Jack DeBelin interview

[TruSaint]

That case dealt with the NRL having the right to bring in the stand down rule. It did not address the NRL's responsibility towards clubs and their players effected by the stand down rule.

It should have always been the Dragons and like minded clubs challenging the NRL regarding the implications of the NRL stand down rule. It should never have been the responsibility of De Belin to fund such a challenge.

The NRL provided the club with pro rata cap dispensation. If I recall correctly, we waited months and ended up using what was left for Kafusi.

If the club wanted to challenge the NRL for additional cap money, they should have taken action. The fact that they didn't suggests to me the cost of such a challenge was worth the risk, should they lose.

 

[possm]

The NRL provided the club with pro rata cap dispensation. If I recall correctly, we waited months and ended up using what was left for Kafusi.

If the club wanted to challenge the NRL for additional cap money, they should have taken action. The fact that they didn't suggests to me the cost of such a challenge was worth the risk, should they lose.

Maybe so however, the unfairness and wrong doing is there in your own words 'pro rata' (not full compensation) and 'the cost of such a challenge was worth the risk' (suggestion a high risk challenge that may be very costly if the case was lost) which underlines my thoughts that such a challenge was beyond the financial capacity of most individual footballer's.

Of course there is also the sense that the rule applies to all future such cases, which is not the responsibility of De Belin to litigate. Such litigation is better placed at the feet of the club and other like minded clubs that have more than the financial means to support such litigation. It also fits better with the clubs to litigate given that the club/clubs are disadvantaged the most with regards to the NRL's unilateral disregard in meeting their full responsibility.

I cane out very early with regards to my view on this matter mainly because I noticed that there was great unfairness in what the NRL were doing.

 

[boardlumps62]

Glad it's the weekend eh?

 

[rasaint]

No comment on court case.

The JDB situation has meant in practise ( not theory) we have been penalised $1.2 million under the cap for the past two years. Forget the argument that ‘hey we got dispensation to increase the cap’.

1. no topline player is going to come under the uncertainty of a one year deal. Only a Kafohsi type available.
2. As the contract $$$ are dispensed over a year in practice no topline player could be acquired for $600k anyway as only about $ 240k left for 2019.
3. Our club had to find the extra $$$ anyway.

in fairness the NRL thought the case would be over before 2020. But still it has been a big punishment to us.

 

[TruSaint]

No comment on court case.

The JDB situation has meant in practise ( not theory) we have been penalised $1.2 million under the cap for the past two years. Forget the argument that ‘hey we got dispensation to increase the cap’.

1. no topline player is going to come under the uncertainty of a one year deal. Only a Kafohsi type available.
2. As the contract $$$ are dispensed over a year in practice no topline player could be acquired for $600k anyway as only about $ 240k left for 2019.
3. Our club had to find the extra $$$ anyway.

in fairness the NRL thought the case would be over before 2020. But still it has been a big punishment to us.

Then the Club should pursue legal options.
Nothing stops them doing that even now.

The fact is, as you say, the NRL expected this to be completed by now. but you can add to that the fact that our own coach was publicly opining on the case early on. Suggesting JDB will be cleared and even saying at one stage he would be expected to be on the bench ( i think it was the game v NZ).

If the NRL have caused financial harm to the Club, nothing stops them proceeding with legal action.
The timing of the NRL policy may stink, but overall Im all for it.

 

[Old Timer]

Then the Club should pursue legal options.
Nothing stops them doing that even now.

The fact is, as you say, the NRL expected this to be completed by now. but you can add to that the fact that our own coach was publicly opining on the case early on. Suggesting JDB will be cleared and even saying at one stage he would be expected to be on the bench ( i think it was the game v NZ).

If the NRL have caused financial harm to the Club, nothing stops them proceeding with legal action.
The timing of the NRL policy may stink, but overall Im all for it.

The stand down rule was hastily introduced due to a plethora of bad headlines for the NRL and of course the sever nature of the charges in the JDB case.

The intention of the NRL was to clean up the behaviour of people in and around the game and the publicity surrounding it and the motives were entirely understandable.

The fact remains though that neither the NRL nor the club actually understood the ramifications of the implementation of the policy in light of the length of time to prepare and prosecute such cases.

One would have to hope that such cases of the nature of this one are few and far between but notwithstanding that the disadvantage for our club has been enormous and that is due to that which I have written above and the simple fact as you pointed out our plank of a coach and ineffective BOD couldn't sort the wheat from the chaff and come up with a sensible plan of how De Belin would be handed under the cap arrangements due to the fact that he was unable to play.

Added to that was where do you get a like for like replacement or for that matter even a 75% replacement at short notice however the "loan system" deployed during Covid does indicate that with a little bit of though something could have been worked out better than what transpired.

I like you support the NRL in its stand but know that they need to have their legal eagles look at it and come up with the right way of handling "stand downs" as after all what players do on their own time can lead to criminal matters of which the club has no say in due to player stupidity.

 

[Forbes Creek Dragons]

No comment on court case.

The JDB situation has meant in practise ( not theory) we have been penalised $1.2 million under the cap for the past two years. Forget the argument that ‘hey we got dispensation to increase the cap’.

1. no topline player is going to come under the uncertainty of a one year deal. Only a Kafohsi type available.
2. As the contract $$$ are dispensed over a year in practice no topline player could be acquired for $600k anyway as only about $ 240k left for 2019.
3. Our club had to find the extra $$$ anyway.

in fairness the NRL thought the case would be over before 2020. But still it has been a big punishment to us.

Yes you are exactly right in regards to the fact in practice we could never get even close to an origin player on a one year deal. Same goes for Manly with Fainu. They had to buy a replacement hooker in Levi and it was just lucky for them that he was clubless. I’m not sure what else the NRL could have done though to be fair.

 

[TruSaint]

The stand down rule was hastily introduced due to a plethora of bad headlines for the NRL and of course the sever nature of the charges in the JDB case.

The intention of the NRL was to clean up the behaviour of people in and around the game and the publicity surrounding it and the motives were entirely understandable.

The fact remains though that neither the NRL nor the club actually understood the ramifications of the implementation of the policy in light of the length of time to prepare and prosecute such cases.

One would have to hope that such cases of the nature of this one are few and far between but notwithstanding that the disadvantage for our club has been enormous and that is due to that which I have written above and the simple fact as you pointed out our plank of a coach and ineffective BOD couldn't sort the wheat from the chaff and come up with a sensible plan of how De Belin would be handed under the cap arrangements due to the fact that he was unable to play.

Added to that was where do you get a like for like replacement or for that matter even a 75% replacement at short notice however the "loan system" deployed during Covid does indicate that with a little bit of though something could have been worked out better than what transpired.

I like you support the NRL in its stand but know that they need to have their legal eagles look at it and come up with the right way of handling "stand downs" as after all what players do on their own time can lead to criminal matters of which the club has no say in due to player stupidity.

What you say is correct.

The rule, as much as I am for it, was rushed with little or no consideration given as to legal and financial consequences. It's intent was and is good. The game was bleeding with off field crap week in week out.

The off field sagas were no longer sustainable for the code.

I stand by my own view that the Club handled the matter poorly, and that one player as good as he may be should not be used as an out. They had options. Granted , not "like for like", but they delayed months, insisted that the JDB matter would be resolved quickly, both coach and CEO played into the media circus when in my humble opinion, he should have been stood down on full pay.

If 2 years after the event they truly feel financial loss as a result the NRL's policy, they can still pursue legally for damages.

There is never a perfect time for a code to institute such a policy.

In the end, this policy will prove worthwhile for the whole game. Its a shame that Saints were the guinea pig.

 

[rasaint]

Hi All a lot of sensible comments.

JDB is an individual and separate from his employment got involved in a situation that led to criminal charges.

The nuances of legalities I still don’t understand. The NRL negotiates TV / media rights deals and all clubs get an equal share of a $ pie set each year and paid over by the NRL from the consolidated funds received for those media rights. ( clubs then snare sponsorship and 3rd party extra $ deals / and some clubs do better at this than others) . JDB is contracted to our club and paid by our club from the $ media right pie, sponsorship and 3rd party deals but within overall salary cap rules.

However, the NRL tell the club after a hastily developed retrospective ( I think) policy to stand JDB down on full pay to be paid by the club until JDB case is decided by a court. The HRL do not stump up the cash but ; effectively and practically the club which had nothing to do with JDB situation is heavily penalised whilst JDB is paid up in full. Our club has been hamstrung under the cap for two years.

Have I missed something.

 

[Gardenia]

Mate have you ever even considered the fact that he might be telling the truth and that everything was consensual...and if HYPOTHETICALLY that was the case, you'd still like to see him shown the door because he cheated on his pregnant girlfriend.

I'm not condoning what he did...he should have been at home looking after his partner, not out on the town playing up. But , in effect , what you are saying is that the cheating on his girlfriend alone, is enough for you to expect the club to show him the door and is enough for you to want to see him gone.

You mention Wayne Bennett. I wonder if he was coach when all this went down and Jack went to him and told him that he had done nothing wrong, i wonder if Bennett would have turned his back on him. I somehow doubt it.

Just to be clear i have no opinion on whether he is guilty or not. It is however my strongly held belief that, that is for the court to decide and no one else...

From what I’ve seen of Bennett if he believed him no way in heck would he turn his back on him

 

[Gardenia]

The NRL did not honour their obligations. If they claim that they can change the rules retrospectively to stand him down, then there is an implication that they have joint ownership of his contract and that it is the NRL's decision to stand him down and so it is the NRL's obligation to fully compensate the Dragons costs retating to this decision.

Well said .

 

[Gardenia]

I agree with the stand down policy except that is the NRLs policy and I believe they effectively stood JDB down so they should have been the ones paying his salary while the innocent club gets to replace him for full value no salary cap or monetary costs to us . How much did they pay in legal to fight the stand down rule . Then they could easily afford $600K

 

[possm]

The stand down rule was hastily introduced due to a plethora of bad headlines for the NRL and of course the sever nature of the charges in the JDB case.

The intention of the NRL was to clean up the behaviour of people in and around the game and the publicity surrounding it and the motives were entirely understandable.

The fact remains though that neither the NRL nor the club actually understood the ramifications of the implementation of the policy in light of the length of time to prepare and prosecute such cases.

One would have to hope that such cases of the nature of this one are few and far between but notwithstanding that the disadvantage for our club has been enormous and that is due to that which I have written above and the simple fact as you pointed out our plank of a coach and ineffective BOD couldn't sort the wheat from the chaff and come up with a sensible plan of how De Belin would be handed under the cap arrangements due to the fact that he was unable to play.

Added to that was where do you get a like for like replacement or for that matter even a 75% replacement at short notice however the "loan system" deployed during Covid does indicate that with a little bit of though something could have been worked out better than what transpired.

I like you support the NRL in its stand but know that they need to have their legal eagles look at it and come up with the right way of handling "stand downs" as after all what players do on their own time can lead to criminal matters of which the club has no say in due to player stupidity.

I have some questions:
If the NRL, wanting to introduce this policy, would have sat down with the Dragons and De Belin to work out a way that all were content and thus reducing the media hype over this matter, with such an agreement, would all entities be better off including the game of NRL itself?

I'd see such an agreement including:

• A ban on any comment to the media.
• The NRL taking full financial and medical responsibility by having the contract re-assigned from the Dragons to the NRL.
• The De Belin contract no longer being held on the Dragons salary cap.
• De Belin being re-assured that his salary will be paid until the end of the contract or by agreement a termination fee be paid immediately and De Belin's right to sign a new contract be suspended until the court case is determined.

 

[BennyV]

I agree with the stand down policy except that is the NRLs policy and I believe they effectively stood JDB down so they should have been the ones paying his salary while the innocent club gets to replace him for full value no salary cap or monetary costs to us . How much did they pay in legal to fight the stand down rule . Then they could easily afford $600K

Salary cap comes from NRL grants. So they effectively do/did pay his salary...

 

[possm]

Salary cap comes from NRL grants. So they effectively do/did pay his salary...

Benny V, every club gets their grant from the NRL for salary cap. The only difference here is other clubs did not have a marquee player stood down without receiving extra funds to replace him while he was on full pay.

I have never before seen you make such a silly post!

 

[BennyV]

Benny V, every club gets their grant from the NRL for salary cap. The only difference here is other clubs did not have a marquee player stood down without receiving extra funds to replace him while he was on full pay.

I have never before seen you make such a silly post!

They had every opportunity to apply for cap exemption, which could be a precursor to request additional cap grant. They chose not to, instead option to try and overturn the ruling and then choosing to keep Jack within the top 30. It’s their own fault.

 

[Dragonslayer]

They had every opportunity to apply for cap exemption, which could be a precursor to request additional cap grant. They chose not to, instead option to try and overturn the ruling and then choosing to keep Jack within the top 30. It’s their own fault.

This is 100% correct.

We had the opportunity to get max or close to the maximum when DeBelin was stood down. The fact we chose to delay the process cost us big time as far as beingxable to sigj a 'decrnt' replacement. Hence we ended up with the hobbled Kaufusi.

 

[Slippery Morris]

The rule makes sense but to backdate it to a case when the rule never existed is ridiculous. From day 1 of the rule being introduced is when it should have been applied from not before.

It's like changing the speeding conditions on a road from 70km to 60km and fining cars that were doing 60km, 6 weeks ago getting a fine in their mailbox. That is how poorly the NRL was being run and advised by the 2 dopes who are no longer there.

That is what Saints and JDB can and should have been fighting for since day 1.

The fact Saints did not replace JDB is in their favour because if they did then the NRL will say that Saints were compensated.

I have a feeling once this case is over that rule will no longer stand which is wrong as it should still be around. Now players are more aware of how it can damage their careers when they get involved in this type of stuff.

 

[Old Timer]

I have some questions:
If the NRL, wanting to introduce this policy, would have sat down with the Dragons and De Belin to work out a way that all were content and thus reducing the media hype over this matter, with such an agreement, would all entities be better off including the game of NRL itself?

I'd see such an agreement including:

• A ban on any comment to the media.
• The NRL taking full financial and medical responsibility by having the contract re-assigned from the Dragons to the NRL.
• The De Belin contract no longer being held on the Dragons salary cap.
• De Belin being re-assured that his salary will be paid until the end of the contract or by agreement a termination fee be paid immediately and De Belin's right to sign a new contract be suspended until the court case is determined.

1. If JDB had of gone home we wouldn't be discussing any of it.
2. Far too many forgetting that the legal matter relating to this is a police & DPP action and governed by laws surrounding what JDB can and cannot do as well as say or cannot say and that has nothing to do with the NRL.
3. Your notion of the NRL sitting down discussing with JDB what would be the right way to handle it is absurd as JDB is the very catalyst for the action the NRL undertook. That would be like the prosecution sitting down with him to see what he thinks about their case.
4. As expertly pointed out by Benny V our club had every opportunity to get cap relief and another player but the club stupidly hedged their bets and thought they way they saw things would come to fruition and that didn't happen so they f**ked it up completely and we have suffered for 2 years as a result and that could even be 3 years for all we know.

 

[True_Believer]

My 2 cents:

1. I believe the stand down policy is a good rule
2. I don't think the NRL should have implemented it and forced it 100% in a retrospective manner on JDB and the club AFTER the incident occurred and was in progress. I think it would have benefited from a transition period where some leniency was applied
3. I believe the leniency was applied by the granting of a pro-rated amount. This was an after though though and should have been applied for the full year.
4. In the end, the contract is between the club and JDB. As others have said, the club needed to make a decision on whether to challenge the ongoing payments with JDB or to continue to pay him throughout the whole thing. They chose the latter.
5. As a result, this decision has hindered both the club and consequently the fans for the last couple of years.

So basically, I don't see it as the responsibility for the NRL to compensate a club going forward if a player is forced to stand down. It should be the clubs responsibility to come to some agreement between them and the player.

I do think though that the NRL should have compensated us from the get go given the rule was applied for the first time after the incident happened and then was applied retrospectively. There wasn't an opportunity for the club to adjust early enough. We did get some compensation for part of the first year, but it should have been applied for the full year. As for the second year, I think it is fair enough that the club should be required to come to an agreement with the player.