mans reputation, take advantage of his financial position, or even for revenge for a real or imagined slight and if that is the case he has been horribly maligned by his employers, the media and general public. I hate how the system work, the police should be allowed to do what they do quietly and without this media circus, and once they have their evidence they have a closed court case, jurors under NDA's and only once guilt or innocence has been confirmed then the world knows the who,s and whens. This would protect both parties and stop this polarising of people on matters that are not yet known.

That is what court is for.
very few women actually do those things you are saying. The percentage is negligible.

Go to court, clear your name. That’s all anybody wants here.

 

[Midean]

I see both sides of this argument, it really is a tough one.
But Midean, you seem to be confusing workplace law and criminal law.
You talk about your opinion not being your "point of view, but the law".
This is not right. Your opinion is very much your point of view.
The law (criminal) is innocent until proven guilty, and Jack has not been denied this any way - that is why he is not currently in prison.
What the NRL has done with Jack is a matter of workplace law, and people are stood down on full pay pending investigation regularly. Jack's age and occupation make the potential negative hit for him bigger than others, but that is a matter of circumstance and doesn't change what the NRL is allowed to do.
My thinking on this is that the NRL has made the "least bad" decision of the available bad options. I don't see the NRL as having a good option here, and failing to take it.
I also think the NRL has the right to do what they did, under law, but all of this really is just my point of view, and yours is yours.
If Jack is found not guilty and he sues the NRL for something, then good on him, but that in itself doesn't make what the NRL did wrong.

I agree with the entire post. The NRL have taken the moral high ground, and also prevented dmg to sponsors etc.
But the law is on De'Belins side in this case.
Workplace laws cover "unlawful restraint of trade" which is kind of what the NRL has done. Its what has made this case unprecedented in that he has been stood down, even though he has not seen his day in court.
Now because of this and a string of other off season dilemmas (think Jarrod Hayne) The NRL has implemented the stand down policy involving serious crime, which is a good move to both cover their ass from a legal perspective, but also for the reputation of the game and its sponsors.
The problem with this whole scenario is the window of earning potential for an athlete is limited, and if Jack has been sat down for several seasons in the prime of his career, and then found innocent, his livelihood and earning potential has been drastically affected.

Like you said though, its a bad situation all around and the NRL has taken the least terrible option.
[automerge]1593741230[/automerge]

That is what court is for.
very few women actually do those things you are saying. The percentage is negligible.

Go to court, clear your name. That’s all anybody wants here.

Its not negligible, it happens enough that it is a problem.
a quick google search will show you this is a lot more common than you might think.

 

[Twbapony]

If a mans life is ruined by a dud claim then it is the same as what happens to a woman. They are forever changed and affected by the act, unable to function normally in society and forever fearful. Rape is 1 part physical and 2 parts mental, which is why if annoys me that convicted rapists get such short sentences compared to the trauma that the victim lives with for the rest of their life. 1 rape is one to many and 1 false accusation is also 1 to many.

 

[mrslong]

If a mans life is ruined by a dud claim then it is the same as what happens to a woman. They are forever changed and affected by the act, unable to function normally in society and forever fearful. Rape is 1 part physical and 2 parts mental, which is why if annoys me that convicted rapists get such short sentences compared to the trauma that the victim lives with for the rest of their life. 1 rape is one to many and 1 false accusation is also 1 to many.

So much this.

 

[Midean]

If a mans life is ruined by a dud claim then it is the same as what happens to a woman. They are forever changed and affected by the act, unable to function normally in society and forever fearful. Rape is 1 part physical and 2 parts mental, which is why if annoys me that convicted rapists get such short sentences compared to the trauma that the victim lives with for the rest of their life. 1 rape is one to many and 1 false accusation is also 1 to many.

Well said.

 

[Nashy]

I agree with the entire post. The NRL have taken the moral high ground, and also prevented dmg to sponsors etc.
But the law is on De'Belins side in this case.
Workplace laws cover "unlawful restraint of trade" which is kind of what the NRL has done. Its what has made this case unprecedented in that he has been stood down, even though he has not seen his day in court.
Now because of this and a string of other off season dilemmas (think Jarrod Hayne) The NRL has implemented the stand down policy involving serious crime, which is a good move to both cover their ass from a legal perspective, but also for the reputation of the game and its sponsors.
The problem with this whole scenario is the window of earning potential for an athlete is limited, and if Jack has been sat down for several seasons in the prime of his career, and then found innocent, his livelihood and earning potential has been drastically affected.

Like you said though, its a bad situation all around and the NRL has taken the least terrible option.
[automerge]1593741230[/automerge]

Its not negligible, it happens enough that it is a problem.
a quick google search will show you this is a lot more common than you might think.

I'm sorry, but the law is not on his side on this one. He tried that, he took the NRL to court, and the NRL won. The law is on their side, not his.

 

[Midean]

I'm sorry, but the law is not on his side on this one. He tried that, he took the NRL to court, and the NRL won. The law is on their side, not his.

Actually, by the letter of workplace law, it is on jacks side, regardless of the case he lost to sue the NRL over the stand down policy.
If he is found not guilty, the NRL will have no chance if he decides to sue them.
It will be incredibly easy for him to sue for damages and win based on current workplace laws regardless of the NRLs stand down policy, that was only implemented after he was charged.

Remember, the stand down policy is the NRL stance, not workplace law, and Jack has been denied his right to work before going to trial.

A cashed up organization vs a player was never gonig to see Jack win the initial case while the matter was still in court, but be damn sure if he is found innocent, then it will be a bad day for the NRL's back account.
There is not a lawyer in the country that would lose that case, a retrospective rule brought in after the fact? Thats an easy win every day of the week and any lawyer worth his salt will make it look easy.