Junior Amone

[The Word]

I said it in regard to the JDB case and I say it again with the Armone situation. The NRL is to take over the contract from the Dragons and deal with Armone in whichever way they feel necessary.

In theory I like this idea Possm, mainly because it takes the mess away from the club and frees up their cap. The complications might arise if / when a player is found not guilty, but the club has filled his spot by offering a contract to another player. How would the first player, now under contract with the NRL, be put back on to the field?

 

[2218]

The standard clause is pretty general and states that the contract can be terminated for any conduct that brings into disrepute the image of the competition or club. Whether he gets found guilty or not, his conduct has caused him to get arrested, and his arrest has brought the image of the club into disrepute (one only has to read this thread to see that).

Just because you get arrested doesnt mean you are guilty of anything or bringing the game into disrepute. His conduct is currently before the court to make a finding whether his actions were lawful or not. How could the club make a determination based on such little information. The NRL has already put in place punitive and protective measures for certain charges that the organisation believes tarnishes the game.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Just because you get arrested doesnt mean you are guilty of anything or bringing the game into disrepute. His conduct is currently before the court to make a finding whether his actions were lawful or not. How could the club make a determination based on such little information. The NRL has already put in place punitive and protective measures for certain charges that the organisation believes tarnishes the game.

If he’s agreed to a contract that provides for him to suffer punitive measures before a finding of guilt then he’s bound by that provision.

If they trigger the clause, he can go the court and challenge it. See how he goes…

But no one forced him to sign it.

I agree with you that just because he’s arrested, he is not guilty, as for disrepute, that’s arguable too.

I put the stats up earlier in the Tristan thread awhile back. Something like 7% of people arrested and charged are found to not guilty and maybe those people should never have been arrested and charged in the first place.

But it’s a process.

That said, just my view, due to the seriousness of the matter him playing footy again is the least of his worries.

But I don’t blame the club at all. They would have been absolutely horrified.

Puts them in a bad place either way. No winners.

So extreme are the allegations and so far as we know there is footage, solid witnesses etc - i think he’s dangerous. Lucky to be out on bail.

 

[BLM01]

I expect Amone's legal team will negotiate a guilty pea deal that will see him sentenced to about 2 years in jail. Once this happens then the Club can tear up its contract and use these funds to recruit a new player.

Just because you get arrested doesnt mean you are guilty of anything or bringing the game into disrepute. His conduct is currently before the court to make a finding whether his actions were lawful or not. How could the club make a determination based on such little information. The NRL has already put in place punitive and protective measures for certain charges that the organisation believes tarnishes the game.

My gut feel without any predujice or knowledge or throwing stones is that Amone's father will bare the brunt. The mysterious 3rd person they cant find still is key.
Amone is obviously involved but when the dust settles and investigations / evidence are complete by the time we get to a trial? for Junior (assuming even if he does) I dont think he will get jail time.
Maybe wishful thinking but as I said just my gut feel and my last comment on the matter until it takes it course, regardless of what the media trot out.
Selfishly as a Dragons supporter I wish the NRL and / or integrity unit make a decision now what they will do with him in regards to time out.

 

[possm]

In theory I like this idea Possm, mainly because it takes the mess away from the club and frees up their cap. The complications might arise if / when a player is found not guilty, but the club has filled his spot by offering a contract to another player. How would the first player, now under contract with the NRL, be put back on to the field?

The NRL should insure itself against such circumstances and compensate the stood-down player accordingly. After which, the stood-down players can sign a new contract with whoever he chooses. Remember:
1. The NRL, not the club stood down the player.
2. Maybe some cap relief is granted to the club signing this player under such a circumstance.

 

[The Word]

If he’s agreed to a contract that provides for him to suffer punitive measures before a finding of guilt then he’s bound by that provision.

If they trigger the clause, he can go the court and challenge it. See how he goes…

But no one forced him to sign it.

I agree with you that just because he’s arrested, he is not guilty, as for disrepute, that’s arguable too.

I put the stats up earlier in the Tristan thread awhile back. Something like 7% of people arrested and charged are found to not guilty and maybe those people should never have been arrested and charged in the first place.

But it’s a process.

That said, just my view, due to the seriousness of the matter him playing footy again is the least of his worries.

But I don’t blame the club at all. They would have been absolutely horrified.

Puts them in a bad place either way. No winners.

So extreme are the allegations and so far as we know there is footage, solid witnesses etc - i think he’s dangerous. Lucky to be out on bail.

Under Australian law if a court or a tribunal finds that a term in a contract is unfair, then it becomes void, and therefore that term is no longer legally binding.
Again, in my opinion only, but if the club has asked him to sign a contract which allows them to cancel it on the basis of something that he didn't even do (remember this is only on the basis that he is found not guilty), then to most rational thinkers, as a 20 year old kid with no prior form, that would be considered to be unfair.
Therefore a civil court would insist the contract remain in place and the club would need to pay out the terms of the contract. Therefore a hole in the salary cap, hence my initial point about why clubs very rarely sack first offenders waiting for trial.
Best hope is an early and quick trial process and no fault stand down to kick in to assist with the salary cap.

 

[Dragon Blood]

The only issue that is in question is how will the NRL deal with this and what leeway they will give us in dealing with it.

Unless a deal for an early guilty plea is struck with the courts we will have our hands tied waiting for guidance from the NRL

This could stretch out for a long period of time as it appears Amone Snr’s arrest in this matter has triggered other court matters for him.

Yet another clusterf**k our club has to
to deal with because of the selfish and senseless behaviour of certain individuals who just happen to play for our club.

We’ve played boring Dragons footy for many seasons now, but at least we’ve become the ‘entertainers’ during the off-season over the past few years.

 

[twinkletoes]

Under Australian law if a court or a tribunal finds that a term in a contract is unfair, then it becomes void, and therefore that term is no longer legally binding.
Again, in my opinion only, but if the club has asked him to sign a contract which allows them to cancel it on the basis of something that he didn't even do (remember this is only on the basis that he is found not guilty), then to most rational thinkers, as a 20 year old kid with no prior form, that would be considered to be unfair.
Therefore a civil court would insist the contract remain in place and the club would need to pay out the terms of the contract. Therefore a hole in the salary cap, hence my initial point about why clubs very rarely sack first offenders waiting for trial.
Best hope is an early and quick trial process and no fault stand down to kick in to assist with the salary cap.

Best scenario is to plead guilty and go straight to sentencing…. Dragons can move on…. Amone and family can move on. Show some integrity at least and do the right thing by the club instead of dragging it out for 18 months

 

[The Word]

Best scenario is to plead guilty and go straight to sentencing…. Dragons can move on…. Amone and family can move on. Show some integrity at least and do the right thing by the club instead of dragging it out for 18 months

Might turn out to be best for Junior as well, might get him a slightly shorter sentence. Assuming he is guilty of course.

 

[hewi]

Might turn out to be best for Junior as well, might get him a slightly shorter sentence. Assuming he is guilty of course.

25% discount for early plea

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Under Australian law if a court or a tribunal finds that a term in a contract is unfair, then it becomes void, and therefore that term is no longer legally binding.
Again, in my opinion only, but if the club has asked him to sign a contract which allows them to cancel it on the basis of something that he didn't even do (remember this is only on the basis that he is found not guilty), then to most rational thinkers, as a 20 year old kid with no prior form, that would be considered to be unfair.
Therefore a civil court would insist the contract remain in place and the club would need to pay out the terms of the contract. Therefore a hole in the salary cap, hence my initial point about why clubs very rarely sack first offenders waiting for trial.
Best hope is an early and quick trial process and no fault stand down to kick in to assist with the salary cap.

For my response here I will grant you the indulgence that he is to be considered not guilty!

I think the error in this argument is where you submit that “ if the club has asked him to sign a contract which allows them to cancel it on the basis of something he didn’t even do “

I suggest our impugned clause of interest doesn’t operate like that.

It would cover conduct or an allegation. Conduct wouldn’t be determined by a criminal court, but by the NRL and/or the club.

A later finding wouldn’t operate retrospectively. It’s a different issue.

The court would ask “was the clause unfair at the time he entered into the contract?” Did it meet the conditions of a valid contract? Did he understand it, did he enter into it of his own free will? Those sorts of things.

Even if he’s found not guilty, I think the club is fine.

Did the club or NRL pay out jdb?

Also with the jdb experience, the clubs lawyers would be all over this issue, they would power up the club to the enth degree. They deal with youngsters day in and day out and they need a lot of control.

I doubt that when he was getting advice, junior, his managers and lawyers ever expected to have to contest a clause like this in the future.

If they had asked the club to remove it before he signed it, I doubt that it would have got much traction.

My thoughts anyway.

 

[ground zero]

Best scenario is to plead guilty and go straight to sentencing…. Dragons can move on…. Amone and family can move on. Show some integrity at least and do the right thing by the club instead of dragging it out for 18 months

But they want get paid for pleading guilty early. Drag it out as long as theyb can.

 

[BLM01]

Under Australian law if a court or a tribunal finds that a term in a contract is unfair, then it becomes void, and therefore that term is no longer legally binding.
Again, in my opinion only, but if the club has asked him to sign a contract which allows them to cancel it on the basis of something that he didn't even do (remember this is only on the basis that he is found not guilty), then to most rational thinkers, as a 20 year old kid with no prior form, that would be considered to be unfair.
Therefore a civil court would insist the contract remain in place and the club would need to pay out the terms of the contract. Therefore a hole in the salary cap, hence my initial point about why clubs very rarely sack first offenders waiting for trial.
Best hope is an early and quick trial process and no fault stand down to kick in to assist with the salary cap.

You are forgetting the standards of a NRL contract (in addition to the club contract) that you must abide by the NRL rules and any breaches (bringing the game into disrepute and what this means is defined in a NRL contract) can see it being cancelled. Just like Todd Carney, Dugan and Fergo etc.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

it’s probably all going upstairs to the District Court.

I wouldn’t be throwing up my arms to pleading guilty to this in a hurry. Id want to cross every T and dot every i.

The charge is serious, the penalty extreme. Plus he’s in company with others. Ouch!

 

[The Word]

You are forgetting the standards of a NRL contract (in addition to the club contract) that you must abide by the NRL rules and any breaches (bringing the game into disrepute and what this means is defined in a NRL contract) can see it being cancelled. Just like Todd Carney, Dugan and Fergo etc.

Same deal with NRL, if a court finds he didn't do anything then cancelling his contract will be deemed to be unreasonable, because they will argue he did nothing to bring the club or NRL into disrepute. Those three all had prior form. Even so, Sharks ended up paying Carney after he sued them for unfair dismissal (yeah I know right!) Put a small hole in their cap at the time. Fergo, is that the Japanese rugby sacking? Plenty of prior misdemeanors there would not have been hard to justify dismissal for being caught red handed with Cocaine, the club would have been fairly confident they could defend that one. Dugan, also had priors. Even so, as I understand it he is contesting the breach of health orders charge and if successful will sue Cronulla for breach of contract?

 

[The Word]

Did the club or NRL pay out jdb?

No. They didn't need to because they didn't cancel his contract.
And what is this granting me the indulgence that he is found not guilty? That's the whole premise of the debate.
This discussion is going backwards. I'm out, and I really mean in this time lol.

 

[Dragon David]

Who is the 3rd Guy?

 

[The Word]

.

 

[BLM01]

Same deal with NRL, if a court finds he didn't do anything then cancelling his contract will be deemed to be unreasonable, because they will argue he did nothing to bring the club or NRL into disrepute. Those three all had prior form. Even so, Sharks ended up paying Carney after he sued them for unfair dismissal (yeah I know right!) Put a small hole in their cap at the time. Fergo, is that the Japanese rugby sacking? Plenty of prior misdemeanors there would not have been hard to justify dismissal for being caught red handed with Cocaine, the club would have been fairly confident they could defend that one. Dugan, also had priors. Even so, as I understand it he is contesting the breach of health orders charge and if successful will sue Cronulla for breach of contract?

No but the point your a missing you dont have to be guilty of a crime in court to bring the game into disrepute. Maybe there is not enough evidence about bringing the game into disrepute yet...that is why nothing has happened. IIDK
The crime stuff will find its way eventually.
Dugan and Fergo got sacked from Canberra after rooftop breezer incidents, bringing the game into disrepute when they should of been at training or some other club thing?
Dugans prior form was minor stuff being late to training or missing sessions etc
Dont know even if Fergo had priors either
Chill...That is all we are trying to point out here

 

[muzby]

.

You make a compelling point