Is it time for the NRL to stand down (with pay) players charged with a violent crime?

[Frailty]

The NRL has made the right call.

Players stood down whilst pending cases for serious crimes is the only reasonable option. Players are still allowed to train, be paid, and be offered all the support the game has to offer, but will also protect the integrity of the game.

In addition, clubs being given Salary Cap exemptions for this period is also welcomed from the club perspective.

I don't believe for a second that it's in the best interests of player welfare to allow the player to play games and be subject to the taunting of the crowd and other team.

 

[M2D2]

Personally find it a very long bow to draw that someone could sue the NRL for implementing a policy which is in most standard employment contracts, especially public facing roles.

*looks at everything else youve said in this topic*
You would.

 

[adamkungl]

*looks at everything else youve said in this topic*
You would.

I would what

 

[some11]

I'm sure lawyers will find a way.

As an example, if they argue it is a restriction of trade then it doesn't matter what the player has signed.

They still get paid though.

 

[Valheru]

Hang on, so Hayne could sue if the NRL or say RU refuse to register him whilst he is before the courts, because they are restricting his trade by not wanting him till he is cleared?

Possibly. It was just an example and I'm not a lawyer.

You can bet your bottom dollar one of these will end in court though, not sure why people are finding that hard to believe.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Possibly. It was just an example and I'm not a lawyer.

You can bet your bottom dollar one of these will end in court though, not sure why people are finding that hard to believe.

Would be an interesting case

 

[Valheru]

They still get paid though.

There was a case posted earlier in this thread (or maybe the main JDB one) where a magistrate ruled someone missed out on significant professional development whilst being stood down with pay and was awarded compensation.

 

[Miller was a legend]

*looks at everything else youve said in this topic*
You would.

Antagonist

 

[some11]

There was a case posted earlier in this thread (or maybe the main JDB one) where a magistrate ruled someone missed out on significant professional development whilst being stood down with pay and was awarded compensation.

Interesting. I feel the NRL is happy to pay that price in circumstances such as this though.

 

[Disinterested third party]

This thread has become slightly redundant...

 

[myrrh ken]

There was a case posted earlier in this thread (or maybe the main JDB one) where a magistrate ruled someone missed out on significant professional development whilst being stood down with pay and was awarded compensation.

Not quite. It was the Tracey Curro matter about whether Seven could enforce a
breach of contract cos she signed up to channel nein while getting paid to do diddly squat.

 

[Timmah]

There was a case posted earlier in this thread (or maybe the main JDB one) where a magistrate ruled someone missed out on significant professional development whilst being stood down with pay and was awarded compensation.

I have pointed out in the past that him being stood down could be fought legally on the basis that he was prevented from further opportunity e.g. Origin representation, but was roundly shouted down on that - not because of the legal argument but because apparently an incumbent player who started in two matches last year and came off the bench in the third couldn't reasonably have expected to be selected under normal circumstances... lol

 

[myrrh ken]

I have pointed out in the past that him being stood down could be fought legally on the basis that he was prevented from further opportunity e.g. Origin representation, but was roundly shouted down on that - not because of the legal argument but because apparently an incumbent player who started in two matches last year and came off the bench in the third couldn't reasonably have expected to be selected under normal circumstances... lol

it would be a career limiting move and contrary to the Meninga "good bloke" policy.

 

[Valheru]

I have pointed out in the past that him being stood down could be fought legally on the basis that he was prevented from further opportunity e.g. Origin representation, but was roundly shouted down on that - not because of the legal argument but because apparently an incumbent player who started in two matches last year and came off the bench in the third couldn't reasonably have expected to be selected under normal circumstances... lol

I think there are other possible avenues as well.

What about the case of a player on their initial contract, say Joey Manu as an example who is charged with such crime in his final year of contract and then found not guilty 18 months later. He then gets an opportunity somewhere on minimum wage when he was likely to get $500k for the year he missed.

 

[jc155776]

No doubt many of these matters will be expediated through the courts by defences a lot quicker, not put off until the offseason which seems to happen quite conveniently a lot.

 

[Timmah]

 

[Frailty]

I have no doubt players would seek legal advice, but I wouldn't think it likely that any case would proceed to action. Ultimately, they would need to demonstrate lost potential earnings, and go to court to test whether there has been an unlawful reason this was denied and to test the likelihood of these earnings ever eventuating. For SOO, we are talking about $90,000 in total for a series in match payments - it's likely this would be lost in legal fees.

It is not a restriction of trade as it is not unlawfully limiting trade or competition. A player signed to a contract with clauses is a perfectly legal restriction of trade.

 

[Valheru]

I have no doubt players would seek legal advice, but I wouldn't think it likely that any case would proceed to action. Ultimately, they would need to demonstrate lost potential earnings, and go to court to test whether there has been an unlawful reason this was denied and to test the likelihood of these earnings ever eventuating. For SOO, we are talking about $90,000 in total for a series in match payments - it's likely this would be lost in legal fees.

It is not a restriction of trade as it is not unlawfully limiting trade or competition. A player signed to a contract with clauses is a perfectly legal restriction of trade.

What about the case of a player in final year of contract on say $500k, they announce a re-signing of contract in June at $650k for 2 years but it isn't yet signed (as is normal) and then a month later they get done for same thing as JDB. They are immediately stood down and case takes 18 months meaning the agreed contract never eventuates as club is uncertain if player will play at all that year and player is essentially unemployed following year and then found not guilty.

Very specific I know but that is clear proof they would have earned $650k that year but didn't due to being stood down by someone other than their employer for something they were found not guilty of.

 

[simmo1]

What about the case of a player in final year of contract on say $500k, they announce a re-signing of contract in June at $650k for 2 years but it isn't yet signed (as is normal) and then a month later they get done for same thing as JDB. They are immediately stood down and case takes 18 months meaning the agreed contract never eventuates as club is uncertain if player will play at all that year and player is essentially unemployed following year and then found not guilty.

Very specific I know but that is clear proof they would have earned $650k that year but didn't due to being stood down by someone other than their employer for something they were found not guilty of.

Tough. Should have signed the dotted line.

 

[adamkungl]

What about the case of a player in final year of contract on say $500k, they announce a re-signing of contract in June at $650k for 2 years but it isn't yet signed (as is normal) and then a month later they get done for same thing as JDB. They are immediately stood down and case takes 18 months meaning the agreed contract never eventuates as club is uncertain if player will play at all that year and player is essentially unemployed following year and then found not guilty.

Very specific I know but that is clear proof they would have earned $650k that year but didn't due to being stood down by someone other than their employer for something they were found not guilty of.

I'd say refer to Hayne case: a club probably wont sign a bloke with a rape charge hanging over his head. Club would pull the offer before the stand-down even comes into play