Jdb case

[BLM01]

Nonsense! Brett Stewart was suspended for public intoxication. NRL couldn't suspend him for sexual assault because it would have been a travesty of justice. he too was innocent until proven guilty, which of course he never was.

If you read what I said Dufus......you just echoed and agree to why he was suspended.
But dont kid yourself Gallop and the hoop-la behind the media rape allegations hysteria played a big part in his suspension due to perceived guilt and embarrassment to the game. They will never admit it, nor have they never apologised to him for it and Manly never forgave. hence the new policy done after this case.

 

[BennyV]

Agree. But standing him down at full pay (the key words standing him down) is also considered indicating a guilty verdict. What are you standing him down for?.
As there is nothing in his contractural arrangements to allow them to do that for something unproven or just bringing yourself into disrepute.
He has to stand himself down. No other way...until NRL policies are changed after this.. they will be.

Brett Stewart debacle ensured that it could not happen again like that under current policy. The NRL got away with not being sued back then as they used the excuse he was drunk at a function and or he was the face of the game in NRL advertising..he bought the game into disrepute but I dispute that.
He got a 4 week suspension...Manly also got fined heavily at the time....Final result his rape charges all proved to be false. They reckon he still has not fully got over the court stuff etc at that time

Of course the is contractual allowance for this - there is nothing in NRL contracts that guarantee a spot in first grade. Coaches and clubs have every right to not play a player in first grade due to form, attitude or any number of reasons. There is no contractual issue, as long as we pay him. Which we would.

There is no indication of guilt. We should be standing him down as the charges against him are bringing the game, the club and the team in disrepute. It puts negative attention on him, the club and the game. And it will take away from anything that the club achieves this year. The fact that it’s dividing our own fans so heavily should show the negative impact it will have. Put it this way - if this happened while we were in contract negotiations, would you be ok with re-signing him?

There’s no risk in standing him down - he trains, he’s paid, we are supporting him and if he’s found innocent then he slots in. But if we play him and he’s found guilty, all of a sudden we are the club that supports a convicted rapist. Risk vs reward is heavily one sided, even before you take perception out of it.

 

[GC Dragon]

Agree. But standing him down at full pay (the key words standing him down) is also considered indicating a guilty verdict. What are you standing him down for?.
As there is nothing in his contractural arrangements to allow them to do that for something unproven or just bringing yourself into disrepute.
He has to stand himself down. No other way...until NRL policies are changed after this.. they will be.

Brett Stewart debacle ensured that it could not happen again like that under current policy. The NRL got away with not being sued back then as they used the excuse he was drunk at a function and or he was the face of the game in NRL advertising..he bought the game into disrepute but I dispute that.
He got a 4 week suspension...Manly also got fined heavily at the time....Final result his rape charges all proved to be false. They reckon he still has not fully got over the court stuff etc at that time

I tend to agree . I think Jack needs to step back and have a good look at the whole situation that him playing will create . The weekly barrage he will receive will no doubt affect more than just him . His pregnant partner , his family , his team mates .

If he made the decision to stand down it would take the pressure off the powers that be and will defuse the situation from being a "weekly advent " . The Dragons fans don't deserve to have to deal with it weekly at grounds either .

I am sure one and all Dragons supporters sincerely hope that Jack is proved innocent . But until then Jack should do the best thing for all concerned and stand himself down .

 

[BLM01]

Of course the is contractual allowance for this - there is nothing in NRL contracts that guarantee a spot in first grade. Coaches and clubs have every right to not play a player in first grade due to form, attitude or any number of reasons. There is no contractual issue, as long as we pay him. Which we would.

There is no indication of guilt. We should be standing him down as the charges against him are bringing the game, the club and the team in disrepute. It puts negative attention on him, the club and the game. And it will take away from anything that the club achieves this year. The fact that it’s dividing our own fans so heavily should show the negative impact it will have. Put it this way - if this happened while we were in contract negotiations, would you be ok with re-signing him?

There’s no risk in standing him down - he trains, he’s paid, we are supporting him and if he’s found innocent then he slots in. But if we play him and he’s found guilty, all of a sudden we are the club that supports a convicted rapist. Risk vs reward is heavily one sided, even before you take perception out of it.

I understand all the negative stuff going down but legally you are wrong, we are not talking about dropping from 1st grade are we..but about stopping him from playing altogether....if I am wrong there sorry?
There is no contractural allowance for this as he is not guilty of anything..yet.
Under current rules and policies Players Association will not allow it.

Standing him down and not allowing him to play you cannot do under current rules..he has done nothing yet officially. Now..playing in a lower grade, fine, but what is the difference, except less crowds, cameras, media coverage but same result..still playing in the public domain in the same or similar jersey with sponsors etc..

Paragraph 2......... At this stage he has not brought anyone into disrepute. He has not brought our club, the game or team, cause if he is proven innocent you are in trouble with that statement right there and standing him down for what reason are you going to give?..would be an indication of your swaying towards a guilty verdict.

I agree with you regards negative attention so he has to do it himself officially. Fans divided and public opinion has to be taken out of your argument. And signing a new contract is not an argument cause it is not happening ATM..and that would be put on hold naturally and legally no problem with that.
And if he is found guilty, then if he is sacked straight away which will happen, how can we be guilty of supporting a convicted rapist...when until the day he is convicted no one is the wiser.

We have to agree to disagree on this point cause I am sure you wont budge on your view but that is mine.

 

[SBD82]

He can't stand himself down. It would be a breach of contract on his behalf, and he would then forfeit his pay.

Standing down would need to be a decision by the club.

 

[BennyV]

I understand all the negative stuff going down but legally you are wrong, we are not talking about dropping from 1st grade are we..but about stopping him from playing altogether....if I am wrong there sorry?
There is no contractural allowance for this as he is not guilty of anything..yet.
Under current rules and policies Players Association will not allow it.

Standing him down and not allowing him to play you cannot do under current rules..he has done nothing yet officially. Now..playing in a lower grade, fine, but what is the difference, except less crowds, cameras, media coverage but same result..still playing in the public domain in the same or similar jersey with sponsors etc..

Paragraph 2......... At this stage he has not brought anyone into disrepute *edited*. He has not brought our club, the game or team, cause if he is proven innocent you are in trouble with that statement right there and standing him down for what reason are you going to give?..would be an indication of your swaying towards a guilty verdict.

I agree with you regards negative attention so he has to do it himself officially. Fans divided and public opinion has to be taken out of your argument. And signing a new contract is not an argument cause it is not happening ATM..and that would be put on hold naturally and legally no problem with that.
And if he is found guilty, then if he is sacked straight away which will happen, how can we be guilty of supporting a convicted rapist...when until the day he is convicted no one is the wiser.

We have to agree to disagree on this point cause I am sure you wont budge on your view but that is mine.

Happy to agree to disagree, but your views on legally/contractually standing a player down are wrong, otherwise no other players would be stood down prior to conviction (which is obviously incorrect - hell, Barba has no charges against him and he was sacked!).

For mine, it’s more ethical as the actual legal lines are quite blurred. But affording the man, club and league to have such a distraction and negativity removed from ongoing public view is enough of a reason in itself before discussion risk of being found guilty, sponsorship issues, etc.

Well see how it plays out.

 

[giboz71]

Happy to agree to disagree, but your views on legally/contractually standing a player down are wrong, otherwise no other players would be stood down prior to conviction (which is obviously incorrect - hell, Barba has no charges against him and he was sacked!).

For mine, it’s more ethical as the actual legal lines are quite blurred. But affording the man, club and league to have such a distraction and negativity removed from ongoing public view is enough of a reason in itself before discussion risk of being found guilty, sponsorship issues, etc.

Well see how it plays out.

Barba's case is different as there was CC footage of the incident which the Cowboys and Greenburg saw before they acted.

They had all the evidence they needed and didn't need any evidence from a 3rd party nor charges laid. Similar to what happened to Pearce, Carney, Bulldogs Mad Monday etc and most recently Napa (if he gets suspended). Unfortunately for them, they got themselves on camera.

The difficulty with the JBD case is all we are relying on is the testimony of the young lady and medical evidence which may or may not prove conclusive. No videos/photos, CC footage etc, Hence the constant reference to the Brett Stewart case which is probably the most similar.

Not saying, that he should be free to play, but the 2 incidents are inherently different.

 

[The Damo]

I understand all the negative stuff going down but legally you are wrong, we are not talking about dropping from 1st grade are we..but about stopping him from playing altogether....if I am wrong there sorry?
There is no contractural allowance for this as he is not guilty of anything..yet.
Under current rules and policies Players Association will not allow it.

Standing him down and not allowing him to play you cannot do under current rules..he has done nothing yet officially. Now..playing in a lower grade, fine, but what is the difference, except less crowds, cameras, media coverage but same result..still playing in the public domain in the same or similar jersey with sponsors etc..

Paragraph 2......... At this stage he has not brought anyone into disrepute. He has not brought our club, the game or team, cause if he is proven innocent you are in trouble with that statement right there and standing him down for what reason are you going to give?..would be an indication of your swaying towards a guilty verdict.

I agree with you regards negative attention so he has to do it himself officially. Fans divided and public opinion has to be taken out of your argument. And signing a new contract is not an argument cause it is not happening ATM..and that would be put on hold naturally and legally no problem with that.
And if he is found guilty, then if he is sacked straight away which will happen, how can we be guilty of supporting a convicted rapist...when until the day he is convicted no one is the wiser.

We have to agree to disagree on this point cause I am sure you wont budge on your view but that is mine.

Man I don’t know where you get the idea that the club cNt stand him down on full pay into it’s resolved. It’s absolutely legal and gets done across all sorts of different industries. If you are so convinced can you find one an example of someone who was stood down on full pay, launching successful legal action against their employer? It ias absolutely the norm to Stand down on full pay, especially someone in any sort of public role, until these kinds of charge should are resolved.

 

[The Damo]

Barba's case is different as there was CC footage of the incident which the Cowboys and Greenburg saw before they acted.

They had all the evidence they needed and didn't need any evidence from a 3rd party nor charges laid. Similar to what happened to Pearce, Carney, Bulldogs Mad Monday etc and most recently Napa (if he gets suspended). Unfortunately for them, they got themselves on camera.

The difficulty with the JBD case is all we are relying on is the testimony of the young lady and medical evidence which may or may not prove conclusive. No videos/photos, CC footage etc, Hence the constant reference to the Brett Stewart case which is probably the most similar.

Not saying, that he should be free to play, but the 2 incidents are inherently different.

I agree with you, but I’d put it that we are relying on the state prosecutor who has judged that the evidence is strong enough that it stands a reasonable chance of proving guilt at trial.

 

[hewi]

I agree with you, but I’d put it that we are relying on the state prosecutor who has judged that the evidence is strong enough that it stands a reasonable chance of proving guilt at trial.

IMO the state prosecutor in this doesn’t give a toss about the evidence. It goes to trial regardless and whatever the result there can be no blow back on them.

 

[giboz71]

I agree with you, but I’d put it that we are relying on the state prosecutor who has judged that the evidence is strong enough that it stands a reasonable chance of proving guilt at trial.

No doubt. And the fact there is enough evidence to have charges laid is compelling. I agree that this should be enough to have him stood down, but unless it's clearly spelled out in player contracts that this will occur, then a grey area will always exist. Especially when the player pleads innocent.

Hence I said in JA that the NRL and the clubs need to be very clear about this in the behaviour clauses of all player contracts. The fact that there seems to be some debate about this, my guess is the behaviour clause in JDB's contract is not clear about this type of scenario.

And in the absence of witnesses, photo/video evidence, in the case where the player pleads innocent, the NRL and the club may have their hands tied, if the player pleads innocent and wants to play.

Cases like this can take up to 2 years to go to trial. That's a long time to be out of the game and a pretty big price to pay, especially if he is found innocent. Again, I'm not saying he should play, far from it. But I get why the club and the NRL are treading lightly. Just suspending him without being found guilty can open up all sorts of legal ramifications if he's found to have done nothing wrong at trial, like Brett Stewart.

 

[AyiosYiorgos]

Man I don’t know where you get the idea that the club cNt stand him down on full pay into it’s resolved. It’s absolutely legal and gets done across all sorts of different industries. If you are so convinced can you find one an example of someone who was stood down on full pay, launching successful legal action against their employer? It ias absolutely the norm to Stand down on full pay, especially someone in any sort of public role, until these kinds of charge should are resolved.

The club wants the NRL to stand him down they're protecting themselves from possible legal action, so they want the NRL to do it, like i have said before on other posts, standing him down for possibly 18 months if he is found innocent he would potentially be able to sue for loss of income, Dragons dont want to foot the bill...

 

[The Damo]

The club wants the NRL to stand him down they're protecting themselves from possible legal action, so they want the NRL to do it, like i have said before on other posts, standing him down for possibly 18 months if he is found innocent he would potentially be able to sue for loss of income, Dragons dont want to foot the bill...

I genuinely don’t think he would be able to sue though, that’s why I’m asking if anyone has an example where that has happened. His contract means he’ll be paid x amount, so long as he is paid that amount then their legal obligations are fulfilled.
The case he’d need to make is - if I hadn’t been stood down, I would have been picked for rep teams and been paid more. The case against it is - no guarantee his form would be good enough, possibility of injury, and likelihood of getting picked for rep teams while facing aggravated sexual assault charges. That’s ahelluva difficult case he’d gotta prove there.

 

[TruSaint]

The club wants the NRL to stand him down they're protecting themselves from possible legal action, so they want the NRL to do it, like i have said before on other posts, standing him down for possibly 18 months if he is found innocent he would potentially be able to sue for loss of income, Dragons dont want to foot the bill...

Hi mate.

Foot the bill for what ? He is being paid. I have yet to see a case where damages have been awarded to athletes with serious charges ( not allegations ), made. People bring up the Stewart case. Can anyone here confirm whether or not he was awarded damages for being stepped down ? I have no evidence of that.

Charges would NOT have been laid if the prosecution didnt believe they had solid ground. People need to distinguish between allegations and charges. He has been charged. He will have his day in court where the result will based on " beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[BLM01]

Man I don’t know where you get the idea that the club cNt stand him down on full pay into it’s resolved. It’s absolutely legal and gets done across all sorts of different industries. If you are so convinced can you find one an example of someone who was stood down on full pay, launching successful legal action against their employer? It ias absolutely the norm to Stand down on full pay, especially someone in any sort of public role, until these kinds of charge should are resolved.

You guys dont get it. This has nothing to do with law. It is NRL policy. Of course in some employment places they can do what they like as usually not many official contracts and by law you may be right.
But the standing down action from the club or NRL and the reasons are the problem under their own current policy. The policy states they cant until their day in court unless the player pleads guilty or they have vision or some other hard evidence before them to indicate or show guilt..otherwise the NRL would. Where did I get it from...NRL contract and players association
The players association will be on the Dragons like a ton of bricks if they stand him down
If DeBelin stands down himself as SKD did no probs..on full pay.
If NRL changes it policy tomorrow that they can stand them down then of course it would be on full pay in a case similar to DeBelin where he is pleaded not guilty as is the case ATM

Hope this article below explains it better.

Dragons have got legal advice regarding the matter
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...stand-down-jack-de-belin-20190216-p50yb6.html

and this statement
"Dragons chief executive Brian Johnston said issues around player behaviour were never black and white, and any move by the club could taint the legal process.
"Aside from various contractual and welfare obligations, advice suggests that any action taken by the club may have significant ramifications and may interfere with the fairness of the judicial process," Johnston said.

Hi mate.

Foot the bill for what ? He is being paid. I have yet to see a case where damages have been awarded to athletes with serious charges ( not allegations ), made. People bring up the Stewart case. Can anyone here confirm whether or not he was awarded damages for being stepped down ? I have no evidence of that.

Charges would NOT have been laid if the prosecution didnt believe they had solid ground. People need to distinguish between allegations and charges. He has been charged. He will have his day in court where the result will based on " beyond reasonable doubt".

No Brett Stewart was not entitled to damages from NRL cause they stood him down for something different than his charges.(i.e. being at a official club or NRL function intoxicated..which was fact) .so they said.
Was not JDB charged by the police as they had no choice not to, based on her accusations?..prosecutor is running with them as it his job to fight for his client and her version of events and maybe other evidence was enough to take it further. Fair enough.
But his charges are still only alledged at the moment and not have been proven correct.

 

[The Damo]

You guys dont get it. This has nothing to do with law. It is NRL policy. Of course in some employment places they can do what they like as usually not many official contracts and by law you may be right.
But the standing down action from the club or NRL and the reasons are the problem under their own current policy. The policy states they cant until their day in court unless the player pleads guilty or they have vision or some other hard evidence before them to indicate or show guilt..otherwise the NRL would. Where did I get it from...NRL contract and players association
The players association will be on the Dragons like a ton of bricks if they stand him down
If DeBelin stands down himself as SKD did no probs..on full pay.
If NRL changes it policy tomorrow that they can stand them down then of course it would be on full pay in a case similar to DeBelin where he is pleaded not guilty as is the case ATM

Hope this article below explains it better.

Dragons have got legal advice regarding the matter
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...stand-down-jack-de-belin-20190216-p50yb6.html

and this statement
"Dragons chief executive Brian Johnston said issues around player behaviour were never black and white, and any move by the club could taint the legal process.
"Aside from various contractual and welfare obligations, advice suggests that any action taken by the club may have significant ramifications and may interfere with the fairness of the judicial process," Johnston said.



No Brett Stewart was not entitled to damages from NRL cause they stood him down for something different than his charges.(i.e. being at a official club or NRL function intoxicated..which was fact) .so they said.
Was not JDB charged by the police as they had no choice not to, based on her accusations?..prosecutor is running with them as it his job to fight for his client and her version of events and maybe other evidence was enough to take it further. Fair enough.
But his charges are still only alledged at the moment and not have been proven correct.

So There’s no example then?
I read those articles, Nothing there says the policies mean they can’t stsnd him down. Just that it’s not black and white (nor should it be, facing court for littering, or unpaid fines etc should be treated differently). I’d bet there’s nothing in the policy that says they can’t do it, and nothing in his contract that says they can’t either.
Johnston’s quote about it potentially interfering with the judicial process is, frankly, horseshit. Again to believe that I’d have to see an actual example where a court found that someone being stood down on full pay unfairly prejudiced a trial. Do you have an example?
Also the prosecutors client is the State, not the victim. If the prosecutor in charge gives a shit about their future career then they will have made damn sure they can justify their decision based on the evidence before them.

 

[giboz71]

I genuinely don’t think he would be able to sue though, that’s why I’m asking if anyone has an example where that has happened. His contract means he’ll be paid x amount, so long as he is paid that amount then their legal obligations are fulfilled.
The case he’d need to make is - if I hadn’t been stood down, I would have been picked for rep teams and been paid more. The case against it is - no guarantee his form would be good enough, possibility of injury, and likelihood of getting picked for rep teams while facing aggravated sexual assault charges. That’s ahelluva difficult case he’d gotta prove there.

If he’s stood down and the trial is up to 2 years away, he can argue that being out of the game for 2 years will erode his value in his future career.

At the moment he is valued as.a SOO forward and is llkely paid accordingly. If he’s innocent and rubbed out for an extended period, I’m guessing his value would drop substantially by being out of the game for a long period.

So it’s his future earning potential we are talking about.

 

[barry]

He can't stand himself down. It would be a breach of contract on his behalf, and he would then forfeit his pay.

Standing down would need to be a decision by the club.

If Jack was not in the right mental state of mind and asked for time off i cant see the club not paying him

 

[The calm one]

Of course the is contractual allowance for this - there is nothing in NRL contracts that guarantee a spot in first grade. Coaches and clubs have every right to not play a player in first grade due to form, attitude or any number of reasons. There is no contractual issue, as long as we pay him. Which we would.

There is no indication of guilt. We should be standing him down as the charges against him are bringing the game, the club and the team in disrepute. It puts negative attention on him, the club and the game. And it will take away from anything that the club achieves this year. The fact that it’s dividing our own fans so heavily should show the negative impact it will have. Put it this way - if this happened while we were in contract negotiations, would you be ok with re-signing him?

There’s no risk in standing him down - he trains, he’s paid, we are supporting him and if he’s found innocent then he slots in. But if we play him and he’s found guilty, all of a sudden we are the club that supports a convicted rapist. Risk vs reward is heavily one sided, even before you take perception out of it.

This is an excellent post and I congratulate on it. In saying that may I please point out some facts that no person can deny.
1. He has been charged with probably the second worst offence you can be charged with in the state of NSW. Murder/ manslaughter is no 1.

2. As I have said he has been charged with the offence not sentenced on the offence.

3. A criminal court, the same court of law where his trial will take place has varied his bail conditions so he can continue his current employment.

4. As we all know there is a certain ex footballer of many years ago, who has been charged with the MURDER of his ex-wife. He was initially refused bail but now he is now on conditional bail, he can walk the streets. So a person charged with a lessor offence can't play football, according to some of the hierarchy in the NRL

5. Todd Greenberg is the CEO of the NRL. That is where his position in this situation ceases. He is not a Judge. He is not a magistrate. A magistrate only last week gave DeBelin permission to play football, now all of a sudden CEO Todd with no legal qualifications dosen't like that idea.

6 Todd can you please explain to me why the AFL with 50% more players on there roster than the NRL and every second game they play involves a interstate flight and overnight accommodation arn't in this mess. The AFL do have anoff season as well Todd

They are the facts of this matter at this stage.

The following is my opinion

Todd and the previous CEO and the previous CEO before, blah blah have had years to do something about player behaviour and all of you have ever done is sweet FA.

Now the shit has hit the fan. It's time to go into damage mode. Todd if JDB was the only player the cops locked up this off season would we hear anymore about this. Would you still be playing magistrate????

Todd if you or any other previous CEO had the balls to do something about player behaviour besides a long lunch in Dixon St with your mates from every NRL club would we have this situation. Sorry I forgot you call these long lunches, we are looking into this problem.

Finally, if JDB is found guilty I hope you are stuck in a cell for the rest of your life and you get all the sex you want from your in mate

 

[Dragonssupporter]

I feel again inclined to write on this subject and probably differently to what most are saying.Firstly JDB has only only been charged and not convicted.To overthrow the rule of law just cause youre a footballer is to me ridiculous.Ive heard of others who had stood down recently like the Tax Commissioner-found Not guilty yet career ruined.However his career is about 45 yrs long., not 11-12 at best like NRL players have. Secondly they dont hold your position open for you-oh Jack-you're not guilty-straight back into first grade. There would be a fight to regain your spot assuming your replacement was doing at least equal to you were and assuming you could train at that level for up to 2 yrs with no ability to test it. Its an awful position to be in, but if he's found Not guilty-and we all hope he is-how do you compensate someone for stealing their passion from them and destroying their livelihood-he might be getting paid-but thats not why they do it.The situation is awful no matter what but its the best we've got.Bowing to public pressure is wrong, unless those publicly offering their opinions-IE the press and those pressuring sponsors to leave (not forums like this) are prepared to back their opinions with cash.If they're wrong be prepared to be sued over it. This instant result to every problem these days really gets to me. You watch how quiet it goes if hes found not guilty-instant forget as well.Thank you for reading this and i hope it doesnt offend anyone-its just my humble opinion