Jdb case

[SnowDragon]

I have thought about this crappy situation too much, but I think I am finally coming to some conclusions... not that it’s still not open to change...

Sorry for the long winded aspect... only read if interested.

1) The no fault stand down is NOT meant to be a punishment, it is meant to protect the games image.

2) The specific of the case are irrelevant. What matters is only that the governing body think that any criminal charge over 11 years warrants standing down to protect the game until the court decides. Presumably afterwards they can add choose to add their own punishment on top if they wish.

3) Many (inc. JDB) would argue that the no fault is a punishment and does negatively effect them. Of course, mud sticks and an allegation will always have an effect, but this is on top.

4) the club is definitely negatively effected.

5) at the end one of 2 conclusions, guilty or not guilty.

So what proportion of people think differently about the game depending on the implementation of the no-fault policy? Many here seem pissed off at the nrl for their handling of the situation... some may leave for that reason. Some may leave because of the actions of dickhead players, and some of those may be persuaded to stay because thenrl takes action.

To be clear I want action by the nrl, because the behaviour of the players needs to change. There is a sub-culture of dickheads, and self important privaliged behaviour that is morally outrageous to me and most people.

However, punishing people who may be not guilty isn’t the solution. What I would like instead, is a change to the contracts of all players, whereby a proportion of their salary is withheld until they retire (say 20%), as a bond based on good behaviour. Probably better legally to give players a bonus for good behaviour. If they bring the game into disrepute, they loose some or all of it. The idea would need work, but criminal charges resulting in 1yr imprisonments could say lead to a cumulative 5% loss. (3yrs leads to say 15%). Cumulative transgressions could further reduce the players abilit to earn money (eg a player 2 years into a career forfeits forfeits 20% due to 4yrs in jail, when he comes back, he continues to loose the 20% forfeited, but is taxed an additional 20% for the rest of his career that he could potentially be paid out in 5he end should he keep his nose clean for the rest of his career)

The money saved could be added to a fund for the victims of the specific crimes, or to support generally (e.g. rape support groups), or players hurt in the game, or some other “good” cause, as decided by the players association, in order that there is no financial incentive for the nrl to save money.

This also has the added benefit that it forces savings to young people earning high salaries, to help in their post playing career.

Thoughts over for now.

 

[_Johnsy]

The people who comment that in any other job it's legal to stand a person down until after court, you are misguided fools!

You are 100% wrong, make no mistake about that.

 

[_Johnsy]

In this case if police had overwhelming evidence against JDB, he would not have even got bail!

It really is time to extricate your head from your anus. You have NFI.

 

[Glenn012]

I have thought about this crappy situation too much, but I think I am finally coming to some conclusions... not that it’s still not open to change...

Sorry for the long winded aspect... only read if interested.

1) The no fault stand down is NOT meant to be a punishment, it is meant to protect the games image.

2) The specific of the case are irrelevant. What matters is only that the governing body think that any criminal charge over 11 years warrants standing down to protect the game until the court decides. Presumably afterwards they can add choose to add their own punishment on top if they wish.

3) Many (inc. JDB) would argue that the no fault is a punishment and does negatively effect them. Of course, mud sticks and an allegation will always have an effect, but this is on top.

4) the club is definitely negatively effected.

5) at the end one of 2 conclusions, guilty or not guilty.

So what proportion of people think differently about the game depending on the implementation of the no-fault policy? Many here seem pissed off at the nrl for their handling of the situation... some may leave for that reason. Some may leave because of the actions of dickhead players, and some of those may be persuaded to stay because thenrl takes action.

To be clear I want action by the nrl, because the behaviour of the players needs to change. There is a sub-culture of dickheads, and self important privaliged behaviour that is morally outrageous to me and most people.

However, punishing people who may be not guilty isn’t the solution. What I would like instead, is a change to the contracts of all players, whereby a proportion of their salary is withheld until they retire (say 20%), as a bond based on good behaviour. Probably better legally to give players a bonus for good behaviour. If they bring the game into disrepute, they loose some or all of it. The idea would need work, but criminal charges resulting in 1yr imprisonments could say lead to a cumulative 5% loss. (3yrs leads to say 15%). Cumulative transgressions could further reduce the players abilit to earn money (eg a player 2 years into a career forfeits forfeits 20% due to 4yrs in jail, when he comes back, he continues to loose the 20% forfeited, but is taxed an additional 20% for the rest of his career that he could potentially be paid out in 5he end should he keep his nose clean for the rest of his career)

The money saved could be added to a fund for the victims of the specific crimes, or to support generally (e.g. rape support groups), or players hurt in the game, or some other “good” cause, as decided by the players association, in order that there is no financial incentive for the nrl to save money.

This also has the added benefit that it forces savings to young people earning high salaries, to help in their post playing career.

Thoughts over for now.

No need to be sorry for the "long-winded" aspect. I saw @st penguin "liked it" and read point #1 and that was already too much.

Firstly, my friend Damo is in favor of closing down the competition due to the possibility some player at some time in the future may do something to sully the good name of SportsBet.com and now you are in favor of "protecting it" by rubbing out of the competition potentially completely innocent guys for years at a time.

My personal opinion, which is quite frank is that you, Damo, TruSaint and others should follow the example of Old Timer and just STFU in regard to this topic. Actually, insofar as TruSaint I would recommend it for any topic but that's another story.

 

[TruSaint]

Hahahaha.....
Classy post DragonJ... the gift that keeps on giving
@Glenn012 , you really are pathetic...

 

[getsmarty]

Dragons coach Paul McGregor gives honest assessment of Jack De Belin’s playing future
AAP, AAP
an hour ago
St George Illawarra coach Paul McGregor says Jack de Belin’s NRL career will be over if he fails in his legal bid to be reinstated.

The Dragons and NSW lock is suing the NRL and ARL Commission in the Federal Court after he became the first player hit with the game’s “no fault” stand down policy.

The case concluded on Thursday and Justice Melissa Perry is expected to hand down her judgment in the next fortnight.

Part of de Belin’s case hinged on the argument it would cause untold damage to his career.

Jack de Belin was a NSW Origin player last year.
De Belin was stood down after he was charged with aggravated sexual assault. He has pleaded not guilty.

De Belin’s lawyers have argued that his criminal case might not conclude before the end of the 2020 NRL season, when he comes off-contract.

And if unsuccessful, McGregor said the 28-year-old would be unlikely to salvage his career if he were to be made to sit out the rest of his contract.

“Jack is at an age now if he’s not to play for two years his career is over,” McGregor said.

The court heard that had de Belin played this year and maintained his place in the NSW side, he would have received $90,000 in State of Origin match payments and $30,000 as a club representative bonus.

The NRL has justified the hardline policy by saying that supporters and sponsors would have been driven away from the game if they did not move to address player behaviour.

Melbourne chairman Bart Campbell on Thursday told the court that the game’s “summer from hell” had forced his club to accept a major sponsorship agreement $500,000 below market value.

Paul McGregor says Jack de Belin’s career hangs in the balance.
And that at the height of the code’s scandal-plagued off-season that potential sponsors had told them it was too risky to be involved with rugby league.

However de Belin and the Dragons have maintained his innocence and that it was unfair to stand him down without evidence of purported misconduct.

“He’s very strong and he gets his strength from his innocence,” McGregor said.

“He’s very strong about that.

“He knows what he needs to go through to getting back to playing.”


https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...e/news-story/bf30ee77cffde4eed33cb1ba91dc3e5a

 

[Carlton]

However de Belin and the Dragons have maintained his innocence and that it was unfair to stand him down without evidence of purported misconduct.

“He’s very strong and he gets his strength from his innocence,” McGregor said.

“He’s very strong about that.

“He knows what he needs to go through to getting back to playing.”

If this is what McGregor actually said then he should be sacked immediately. He has no way of knowing what actually happened and is declaring De Belin innocent while the case is going to court.

I am not talking about the stand down just the fact that McGregor is now preempting the judicial process and placing himself and the club in a difficult position.

 

[Belta]

If this is what McGregor actually said then he should be sacked immediately. He has no way of knowing what actually happened and is declaring De Belin innocent while the case is going to court.

I am not talking about the stand down just the fact that McGregor is now preempting the judicial process and placing himself and the club in a difficult position.

I’m surprised Mary has been this way all along. I can understand Mary supporting JDB but IMO it’s unprofessional and inappropriate for Mary to be making comments about Jack being innocent. In saying this there is a hell of a lot rubbish being dragged up around this case, and I it’s hard to imagine how all of this wont severely taint the subjective evidence of the case.

I personally feel sorry for the NRL bosses on this one. Jack has been made the sacrificial lamb. I’m still can’t decide if I agree or disagree. I’m constantly changing, TODAY Im reluctantly leaning towards agree. I say this with the knowledge that we may very well be hurting an innocent person, but if guilty send him to slaughter yard and if innocent, overcompensate him and send him to some very green pastures.

It may not be fair but hopefully it’s for the greater good.

 

[Willow]

Yes, what would the chairman of arguably the most successful Club know?

You know, you are talking about the Melbourne Storm? I'm happy to argue that no other club has done more to damage the game's image.

By most successful club, are you gauging that on premierships? If so, they have a long way to go. Even Newtown have won more premierships.

Scum they may be, but it’s hard to argue they’d know less about commercial success than our board.

Not when it comes to attracting worthwhile sponsors, so it seems.

I'm not buying Bart Campbell's story. There are too many other factors, including their past choice of sponsor.

Campbell said Melbourne found it difficult to land a new major sponsor amid the game's off-field turmoil after Crown Resorts ended a seven-figure partnership with the club last year.

Don't you find it odd that a club had a gambling and gaming corporation as a sponsor, and they lose that sponsor, only to find out that new sponsors aren't willing to cough up as much? Seriously, whose fault is that? Maybe, just maybe, all the bad press surrounding gambling was also a factor.

Just as an aside, it's interesting that Campbell's $500,00 loss figure matches the fine the Storm copped for cheating the salary cap.

And we don’t know what our sponsors would have done - because Jack isn’t playing while charged.

Actually, we do. Our largest sponsor St George Bank confirmed their sponsorship commitment before the stand down rule was enacted.

There were rumours to the contrary but St George Bank released a statement to say the report was untrue. The Mole posted the rumour but had to publish an update afterwards.

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

"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."

Source: https://pressfrom.info/au/news/sport/-110765-dragons-nrl-sponsor-vows-to-stick-solid.html

 

[The Damo]

You know, you are talking about the Melbourne Storm? I'm happy to argue that no other club has done more to damage the game's image.

By most successful club, are you gauging that on premierships? If so, they have a long way to go. Even Newtown have won more premierships.
Not when it comes to attracting worthwhile sponsors, so it seems.

I'm not buying Bart Campbell's story. There are too many other factors, including their past choice of sponsor.

Campbell said Melbourne found it difficult to land a new major sponsor amid the game's off-field turmoil after Crown Resorts ended a seven-figure partnership with the club last year.

Don't you find it odd that a club had a gambling and gaming corporation as a sponsor, and they lose that sponsor, only to find out that new sponsors aren't willing to cough up as much? Seriously, whose fault is that? Maybe, just maybe, all the bad press surrounding gambling was also a factor.

Just as an aside, it's interesting that Campbell's $500,00 loss figure matches the fine the Storm copped for cheating the salary cap.
Actually, we do. Our largest sponsor St George Bank confirmed their sponsorship commitment before the stand down rule was enacted.

There were rumours to the contrary but St George Bank released a statement to say the report was untrue. The Mole posted the rumour but had to publish an update afterwards.

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

"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."

Source: https://pressfrom.info/au/news/sport/-110765-dragons-nrl-sponsor-vows-to-stick-solid.html

I’m happy to accept any and all criticisms of Melbournes actions around the image of the game - I referred to them as scum for that reason.
But they are commercially and on field one of the most successful clubs of the last decade at least.
I don’t really see the previous sponsor being gambling Corp as likely to have an impact on another sponsors decision after the gambling Corp has ceased the relationship. But maybe.
I regard pretty much all corporations as essentially mercenary. They’ll do what they think is in the best interest of their profits.

I did say I didn’t expect sponsors to pull straight away. I expect them to take it into account next time. And if Jack is convicted I find it hard to believe St George Bank would regard having paid money to have their brand displayed on a convicted rapist as a positive. I don’t know if it would change their decision, but it would be considered.

 

[Willow]

I’m happy to accept any and all criticisms of Melbournes actions around the image of the game - I referred to them as scum for that reason.
But they are commercially and on field one of the most successful clubs of the last decade at least.
I don’t really see the previous sponsor being gambling Corp as likely to have an impact on another sponsors decision after the gambling Corp has ceased the relationship. But maybe.
I regard pretty much all corporations as essentially mercenary. They’ll do what they think is in the best interest of their profits.

I did say I didn’t expect sponsors to pull straight away. I expect them to take it into account next time. And if Jack is convicted I find it hard to believe St George Bank would regard having paid money to have their brand displayed on a convicted rapist as a positive. I don’t know if it would change their decision, but it would be considered.

Well you've clarified the success gauge from the most successful to one of the most successful over the last decade. So with respect it has become a moot point. But thanks for the clarification.

My comment about having Crown as a sponsor was just me plucking a reason out of the air, and therefore on the same reasoning level as Campbell (and Greenberg). The whole scenario suggests to me that they are using JdB as a scapegoat in order to resolve their own woes.

Your speculation about what sponsors might do or might not do in the future is just that, speculation. What we do have is a statement from St George Bank saying that are sticking by the Club. Anything else is just guesswork.

 

[The Damo]

Well you've clarified the success gauge from the most successful to one of the most successful over the last decade. So with respect it has become a moot point. But thanks for the clarification.

My comment about having Crown as a sponsor was just me plucking a reason out of the air, and therefore on the same reasoning level as Campbell (and Greenberg). The whole scenario suggests to me that they are using JdB as a scapegoat in order to resolve their own woes.

Your speculation about what sponsors might do or might not do in the future is just that, speculation. What we do have is a statement from St George Bank saying that are sticking by the Club. Anything else is just guesswork.

“Arguably the most successful” was my exact words if we’re at this level of hair splitting. And given they’ve only existed two decades, And that we are discussing the now, that seems an accurate description?

And yes, it’s speculation, that I explicitly framed as speculation. I said the NRL has a responsibility to consider the possible outcomes, one of which is iack’s conviction. Any decision based on possible future scenarios necesssitates speculation.
What would you speculate would be Sponsors reaction if Jack is convicted - positive or negative?

Your second paragraph is also speculation, every motive you impute to Greenberg and Campbell is speculation. I don’t have a problem with that, but it’s no more or less valid than my own.

 

[SnowDragon]

No need to be sorry for the "long-winded" aspect. I saw @st penguin "liked it" and read point #1 and that was already too much.

Firstly, my friend Damo is in favor of closing down the competition due to the possibility some player at some time in the future may do something to sully the good name of SportsBet.com and now you are in favor of "protecting it" by rubbing out of the competition potentially completely innocent guys for years at a time.

My personal opinion, which is quite frank is that you, Damo, TruSaint and others should follow the example of Old Timer and just STFU in regard to this topic. Actually, insofar as TruSaint I would recommend it for any topic but that's another story.

No mate you definitely didn’t read it!

Try again, I don’t want players stood down, but I do want some form of action

 

[Glenn012]

No mate you definitely didn’t read it!

Try again, I don’t want players stood down, but I do want some form of action

As I said, I saw who "liked" it and read the first point and that was already too much. If you offered some embellishment after that, it's not enough. It is criminal in and of itself to punish a man who as far as you or I or Greenburg knows is innocent. It's as simple as that.

 

[st penguin]

As I said, I saw who "liked" it and read the first point and that was already too much. If you offered some embellishment after that, it's not enough. It is criminal in and of itself to punish a man who as far as you or I or Greenburg knows is innocent. It's as simple as that.

Let me get this straight. You argued against SnowDragon’s comment even though you never read it?

Thats so f**king funny. I stand by my previous comment..just leave this one to the grown ups!

This is an actual quote from his comment: “However, punishing people who may be not guilty isn’t the solution.”

 

[TruSaint]

Let me get this straight. You argued against SnowDragon’s comment even though you never read it?

Thats so f**king funny. I stand by my previous comment..just leave this one to the grown ups!

This is an actual quote from his comment: “However, punishing people who may be not guilty isn’t the solution.”

Yes...
Thats gold, is it not.

The character you mention has many incarnations.
He will reply to a post, that he has said he wont read, only to highlight the fact that he saw a "like" by a poster he doesnt rate. Hmmm...

 

[The Damo]

Let me get this straight. You argued against SnowDragon’s comment even though you never read it?

Thats so f**king funny. I stand by my previous comment..just leave this one to the grown ups!

This is an actual quote from his comment: “However, punishing people who may be not guilty isn’t the solution.”

The dude just isn’t interested in evidence, blind and ignorant assumptions is more his go. It is pretty funny the combination of ignorance and confidence though.

 

[Glenn012]

Let me get this straight. You argued against SnowDragon’s comment even though you never read it?

Thats so f**king funny. I stand by my previous comment..just leave this one to the grown ups!

This is an actual quote from his comment: “However, punishing people who may be not guilty isn’t the solution.”

I thought I made it clear. You liking it and the first point was more than enough. Any embellishment after that was not enough. I had no interest in reading on.

The dude just isn’t interested in evidence, blind and ignorant assumptions is more his go. It is pretty funny the combination of ignorance and confidence though.

That's ok. Talk about me if you like though I'd prefer you did it on another thread. On this thread, you have made your disgraceful but ridiculous position abundantly clear. Now it's time to STFU. At least until the verdict next week.

 

[The Damo]

I thought I made it clear. You liking it and the first point was more than enough. Any embellishment after that was not enough. I had no interest in reading on.


That's ok. Talk about me if you like though I'd prefer you did it on another thread. On this thread, you have made your disgraceful but ridiculous position abundantly clear. Now it's time to STFU. At least until the verdict next week.

Oh hey, nice to see you again - bring any evidence for your assumptions and false claims this time? No? Surprising, but maybe next time.

 

[Willow]

As I said, I saw who "liked" it and read the first point and that was already too much.

LOL. This has to be worst counter-argument I've seen in this debate.