Barba sacked by Cowboys

[Phil McGrawhan]

I've already asked this in a different thread but haven't seen an answer. What if the player is in the final year of their contract and the case goes for 2 years? Who pays their wages then? Unless the NRL is going to foot the bill (unlikely), the player will lose their earning capacity.

They've got to think outside the box when it comes to issues like serious crimes/ court proceedings . Etc .

Why couldn't it be written in every NRL contract that any serious cases like JDB ..
They continue playing till case is resolved .( innocent till proven guilty)
They are paid but if found guilty they forfeit all contract money from the day they are charged.....money held till court case over .
If guilty then that portion of contract $$ goes towards victim compensation .

I'm no legal brain ..just throwing ideas around ..
In the end something has to be done to try to keep the dumb players in line

 

[taipan]

I've already asked this in a different thread but haven't seen an answer. What if the player is in the final year of their contract and the case goes for 2 years? Who pays their wages then? Unless the NRL is going to foot the bill (unlikely), the player will lose their earning capacity.

I would assume, the player in question continues to receive his monies(and so he should) till the expiration of his current contract.
And like any other player cleanskin or otherwise ,he is then on the open market, and it is up to his or other clubs to take the punt and continue to pay him under the new deal, until case heard for final decision as to guilt or innocence.
Just like Hayne is left in limbo out of contract ATM.
The fact there are charges laid, innocent or guilty ,the game has been brought into disrepute.
He still retains earnings under his current contract ,which is also an acknowledgement of neither guilt or innocence, but concern for the player and his dependants.

 

[firechild]

I would assume, the player in question continues to receive his monies(and so he should) till the expiration of his current contract.
And like any other player cleanskin or otherwise ,he is then on the open market, and it is up to his or other clubs to take the punt and continue to pay him under the new deal, until case heard for final decision as to guilt or innocence.
Just like Hayne is left in limbo out of contract ATM.
The fact there are charges laid, innocent or guilty ,the game has been brought into disrepute.
He still retains earnings under his current contract ,which is also an acknowledgement of neither guilt or innocence, but concern for the player and his dependants.

But you said the player retains his earning capacity. The fact that you're suggesting a player who has not been found guilty of a crime would not be allowed to play would absolutely lose his earning capacity because no club would want to sign a player for the upcoming season who is likely to be unavailable for the entire season. The player, once found not guilty would absolutely be in a position to sue for damages and loss of earnings.

 

[taipan]

But you said the player retains his earning capacity. The fact that you're suggesting a player who has not been found guilty of a crime would not be allowed to play would absolutely lose his earning capacity because no club would want to sign a player for the upcoming season who is likely to be unavailable for the entire season. The player, once found not guilty would absolutely be in a position to sue for damages and loss of earnings.

He retains his earning capacity whilst under contract. A given.

Wait a minute, if a player is awaiting his case, he naturally is presumed innocent, not a case of being found "not guilty".That is for the court to decide.

And why would a club necessarily take up a player under a new deal( who can play,) his status uncertain ATT, and then lose him due to a guilty verdict, with all the attached negativity that goes with it.

Hayne is in the situation ,where he is neither guilty or innocent,as his case has not been heard.Why have clubs not jumped up to grab him, as he, when he wants to be, is a quality player?

From what I gather, the NRL clubs are crapping blue lights, as to the effect all the negative publicity is doing to their clubs' bottom line and prestige.Think the AOC stands athletes down.

 

[firechild]

He retains his earning capacity whilst under contract. A given.

Never disagreed with that part.

Wait a minute, if a player is awaiting his case, he naturally is presumed innocent, not a case of being found "not guilty".That is for the court to decide.

Not sure what point you're making here. I specifically said "has not been found guilty", i.e. has the presumption of innocence.

And why would a club necessarily take up a player under a new deal( who can play,) his status uncertain ATT, and then lose him due to a guilty verdict, with all the attached negativity that goes with it.

Hayne is in the situation ,where he is neither guilty or innocent,as his case has not been heard.Why have clubs not jumped up to grab him, as he, when he wants to be, is a quality player?

The part that you're not understanding here is that there is a difference between a club choosing to not employ a person and the NRL saying that a person cannot work and therefore making the person unemployable. If all 16 clubs choose not to employ someone, the person has no recourse. If the NRL mandate that the person cannot work then they have taken action to deny him the opportunity to earn an income.

If a club wants to sign a player who has pending charges against them, they are free to write clauses in the contract which terminate the contract if a guilty verdict or plea are found/entered.

From what I gather, the NRL clubs are crapping blue lights, as to the effect all the negative publicity is doing to their clubs' bottom line and prestige.Think the AOC stands athletes down.

That is very different. An athlete cannot compete in the olympics but the AOC does not impact their regular employment. This would be comparable to a player being stood down from representative duties but being free to play for their club.

 

[taipan]

Never disagreed with that part.


Not sure what point you're making here. I specifically said "has not been found guilty", i.e. has the presumption of innocence.


The part that you're not understanding here is that there is a difference between a club choosing to not employ a person and the NRL saying that a person cannot work and therefore making the person unemployable. If all 16 clubs choose not to employ someone, the person has no recourse. If the NRL mandate that the person cannot work then they have taken action to deny him the opportunity to earn an income.

If a club wants to sign a player who has pending charges against them, they are free to write clauses in the contract which terminate the contract if a guilty verdict or plea are found/entered.



That is very different. An athlete cannot compete in the olympics but the AOC does not impact their regular employment. This would be comparable to a player being stood down from representative duties but being free to play for their club.

OK 1st para understand, my rushing in.

I am fully aware of the difference.
And how many clubs have signed players with pending charges against them have been signed up under the current rules?Few.

Where's the rush to sign Hayne?They could write clauses in the contract accordingly, but no club has taken up the offer.Clubs are running scared .
There are of course clauses in player contracts, re behavioural issues.


If the player continues to earn income whilst being stood down, he is still earning an income, still presumed innocent .ATM he has that ability to play or even play SOO.What sort of cloud does that cast over the game or rep duty?
I know where you are coming from, eg re teh Stewart episode,which was badly handled by Gallop & Co.and he was found completely innocent. SKD another example.

The athlete is still stood down for the Olympics, and would lose any bonuses etc as a result.His name still tarnished.
In private enterprise people can be stood down on full pay, then reinstated .It has happened in the Public Service ,difference they are not paid to be entertainers for the public.Even in the Police Force.

I repeat we cannot continue along the current path, with the number of serious allegations over the off season, the damage done.According to clubs the whole shebang has cost the 16 clubs min $10.5m.

If it was the odd occasion ,then like the AFL which has similar rules to the NRL now, the issue would not be such a one that we are currently debating now, for the NRL.

I'm the first to admit I haven't got the magic answer, just are mere pleb, but putting the player out on the field just doesn't sit well with me and I'm not alone ,especially when allegation details (and they are only allegations ATM) are given full publicity in the media.The media also has a lot to answer fore in the way stories are written. It's almost trial by the media.

I have daughters and know their attitude.

If there's a better way,I'm all ears.Anyway the ARLC will make a determination on 28th Feb, whether to retain the current system ,or bring in a stand down edict.They will seek thorough legal advice, and it may well end up as is.
The head of the Melbourne Storm ,Campbell, is most vocal on the stand down, knowing the impact the off season is having .
The NRL ATM is in a no win situation, but they opened a Pandora's box ,when repeat offenders were forgiven time and time again.

 

[AJB1102]

I've already asked this in a different thread but haven't seen an answer. What if the player is in the final year of their contract and the case goes for 2 years? Who pays their wages then? Unless the NRL is going to foot the bill (unlikely), the player will lose their earning capacity.

No club would be signing JDB for 2020 and beyond if he were off contract, whether he was allowed to play or not. There is absolutely no way he'd be signed if he couldn't play. His case may take a year or two to be resolved then if found not guilty I can't see him getting big dollars at 30 after 2+ years out of the game.

How long is he contracted to Dragons? Cause if he's not been cleared by the courts before his current deal expires he's gonna be in limbo for who knows how long. It's harsh but he'll be no one's responsibility if his contract winds up before his legal matters.

 

[firechild]

I am fully aware of the difference.
And how many clubs have signed players with pending charges against them have been signed up under the current rules?Few.

I'm not sure that you do because your very next sentence completely misses the point.

Nobody can force an organisation to employ someone. The clubs have complete autonomy when it comes to making a decision about whether they want to take a risk or not. Nobody is racing to sign Hayne which is unsurprising. However, nobody is actually denying Hayne the opportunity to earn a living in rugby league.

If this was mandated by the NRL then they would be denying him the opportunity to earn a living.

Ultimately the outcome is likely to be the same (i.e. the player ends up with no contract) but from a legal perspective, there is a huge difference between organisations choosing not to offer a contract and the governing body preventing a person from being allowed to work.

The NRL ATM is in a no win situation, but they opened a Pandora's box ,when repeat offenders were forgiven time and time again.

Absolutely agree. I've said as much previously. The NRL has created this mess and now they have no basis to work from. If they had been consistent either way from the start, they would have a valid argument but as it stands, any argument they make can be countered by examples of their own actions.

No club would be signing JDB for 2020 and beyond if he were off contract, whether he was allowed to play or not. There is absolutely no way he'd be signed if he couldn't play. His case may take a year or two to be resolved then if found not guilty I can't see him getting big dollars at 30 after 2+ years out of the game.

How long is he contracted to Dragons? Cause if he's not been cleared by the courts before his current deal expires he's gonna be in limbo for who knows how long. It's harsh but he'll be no one's responsibility if his contract winds up before his legal matters.

That is likely to be true, but as I've said above, any organisation has the right to not offer employment but the governing body blocking a person from working is a very different thing from a legal perspective.

 

[AJB1102]

That is likely to be true, but as I've said above, any organisation has the right to not offer employment but the governing body blocking a person from working is a very different thing from a legal perspective.

Which is why I think NRL leave it up to player and club. If he's good to play out his contract no worries, if he's not it's between them. Once that contract expires though JDB will have very little bargaining power if still playing and zero if he's not.

 

[Chimp]

What do people reckon to Fox running an article like this;

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/bl...e/news-story/54a6d4d65b66c9b79147579ce3a8d819

I know he's clearly a troubled dick - but reckon this type of article is deadset shithouse journalism (I use that word loosely). They're just rubbing it in and taking the piss out of him, but there's nothing wrong with working as a $20 an hour tradie. If anything, I'd suggest it's something to be proud of, especially in these circumstances - shows he's been able to swallow his pride, and regardless of how he may sometimes act towards his Mrs (Usually after both have been drinking), his priority is still to provide for his family, in whatever way he can.

 

[Pommy]

What do people reckon to Fox running an article like this;

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/bl...e/news-story/54a6d4d65b66c9b79147579ce3a8d819

I know he's clearly a troubled dick - but reckon this type of article is deadset shithouse journalism (I use that word loosely). They're just rubbing it in and taking the piss out of him, but there's nothing wrong with working as a $20 an hour tradie. If anything, I'd suggest it's something to be proud of, especially in these circumstances - shows he's been able to swallow his pride, and regardless of how he may sometimes act towards his Mrs (Usually after both have been drinking), his priority is still to provide for his family, in whatever way he can.

It’s crap but you can’t expect anything else really.

 

[Willie Ray]

What do people reckon to Fox running an article like this;

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/bl...e/news-story/54a6d4d65b66c9b79147579ce3a8d819

I know he's clearly a troubled dick - but reckon this type of article is deadset shithouse journalism (I use that word loosely). They're just rubbing it in and taking the piss out of him, but there's nothing wrong with working as a $20 an hour tradie. If anything, I'd suggest it's something to be proud of, especially in these circumstances - shows he's been able to swallow his pride, and regardless of how he may sometimes act towards his Mrs (Usually after both have been drinking), his priority is still to provide for his family, in whatever way he can.

Well for starters he's not a 'tradie'...
you gotta do an apprenticeship to become a tradesman...it's an insult to every person who spent four years or so starting from the very bottom of the heap to learn a trade....except journalism though,
seems like any f**king goon can become a 'journo'.

 

[Life's Good]

What do people reckon to Fox running an article like this;

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/bl...e/news-story/54a6d4d65b66c9b79147579ce3a8d819

I know he's clearly a troubled dick - but reckon this type of article is deadset shithouse journalism (I use that word loosely). They're just rubbing it in and taking the piss out of him, but there's nothing wrong with working as a $20 an hour tradie. If anything, I'd suggest it's something to be proud of, especially in these circumstances - shows he's been able to swallow his pride, and regardless of how he may sometimes act towards his Mrs (Usually after both have been drinking), his priority is still to provide for his family, in whatever way he can.

I reckon not a lot to be honest.
There are no quotes attributed to anyone. To me, it’s someone that works with him, snapped a few photos & sent them on. Some gossip rag picks it up & runs with it as a ‘story’. Notice the article is credited to ‘staff writers’ ergo the Fox cleaner cobbled the story together.

 

[Whip Whitaker]

Sad journalism really...

 

[myrrh ken]

Cant wait till they interview his kids

 

[kdalymc]

“Ben Barba kicks rocks at smoko, still has anger issues”

 

[Twizzle]

Its typical of Fox to produce gossip articles like this, nothing really to do with League any more.

Then again, I dont really expect them to raise the bar in journalism, its just all about clickbait now days.

 

[Knight Vision]

What do people reckon to Fox running an article like this;

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/bl...e/news-story/54a6d4d65b66c9b79147579ce3a8d819

I know he's clearly a troubled dick - but reckon this type of article is deadset shithouse journalism (I use that word loosely). They're just rubbing it in and taking the piss out of him, but there's nothing wrong with working as a $20 an hour tradie. If anything, I'd suggest it's something to be proud of, especially in these circumstances - shows he's been able to swallow his pride, and regardless of how he may sometimes act towards his Mrs (Usually after both have been drinking), his priority is still to provide for his family, in whatever way he can.

the media gives the masses what the masses want = outrage and revenge. That article is just a reflection of society and what it thirsts for, entertainment and a perversely intimate view of others from the safety of anonymity, to allow them to throw stones from the sidelines and the joy of watching others fail.It's nothing more than a fleeting distraction from their boring mundane lives and a chance to spew their bile and vent their anger. Would you expect anything more than a sewer from the Murdoch empire? Rupert Murdoch is a cancer on society.

 

[Chimp]

the media gives the masses what the masses want = outrage and revenge. That article is just a reflection of society and what it thirsts for, entertainment and a perversely intimate view of others from the safety of anonymity, to allow them to throw stones from the sidelines and the joy of watching others fail.It's nothing more than a fleeting distraction from their boring mundane lives and a chance to spew their bile and vent their anger. Would you expect anything more than a sewer from the Murdoch empire? Rupert Murdoch is a cancer on society.

That's absolutely right, a sad reflection on society really. Where all this bullshit 'reality' TV is a thing, where being a bit of a weirdo and happy to either kick of with people for no apparent reason, or sleep with randoms as part of a TV show is seen as something not only worth watching, but something worthy of celeb status.
This alongside the snowflake culture.... the world's gone completely mad. What happened to good old fashioned values of working hard, playing hard and looking after your friends and family.
Social media has a lot to answer for.

 

[Saxon]

the media gives the masses what the masses want = outrage and revenge.

Not quite. The media actually tells us that's what we want and then feeds it to us.

Rupert Murdoch is a cancer on society.

Amen