Opinion Is Ricky Stuart the most overrated coach ever?

[Newcastlerabbit]

He's a narcissistic sook. Let's see if his media mates protect him here or if they write it off as just being 'passionate."

Crawley and Kent will protect him

 

[betcats]

yeah fair play to phil

I expected a whole lot of Ricky just defending his family excuses

thanks for posting that

The media would have to be careful going into what happened 12 years ago in defending Ricky, they cant flat out accuse Salmon of anything without potentially getting themselves into defamation territory.

 

[Pete Cash]

IN case you're wondering... the 12 names

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/teams/eels/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-scandal-whatever-happened-to-ricky-stuarts-projector-12/news-story/1809fd73e6668ca84f42a498e183480d

Daniel Harrison, Cheyse Blair, Matthew Keating, Reni Maitua, Matthew Eisenhuth, Nathan Smith, Matt Ryan, Pat O'Hanlan, Ben Roberts, Willie Tonga, Ben Smith, Luke Kelly

You can doubt his methods but anyone want to tell me Sticky was wrong? f**king bums. Every single one of them. They had no business being on NRL rosters. Terrible footballers

Ricky stacks ANOTHER W

I believe this left Parramatta in salary cap troubles. He learned the lesson when he took over the Raiders in 2014 because we were dire too and he didn't just fire everyone. A rare example of stick learning

 

[BxTom]

If the Raiders had won the game Stuart wouldn't have said anything. The truth is Stuart is lashing out because his team lost, mostly due to his own lacklustre coaching. The fans aren't even defending him, we know what this bloke is about.

Watched a replay of the tackle in question and it looks as though Salmon could not have seen where his foot was because a raiders palyer was covering his head with his body. To me I find it hard to see that it was deliberate in any way other then just trying to free himself from the tackle.

 

[SLRBRONCOS]

 

[nick87]

well that’s some pretty shitty advice then

here is a link to what is defamatory in regards to social media. Ricky of course didn’t use social media rather a live press conference but using this definition it seems pretty open and shut to me

According to common law, there are three elements that must be established in a defamation action:

• That the content has been published to an audience
• That the matter carries a defamatory meaning – making statements that are untrue and that lower your standing in the estimation of ordinary reasonable people
• It has caused you loss such as loss of reputation or business

Social media defamation - Know the Law

Technology has changed the way people communicate and distribute thoughts and ideas. It’s becoming increasingly easy to spread information, regardless of the accuracy. Defamation laws therefore can extend to online publications, such as posts, comments and reviews on social media sites such as...

knowthelaw.com.au

Cool! Ally McBeal over here has it all sorted.
Open and shut defamation, so we should expect to see Salmon file any day now.

 

[Frailty]

Is is honest to say Salmon is a weak gutted dog ?

Ricky would have to prove that’s correct not just that’s what he thinks is true

You don’t think calling somebody a weak gutted dog lowers their standing in the eyes of ordinary reasonable people ? Really ? Really ? How do you call someone a weak gutted dog and NOT lower someone’s standing ?

How has his reputation NOT been for effected by this ? I had no idea who he was a day ago now every media outlet is reporting him being called a weak gutted dog.

Come on man

Peter Dutton lost his defamation case on appeal when a Refugee Advocate labelled him a 'Rape Apologist'.

You may think it is very straight forward, but it simply isn't. You're the one that labelled legal advice against action as "shitty" like you're a better expert?

Do I think Stuart was giving his honest opinion (I note you left the word opinion out)? Yes, I do.
Do I think ordinary reasonable people have a lower standing for Salmon? No, I do not.

So "come on man". Just because a dickhead says something publicly, doesn't mean it meets defamation standards.

 

[Angry_eel]

I also don't see how Salmon being called a Dog-act hurts his reputation or reduces his earning potential. Storm and Roosters will now be interested in his signature. They have plenty of dog-acts on their books.

 

[butchmcdick]

Cool! Ally McBeal over here has it all sorted.
Open and shut defamation, so we should expect to see Salmon file any day now.

If you think calling someone a week gutted dog during a press conference isn’t defamation that’s cool with me

I think differently and posted the definition of what defamation is

good luck to you, Ricky and the entire raiders organisation in this matter

 

[The Lounge Lizard]

Just heard that Stuart has been fined about $135K by the NRL for various indiscretions since becoming a coach in 2002.

That's some sort of track record.

 

[butchmcdick]

Peter Dutton lost his defamation case on appeal when a Refugee Advocate labelled him a 'Rape Apologist'.

You may think it is very straight forward, but it simply isn't. You're the one that labelled legal advice against action as "shitty" like you're a better expert?

Do I think Stuart was giving his honest opinion (I note you left the word opinion out)? Yes, I do.
Do I think ordinary reasonable people have a lower standing for Salmon? No, I do not.

So "come on man". Just because a dickhead says something publicly, doesn't mean it meets defamation standards.

2. Honest Opinion Defence​

The honest opinion defence could apply if the communication that a party alleges to be defamatory is:

• your honest opinion; and
• considered to be in the public interest; and
• based on proper materials.

Therefore, to establish this defence, you must be able to show that:

1. The Opinion is Based on Proper Material​

Firstly, the honest opinion must be based on some kind of proper material. Proper material is defined as being set out in the published communication in either specific or general terms, or is notorious or accessible from a reference, link or other access point but otherwise apparent from the context in which the matter was published.

2. The Communication is Substantially True​

Secondly, the communication must be considered substantially true, or could be considered an absolute or qualified privilege, or was published on an occasion that attracted the protection of this defence or the public interest defence or publication of public documents defence.

As long as the communication is your honest opinion and meets the above requirements, you could rely on this defence. Additionally, there is no suggestion that the law requires the opinion to be reasonable. Therefore, the opinion could even be extreme, as long as the person publishing it genuinely holds the opinion.

If you would like to raise this as a defence to a defamation claim, you must be very considerate in your response. This is because statements such as “I didn’t mean it” will preclude you from being able to rely on the defence and assert that the communication was your honest opinion later on.

https://legalvision.com.au/defences-to-defamation/

do you think Ricky’s statement meets this criteria ?

if so he can use it as a defence

If not he can’t use honesty as a defence

if you click on the link it goes into all of the ways to defend defamation proceedings

 

[nick87]

If you think calling someone a week gutted dog during a press conference isn’t defamation that’s cool with me

I think differently and posted the definition of what defamation is

good luck to you, Ricky and the entire raiders organisation in this matter

It's not about what i think or what you think
It's about the law.

Frailty has explained fairly well why the a defamation suit, if filed, would likely be unsuccessful. And i'd imagine a lawyer has explained it to Salmon already, which is why his family is appealing to the NRL to come down on him and not instructing their lawyer to come down on him.

But hey, you're the expert and you're saying this is an open and shut slam dunk case. So we should hear news shortly about him filing, right?

 

[butchmcdick]

It's not about what i think or what you think
It's about the law.

Frailty has explained fairly well why the a defamation suit, if filed, would likely be unsuccessful. And i'd imagine a lawyer has explained it to Salmon already, which is why his family is appealing to the NRL to come down on him and not instructing their lawyer to come down on him.

But hey, you're the expert and you're saying this is an open and shut slam dunk case. So we should hear news shortly about him filing, right?

It is about the law

I disagree with yourself and frailty in this matter

i guess time will tell

 

[Frailty]

It is about the law

I disagree with yourself and frailty in this matter

i guess time will tell

Yet only one person has claimed legal advice received by their family as "shitty".

 

[betcats]

At the end of the day defamation or not I think we can all agree Ricky has come out of this looking like an absolute dropkick, Salmon as a 12 year old has wriggled his way into Ricks head and has been living there for a decade, rent free.

 

[Bazal]

It's not about what i think or what you think
It's about the law.

Frailty has explained fairly well why the a defamation suit, if filed, would likely be unsuccessful. And i'd imagine a lawyer has explained it to Salmon already, which is why his family is appealing to the NRL to come down on him and not instructing their lawyer to come down on him.

But hey, you're the expert and you're saying this is an open and shut slam dunk case. So we should hear news shortly about him filing, right?

I mean it's certainly defamation in some regard. The question is whether it's worth the effort of litigation, like any civil matter. It ain't my area but he's probably got a case, it just might not be worth him actually pursuing.

Either way I prefer to keep making snide comments about both parties

 

[Perth Red]

1 match ban and $20k fine on way woudl be my guess. Rickys reputation drops another 3 notches. Raiders give him an even longer contract.

 

[Walpole]

The only way for this to be resolved is for Salmon to join the Raiders immediately to help out with their push for the finals.

 

[butchmcdick]

Yet only one person has claimed legal advice received by their family as "shitty".

Sorry about that

I didn’t read your post properly and didn’t see it was a family member who gave you the advice

 

[nick87]

I mean it's certainly defamation in some regard. The question is whether it's worth the effort of litigation, like any civil matter. It ain't my area but he's probably got a case, it just might not be worth him actually pursuing.

Either way I prefer to keep making snide comments about both parties

Yeah sorry, to clarify, when i say it would unlikely to be successful, i mean in terms of compensation. If there was any chance he could get substantial compensation, he'd sue.

100% agree on the latter, lets keep it nice and petty