Jdb case

[Glenn012]

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

Really? That wasn't meant to be "a counter argument". I'm just observing what new embellishments they come up with to justify the NRLs criminal position.

 

[st penguin]

Really? That wasn't meant to be "a counter argument". I'm just observing what new embellishments they come up with to justify the NRLs criminal position.

...and he keeps digging.

 

[possm]

I'm tipping that the DPP will not have the goods to convict De Belin and so will offer a low level assault charge prior to the commencement of the trial. De Belin legal representative will most probably take the fine and compensation payment offer in order to make things go away early and allow De Belin to get on with his life and his football career..

No jail time, no stand down.

 

[ST Tangles 01]

I'm tipping that the DPP will not have the goods to convict De Belin and so will offer a low level assault charge prior to the commencement of the trial. De Belin legal representative will most probably take the fine and compensation payment offer in order to make things go away early and allow De Belin to get on with his life and his football career..

No jail time, no stand down.

Hi Possm,

If he accepts a low level assault charge depending on what it is I'm tipping he will be banned from playing at least for a time frame if not indefinitely.

I'm not saying his guilty or innocent I don't know but if he pleads to any level of assault even if minor like the Cowboys player he can expect some sort of ban.

 

[Glenn012]

Hi Possm,

If he accepts a low level assault charge depending on what it is I'm tipping he will be banned from playing at least for a time frame if not indefinitely.

I'm not saying his guilty or innocent I don't know but if he pleads to any level of assault even if minor like the Cowboys player he can expect some sort of ban.

Games served.

 

[Willow]

“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?

Well by definition, the word 'arguably' means the point is up for argument. That's what I did, and I thank you again for your clarification.

I just saw fault in the notion that Melbourne are in some way qualified to discuss ethics, given their history.

There are some serious questions over the management of the Melbourne Storm. They are the only club that was so poorly managed that they had two premierships plus three minor premierships stripped for cheating.

IMO, Melbourne are still unwilling to accept their own poor management practices of the past, given recent comments from their Club Captain.

I trust we're on the same page with this, as you also stated, "I’m happy to accept any and all criticisms of Melbournes actions around the image of the game."

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?

In debate terminology, that's asking someone to prove a negative. With respect, your argument is based on an absence of evidence.

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.

The part abut them using JdB as scapegoat to cure their own woes? Well that's based on the Campbell's assertion that his money problems were caused by the so-called summer of hell. It's in the report, I'm not speculating there.

I also made it clear that my earlier comments were to highlight the contradiction of speculative 'reasoning' used by Greenberg and Campbell. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

 

[ST Tangles 01]

Games served.

I know this is all speculation but would depend on level of charge

 

[The Damo]

Well by definition, the word 'arguably' means the point is up for argument. That's what I did, and I thank you again for your clarification.

I just saw fault in the notion that Melbourne are in some way qualified to discuss ethics, given their history.

There are some serious questions over the management of the Melbourne Storm. They are the only club that was so poorly managed that they had two premierships plus three minor premierships stripped for cheating.

IMO, Melbourne are still unwilling to accept their own poor management practices of the pas, given recent comments from their Club Captain.

I trust we're on the page with this, as you also stated, "I’m happy to accept any and all criticisms of Melbournes actions around the image of the game."
In debate terminology, that's asking someone to prove a negative. With respect, your argument is based on an absence of evidence.
The part abut them using JdB as scapegoat to cure their own woes? Well that's based on the Campbell's assertion that his money problems were caused by the so-called summer of hell. It's in the report, I'm not speculating there.

I also made it clear that my earlier comments were to highlight the contradiction of speculative 'reasoning' used by Greenberg and Campbell. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

All good man - I never claimed the storm had standing to discuss ethics. I claimed they had standing to discuss commercial success / sponsorship, which given both the context and my reference to them as scum,I thought was obvious, sorry.

With respect, that’s not what proving a negative means at all. I asked you to speculate on a hypothetical but possible scenario, I didn’t ask you to provide evidence for something that doesn’t exist, or any of the other meanings of that specific terminology.

The use of the word scapegoat implies that they believe that it is expedient or unmerited to make that claim. If they genuinely believe their claim they are not scapegoating him. Therefore unless you have access to their inner thoughts, you are speculating as to their motive/reasoning.

It’s not unfounded speculation sure, but neither is considering what the ramifications of having a high profile player convicted of aggravated sexual assault in company might have on future sponsorship deals.

I think if Jack plays, and is then convicted, it is highly likely that would have a negative impact on the image of the club and the game. I think that negative impact is likely to effect future sponsorship deals in a negative way.
Yes that is speculation, but it’s speculation that the NRL has a responsibility to engage in.
I think the NRL is right to take steps to mitigate that risk.

 

[Gardenia]

I'm tipping that the DPP will not have the goods to convict De Belin and so will offer a low level assault charge prior to the commencement of the trial. De Belin legal representative will most probably take the fine and compensation payment offer in order to make things go away early and allow De Belin to get on with his life and his football career..

No jail time, no stand down.

That’s a big call Possum .
The dragging out of legal proceedings has just begun and already has done my head in
It would be good to wake up it’s all been a bad dream.

Seriously though he has just had a child and a partner who would be hurting over this. I’m guessing only guessing that he would want to clear his name . I would want that for my family . But who knows if the legal process will wear him down .
That’s not be assuming what happened it’s assuming innocence unless proven guilty as per our law .

 

[Glenn012]

All good man - I never claimed the storm had standing to discuss ethics. I claimed they had standing to discuss commercial success / sponsorship, which given both the context and my reference to them as scum,I thought was obvious, sorry.

With respect, that’s not what proving a negative means at all. I asked you to speculate on a hypothetical but possible scenario, I didn’t ask you to provide evidence for something that doesn’t exist, or any of the other meanings of that specific terminology.

The use of the word scapegoat implies that they believe that it is expedient or unmerited to make that claim. If they genuinely believe their claim they are not scapegoating him. Therefore unless you have access to their inner thoughts, you are speculating as to their motive/reasoning.

It’s not unfounded speculation sure, but neither is considering what the ramifications of having a high profile player convicted of aggravated sexual assault in company might have on future sponsorship deals.

I think if Jack plays, and is then convicted, it is highly likely that would have a negative impact on the image of the club and the game. I think that negative impact is likely to effect future sponsorship deals in a negative way.
Yes that is speculation, but it’s speculation that the NRL has a responsibility to engage in.
I think the NRL is right to take steps to mitigate that risk.

I hate to bring this thread back to the top but damn it!! Why can't you understand that basing your argument on a hypothetical situation is absurd???? It's not difficult when you think about it. Shutting down the competition and shooting anyone who plays RL may be the only solution because at some point in the future someone may do something to sully the good name of SportsBet.com and that just cannot be allowed to stand!

 

[getsmarty]

Beattie refuses Dragons demand to issue apology to de Belin
Adrian ProszenkoApril 27, 2019 — 6.00pm

• Send via Email

Leave a comment

Lawyers acting for St George Illawarra and Jack de Belin took the extraordinary step of drafting an apology statement for ARLC chairman Peter Beattie in which he was to declare "Jack is innocent unless proven guilty" following his controversial commentary about de Belin and the aggravated sexual assault charge levelled against the player.

The validity of the game’s new "no fault" stand down policy is set to be determined this week. Justice Melissa Perry is poised to hand down her ruling in coming days after overseeing a four-day hearing in the Federal Court earlier this month. A decision which finds the policy unlawful could see de Belin return to the football field while he fights the charge, to which he is pleading not guilty.

ARLC boss Peter Beattie led the campaign to stand down Jack de Belin (inset).Credit:NRL Photos, Adam McLean

The Sun-Herald has obtained correspondence between lawyers acting for the Dragons and de Belin and those representing Beattie in relation to the former Queensland premier’s public comments on the star forward's alleged conduct. Beattie was outspoken about the need for the game to take a hardline stance on player behaviour after the case against de Belin was detailed in court documents.

Craig Osborne, a Dragons director and managing partner at RMB Lawyers, wrote to Beattie on February 27, a day before the new policy was officially announced. Osborne claimed Beattie had "engaged in a media campaign against our clients" that was potentially defamatory and in contempt of court.

The letter stated Beattie’s comments have "a real tendency to interfere with the administration of justice" and demanded he "cease and desist in this campaign against Mr de Belin".

It also claims Beattie’s conduct "imputes that Mr de Belin is guilty of rape".

The letter goes on to demand that Beattie issue the following public statement to rectify the damage: "I have given a number of interviews over the last seven days and made public statements about SGI rugby league player Jack de Belin. I need to clarify something very important: Jack is innocent until proven guilty.

"Neither I, nor the ARLC or NRL, are in possession of any evidence that enables us to form a view on this matter. Jack is entitled to have this matter determined by the courts and that process should not be interfered with.

"I apologise to Jack if my conduct over the last seven days has led people to believe that I have formed a view about the allegations against him. I have not."

The ARLC responded via its lawyer, Tony O’Reilly, refuting any suggestion that it had defamed de Belin or prejudiced his criminal matter. The request to publish the statement was declined. Suggestions of interference with contractual matters were also refuted.

Further court documents released show that de Belin’s current three-year contract was worth $500,000 in 2018, $545,000 this season and $595,000 in 2020. There were no third-party agreements listed in the deal.

De Belin remains on full pay until the criminal proceedings are concluded. That prompted Alan Sullivan, appearing for the ARLC during the Federal Court hearing to quip: "It would be hard for a player being stood down on $500,000 to plead hardship."

If de Belin receives a favourable verdict in his case against the NRL, he could return to the Dragons line-up in time to take on Parramatta at Bankwest Stadium next Sunday.


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/be...ssue-apology-to-de-belin-20190427-p51hr2.html

 

[Glenn012]

If or when our persecuted hero is found not-guilty, the club needs to reach an agreement with Jack. Back him financially in suing the governing body and Beattie and Greenburg personally. Go for the financial jugular and in return, the club splits the settlement with Jack when the ARL begs for mercy. Make Mark Coyne the CEO and choose the ARLC chairman.

 

[TruSaint]

"Persecuted Hero"
FMD..........

He's a football player charged with a serious crime. He has the presumption of innocence,. That's it.

 

[Glenn012]

"Persecuted Hero"
FMD..........

He's a football player charged with a serious crime. He has the presumption of innocence,. That's it.

If I tell you he is persecuted, he is persecuted. Got it?

You have two hero's on the sideline. One is persecuted and the other persecuted the team for the last 5 years and two games this year.

 

[2010]

I'm tipping that the DPP will not have the goods to convict De Belin and so will offer a low level assault charge prior to the commencement of the trial. De Belin legal representative will most probably take the fine and compensation payment offer in order to make things go away early and allow De Belin to get on with his life and his football career..

No jail time, no stand down.

I have to agree with this scenario. If the DPP feels that there is not strong evidence to convict him they will offer JDB a lesser charge. That happens in a lot of cases.
If that happens and JDB is fined and gets community service then the NRL adopting their 11 year crap rule will be out the window.
Just look at some of the people charged with murder and get it pleaded down to manslaughter, that is done to when the DPP doesn’t feel that a jury will convict that person and then there is the cost of a lengthy trial.
The accuser might also want the charge to be downgraded whereas there will be no need to appear at a trial.
I am not saying JDB is innocent but I feel that he will be offered a deal to plead guilty to a lesser charge which would result in no gaol time.

 

[TruSaint]

I have to agree with this scenario. If the DPP feels that there is not strong evidence to convict him they will offer JDB a lesser charge. That happens in a lot of cases.
If that happens and JDB is fined and gets community service then the NRL adopting their 11 year crap rule will be out the window.
Just look at some of the people charged with murder and get it pleaded down to manslaughter, that is done to when the DPP doesn’t feel that a jury will convict that person and then there is the cost of a lengthy trial.
The accuser might also want the charge to be downgraded whereas there will be no need to appear at a trial.
I am not saying JDB is innocent but I feel that he will be offered a deal to plead guilty to a lesser charge which would result in no gaol time.

If the charge is downgraded, which as you rightly say is not uncommon, and he is convicted of a lesser charge then it does not mean he will play.

The stand down policy is for players facing "charges" which may lead to term of 11 years incarceration.

The NRL will still have the right to stand him down if he is "convicted" of a crime, as the presumption of innocence, and full pay etc, go out the window.

 

[TruSaint]

If I tell you he is persecuted, he is persecuted. Got it?

You have two hero's on the sideline. One is persecuted and the other persecuted the team for the last 5 years and two games this year.

Thx DragonJ.

 

[Slippery Morris]

Stand down rule is good just the way it was implemented was wrong. Backdating it to cater for previous misdemeanours wreaks of incompetence by the NRL. When you bring out a new rule or law, you can't go back and penalise someone for something that was not around at the time? Lets decrease the speed limit on a road today and anyone who went past the new limit last week gets fined? WTF?

Leaving the stand down rule will make players think twice about doing stupid stuff that is for sure. They should not be in that position to do so. If JDB wins teh case they should still keep the rule and emphasis how lucky JDB is for not being out of the game for 2 years until the case was over.

The Gus Gould timing is excellent as he is now free to take over Greentud's role in the NRL. Or better still they can get Dousty. How good would that be. He was a much more successful CEO than Greenberg was at the Dogs. Dousty got us a premiership, Greenberg got nothing just left a huge pile of $hite for the NZ bird to step in and take the blame.

 

[Old Kogarah Boy 1]

Beattie refuses Dragons demand to issue apology to de Belin
Adrian ProszenkoApril 27, 2019 — 6.00pm

• Send via Email

Leave a comment

Lawyers acting for St George Illawarra and Jack de Belin took the extraordinary step of drafting an apology statement for ARLC chairman Peter Beattie in which he was to declare "Jack is innocent unless proven guilty" following his controversial commentary about de Belin and the aggravated sexual assault charge levelled against the player.

The validity of the game’s new "no fault" stand down policy is set to be determined this week. Justice Melissa Perry is poised to hand down her ruling in coming days after overseeing a four-day hearing in the Federal Court earlier this month. A decision which finds the policy unlawful could see de Belin return to the football field while he fights the charge, to which he is pleading not guilty.

ARLC boss Peter Beattie led the campaign to stand down Jack de Belin (inset).Credit:NRL Photos, Adam McLean

The Sun-Herald has obtained correspondence between lawyers acting for the Dragons and de Belin and those representing Beattie in relation to the former Queensland premier’s public comments on the star forward's alleged conduct. Beattie was outspoken about the need for the game to take a hardline stance on player behaviour after the case against de Belin was detailed in court documents.

Craig Osborne, a Dragons director and managing partner at RMB Lawyers, wrote to Beattie on February 27, a day before the new policy was officially announced. Osborne claimed Beattie had "engaged in a media campaign against our clients" that was potentially defamatory and in contempt of court.

The letter stated Beattie’s comments have "a real tendency to interfere with the administration of justice" and demanded he "cease and desist in this campaign against Mr de Belin".

It also claims Beattie’s conduct "imputes that Mr de Belin is guilty of rape".

The letter goes on to demand that Beattie issue the following public statement to rectify the damage: "I have given a number of interviews over the last seven days and made public statements about SGI rugby league player Jack de Belin. I need to clarify something very important: Jack is innocent until proven guilty.

"Neither I, nor the ARLC or NRL, are in possession of any evidence that enables us to form a view on this matter. Jack is entitled to have this matter determined by the courts and that process should not be interfered with.

"I apologise to Jack if my conduct over the last seven days has led people to believe that I have formed a view about the allegations against him. I have not."

The ARLC responded via its lawyer, Tony O’Reilly, refuting any suggestion that it had defamed de Belin or prejudiced his criminal matter. The request to publish the statement was declined. Suggestions of interference with contractual matters were also refuted.

Further court documents released show that de Belin’s current three-year contract was worth $500,000 in 2018, $545,000 this season and $595,000 in 2020. There were no third-party agreements listed in the deal.

De Belin remains on full pay until the criminal proceedings are concluded. That prompted Alan Sullivan, appearing for the ARLC during the Federal Court hearing to quip: "It would be hard for a player being stood down on $500,000 to plead hardship."

If de Belin receives a favourable verdict in his case against the NRL, he could return to the Dragons line-up in time to take on Parramatta at Bankwest Stadium next Sunday.


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/be...ssue-apology-to-de-belin-20190427-p51hr2.html

The case with JDB is yet to be determined.
The fact that Beattie is a career d!ckhead is not being challenged.

 

[BBTB]

Think he has two dicks.