NEWS Scandal: player agent spanking

[Kooly87]

I don't agree that it's like that. Part of the players' contracts stipulates that they must comply with the integrity unit. So what we're talking about here is akin to a witness on the stand, in a trial, refusing to answer questions. And being directed to do so by their solicitor.

As a member of society you're also required to comply with the law, but lawyers still exist because sometimes even when you've complied with the law, you can wind up in a mess from saying the wrong thing.

The average NRL player is a young man with varying degrees of education and life experience from a range of upbringings and backgrounds. It is entirely reasonable that when dealing with a body like the Integrity Unit made up of much older, more experienced and professionally resourced individuals, that they would seek advice and instruction from an individual like a Manager who is generally far better equipped to handle things on their behalf.

 

[McHunt]

As a member of society you're also required to comply with the law, but lawyers still exist because sometimes even when you've complied with the law, you can wind up in a mess from saying the wrong thing.

The average NRL player is a young man with varying degrees of education and life experience from a range of upbringings and backgrounds. It is entirely reasonable that when dealing with a body like the Integrity Unit made up of much older, more experienced and professionally resourced individuals, that they would seek advice and instruction from an individual like a Manager who is generally far better equipped to handle things on their behalf.

I think the Folau case is a perfect example of how a player can get railroaded, regardless how you feel about any of the hot topics it raised. When it became a "speak to my lawyer" affair, it was clear the governing body had overstepped its authority.

Naturally we have mixed feelings when the press is reporting a player has done something that sounds reprehensible, but trying to put a cork in the press isn't an excuse for destroying a young man's livelihood.

Fwiw, I once worked for a company that was big and mean enough to have its own internal investigations unit of ex-cops. Let me just say there was an open channel of communication there.

Maybe the integrity unit is pretty sound. But so are most cops. The principle stands.

 

[abashii]

As a member of society you're also required to comply with the law, but lawyers still exist because sometimes even when you've complied with the law, you can wind up in a mess from saying the wrong thing.

The average NRL player is a young man with varying degrees of education and life experience from a range of upbringings and backgrounds. It is entirely reasonable that when dealing with a body like the Integrity Unit made up of much older, more experienced and professionally resourced individuals, that they would seek advice and instruction from an individual like a Manager who is generally far better equipped to handle things on their behalf.

Absolutely, so when an agent counsels their client to not comply with the integrity unit it's a big deal. They have so much influence over their clients it's imperative that their behaviour is entirely above board and breaches are addressed severely. It's entirely appropriate for the NRL to deregister a player agent who knowingly and wilfully directs or assists their clients to not comply with the integrity unit as required, which as I understand it is a basic requirement of all NRL contracts.

 

[Kooly87]

Absolutely, so when an agent counsels their client to not comply with the integrity unit it's a big deal. They have so much influence over their clients it's imperative that their behaviour is entirely above board and breaches are addressed severely. It's entirely appropriate for the NRL to deregister a player agent who knowingly and wilfully directs or assists their clients to not comply with the integrity unit as required, which as I understand it is a basic requirement of all NRL contracts.

Sure, but the NRL isn't the High Court. It's not like they're transparent or their determinations are able to be scrutinised or made answerable to anyone. So when they de-register someone under the basis of them doing the wrong thing, we take it for granted that they're acting with integrity and for the good of the game. But Rugby League is incestuous, riddled with self serving individuals and organisations, and has a real lust for settling scores.

So when they drop the guillotine on someone with minimal detail or explanations, it's not hard to imagine that it may not always be above board or impersonal. I'm not saying that was the case here, but with a clandestine investigation like this, you can't ever say for sure. Player agents especially are a particular thorn in the NRL's side, often, but not always, for good reasons, and you can imagine the chance to settle a few scores with some of them may be just too much to pass up.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Thank f**k for that. These parasitic merkins held way too much sway over clubs by dominating agency over the majority of their roster. There should be a cap put on how many players from one club an agent can control.

 

[Foordy]

I tend to agree. Don't get me wrong, the agents can certainly be properly slimy, but I don't for a second accept that the NRL isn't looking to inflict pain on any player or agent who doesn't meekly roll over and just play ball with the integrity unit.

I see it as really no different to a prosecutor with a suspect prior to getting a lawyer on board, they'd much prefer to work them over themselves and see what they can get them to say.

the CM is reporting that Orr had his registration cancelled "over sanctions relating to knowingly aiding breaches of the salary cap rules."

the other 2 with the show cause notices relate to the integrity unit thing

 

[McHunt]

Wally spits the dummy about lack of club loyalty in Foxnews:

“I’m not a fan of the way players are being traded now, there’s no such thing as club loyalty anymore. That pisses me off. A lot of players said years ago that player managers were the most despised people in the game. A contract is not worth the paper it’s written on. Why not just say ‘you give me the money and I’ll come there’? You don’t need a contract saying ‘I’ll be here for five years’ because you know that’s not going to be the case."

“It’s a farce.”

 

[Morkel]

As a member of society you're also required to comply with the law, but lawyers still exist because sometimes even when you've complied with the law, you can wind up in a mess from saying the wrong thing.

The average NRL player is a young man with varying degrees of education and life experience from a range of upbringings and backgrounds. It is entirely reasonable that when dealing with a body like the Integrity Unit made up of much older, more experienced and professionally resourced individuals, that they would seek advice and instruction from an individual like a Manager who is generally far better equipped to handle things on their behalf.

So their responsibility is then to instruct the player in how to respond to the questioning. NOT to avoid answering completely.

 

[McHunt]

So their responsibility is then to instruct the player in how to respond to the questioning. NOT to avoid answering completely.

Do you have information about this that isn't being reported? News to hand accuses Moses of "assisting" them to "not fully co-operate." That's bog standard lawyer advice so as not to unwittingly incriminate yourself. Responding to a "please explain" may not be your wisest course of action because it can trick you into thinking beyond the sale.

If the integrity unit can't find incriminating evidence without getting the player to confess they have no case and should BTFO.

 

[Kooly87]

So their responsibility is then to instruct the player in how to respond to the questioning. NOT to avoid answering completely.

You have no idea if that's what he instructed his player to do. None of us do, because it's all behind closed doors with only the NRL releasing what it selectively deems appropriate or what suits its needs at the time.

Payne Haas got painted with a fairly serious sounding charge earlier this year. Yet anyone with any inside knowledge knew it was being massively overstated by the Integrity Unit and they were quite happy to have it looking as serious as it did.

If you honestly think there is never a good or valid reason for not answering questions from an investigator, then you either idolise authority figures, or you need to get out in the real world bit more.

 

[abashii]

You have no idea if that's what he instructed his player to do. None of us do, because it's all behind closed doors with only the NRL releasing what it selectively deems appropriate or what suits its needs at the time.

Payne Haas got painted with a fairly serious sounding charge earlier this year. Yet anyone with any inside knowledge knew it was being massively overstated by the Integrity Unit and they were quite happy to have it looking as serious as it did.

If you honestly think there is never a good or valid reason for not answering questions from an investigator, then you either idolise authority figures, or you need to get out in the real world bit more.

What inside knowledge do you have, and how did you obtain it?

 

[Kooly87]

What inside knowledge do you have, and how did you obtain it?

I have absolutely none besides what the NRL released, which is a broad allegation with no detail.

I have absolutely no trouble believing a player agent did the wrong thing, they are hardly the most unscrupulous individuals out there. But in the same way, I also have no trouble believing the NRL can level an entirely beat up charge against someone because they didn't play ball exactly the way they wanted. I'm no more trusting of their word than I would be of a player agent, and with no transparency around anything from the NRL, it's only ever speculation and their version of events as they see fit to release.

 

[john1420]

I see it as yet another failing of our recruitment department, that one agent would have such power. They likely thought, ****, this is easy, we can do it all in the one meeting.

Hey @Nashy I understand why it's a bad idea to have so many players under one manager, but can you explain how you see it as a failure of our recruitment department?

I mean it's not like we choose the manager for the player, and it's not like we should say to someone we want, sorry we can't sign you because we already have 7 players with that manager

What can we do about it?

 

[Jason Simmons]

I suspect this might be unfashionable view, but I might be siding with the player agents on the issue of protecting their clients from a kangaroo court. The reason you hire an agent is to act on your behalf not just when negotiating contracts, but in shielding you from bureaucrats and the like. Players should have a right not to answer any question that might incriminate them. Without a lawyer present, etc.

Why would an employee have the right not to answer any questions? Such a right usually carries with it, an opposite right that the employer holds, ie: the ability to fire you on the spot without legal recourse to the contrary...

And that is saying that as a serving police officer. The right to silence doesn’t bother me in the slightest when someone chooses to exercise it, because it almost always benefits the crown case, when they do.

People think it is terribly clever to say nothing. Except for the fundamental and inescapable reality that there are usually only 2 direct witnesses to a particular incident, the accuser / complainant / plaintiff and the defendant. When only one side says what happened and the other side refuses, a competent authority usually only has one course of action...

 

[McHunt]

Why would an employee have the right not to answer any questions? Such a right usually carries with it, an opposite right that the employer holds, ie: the ability to fire you on the spot without legal recourse to the contrary...

And that is saying that as a serving police officer. The right to silence doesn’t bother me in the slightest when someone chooses to exercise it, because it almost always benefits the crown case, when they do.

People think it is terribly clever to say nothing. Except for the fundamental and inescapable reality that there are usually only 2 direct witnesses to a particular incident, the accuser / complainant / plaintiff and the defendant. When only one side says what happened and the other side refuses, a competent authority usually only has one course of action...

Is it still okay to hold a phonebook up against their face and punch it?

 

[Morkel]

Do you have information about this that isn't being reported? News to hand accuses Moses of "assisting" them to "not fully co-operate." That's bog standard lawyer advice so as not to unwittingly incriminate yourself. Responding to a "please explain" may not be your wisest course of action because it can trick you into thinking beyond the sale.

If the integrity unit can't find incriminating evidence without getting the player to confess they have no case and should BTFO.

You have no idea if that's what he instructed his player to do. None of us do, because it's all behind closed doors with only the NRL releasing what it selectively deems appropriate or what suits its needs at the time.

Payne Haas got painted with a fairly serious sounding charge earlier this year. Yet anyone with any inside knowledge knew it was being massively overstated by the Integrity Unit and they were quite happy to have it looking as serious as it did.

If you honestly think there is never a good or valid reason for not answering questions from an investigator, then you either idolise authority figures, or you need to get out in the real world bit more.

I, too, am only going off what has been reported. But we do know that players must comply with the integrity unit. It's part of their contracts. So, according to the reports, a manager instructed a player to do something that breaches their contract - of course that's something that should attract the ire of the NRL.

If you want to argue that maybe it was in the player's interest to not comply, that's fine, but that doesn't mean there are no penalties associated with not complying.

 

[WASSHHH]

Is it still okay to hold a phonebook up against their face and punch it?

Much better on the knuckles than punching an iPhone with whitepages.com.au open on it, I would imagine.

 

[McHunt]

I, too, am only going off what has been reported. But we do know that players must comply with the integrity unit. It's part of their contracts. So, according to the reports, a manager instructed a player to do something that breaches their contract - of course that's something that should attract the ire of the NRL.

If you want to argue that maybe it was in the player's interest to not comply, that's fine, but that doesn't mean there are no penalties associated with not complying.

I think you're confusing "complying" with blurting out a stream of consciousness like you're in a confessional. They might benefit in some schooling before facing an inquisition.