Fines Not Enough!

[Gus22]

This is not a Bulldogs bashing exercise. For the record I would like nothing better than leaving the debacle at Coffs Harbour behind & moving onwards to a healthy NRL competition with the Bulldogs very much part of it.

In my opinion however, if the Bulldogs want to put the dramas of Coffs behind them, then they needed to go further than imposing fines on anonymous players.

Whilst 25% off a contract amount is a substantial whack it does nothing to show the greater community that the club is taking the incident seriously & punishing those responsible.

Before anyone starts howling about innocence until guilt is proven just remember that the fines are for breaching club rules (ie- having women at the hotel). There is no denying from anyone that this occured. From my understanding no-one is even denying that players were involved in sexual activity with the woman in question, in a public place. The only conjecture was consent or lack thereof.

Such being the case, this blatent breach of Bulldogs policy & the calamity it brought about, not to mention the embarassment caused to the club & ALL players, the punishment meted out should have been harsher.

At the end of the day the people who lost the most were Gary Hughes & Steve Mortimer, whilst those who actually caused the problem remain anonymous & employed if somewhat out of pocket.

As a comparison, if a player fails to attend one training session without informing the club what would his punishment for the breach of that particular club rule be? He would undoubtedly be stood down for at least one match & probably fined as well.

The players involved in whatever took place should have been stood down for an absolute minimum of one match & copped afine on top.

Are the Bulldogs hierarchy therefore telling us that the incident at Coffs Harbour is not as serious as a player missing a single training session without permission? It wouls appear so.

Sorry Mr Noad but its just not good enough.

 

[Dogs Of War]

By standing them down then you have identified the player/s responsible. Good one.

 

[Dogaholic]

I got bored with this after the first line

:roll:

 

[Gus22]

By standing them down then you have identified the player/s responsible. Good one.

Whats wrong with idenytifying them?

They are being identifed as the ones who broke club rules - nothing else.
I'm sure the wives, family, & friends of the vast majority of players not involved in any way would appreciate the instant removal of speculation & innuendo that will always hang over them whilst those involved remain anonymous.

St. Kilda immediately named the two players involved in their scandal thereby removing any suspicion over the rest of their squad.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Because the St Kilda players were not under any confidentality agreements. The club could get sued by the players if their names were to be revealed as that would mean that a leak in the club occured.

 

[ibeme]

As you said, this fine is for breaching the code of conduct - bringing a girl back to the room, and having sexual relations. If we're about to start sacking players for doing this, then we'd have start sacking half the players in the NRL - Chris Walker for assaulting a police officer for example. That's a criminal offence.

Apart from possibly breaching their workplace agreement (don't know if this extends to this case), by identifying the players, they are inadvertantly linking their names to a criminal act in many peoples minds. Whether we like it or not, their are plenty of people who still consider the players to be guilty of a criminal act. As soon as they have names of the fined players, they'll automatically link those names to a criminal act. That's when it becomes defamatory. If people start singling players out to hurl abuse at, and accuse of being rapists. If they call radio stations etc linking the players with a crime, then that's extremely damaging to the players. They are not guilty of any crimes, and therefore they deserve protection from those who refuse to accept that.

 

[Penelope Pittstop]

moved the thread to CC.

Just so that the Dogs fans have there own area where they can discuss football.

 

[DJ1]

The players involved in whatever took place should have been stood down for an absolute minimum of one match & copped afine on top.

The players who were fined will be stood down in round 14

 

[Dogaholic]

moved the thread to CC.

Just so that the Dogs fans have there own area where they can discuss football.

After that comment, ill risk getting banned by saying F*CK YOU!

 

[El Diablo]

moved the thread to CC.

Just so that the Dogs fans have there own area where they can discuss football.

:lol:

 

[El Diablo]

Because the St Kilda players were not under any confidentality agreements. The club could get sued by the players if their names were to be revealed as that would mean that a leak in the club occured.

If that's the case then it's an even bigger joke.

How a player can sue a club for being named because he broke the rules seems ridiculous.

 

[Gus22]

Because the St Kilda players were not under any confidentality agreements. The club could get sued by the players if their names were to be revealed as that would mean that a leak in the club occured.

If that's the case then it's an even bigger joke.

How a player can sue a club for being named because he broke the rules seems ridiculous.

I think you'll find this bloke is making it up as he goes along.

 

[Dogaholic]

Because the St Kilda players were not under any confidentality agreements. The club could get sued by the players if their names were to be revealed as that would mean that a leak in the club occured.

If that's the case then it's an even bigger joke.

How a player can sue a club for being named because he broke the rules seems ridiculous.

I think you'll find this bloke is making it up as he goes along.

I think you will find that it was their work place agreement. The club could have been sued.

That has all been changed now though....

Dogs code includes sack
By Stuart Honeysett
May 19, 2004

THE Bulldogs players have initiated a tough punishment under their own revised code of conduct that would result in the sacking of any player who brings the game into disrepute.

THE Bulldogs players have initiated a tough punishment under their own revised code of conduct that would result in the sacking of any player who brings the game into disrepute.

The new penalty agreement emerged yesterday after club chief executive Malcolm Noad announced that several players had been fined up to 25 per cent of their contracts for a range of matters stemming from the Coffs Harbour scandal.

It is understood that up to six players were fined, the amount totalled more than $100,000 and the monies will be divided equally between charities and player education programs.

Noad said the Bulldogs would accept the NRL's $150,000 fine (and $350,000 good behaviour bond) and stressed the internal fines had nothing to do with the recent police investigation into rape allegations.

"We have viewed the whole thing in totality, fined them under the code of conduct, but the players have made it very clear they don't want this to happen again," Noad said.

"They've said if they do find themselves in this position - this position of bringing the game into disrepute - then they think the players' contracts should be torn up."

The players' committee of captain Steve Price, Dennis Scott, Jamaal Lolesi, Jamie Feeney, Mark O'Meley and Corey Hughes, has been active in the past month helping to rewrite the club's code of conduct.

Price, who is in Toowoomba visiting his family before joining the rest of the Queensland team in camp today, said the club could not afford any more slip-ups.

"If you don't understand the rules now, you're pretty ignorant given what's happened," Price said.

"There would have to be a lot taken into consideration first. You wouldn't like to see a guy get sacked for a very minor incident or a first offence. But you would hope that we weren't ever going to have one of those situations again that we have to go down that path. And I presume that the board definitely won't put up with anything from now on."

The club fines were the last order of unfinished business following the infamous pre-season trial against Canberra in Coffs Harbour in February which led to rape allegations against six players.

The police investigation ran for more than two months and led to a series of damaging headlines for the game, but the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions was unable to lay any charges due to a lack of evidence.

The scandal cost Canterbury legends Steve Mortimer and Garry Hughes their jobs at the club, while director Peter Mortimer walked away. It also resulted in the loss of $1.3 million in sponsorship.

Noad, who was brought in at the height of the scandal to change the culture of the club, came under fire yesterday for not expanding on the individual penalties or the number of players involved.

"There's a lot that I'd like to say, but I can't say because there's a lot of confidentiality agreements at stake here," Noad said.

"We've accepted the NRL fine, we've taken responsibilities for our actions, we've put very substantial fines on the players and we're attempting to move on."

The Australian believes the club is concerned that naming an exact number of players fined by the club could fuel public suspicions that an offence took place.

It is also understood that several players were fined for having consensual sex with the complainant on the Wednesday before the alleged Sunday morning rape.

Noad said the players had been informed of the club's penalties and none had indicated at this stage they would fight them.

"There were two responses: I think the first was surprise at the extent of the fines and the second was one of acceptance," Noad said.

"What happens when they get to the managers is another thing. "But the other thing they've shown to the board and myself is remorse. They've apologised extensively and they've asked me to apologise publicly."

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,9603783-23209,00.html

 

[Gus22]

Dogs code includes sack
By Stuart Honeysett
May 19, 2004


The Australian believes the club is concerned that naming an exact number of players fined by the club could fuel public suspicions that an offence took place.

Rightly or not public suspicion that an offence took place is already there. As it stands the suspicion is levelled at the entire squad rather than the handful responsible. If I was not involved I'd like it publicly noted.

 

[El Diablo]

If I was not involved I'd like it publicly noted.

Me too.

 

[Kaz]

moved the thread to CC.

Just so that the Dogs fans have there own area where they can discuss football.

After that comment, ill risk getting banned by saying F*CK YOU!

We will pass.

You might be like your alleged players. :lol:

 

[Penelope Pittstop]

With all due respect Dogs world, I moved the topic so that the Dogs fans can enjoy there own forum without this matter cluttering up your section. Why on earth you would be offended by me showing your fans respect is beyond me.

 

[ibeme]

Ease up Dogs World. I think you've mistinterpreted PP's motives. The club forums are for discussing football. Controversy Corner was specifically created for moving off-field controversy discussions, and this subject falls into that category. PP pm'd me to tell me that she was moving the thread because she felt for us Dog's fans who are always defending ourselves in our own forum, rather than being left to discuss football in peace. Both her motives and the procedure she followed were commendable.

 

[MadDogMason]

MOVE ON!!FINES WERE PLENTY!!ACCEPT IT :evil:

 

[Dogaholic]

Penelope Pittstop,
With all due respect Dogs world, I moved the topic so that the Dogs fans can enjoy there own forum without this matter cluttering up your section. Why on earth you would be offended by me showing your fans respect is beyond me.

ibeme,
Ease up Dogs World. I think you've mistinterpreted PP's motives

If this is the case. Then i apologise.

Still...looks to me that my initial interpretation was correct. But i'll let it go.