Clinton fined $50,000

[Meth]

Harsh, over the top and all of that.......but playing devil's advocate, i wonder what other options clubs have other than to get harsh and over the top. You can only hit someone over the head with a feather for so long. With all due respect to the players, it would seem that they haven't exactly been quick on the uptake when it comes to "behaviour required to minimise the risk of negative publicity".

If that's the case, then they are shooting themselves in the foot. Why generate unnecessary bad publicity for the sake of being seen to do something about it?

 

[rickywalford1]

If that's the case, then they are shooting themselves in the foot. Why generate unnecessary bad publicity for the sake of being seen to do something about it?

I suppose the debate there is whether the club taking a hard line against a rule breaking player right now is bad publicity. Personally, I think the Bronco's might view the publicity of their harsh stance as being a positive.

 

[Meth]

The Broncos has brought Clinton (as if that's a crime) to the media's attention.

I fail to see how that's in the player's, club's or game's best interest

 

[coolumsharkie]

I suppose the debate there is whether the club taking a hard line against a rule breaking player right now is bad publicity. Personally, I think the Bronco's might view the publicity of their harsh stance as being a positive.

Yeah, a positive for French Rugby.

 

[rickywalford1]

Yeah, a positive for French Rugby.

Yeah, i understand that too. But the NRL fishbowl and media frenzy is what it is. Can't see it changing in a hurry, so if you work in it right now i think you need to adapt. If he was told prior this is what is going too happen......i dont think he has too far to look when searching for someone to be pissed off at.

 

[Meth]

i dont think he has too far to look when searching for someone to be pissed off at.

Neither

He has every right to be pissed off at the Broncos

 

[rickywalford1]

The Broncos has brought Clinton (as if that's a crime) to the media's attention.

I fail to see how that's in the player's, club's or game's best interest

Ok. We see it differantly. In your statement, I would replace "shagging some bird" with "breaking a clearly defined club regulation that has been put in place to minimise the risk of further media sh*tstorms".

I see it as being in the clubs and games best interest because they are seen to be acting decisively.

As for Clinton, if he took a "f**k your rules, i'm doing it anyway" approach, should the club be focussed on acting in his best interests ? In my workplace, if you start disregarding the terms of your employment, your "best interests" tend to take a backseat.

 

[MacDougall]

I reckon Hunt and Thaiday must have walked in on him playing the chick a love song on his geeetar and got offended enough when he turned down their camera proposal to tell the higher ups who found it ludicrous and unacceptable behaviour for a football player.

 

[adamkungl]

Sassy went to a lecture on the issues of women and league and apparently the broncos came up with a code of conduct saying players can't bring back women to their hotel rooms while in camp. The players all signed agreements or something. So in this case it isn't the 'moral crusaders' (whoever they are) it's the club and the playrs who all came to an agreement on a code of conduct.

Who would actually sign for the Broncos after this mess? What a ridiculous thing to have in a code of conduct

 

[Meth]

re editing of post #83- you're right, they could have been playing 'Snakes and Ladders'

 

[Twizzle]

re editing of post #83- you're right, they could have been playing 'Snakes and Ladders'

maybe they did but until you can sunbstantiate otherwise, thats all we can comment on

 

[Meth]

As for Clinton, if he took a "f**k your rules, i'm doing it anyway" approach, should the club be focussed on acting in his best interests ? In my workplace, if you start disregarding the terms of your employment, your "best interests" tend to take a backseat.

What other work place has such an intrusive interest in your (alleged/insinuated/implied) sex life as a professional Rugby League these days?

I haven't seen too many headlines about lawyers/bus drivers/taxidermists being fined 50k without committing any illegalities

 

[sooperdooper]

That is the worst punishment i have EVER seen.
If i were Clinton i would not be willing to pay the fine and risk getting the sack and find a new club.
That is terrible treatment...

 

[rickywalford1]

What other work place has such an intrusive interest in your (alleged/insinuated/implied) sex life as a professional Rugby League these days?

I haven't seen too many headlines about lawyers/bus drivers/taxidermists being fined 50k without committing any illegalities

Not many I wouldn't have thought.....but what other workplace are the media so interested in it. They dont seem to care too much about the sex life of the average lawyer, bus driver or taxidermist. Unfortuneatley for us fans of the game and NRL players, events over the last couple of years have made player interaction with women while on trips away a pretty big focus for the media. I can see the logic in clubs trying to put some protection in place.

 

[Meth]

but what other workplace are the media so interested in it.

If you've got a child that has an unhealthy appetite for turds, the answer isn't to feed them more turds

 

[meltiger]

As for Clinton, if he took a "f**k your rules, i'm doing it anyway" approach, should the club be focussed on acting in his best interests ? In my workplace, if you start disregarding the terms of your employment, your "best interests" tend to take a backseat.

I think you're pretty much on the money here but only when looking at Clinton in isolation.


I was a touch suprised reading about it this morning but my take on it is -

#A - If the Broncos had a clear rule in place, which Clinton broke - The Broncos are entitled to fine him

Moving forward though

#B - The actual existence of such a rule shows how the game is jumping at shadows and allowing the hysteria of the bottom feeders in the media to impact on the game. This rule (& the reasons given by the club for it) is extremely ridiculous and IMHO impacting on a players personal life in a way the sport shouldn't have any right to do so. When is the game going to take a f**king stance against the media and demand that they be treated fairly rather than go down this road of being submissive to the scumbags?


Joel did the wrong thing by breaking what seems to be a clearly defined team rule, but moving forward things need to change.

 

[whalan12]

maybe the broncos are making an example out of clinton, showing the other players that any wrong doing will be punished severely in hope that the club will keep scandal free..

either way i think its very harsh..

 

[rickywalford1]

If you've got a child that has an unhealthy appetite for turds, the answer isn't to feed them more turds

Crikey....and i thought mine's issue with sugar was a problem.

I think that's where we see it differantly. You see the reporting of Clinton as a real negative, where i don't really think it is.

 

[Nightward]

I was under the impression that the punishment for bringing the lady to the team hotel was being stood down for a week, whilst the $50K fine was applied because he released a statement to the media explaining why he had been stood down.

On one hand, $50K is a massive fine, seemingly out of proportion to what he did (which, to be honest, ended potentially harmful speculation about the reasons he had been stood down). On the other hand, he has apparently broken his contract and/or confidentiality agreements with the club, so some penalty was likely warranted if only to set precedent.

Insofar as the "but last year they didn't do this!" line goes, no- they didn't. And yes, what happened last year was worse. However we can hope that the Broncos have drawn a line in the sand and will be applying the same standards to every player from now on. Pulling the trigger on fringe players like Seymour, Costigan, and the rest is all well and good, but you do need to walk the walk after talking the talk, and they failed to do that last time around.

 

[franklin2323]

$50k seems harsh for a 1st offence. we all know the Broncos are secretive! Maybe it was a 2nd or a 3rd offence. He had a couple of breaches while at Penrith maybe he has had the same up there

The club didn't why he was dropped he said that in the papers on Sunday maybe that's part of the fine.

I think more of these harsh fines are to come in the current climate. all you needed was the girl leaving the hotel and claiming something wrong happened and it's on the News and papers again