Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[myanonymoususername]

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

I am hoping you are trying to be funny here.

Because if you are not, you are really, really paranoid :crazy:

 

[Lambretta]

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.

No one, regardless of how silly they are would think that incurring huge legal costs would be like getting additional salary, so they'd hardly do anything intentionally.

Being accused as a crime is not benefitting Brett Stewart or Manly in any way shape or form.

 

[myanonymoususername]

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.

"your word vs mine" will always be difficult, but courts do manage to deal with them weighing up what evidence there is. In this case there is evidence in the form of witness statements and the girl's testimony vs Stewart's "I was too pissed to remember anything". Chances are that to get off the charges his lawyers will need to discredit the witness evidence, probably by attacking the credibility of the girl and her father. I doubt he has much else.

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?

I would expect that contract clauses would terminate a player contract without compensation if he was unable to play due to being in jail. I expect any costs incurred while he was with them, and after, for that matter, would have to be included in the cap as they relate to the payment of a player.

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.

I would say so. Unfair maybe, but that's life. Something that Manly should have weighed up before deciding to pay his personal legal costs.

 

[sportive cupid]

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

Which somone?
The girl?
The Police?
The Lawyers?

 

[myanonymoususername]

No one, regardless of how silly they are would think that incurring huge legal costs would be like getting additional salary, so they'd hardly do anything intentionally.

Being accused as a crime is not benefitting Brett Stewart or Manly in any way shape or form.

No they wouldn't, but the fact is that he is not having to pay those costs out of his salary, like anyone else probably would. He doesn't have to use his own money, so it is basically equivalent to be paid more.

Being accused is no benefit, but having your legal fees paid for you is a benefit to him. It saves him having to fork out $$$ from his own pocket.

 

[Noa]

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.

Plenty of examples in the "real world" where organisations pay for a lawyer to defend a prized employee.

And it shouldnt count towards a cap as its not as if its a lure that will entice players to stay or play their "hey, come play for us, when you get charged for rape, we'll pay for your defence". :roll:

 

[sportive cupid]

Well it would certainly act as an incentive for this particular player.

 

[Dutchy]

Except this player is pretty much Manly for life anyway.

 

[myanonymoususername]

Plenty of examples in the "real world" where organisations pay for a lawyer to defend a prized employee.

And it shouldnt count towards a cap as its not as if its a lure that will entice players to stay or play their "hey, come play for us, when you get charged for rape, we'll pay for your defence". :roll:

And if they do, it will be a taxable fringe benefit - so the company is going to pay tax on it. Also, I'd agree that they would pay to defend a prized employee for civil matters, and for things they do in connection with their job, but I doubt its common where someone goes and gets pissed and assaults someone. I think if you did that, most places would fire you.

 

[meltiger]

I would expect that contract clauses would terminate a player contract without compensation if he was unable to play due to being in jail. I expect any costs incurred while he was with them, and after, for that matter, would have to be included in the cap as they relate to the payment of a player.

I was going to answer Lambretta on this one but I think you've covered it.

IF Brett is found guilty and given a custodial sentence, then he is unable to provide the services he is contracted for and you'd expect Manly wouldn't have to pay any further salary.


If guilty and no custodial sentence was imposed, then it becomes an interesting one for the legal types to go over the exact wording of the NRL contracts and what the club can/can't do in the case of a player doing commiting such a crime.

If Manly pays them then it could have some huge implications for the club.

Not sure what you mean here? Are you suggesting what I was before re: Manly possibly being financially liable?

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.

My *guess would be that it really should make no difference what the outcome of the case is. It's simply an issue of whether or not the costs are included.

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.

* Edit, actually no you're not a Manly fan? Do you mean your trying to ignore any hatred you have towards Manly?

It's funny though, my hatred of Manly is countered by the fact that I really do like Stewart as a player, so I'm definitly conflicted

And it shouldnt count towards a cap as its not as if its a lure that will entice players to stay or play their "hey, come play for us, when you get charged for rape, we'll pay for your defence". :roll:

So if Wests Tigers offer Billy Slater 700k per year for 3 years & Melbourne offer 600k & Slater chooses the Tigers. Two years into the contract, the Tigers decide to up his contract for the 3rd year to 900k. Should that money be counted? It has absoloutely no relevance to whether he plays for the Tigers or not as he is already contracted...

 

[Lambretta]

And if they do, it will be a taxable fringe benefit - so the company is going to pay tax on it. Also, I'd agree that they would pay to defend a prized employee for civil matters, and for things they do in connection with their job, but I doubt its common where someone goes and gets pissed and assaults someone. I think if you did that, most places would fire you.

If he is found guilty, Manly will fire him
Then the costs wont be counted in their cap as he will be a non player.

You cant backdate costs to last seasons cap.

Plus if a star performer at a bank that earned their company big dividends was accused of rape, they'd only sack them if found guilty.

Companies don't sack people automatically if accused of something. It's due to something called presumption of innocence and people are entitled to it.

 

[meltiger]

If he is found guilty, Manly will fire him
Then the costs wont be counted in their cap as he will be a non player.

You cant backdate costs to last seasons cap.

Any legal costs, short of an appeal if found guilty would have been incurred whilst he was still a contracted player.

 

[Lambretta]

Not sure what you mean here? Are you suggesting what I was before re: Manly possibly being financially liable?

My *guess would be that it really should make no difference what the outcome of the case is. It's simply an issue of whether or not the costs are included.

Oh look I understand, it's tough to post without accusations of bias when it's your own team, but you've been arguing & raising your points in a factual matter, so I don't think anyone should accuse you of that. We just disagree is all.

It's funny though, my hatred of Manly is countered by the fact that I really do like Stewart as a player, so I'm definitly conflicted

Man this has been an interesting discussion and I really appreciate the different points of view.

The implications I meant about Manly and this being included under the cap are this

Imagine a $500,000 costs for the case.

If Manly have to take that out of their cap, you can imagine they'd struggle attracting top players etc. Lower position on the ladder, less memberships, less gate receipts, less tv exposure etc etc etc. Like I said huge.


The outcome of the case WOULD have further implications. If he loses he could then face not only costs but also damages awards and who pays those? They can be hugemungous.

I am against putting this under the cap because a dangerous precedent could be set and including it potentially can lead to future cans of worms being opened that really need to be kept well enough away.

I think the NRL can claim this as being a "unique" incident and give it exemption.

 

[El Diablo]

I think the NRL can claim this as being a "unique" incident and give it exemption.

why?

players have been in court many times over the years

 

[cupid]

bro? Maybe this bloke has confused Brett Stewart with a Kiwi.

Maybe he starts urinating everywhere whenever he gets drunk, and that is what she was referring to.

Well, this is a shut and dried case.

Does sound a bit odd, I remember when I talked to him at a function, he didn't seem like the type of guy to say 'bro'

 

[Lambretta]

why?

players have been in court many times over the years

Have their costs been included under the salary cap?

I have no idea?

If so, Manly are in pooh. If not, then we've solved the riddle.

 

[El Diablo]

Have their costs been included under the salary cap?

I have no idea?

If so, Manly are in pooh. If not, then we've solved the riddle.

no idea

but i have never read about anything being paid for by the club unlike what was said about Stewart, Manly and this case

 

[Lambretta]

Any legal costs, short of an appeal if found guilty would have been incurred whilst he was still a contracted player.

Which leads me to another thought.

If a different player in the future IS accused of something and a club thinks "wow - salary cap breach approaching" they're far more likely to cut the player and hang them out to dry to avoid the risk of the costs effecting their cap.

Remember, if the player is found guilty and the NRL can back date the costs to previous years and fine the sh*t out of them for breaching the cap etc etc - which club would risk it?

 

[El Diablo]

"wow - salary cap breach approaching" they're far more likely to cut the player and hang them out to dry to avoid the risk of the costs effecting their cap.

i'd say it's more likely they'd keep the player but tell him to pay his own legal fees

 

[myanonymoususername]

From the NRL's Salary Cap page.

For players in the top 25 Salary Cap or 2nd Tier Salary Cap, the Salary Cap value for a player each year is broken down into the following categories:

• Playing Fee - fully included in the Salary Cap
• Included Benefits - all benefits provided to players including accommodation, travel, motor vehicles, interest free loans and manager's fees and any applicable fringe benefits tax.

the Salary Cap Auditor has specifically excluded the following benefits to players:

• Tertiary education (TAFE & University)
• Approved Traineeships
• Medical insurance costs
• Relocation & temporary accommodation costs

Pretty sure all that says the club paying your legal expenses would be within the cap.