Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[Lambretta]

what a load of garbage

next you'll tell me clubs should be allowed to pay for speeding fines

Big difference between a speeding fine and a team of lawyers in costs.

So would you say that all costs incurred by a player should be born by the player or included under the cap?

The point I was making is that clubs pay costs for players for a variety of reasons that aren't included in the cap. Why should this specifically be included if it's not "salary"?

I'm being genuine by the way and I thought the medical example was a good one and not garbage

 

[meltiger]

i was replying to someone else who chose to mention what they seemed to think the AFL would do

ask them

Ah, missed that post.


He must be confused about who stood down Lovett.


Obviously a different situation, Lovett had priors and was at a new club and is alleged to have commited a crime within a very short frame.


I'm also not suggesting Manly should do any such thing, innocent until proven guilty. (I have to admit, I am having some extreme trouble believing the father - His history + the earlier good point about the fathers reaction (lack of) towards Brett on the night)

 

[El Diablo]

medical was terrible as it is about getting them on the field as a result of being injured playing the game they are paid for

Stewart being on trial for sexual assault had nothing to do with the club. he should be paying for his own defence

 

[El Diablo]

Ah, missed that post.


He must be confused about who stood down Lovett.


Obviously a different situation, Lovett had priors and was at a new club and is alleged to have commited a crime within a very short frame.


I'm also not suggesting Manly should do any such thing, innocent until proven guilty. (I have to admit, I am having some extreme trouble believing the father - His history + the earlier good point about the fathers reaction (lack of) towards Brett on the night)

from what i've read it may cost them a bit for doing that too

 

[meltiger]

Big difference between a speeding fine and a team of lawyers in costs.

So would you say that all costs incurred by a player should be born by the player or included under the cap?

The point I was making is that clubs pay costs for players for a variety of reasons that aren't included in the cap. Why should this specifically be included if it's not "salary"?

I'm being genuine by the way and I thought the medical example was a good one and not garbage

You might have some serious trouble convincing Mr Swan that paying for such legal expenses should not be considered under FBT guidelines. Which in that case would be considered salary imo for salary cap reasons. El-D is 100% on the mark.

Medical costs associated with workplace injuries, such as his knee injury would be covered under your workcover insurance and are a completely different issue.

 

[Dutchy]

I'm sorry El D. I just cant see you saying the same thing if say Hayne was in this situation.

 

[meltiger]

Maybe not... but he IS right. If the player is recieving a monetary (or equivalent) benefit from the club it should be under the cap.

 

[Dutchy]

I am sure Manly checked with the NRL before they started supporting Brett with legal costs. They arent a stupid administration.

 

[meltiger]

^ Very possible. Has it been stated anywhere that the NRL actually aren't counting it under the cap?


I'd actually be concerned if I were Manly. If found guilty.... He got sloshed at a club function, she could have recourse to sue the club if he didn't enter his home prior to the alleged incident.

 

[Ulysseus]

Forgive me if I am being ignorant, but I can't recall seeing it written anywhere that the club were paying one cent of his legal costs.
I'd only assumed this was the case, can anyone point me to an article that says otherwise or are we all just assuming?

 

[Lambretta]

medical was terrible as it is about getting them on the field as a result of being injured playing the game they are paid for

Stewart being on trial for sexual assault had nothing to do with the club. he should be paying for his own defence

Well that could well have implications about presumption of innocence.

If a player is forced to go to court to defend himself against untrue allogations and he has to take on board all the costs himself then surely you are heading into murky waters.

Also, Brett Stewart got into the state he did at a work function and was therefore still under their employ as he would be had he been injured on the field.

If you look at workers compensation laws, you are covered if you are injured etc heading to or from work.

It's very murky water indeed and I don't think there is going to be a definative right or wrong answer, but I'd be very uneasy if players were forced to have court cases taken under the salary cap. Whats then to prevent people from making up allogations for other reasons.

Personally I believe that the father of the daughter has seen the chance for some cash and is seeking compensation. If Brett IS convicted and years later it turns out he did nothing wrong........... well you can see where I'm heading and it's bloody scary.

Let's just leave salary as salary.

 

[El Diablo]

i emailed the NRL last year enquiring about this

was told they couldn't give me a ruling on it at that stage, but these sort of things are always monitored

 

[El Diablo]

Forgive me if I am being ignorant, but I can't recall seeing it written anywhere that the club were paying one cent of his legal costs.
I'd only assumed this was the case, can anyone point me to an article that says otherwise or are we all just assuming?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25151781-5001021,00.html

The Sea Eagles have hired top Sydney lawyer Geoff Bellew to handle the case.

 

[meltiger]

If you look at workers compensation laws, you are covered if you are injured etc heading to or from work.

He wasn't injured...


Besides which, if you crashed your car on the way home from a chrissy function pissed, injured yourself, killed someone and ended up charged with culpable driving, no workcover authority in the country would pay your legal fees in the criminal case.

Let's just leave salary as salary.

Except under modern employment conditions, salary/compensation isn't simply your cash rate + super. There are so many variables in play.


I'd honestly be shocked if the NRL didn't consider it under the cap if Manly were to front his legal fees.

 

[sportive cupid]

Well that could well have implications about presumption of innocence.

If a player is forced to go to court to defend himself against untrue allogations and he has to take on board all the costs himself then surely you are heading into murky waters.

Also, Brett Stewart got into the state he did at a work function and was therefore still under their employ as he would be had he been injured on the field.

If you look at workers compensation laws, you are covered if you are injured etc heading to or from work.

It's very murky water indeed and I don't think there is going to be a definative right or wrong answer, but I'd be very uneasy if players were forced to have court cases taken under the salary cap. Whats then to prevent people from making up allogations for other reasons.

Personally I believe that the father of the daughter has seen the chance for some cash and is seeking compensation. If Brett IS convicted and years later it turns out he did nothing wrong........... well you can see where I'm heading and it's bloody scary.

Let's just leave salary as salary.

Well then he is getting very bad legal advice.Only approximately10% of sexual assualt cases get a conviction,and that (i believe)includes child sexual assualt, stranger assault and gang rape.So the cahnces of getting a conviction are very slim.
Also Victims Compensation does not require that someone get a conviction or even not even go to court. It is based on the balance of probability.

So you see if Dad was looking for compensation he would be much better off going for Victims Compensation.(soemthing the legal advice should probably tell them)

 

[Ike E Bear]

Costs incurred by workers are not "salary" and aren't always classified as such.

Brett is currently undergoing surgery for rehabilitation to his leg. Doctors will be looking at him and these costs will all be incurred by the club. Manly will be paying these costs and not Brett. Should Manly have to include all these doctors costs under their cap? No, of course not.

So why are court costs specifically to be included if doctors costs are not? I think that most people would agree a certain amount of leeway should be allowed. Brett on his own would not be able to pay for a top notch defence and Manly if the case becomes very expensive could find themselves being forced out of the competition if the costs are included under cap rulings.

Imagine if the legal bill was $1,000,000? What's that as a cap breach? Total loss of all points, wooden spoon is the Bulldogs copped in 2002?

Egads! If a high profile professional athlete can't "afford" to pay for adequate legal representation, what hope does the common man have?

This situation, coupled with the Ulysseus' example (what a terrible indictment of our judicial system that is), makes me very sad for the state of the world.

 

[GongPanther]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone is on the AFL or Union payroll in all of this.

 

[myanonymoususername]

Well that could well have implications about presumption of innocence.

If a player is forced to go to court to defend himself against untrue allogations and he has to take on board all the costs himself then surely you are heading into murky waters.

Also, Brett Stewart got into the state he did at a work function and was therefore still under their employ as he would be had he been injured on the field.

If you look at workers compensation laws, you are covered if you are injured etc heading to or from work.

It's very murky water indeed and I don't think there is going to be a definative right or wrong answer, but I'd be very uneasy if players were forced to have court cases taken under the salary cap. Whats then to prevent people from making up allogations for other reasons.

Personally I believe that the father of the daughter has seen the chance for some cash and is seeking compensation. If Brett IS convicted and years later it turns out he did nothing wrong........... well you can see where I'm heading and it's bloody scary.

Let's just leave salary as salary.

Of course any legal costs defending a criminal matter should be counted under the salary cap. They are a personal benefit to the player. He doesn't have to pay his own lawyer bills. Having a $100k legal bill paid for you is like getting about an extra $200k salary.

Being a criminal matter, the case has nothing to do with his employment. It is his responsibility to defend himself, not Manly's. It would be different if he was being sued over something connected with his job, for example he kicks a footy in the crowd and brains someone. The employer would then normally have an obligation to support him legally. But in a criminal case, its basically nothing to do with his job, its his personal behaviour which he is 100% responsible for.

As for workers' compensation, yes it would cover him for injuries, maybe even ones suffered coming home from a work function. It certainly wouldn't protect him from costs he incurs because of any crime he commits while doing that.

 

[Lambretta]

Besides which, if you crashed your car on the way home from a chrissy function pissed, injured yourself, killed someone and ended up charged with culpable driving, no workcover authority in the country would pay your legal fees in the criminal case.

Except under modern employment conditions, salary/compensation isn't simply your cash rate + super. There are so many variables in play.

I'd honestly be shocked if the NRL didn't consider it under the cap if Manly were to front his legal fees.

I agree with the first part, but the weight of evidence against someone in a case like that would be hard to refute. In this case, it's a "your word against mine" situation that he actually did anything wrong.

If it isn't cap exempt you have other issues.

If he is convicted and goes to prison then Brett will be bankrupt for life if he has to pay costs (so what, tough sh*t I hear you cry). If Manly pays them then it could have some huge implications for the club. Also, they'll be paying in the future for a player no longer with the club. That's hardly fair? If they sacked him if found guilty, do they still have to count it under the cap?

If he is innocent and is found to have done nothing wrong, does he still incur some costs and are Manly still expected to include them under their cap? Paying for legal costs when your player has been found not guilty is a big call.

Look, I'm probably not right here, but I'm trying my hardest to look at this from the bigger picture whilst ignoring any bias I have towards Manly.

That's probably going to leave my opinion very much in the minority on these forums!

 

[myanonymoususername]

Brett is currently undergoing surgery for rehabilitation to his leg. Doctors will be looking at him and these costs will all be incurred by the club. Manly will be paying these costs and not Brett. Should Manly have to include all these doctors costs under their cap? No, of course not.

So why are court costs specifically to be included if doctors costs are not? I think that most people would agree a certain amount of leeway should be allowed. Brett on his own would not be able to pay for a top notch defence and Manly if the case becomes very expensive could find themselves being forced out of the competition if the costs are included under cap rulings.

Imagine if the legal bill was $1,000,000? What's that as a cap breach? Total loss of all points, wooden spoon is the Bulldogs copped in 2002?

Welcome to the real world! If you or I were charged with a crime, we would pay our own legal costs - it would be our own problem, no-one else's. If the allegations proved to be false, we might have some (slim?) chance of then being able to sue the accuser to recoup our legal costs - I think it would be a stretch though, as I think you'd need to prove they acted maliciously.