Knight Russell Packer jailed for two years

[magpie4ever]

Not really, the club isn't the boss, the NRL is the boss. They dont need to justify to the club why they wont register his contract (as if it needs to be explained anyway), if they dont want to register him they wont and he'd be free to go play football or any other sport he wants wherever he wants.

Could be a court case, if the club wanted to push it. Remember the ARL put in place a player draft and a court said: "sorry, restraint of trade".

 

[Loudstrat]

If that was the case, Blake Ferguson would be in a Roosters jumper, and Politis would have launched legal action against the ARLC/NRL. I think you'll find that the NRL ratification of contracts has a sound legal base.

Good article too.

 

[Loudstrat]

Ipswich is more f**king glamorous than Broadmeadows you pole smoker.

Ipswich is the Black Hole of Calcutta with a f*cking TAB. WTF would an Ipswich resident know about glamour? To you, glamour is a flanellette shirt with all its buttons intact.

 

[Swarzey]

The Herald has been sour ever since we dropped them as "our paper" :lol: What a ridiculous article.

 

[magpie4ever]

If that was the case, Blake Ferguson would be in a Roosters jumper, and Politis would have launched legal action against the ARLC/NRL. I think you'll find that the NRL ratification of contracts has a sound legal base.

Good article too.

It was a top article.

Not saying you are wrong; I just saying it could be tested if a player had served his (legal) punishment and the club was stating he was now ready to apply his trade.

 

[Charlie124]

It was a top article.

Not saying you are wrong; I just saying it could be tested if a player had served his (legal) punishment and the club was stating he was now ready to apply his trade.

his "trade" is playing rugby league, not playing in the NRL. Its not his, nor any players god given right to play in whichever competition he chooses. Completing his prison term and legally being free to go back to his regular life doesnt mean the NRL has to allow him back into their comp.

I guess the point is that his "trade" is not limited to NRL football, therefor denying his contract for whatever reason they see fit, cannot be seen as restraint of trade.

 

[magpie4ever]

his "trade" is playing rugby league, not playing in the NRL. Its not his, nor any players god given right to play in whichever competition he chooses. Completing his prison term and legally being free to go back to his regular life doesnt mean the NRL has to allow him back into their comp.

I guess the point is that his "trade" is not limited to NRL football, therefor denying his contract for whatever reason they see fit, cannot be seen as restraint of trade.

Yep, make sense.

 

[betcats]

The Herald has been sour ever since we dropped them as "our paper" :lol: What a ridiculous article.

It does seem to be reaching a bit but i reckon its a fair call to say the Knights were hopeful of Russel playing for them this season, which is pathetic considering what he did.

Also punting the fringe FGer for seemingly doing a lot less while sticking by Packer doesnt look good.

But we all know talent will excuse a lot in sports.

 

[Pierced Soul]

The Herald has been sour ever since we dropped them as "our paper" :lol: What a ridiculous article.

they may be bitter but you cant disagree with their assessment. there's blatant hypocrisy there driven by the fact packer has some ability whereas marvin didnt.

we all know that players with talent can almost get away with murder before being punted but i really cant see how the knights were going to try and justify these actions in any way in order to win games

 

[ek999]

Absolutely horrendous article.

The key difference being they didn't need Marvin to answer criminal charges before they sacked him. Newcastle were always going to wait until after the criminal case was done and dusted before they did anything. As it was he pleaded and guilty and was sentenced on the same day and was always going to be sacked at that point. The Knights followed the exact process that should be done. Stand him down from all duties immediately pending the outcome of the charges. Make a final decision after he is found guilty

Also it seems Russell got a $150k per year pay rise in the last week or so. I swear it was another Newcastle Herald article quoting $250k per year last week

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

I wonder if his cell has aircon, expected to reach 40 degrees in some parts of Sydney today, be stuffy without proper cooling.

 

[God-King Dean]

I always laugh when fans try to make their club out to be the paragon of morality & justice.

" My club would never do that. " [-(

Don't kid yourself; your club would do the same if they could. Your club would let the talented players get away with more than average players.

 

[ek999]

And sign players who have just been sacked by another club...

 

[betcats]

I always laugh when fans try to make their club out to be the paragon of morality & justice.

" My club would never do that. " [-(

Don't kid yourself; your club would do the same if they could. Your club would let the talented players get away with more than average players.

Who has said that?

Just because all clubs would or have done it doesnt mean its any less distasteful.

"everyone does it" is the idiots justification.

 

[betcats]

Absolutely horrendous article.

The key difference being they didn't need Marvin to answer criminal charges before they sacked him. Newcastle were always going to wait until after the criminal case was done and dusted before they did anything. As it was he pleaded and guilty and was sentenced on the same day and was always going to be sacked at that point. The Knights followed the exact process that should be done. Stand him down from all duties immediately pending the outcome of the charges. Make a final decision after he is found guilty

Also it seems Russell got a $150k per year pay rise in the last week or so. I swear it was another Newcastle Herald article quoting $250k per year last week

Why?? If they knew he was going to plead guilty to assaulting a man without provocation and stomping on his head while he was on the ground why do they need to wait for the courts before they sack him??

Knowing what he had done he should of been sacked as soon as he admitted it.

Obviously waiting to see what the court were gonna do before they decide whether to rip up his contract.

 

[Newcastlerabbit]

The Herald writer left out the fact that the Knights Management went to court and gave Packer RAVE REVIEWS and Character references in order that he be given a bond or something similar and were shocked when Packer was sent to jail for two years.

Talk about Hypocrits.

 

[Snappy]

Betcats, and the article has it spot on. As soon as the club were told what happened, and his intention to please guilty he should have been booted.

Instead the Knights were hoping for a piss weak sentence, even Uncle Wayne sent a letter remember.

If he'd gotten the piss weak sentence the Knights were expecting /hoping for, no doubt he'd still be with the club, ready to play when the NRL finally agreed to registered him..... All the while knowing he had bashed and stomped someone.

 

[age.s]

Why?? If they knew he was going to plead guilty to assaulting a man without provocation and stomping on his head while he was on the ground why do they need to wait for the courts before they sack him??

Knowing what he had done he should of been sacked as soon as he admitted it.

Obviously waiting to see what the court were gonna do before they decide whether to rip up his contract.

Because the Knights ripping up his contract could influence the case. Either by the prosecution arguing it proved his guilt, spoke against his character etc, or the defense arguing the move prejudices the case against their client. As much as clubs stand by talented players in instances when they shouldn't and wouldn't for a fringe first grader, when a criminal case is happening I think it's better they stay out of it.

Looks very dodgy of course.

 

[Snappy]

Because the Knights ripping up his contract could influence the case. Either by the prosecution arguing it proved his guilt, spoke against his character etc, or the defense arguing the move prejudices the case against their client. As much as clubs stand by talented players in instances when they shouldn't and wouldn't for a fringe first grader, when a criminal case is happening I think it's better they stay out of it.

Looks very dodgy of course.

The prosecution didn't have to prove guilt because He PLEADED GUILTY.

 

[Snappy]

If anything, it would have helped the defence seek a more lenient sentence, arguing he's already been somewhat punished by losing his massive football contract.