Greg Bird charged and released by Sharks

[Eels Dude]

The problem is that The Law states everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Until his day in court, Bird is well within his rights to be employed. If they dont back down, Bird can sue the arse off the Sharks and the NRL.

I kinda agree. We don't know fully what happened that night, and he could well be aquitted when this goes to trial. If that's the case then he'd have been through all this, lost income and credibility, and that's something he will never get back.

I'm not saying he's not guilty or anything, but I don't think it's fair that one player gets treated differently to another in similar circumstances. Anthony Laffranchi was charged with an offence which was a lot more serious, regardless of the fact he was aquitted, at the time he was charged and kept playing without being stood down and there was never an outcry even remotely similar to the Greg Bird case.

 

[Snoop]

The problem is that The Law states everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Until his day in court, Bird is well within his rights to be employed. If they dont back down, Bird can sue the arse off the Sharks and the NRL.

Sharks can always claim that this is a disciplinary action for lying to them and bringing the club into disrepute. I think he lost a lot of credibility when he tried to pin the 'accident' on a mate.

 

[Danish]

Again, unless the sharks have stood him down without pay, I am failing to see what case Bird would have against them

 

[Butters]

I kinda agree. We don't know fully what happened that night, and he could well be aquitted when this goes to trial. If that's the case then he'd have been through all this, lost income and credibility, and that's something he will never get back.

I'm not saying he's not guilty or anything, but I don't think it's fair that one player gets treated differently to another in similar circumstances. Anthony Laffranchi was charged with an offence which was a lot more serious, regardless of the fact he was aquitted, at the time he was charged and kept playing without being stood down and there was never an outcry even remotely similar to the Greg Bird case.

Agreed.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Agreed.

Standard knee-jerk reaction by the cowboy idiots that run rugby league.

 

[PJ]

Again, unless the sharks have stood him down without pay, I am failing to see what case Bird would have against them

He could argue that it was prejudicial to him getting a fair trial in courts and in the media.

He could argue for mental anguish (or some such) that he wasn't able partake in the semi's.

If he is acquitted or charges are dropped he could argue that the club not standing by him caused a loss of income through sponsorship and tarnishing his image.

He could argue that he was not treated fairly compared to other players, such as one at his own club, who have charges against them but are allowed to play on.

Personally I think it is up to the NRL to bring in a standard for all clubs. Either a player who is charged with a serious offense is allowed to play until the case is heard or they are stood down from the NRL until it resolved.

 

[myanonymoususername]

The problem is that The Law states everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Until his day in court, Bird is well within his rights to be employed. If they dont back down, Bird can sue the arse off the Sharks and the NRL.

Criminal law is based on innocent till proven guilty.

Contract law and employment law have different standards. He can be not guilty of a crime but guilty of a breach of his employment contract - eg I would expect there's a clause about not behaving in a way likely to harm the reputation of his club or the sport. It would be fairly broad and able to cover any actions they didn't think appropriate for one of their employees.

 

[t1tan]

Criminal law is based on innocent till proven guilty.

Contract law and employment law have different standards. He can be not guilty of a crime but guilty of a breach of his employment contract - eg I would expect there's a clause about not behaving in a way likely to harm the reputation of his club or the sport. It would be fairly broad and able to cover any actions they didn't think appropriate for one of their employees.

Gee,would Bird have done anything in the past thats considered a breach? :roll:

 

[no name]

Bird won't sue, even if he did the Sharks could say he isn't match fit or is out of form. Look at the Kirk Reynoldson case.

 

[El Diablo]

Bird won't sue, even if he did the Sharks could say he isn't match fit or is out of form. Look at the Kirk Reynoldson case.

and he got a pay out from the Knights

 

[Danish]

He could argue that it was prejudicial to him getting a fair trial in courts and in the media.

He could argue for mental anguish (or some such) that he wasn't able partake in the semi's.

If he is acquitted or charges are dropped he could argue that the club not standing by him caused a loss of income through sponsorship and tarnishing his image.

He could argue that he was not treated fairly compared to other players, such as one at his own club, who have charges against them but are allowed to play on.

Personally I think it is up to the NRL to bring in a standard for all clubs. Either a player who is charged with a serious offense is allowed to play until the case is heard or they are stood down from the NRL until it resolved.

:lol:


I would LOVE to be in a court room to hear those arguments..... particularly those about mental anguish of not playing in the semis.

Greg Bird's contract with the Sharks does not entitle him a guaranteed spot in the 1st grade side, nor does it guarantee him a spot in any side cronulla fields in any grade.

Stuart and the club can simply say that they did not want to play him in the top grade. End of story.

Unless of course you think the courts should be able to decide team lists?? It would get pretty interesting around state of origin time with various appeals going in for players who thought they should have been selected :lol:

 

[Mr Angry]

I think Bird would have a good arguement seeing as he was selected to play for Australia and NSW in the same year.

One of two players in the team.

Also whilst fit all season he was picked in the top grade.

That said, I am no lawyer, but if anyone could say he was going to picked without the incident he would be one.

 

[bartman]

The problem is that The Law states everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Until his day in court, Bird is well within his rights to be employed. If they dont back down, Bird can sue the arse off the Sharks and the NRL.

I doubt that highly?

He is currently stood down but still employed - suspended with pay - while allegations are being investigated. This is common practice whoever the employer and whatever the field.

 

[bartman]

He could argue that it was prejudicial to him getting a fair trial in courts and in the media.

He could argue for mental anguish (or some such) that he wasn't able partake in the semi's.

If he is acquitted or charges are dropped he could argue that the club not standing by him caused a loss of income through sponsorship and tarnishing his image.

He could argue that he was not treated fairly compared to other players, such as one at his own club, who have charges against them but are allowed to play on.

Again, I doubt this highly. The club HAVE stood by him - that is why he is simply stood down with pay, rather than sacked, while the allegations/charges against him are waiting to be heard.

Again, this is normal practice in a range of occupations and employers. And the key fact in the latest article is that Bird or his representatives have not bothered to inform the Sharks about their side of the story... "Sharks chief executive Tony Zappia said last night: "Until further information is provided by police the club has no intention to review the decision. The club has not been made aware of what did or did not occur by either Greg or the alleged victim."

Personally I think it is up to the NRL to bring in a standard for all clubs. Either a player who is charged with a serious offense is allowed to play until the case is heard or they are stood down from the NRL until it resolved.

Agree. Although if a player is protesting their innocence re a charge to their own club (which Bird apparently HASN'T) then you have to consider the effect on the club for an innocent player to be outed while waiting long delays in a serious case coming to court.

 

[Danish]

I think Bird would have a good arguement seeing as he was selected to play for Australia and NSW in the same year.

One of two players in the team.

Also whilst fit all season he was picked in the top grade.

That said, I am no lawyer, but if anyone could say he was going to picked without the incident he would be one.

Who was that bloke that souths punted to the Queensland Cup last season to get him to leave??

I think he represented New Zealand earlier in the year and yet was still allowed to be dropped.

Last I checked there was no law to state that a player selected for his country or state months ago must be selected whenever fit and able for the rest of the season.

If cronulla let him play they will lose their major sponsor, and tarnish their club's image for a very long time, making it hard to attract new sponsors.

 

[perverse]

Who was that bloke that souths punted to the Queensland Cup last season to get him to leave??

I think he represented New Zealand earlier in the year and yet was still allowed to be dropped.

Last I checked there was no law to state that a player selected for his country or state months ago must be selected whenever fit and able for the rest of the season.

If cronulla let him play they will lose their major sponsor, and tarnish their club's image for a very long time, making it hard to attract new sponsors.

wasn't that richie fa'aoso? jokes on souths if it was... he's gone great guns for the knights this year.

 

[salivor]

Joe Galuvao

 

[sharko]

It seems Bird's bird still loves him and wants nothing to do with any AVO constructed by the police.
The police case aganist Bird at this rate will be withdrawn as there will be no credible witnesses.
Bird should suit up and play in the semsi next week..he has done his punishment, done it like a man and should get back to what the league public want to see him do..playing good footy!

 

[Shorty]

Uh huh,where's your source?

 

[DJShaksta]

Daily telegraph.

But I am more worried bout the Brett Seymour Knee injury the same paper is now reporting :-(