What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jdb case

Status
Not open for further replies.

st penguin

Juniors
Messages
293
Yes, and without an investigation or facts supporting the Stand Down Rule, the ARLC/NRL should have deferred to the line of thinking contained in this order.
I don't understand your point. What line of thinking? The magistrate didn't decide on whether JDB should be allowed to take play football. He was only had to decide on whether relaxing bail conditions would affect JDB's chances of turning up to court ("flight risk")

The NRL's decision to stand him down had nothing to do with bail conditions or flight risk.
 

st penguin

Juniors
Messages
293
Speaking as someone who supports the decision - my god the nrl and Greenberg have been staggeringly incompetent in how they’ve defended it. To come up with that rubbish on the stand after having time and advice to prepare is breathtakingly bad.
I wouldn't take these articles too seriously. Journalists tend to cherry pick parts of the testimony that will get the most clicks. Greenberg probably just made the anecdote as an aside to give some context, then he wakes up and finds its the main story. I think I read he was on the stand for 6 hours. He must have been talking about something else as well, not that the smh will bother reporting about it.
 

2218

Juniors
Messages
167
No damning evidence you say.
Well then how is it that he is going to court?
Do you think the police, DPP and the legal system are running this case based on nothing?
Did you miss the judges statement when the matter was brought before him?
As I say leave it the judicial system to work it out.[/QUOTE
Yes there is a difference between a strong prosecution case and a weak circumstantial case. A strong prosecution case is damning and with seriousness of the charge strong chance of police refusing bail. Now if the matter is a weak circumstantial case more than likely police will grant conditional bail. This is part of due process. Now I’m not saying whether he is guilty or innocent. But the NRL should review each matter to determine punishment similarly to that how police/courts determine bail. Like the nrl judiciary when there is a panel of judges and there are different offences and different gradings. This is a fair process. This should be applied to all players regardless of whether it carries 11 years or not.
 

getsmarty

Immortal
Messages
33,485
NRL v de Belin: Storm boss says horror summer cost club $500k
League
  • April 18, 2019 1:16pm
  • by By Steve Zemek
  • Source: AAP
fcd309e51cc693d4fd06b2997f44f972

Bart Campbell has taken the stand in the Federal Court to give evidence in support of the NRL’s ‘no-fault stand down’ policy.Source: AAP
Melbourne Storm chairman Bart Campbell has claimed the NRL’s summer from hell cost his club $500,000 a year in lost sponsorship.
The Storm co-owner made the claim in the Federal Court in support of the ARL Commission and NRL’s no-fault stand down rules, which are being challenged by St George Illawarra’s Jack de Belin.

The case before Justice Melissa Perry will conclude on Thursday afternoon, with a judgment expected next week.

Campbell was outspoken in his support of the hardline policy, which was introduced in March following the game’s controversy-marred off-season.

Live stream the 2019 NRL Telstra Premiership on KAYO SPORTS. Every game of every round live & anytime on your TV or favourite device. Get your 14 day free trial >

The rules allow the game to stand down any player who has been charged with a serious crime which carries a jail term of 11 years or more.

De Belin has been charged with aggravated sexual assault of a 19-year-old woman. He has pleaded not guilty.


727134_640x360_large_20190418130112.jpg

Controversy cost Storm $500K


Campbell said after major Storm partner Crown Resorts last year announced they were retreating from the sponsorship market and ending their seven-figure deal, his club had struggled to find a replacement.

De Belin’s barrister Martin Einfeld argued his client — who was charged in December — and the game’s tumultuous off-season had no effect on the Storm’s ability to attract a sponsor and they were already struggling in the market.

However, Campbell said their sponsorship negotiations weren’t expected to wrap up until late 2018 or early 2019.

He said the club had negotiated with 15 to 20 companies, all of which fell through.

He said that early in the new year he was told by corporations that they didn’t want to be associated with the game.

“We had four companies tell us the risk of being associated with the NRL was too great,” Campbell said.

The club eventually in March signed real estate company Purple Bricks to a one-year deal to be their major sponsor.

Campbell told the court he had negotiations with Purple Bricks, La Trobe Financial, as well as minor sponsors Fuso Trucks and Tiger Air about becoming major sponsors.

He said the club was faced with taking $500,000 below market value for their front of jersey sponsorship.


727106_640x360_large_20190418083701.jpg

Eels give Bankwest a runout

2:00
Campbell said that since he had been involved with the club, they had experienced a significant financial upturn, however the code’s recent rash of bad behaviour had affected their ability to garner corporate support.

“In the six years I’ve been involved with the club we’ve had an increase of 73 per cent in sponsorship, crowds have increased 70 per cent, membership has increased 75 per cent, TV audiences have gone from 11 million to 19 million,” Campbell said.

Outside court Campbell said his stance was nothing personal against de Belin, he just wanted to protect the game.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...k/news-story/2088a8661bf81baebb836cd4dd425753

P.S Mary should pin this to the wall when we play them.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,126
If that is how people interpret how the law works then you can’t shift the goal posts by saying “kept in context and addressed on a case by case basis”
It has been the case in League for many years. It wasn't always perfect but it worked.

I think you're getting the League's internal investigations mixed up with the legal process. And perhaps you need to revisit my point on objective evidence, coincidentally supported by the RLPA.

Is the RLPA wrong too? Was the NRL wrong prior to bringing in this new rule?

You either believe in the principal or you don’t.
I do believe in the principle of presumption of innocence. You've just got the wrong end of the stick.

I only responded to your post because you were trying make some bizarre connection with sexual assaults in the church. I'm sure if the church was a better organisation and had evidence of sexual abuse, then the alleged sexual predators would have been stood down and reported to police. But it's a moot point, because of the cover ups. Essentially, you put forward an unrelated and somewhat irrelevant comparison.

My argument is that JdB should not be stood down because he has pleaded not guilty and deserves the right to defend himself while being afforded the presumption of innocence. If there was objective evidence (like in Barba's case), then I'd understand the Club and the NRL sacking him. But there is no such objective evidence and Greenberg's recent comments seem to show that he hasn't got anything.
If you believe in it then it has to apply in all situations as no one is aware of the brief of evidence that will be contested at trial and who are we to judge if one persons innocent plea is any more honest or meritorious than any other persons.
If as you say “addressed on a case by case basis” then you are being the judge and jury with no evidence at hand to guide the decision making and therefore never use the “innocent until proven guilty argument”
Geez, you got that wrong. At no point have I suggested I be judge and jury. I've said quite the opposite.

My argument has always been that the NRL/ARLC should allow for due process.
Imo any deviation by people means they are selective in their application of the law.
My argument in this instance is not about whether JDB is guilty or not whether he should be stood down but us about people making a general statement and then putting a fence round it.
lol. Talking about putting a fence around it.

Yep. You've definitely got the wrong end of the stick. Again, I am talking about how Clubs and the League handle this.

I thought you might just be playing devil's advocate, but it's pretty clear that something else at play, so that'll do me.
 

Old Timer

Coach
Messages
16,914
The NRL need to make their decisions based on what that they believe will be detrimental to the game and that is s matter for them.
No doubt there will be all sorts of pressure being applied by sponsors, fans etc etc
I am merely stating that people can’t be discriminatory if they believe in the “innocent until proven guilty” theory.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,126
I wouldn't take these articles too seriously. Journalists tend to cherry pick parts of the testimony that will get the most clicks. Greenberg probably just made the anecdote as an aside to give some context, then he wakes up and finds its the main story. I think I read he was on the stand for 6 hours. He must have been talking about something else as well, not that the smh will bother reporting about it.
We've seen worse. The News Corp article that started all this was so full of embellishment that I thought I walked into a Gothic theatre.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,126
The NRL need to make their decisions based on what that they believe will be detrimental to the game and that is s matter for them.
No doubt there will be all sorts of pressure being applied by sponsors, fans etc etc
I am merely stating that people can’t be discriminatory if they believe in the “innocent until proven guilty” theory.
At least you're giving your opinion now. It's a start.

But the NRL did have a system in place before that allowed for the presumption of innocence. And they did basically judge each matter on a case-by-case basis. It was only a short while ago. Were you happy with the NRL's policy back then?

FTR, there is no evidence of any pressure from sponsors.
 

possm

Coach
Messages
15,587
At least you're giving your opinion now. It's a start.

But the NRL did have a system in place before that allowed for the presumption of innocence. And they did basically judge each matter on a case-by-case basis. It was only a short while ago. Were you happy with the NRL's policy back then?

FTR, there is no evidence of any pressure from sponsors.
The ability for the Club - who has the player under contract - to stand the player down or cancel the contract has always been there however, the presumption of innocence was always the basis of the presumption of innocence until found otherwise by the courts.

Each club can sack a player at any time but must provide the appropriate compensation if they do.

If the ARLC/NRL want to stand down a player, they should not only compensate the player but also should compensate his club because they are left without the players services and with salary cap place that needs to be credited.
 

WoyD4LWoy

Juniors
Messages
245
Storm lost $500,000 in sponsorship over NRL's horror summer, says Melbourne chairman Bart Campbell
WRITTEN BYSPORTING NEWS

bart-campbell-storm_17u8af3cbdn0gzr0cmpezecvm.jpg


LEAGUE
LEAGUE
ST. GEORGE-ILLAWARRA DRAGONS
MELBOURNE STORM



Melbourne Storm chairman Bart Campbell told Federal Court his club lost half a million dollars in sponsorship after the NRL's horror off-season, headlined by the rape charge against Jack de Belin.

Campbell took the stand on Thursday morning to support the NRL and ARLC's implementation of the no-fault stand-down rule which suspended Dragons forward de Belin is seeking to eradicate.


De Belin, who has vehemently denied sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman, is banned from playing until his rape case is resolved - which could take two years.

MORE: Craig Bellamy takes aim at 'condescending' Roosters before grand final rematch

Under the terms of the no-fault policy, any player charged with a crime carrying a maximum jail term of at least 11 years is automatically prevented from taking the field.


before the rule was introduced, branding the NRL "morally tone deaf" for failing to take action at that point.

He championed its introduction and testified on Thursday the rule was essential to protect the code's brand and attract sponsorship.

"We had four companies tell us the risk of being associated with the NRL was too great," Campbell claimed.

Campbell said Melbourne found it difficult to land a new major sponsor amid the game's off-field turmoil after Crown Resorts ended a seven-figure partnership with the club last year.


He said the Storm entered negotiations with 15 to 20 companies which failed to bear fruit, with many brands saying they could not afford to associate with the NRL.

The Storm signed Purple Bricks as a major sponsor on a one-year deal a week before the season started in March but were forced to agree to an offer $500,000 below market value.

"As we moved forward we got down to two companies, where the position we found ourself in was commercially compromised - partially by reputation, partially by time," he said.

"We ended up being forced into a situation where we either took an offer $500,000 below market value times four years, or $500,000 below market value for one year."

De Belin's barrister Martin Einfeld QC suggested the Storm's calls to reinstate the 2007 and 2009 premierships that were stripped in 2010 over salary cap breaches could also have turned sponsors away.

Campbell denied this and said the club has been on an upward trend in the six years he has been involved.

"In the six years I have been involved with the club sponsorship has increased by 73 per cent, crowds have increased by 70 per cent, membership has increased by 75 per cent and our TV viewership has gone from 11 to 19 million," Campbell said.


"So I think it is misleading to suggest that a recent conversation that was topical in the context of the salary cap issues at Cronulla has in any way dented the commercial program at the club."

Campbell said outside court he had no personal problem with de Belin but believes it is important to put the game first.

"I have no issues with Jack per se, but I want the game to be able to make choices about how it can protect its value going forward," he said.

A decision in de Belin's fight against the NRL and ARLC is expected early next week, meaning - if he wins - he could be available for St George Illawarra's Anzac Day clash with the Roosters.


NBA Playoffs 2019: Kyrie Irving 'looking forward to challenge' of Game 3 in Indiana
AMP
NBA

NBA Playoffs 2019: Four Takeaways from James Harden's triple-double performances as Rockets take 2-0 series lead over Jazz
AMP
NBA

NBA Playoffs 2019: James Harden earns Player of the Day
AMP
NBA

NBA Playoffs 2019: Three takeaways from Bucks 21-point Game 2 win over Pistons
AMP
NBA

Craig Bellamy takes aim at 'condescending' Roosters before grand final rematch
AMP
LEAGUE
 

WoyD4LWoy

Juniors
Messages
245
Storm lost $500,000 in sponsorship over NRL's horror summer, says Melbourne chairman Bart Campbell
WRITTEN BYSPORTING NEWS

bart-campbell-storm_17u8af3cbdn0gzr0cmpezecvm.jpg


LEAGUE
LEAGUE
ST. GEORGE-ILLAWARRA DRAGONS
MELBOURNE STORM



Melbourne Storm chairman Bart Campbell told Federal Court his club lost half a million dollars in sponsorship after the NRL's horror off-season, headlined by the rape charge against Jack de Belin.

Campbell took the stand on Thursday morning to support the NRL and ARLC's implementation of the no-fault stand-down rule which suspended Dragons forward de Belin is seeking to eradicate.


De Belin, who has vehemently denied sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman, is banned from playing until his rape case is resolved - which could take two years.

MORE: Craig Bellamy takes aim at 'condescending' Roosters before grand final rematch

Under the terms of the no-fault policy, any player charged with a crime carrying a maximum jail term of at least 11 years is automatically prevented from taking the field.


before the rule was introduced, branding the NRL "morally tone deaf" for failing to take action at that point.

He championed its introduction and testified on Thursday the rule was essential to protect the code's brand and attract sponsorship.

"We had four companies tell us the risk of being associated with the NRL was too great," Campbell claimed.

Campbell said Melbourne found it difficult to land a new major sponsor amid the game's off-field turmoil after Crown Resorts ended a seven-figure partnership with the club last year.


He said the Storm entered negotiations with 15 to 20 companies which failed to bear fruit, with many brands saying they could not afford to associate with the NRL.

The Storm signed Purple Bricks as a major sponsor on a one-year deal a week before the season started in March but were forced to agree to an offer $500,000 below market value.

"As we moved forward we got down to two companies, where the position we found ourself in was commercially compromised - partially by reputation, partially by time," he said.

"We ended up being forced into a situation where we either took an offer $500,000 below market value times four years, or $500,000 below market value for one year."

De Belin's barrister Martin Einfeld QC suggested the Storm's calls to reinstate the 2007 and 2009 premierships that were stripped in 2010 over salary cap breaches could also have turned sponsors away.

Campbell denied this and said the club has been on an upward trend in the six years he has been involved.

"In the six years I have been involved with the club sponsorship has increased by 73 per cent, crowds have increased by 70 per cent, membership has increased by 75 per cent and our TV viewership has gone from 11 to 19 million," Campbell said.


"So I think it is misleading to suggest that a recent conversation that was topical in the context of the salary cap issues at Cronulla has in any way dented the commercial program at the club."

Campbell said outside court he had no personal problem with de Belin but believes it is important to put the game first.

"I have no issues with Jack per se, but I want the game to be able to make choices about how it can protect its value going forward," he said.

A decision in de Belin's fight against the NRL and ARLC is expected early next week, meaning - if he wins - he could be available for St George Illawarra's Anzac Day clash with the Roosters.


NBA Playoffs 2019: Kyrie Irving 'looking forward to challenge' of Game 3 in Indiana
AMP
NBA

NBA Playoffs 2019: Four Takeaways from James Harden's triple-double performances as Rockets take 2-0 series lead over Jazz
AMP
NBA

NBA Playoffs 2019: James Harden earns Player of the Day
AMP
NBA

NBA Playoffs 2019: Three takeaways from Bucks 21-point Game 2 win over Pistons
AMP
NBA

Craig Bellamy takes aim at 'condescending' Roosters before grand final rematch
AMP
LEAGUE
Pretty desperate having this goose as a witness! St.George bank have stuck by Dragons as have all our sponsors!
 

The Damo

Juniors
Messages
1,991
Pretty desperate having this goose as a witness! St.George bank have stuck by Dragons as have all our sponsors!
Yes, what would the chairman of arguably the most successful Club know? Scum they may be, but it’s hard to argue they’d know less about commercial success than our board.
And we don’t know what our sponsors would have done - because Jack isn’t playing while charged.
 

WoyD4LWoy

Juniors
Messages
245
I am sure his Dragon team mates who are standing by JDB are standing by his side because he is no rapist! The people who comment that in any other job it's legal to stand a person down until after court, you are misguided fools!
 

WoyD4LWoy

Juniors
Messages
245
Yes, what would the chairman of arguably the most successful Club know? Scum they may be, but it’s hard to argue they’d know less about commercial success than our board.
And we don’t know what our sponsors would have done - because Jack isn’t playing while charged.
St.George Bank standing by us! Damo no disrespect mate but your argument has been full of assumptions on every comment you have made on this thread!
 

The Damo

Juniors
Messages
1,991
St.George Bank standing by us! Damo no disrespect mate but your argument has been full of assumptions on every comment you have made on this thread!
None taken mate, though it’s not actually an assumption to say we don’t know what sponsors would do if Jack plays, because he hasn’t played.
If he plays we’ll find out, Unless that happens saying it won’t effect sponsorships is an assumption.
 

WoyD4LWoy

Juniors
Messages
245
St.George Bank standing by us! Damo no disrespect mate but your argument has been full of assumptions on every comment you have made on this thread!
Damo I aslo appreciate your opinion mate, like I do with all Dragon supporters on every thread, might not agree but all of us a very passionate lot and all we crave is success for our mighty Saints D4L
 

2218

Juniors
Messages
167
Talk about a show boat. Takes over from a club with extensive cheating 2.4 million over 3-4 years having two premierships removed and states that he has increased sponsorship since that time by 73%. Hmmm and now he can’t get $500k because of player behaviour because of jack. Longest bow I’ve ever seen. Why didn’t the NRL call our CEO. I hope the NRL aren’t basing all their evidence on girls not playing touch footy and a club unable to find 500k.
I’d just like to know how many sponsors pull out of the NRL if jack wins. I’d suggest none. You can’t convince anyone especially a federal judge that possible future sponsorship rests solely on the jack considering all the other dramas going on.
 

WoyD4LWoy

Juniors
Messages
245
Talk about a show boat. Takes over from a club with extensive cheating 2.4 million over 3-4 years having two premierships removed and states that he has increased sponsorship since that time by 73%. Hmmm and now he can’t get $500k because of player behaviour because of jack. Longest bow I’ve ever seen. Why didn’t the NRL call our CEO. I hope the NRL aren’t basing all their evidence on girls not playing touch footy and a club unable to find 500k.
I’d just like to know how many sponsors pull out of the NRL if jack wins. I’d suggest none. You can’t convince anyone especially a federal judge that possible future sponsorship rests solely on the jack considering all the other dramas going on.
I don't understand why he had to elaborate that it isn't bias against JDB himself? Why weren't all CEO with every club giving evidence? This is a total embarrassment for the NRL!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top