Jdb case

[Capital_Dragon]

The NRL want to bring in this policy and then backdate it is just wrong.

If the policy states that as of the date the policy becomes enforceable any player who is currently charged with a serious offence and is before the courts can be suspended then it isn't backdated. It is their current legal status that is at issue, not the date when the offence is alleged to have occurred.

 

[2218]

If the policy states that as of the date the policy becomes enforceable any player who is currently charged with a serious offence and is before the courts can be suspended then it isn't backdated. It is their current legal status that is at issue, not the date when the offence is alleged to have occurred.

Well if they want to be fair dinkum and they include ‘currently’ they should also include ‘has been’.

 

[Willow]

St George Bank:
"We are not reviewing our sponsorship"
"Last year we extended our partnership with St George Illawarra for a further three years."
"This almost four-decade partnership is a proud one that is one of the longest running in Australian sporting history..."
"We look forward to continuing this support."

Add that to the previous statement:
“As these allegations are before the court we are unable to comment on such legal matters..."

St George Bank: 5
Anonymous gossip columnist: 1

 

[The Damo]

The retrospectivity and criteria will come into question. To some people it seems that the rule was specifically designed to catch De Belin.

The ARLC/NRL need to accept responsibility for the stand down rule as they are standing down the player; not the Club. Because of this, clubs and players need to be compensated for decision. After all it is not in place to accommodate a club or player, it is place to accommodate the ARLC/NRL.

I believe the retrospectivity of the rule will be the greatest barrier for the court to grant the ARLC/NRL a win.

So De Belin will be a one off situation mainly because the rule did not apply at the time he was charged. If the ARLC/NRL want the rule to apply to De Belin they will need to negotiate with him privately and make it worth his while to agree otherwise, I am sure De Belin will be available to play until at least the end of the legal process and possibly after that if he is found to be not guilty.

So long as the rule is enacted by Thursday then it isn’t retrospective. He will still be charged then. They can make a rule that says ‘from this date no-one May play NRL with an unresolved criminal charge above 11years’ then it applies from that date. He comes into that date charged so he can’t play. It’s not taking anything away from him before the date it’s enacted.

 

[The Damo]

If the policy states that as of the date the policy becomes enforceable any player who is currently charged with a serious offence and is before the courts can be suspended then it isn't backdated. It is their current legal status that is at issue, not the date when the offence is alleged to have occurred.

Bingo.

 

[Capital_Dragon]

Well if they want to be fair dinkum and they include ‘currently’ they should also include ‘has been’.

I agree and would like to see a condition of registration as an NRL player that all previous crimes be declared and these be assessed. You would then get the Lodge situation where it was civil, and not criminal, but the video was pretty damning.

The NRL might be able to get away with enforcing it on any new contracts for existing players. They would have no chance of banning current players with a valid contract.

 

[2218]

Bingo.

Weird that a legal document would use the word ‘currently’ in its policy

I agree and would like to see a condition of registration as an NRL player that all previous crimes be declared and these be assessed. You would then get the Lodge situation where it was civil, and not criminal, but the video was pretty damning.

The NRL might be able to get away with enforcing it on any new contracts for existing players. They would have no chance of banning current players with a valid contract.

Jack has a current valid contract. Banning him, not being convicted of anything and having other players being convicted felons running onto the field smacks of hypocrisy. Legally if you think the NRL could not bring in a policy that would deem their contracts void I don’t think federal court would approve the new policy. I think this policy was introduced in a knee jerk fashion and was not thought about thoroughly enough. There are too many variables.

 

[possm]

Weird that a legal document would use the word ‘currently’ in its policy

Jack has a current valid contract. Banning him, not being convicted of anything and having other players being convicted felons running onto the field smacks of hypocrisy. Legally if you think the NRL could not bring in a policy that would deem their contracts void I don’t think federal court would approve the new policy. I think this policy was introduced in a knee jerk fashion and was not thought about thoroughly enough. There are too many variables.

I think Peter Beattie is an embarrassment and a clown. In my opinion if the ARLC/NRL want to continue along their current path, they will be the one bringing the game into disrepute.

If in the future they would want to bring in this policy, I suggest it be included on new contracts or extensions to current contracts. The thing is the policy should be in the player contract.

 

[2218]

I think Peter Beattie is an embarrassment and a clown. In my opinion if the ARLC/NRL want to continue along their current path, they will be the one bringing the game into disrepute.

If in the future they would want to bring in this policy, I suggest it be included on new contracts or extensions to current contracts. The thing is the policy should be in the player contract.

I agree poss but I don’t think this policy will get past the federal court judge.

 

[Capital_Dragon]

Weird that a legal document would use the word ‘currently’ in its policy

Jack has a current valid contract. Banning him, not being convicted of anything and having other players being convicted felons running onto the field smacks of hypocrisy. Legally if you think the NRL could not bring in a policy that would deem their contracts void I don’t think federal court would approve the new policy. I think this policy was introduced in a knee jerk fashion and was not thought about thoroughly enough. There are too many variables.

What you seemingly fail to grasp is that it is perfectly legal to suspend someone from their employment if they are the subject of court proceedings for a serious criminal charge and that is stipulated in a workplace code of conduct. This applies to literally hundreds of thousands of Australian workers (every state and federal public servant for a start). It has absolutely nothing to do with his innocence or guilt.

The same way people are remanded in custody before their innocence or guilt is determined. Or surrender their passports, or are forced to remain in a certain area. As for the "convicted felons", at the time of signing their contract they met all the conditions for registration so it just isn't possible to simply tear those contracts up.

Is it ideal? Is it fair? Probably not, but the NRL have to start somewhere and assuming they can actually write a set of rules that stand up in court (which is possible) then it starts this week.

 

[2218]

What you seemingly fail to grasp is that it is perfectly legal to suspend someone from their employment if they are the subject of court proceedings for a serious criminal charge and that is stipulated in a workplace code of conduct. This applies to literally hundreds of thousands of Australian workers (every state and federal public servant for a start). It has absolutely nothing to do with his innocence or guilt.

The same way people are remanded in custody before their innocence or guilt is determined. Or surrender their passports, or are forced to remain in a certain area. As for the "convicted felons", at the time of signing their contract they met all the conditions for registration so it just isn't possible to simply tear those contracts up.

Is it ideal? Is it fair? Probably not, but the NRL have to start somewhere and assuming they can actually write a set of rules that stand up in court (which is possible) then it starts this week.

Capital I see where you are coming from however. Even you agree the policy is not fair or ideal, ok well scrap it. The NRL has to start somewhere I agree but not what they have dished out. An embarrassment coming out and informing all and sundry about suspensions, salary cap compensation, player replacement and the policy wasn’t even drafted. So much wrong with this even the judge was scathing in his remarks. Get people in that can actually get this right.
Jack is on a contract with the dragons who have decided not to suspend him. Players are subject to NRL policy and code of conduct. The dragons state he hasn’t breached either policy or code of conduct this is supported by the NRL queens counsel and the Federal court judge.
Now you say this has nothing to do with innocence or guilt and you refer to the bail act. Well I agree but what it does is take into account the strength of the case, the risk of reoffending, protection of victims etc. Those that are determined likely to be convicted are remanded. Jack was granted bail. This process is what we currently have in which each case has is determined individually.
Now Jack has met all of his conditions of registration with the NRL, has not been stood down by his employer being St George, has not breached the code of conduct and has vehemently stated his innocence. The amount of evidence against him maybe weak compared with that of say Walker or say May. To suspend him from playing is a gross breach of due process and this policy should be scrapped and rethought.
While I agree with you that there are things to be addressed I reckon I gotta grasp of this.

 

[Willow]

St George Bank:
"We are not reviewing our sponsorship"
"Last year we extended our partnership with St George Illawarra for a further three years."
"This almost four-decade partnership is a proud one that is one of the longest running in Australian sporting history..."
"We look forward to continuing this support."

Add that to the previous statement:
“As these allegations are before the court we are unable to comment on such legal matters..."

St George Bank: 5
Anonymous gossip columnist: 1

People looking for links to back this up... the actual quotes have been expanded upon in other sections of the media...

Dragons NRL sponsor vows to stick solid
[Excerpt]
St.George Bank said it had no intention of ending its long-running association with the Dragons and the wider rugby league community.

"With any matters relating to player conduct, it is an issue that must be addressed by the NRL and it is important that we respect the judicial process and don't interfere with legal proceedings," a St.George bank spokeswoman said.

"Last year, we extended our partnership with St George Illawarra Dragons for a further three years.

"This almost four-decade partnership is a proud one that is one of the longest running in Australian sporting history and includes a strong commitment beyond the elite to grassroots rugby league and, most recently, the women's team.

"We look forward to continuing this support."

Multiple publications:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dragons-nrl-sponsor-vows-to-stick-solid
https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/rugby-league/dragons-nrl-sponsor-vows-to-stick-solid/ar-BBUvYXe
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-6785411/Dragons-NRL-sponsor-vows-stick-solid.html
---------------

It begs the question, why are these anonymous 'sources' trying to say the opposite?

@Miller was a legend , how's that curiosity working? FTR, thanks for bringing it up.

Now that's a headline that is beginning to grow on me....

Dragons NRL sponsor vows to stick solid
Dragons NRL sponsor vows to stick solid
Dragons NRL sponsor vows to stick solid
Dragons NRL sponsor vows to stick solid
Dragons NRL sponsor vows to stick solid

 

[The Damo]

Weird that a legal document would use the word ‘currently’ in its policy

Jack has a current valid contract. Banning him, not being convicted of anything and having other players being convicted felons running onto the field smacks of hypocrisy. Legally if you think the NRL could not bring in a policy that would deem their contracts void I don’t think federal court would approve the new policy. I think this policy was introduced in a knee jerk fashion and was not thought about thoroughly enough. There are too many variables.

Is it? Current as opposed to past or future. I don’t know what the wording will be but that’s the concept.
Also - Jack isn’t banned, and his contract is still valid. It stays valid whether he plays or not.
And it’s not hypocritical- any players with convictions have already served their sentence and had their circumstances evaluated before their contracts were registered.
If you think suspending a player on full pay is anything like voiding a current contract based on an already known conviction then I’m afraid that you misunderstand some of the basic principles under discussion. I don’t think that would be legal, and I also think it’s got no relevance to this situation.

 

[The Damo]

Capital I see where you are coming from however. Even you agree the policy is not fair or ideal, ok well scrap it. The NRL has to start somewhere I agree but not what they have dished out. An embarrassment coming out and informing all and sundry about suspensions, salary cap compensation, player replacement and the policy wasn’t even drafted. So much wrong with this even the judge was scathing in his remarks. Get people in that can actually get this right.
Jack is on a contract with the dragons who have decided not to suspend him. Players are subject to NRL policy and code of conduct. The dragons state he hasn’t breached either policy or code of conduct this is supported by the NRL queens counsel and the Federal court judge.
Now you say this has nothing to do with innocence or guilt and you refer to the bail act. Well I agree but what it does is take into account the strength of the case, the risk of reoffending, protection of victims etc. Those that are determined likely to be convicted are remanded. Jack was granted bail. This process is what we currently have in which each case has is determined individually.
Now Jack has met all of his conditions of registration with the NRL, has not been stood down by his employer being St George, has not breached the code of conduct and has vehemently stated his innocence. The amount of evidence against him maybe weak compared with that of say Walker or say May. To suspend him from playing is a gross breach of due process and this policy should be scrapped and rethought.
While I agree with you that there are things to be addressed I reckon I gotta grasp of this.

The granting of bail has zero to do with the likelihood of being convicted. Presumption of innocence remember?

 

[possm]

What you seemingly fail to grasp is that it is perfectly legal to suspend someone from their employment if they are the subject of court proceedings for a serious criminal charge and that is stipulated in a workplace code of conduct. This applies to literally hundreds of thousands of Australian workers (every state and federal public servant for a start). It has absolutely nothing to do with his innocence or guilt.

The same way people are remanded in custody before their innocence or guilt is determined. Or surrender their passports, or are forced to remain in a certain area. As for the "convicted felons", at the time of signing their contract they met all the conditions for registration so it just isn't possible to simply tear those contracts up.

Is it ideal? Is it fair? Probably not, but the NRL have to start somewhere and assuming they can actually write a set of rules that stand up in court (which is possible) then it starts this week.

And there is the rub. Is De Belin an employee of SGI or ARLC or NRL? I believe he has only one employer and that is SGI so, correct me if I'm wrong, only JDB's employer can suspend his employment.

 

[Dragonslayer]

And there is the rub. Is De Belin an employee of SGI or ARLC or NRL? I believe he has only one employer.

His contract is registered by the NRL, that should answer your question.

 

[TruSaint]

And there is the rub. Is De Belin an employee of SGI or ARLC or NRL? I believe he has only one employer.

He is directly employed by the Club, whom are obligated to have his employment contract ratified by the governing body.

 

[The Damo]

And there is the rub. Is De Belin an employee of SGI or ARLC or NRL? I believe he has only one employer.

Yes, but the nrl is under no obligation to let anyone play first grade no matter who employs them. Who registers the contracts? Who administers suspensions? Who regulates the salary cap? Jack stays an employee of the club, and he’s ineligible to play in the NRL. There is no contradiction in there.

 

[possm]

His contract is registered by the NRL, that should answer your question.

No, the proposed rule talks about standing JDB down not deresgistering him. If the ARLC/NRL tried to deregister De Belin they surely could be suied as he has not breached any registration requirements.

 

[2218]

The granting of bail has zero to do with the likelihood of being convicted. Presumption of innocence remember?

Ahhh Damo ya got this completely wrong. It has everything thing to do with it. And this is why each case is determined individually. A blanket 11 years to be suspended is not right either. Matters can be upgraded and downgraded. Imagine the turmoil that would cause. This policy is fraught with danger to all involved. Back to the drawing board for the NRL