Rumours and Stuff

[Noise]

And what about the other questions? You are fixated on the charge, when that isn't the point of the discussion.

Regardless of the charges then, would you want to defend a worker to parents as they take their children out of care and that worker damages your business reputation? Or would you stand them down, placate your clients, and let the investigation run its course before acting on the actual employment of the worker?

No I wouldn’t want my business to go broke in those cases but I’m not sure if clients (sponsors) would actually leave the NRL if Jack De Belin played this year. When Brett Stewart and Semi kept playing prior to their verdict how many sponsors actually pulled the pin? Did ratings significantly drop? Did the next tv deal suffer as a result?

And if the sentence is only 10 years everyone is all sweet to play?

 

[Happy MEel]

An accusation of negligence still relates to (a lack of) the ability to care for a child/children. So no, I wouldn’t want them working there because it’s a charge directly related to the work they are asked to perform.

Ok @Noise and @I’m a loser baby ..what about the same offence De Belin is accused of (rape). Would you want that person looking after your kids until their case is over? It doesn’t have anything to do with child related employment. Additionally, would you honestly continue to employ them as a director, especially considering it is front page news and every family of the service is now aware of the specific details of the alleged incident?

 

[Incorrect]

How old must some of you merkins be? Even if he was 28 he would still have at least four years of first grade in front of him.

At what level though merkin? Your elite halves and hookers like C.Smith, Cronk, JT when he was killing it could easily command high price 4 year deals at age 28 ... McInnes ain't elite and I doubt a club apart from those desperate (like us) would offer him a long term at 28....IF he was 28. But he ain't which I've acknowledged... At current skills and output level, is McInnes the sort of player you'd offer a 4 year deal to at the age of 28?? Of course not.

We could always sign him for depth... FFS

 

[Happy MEel]

No I wouldn’t want my business to go broke in those cases but I’m not sure if clients (sponsors) would actually leave the NRL if Jack De Belin played this year. When Brett Stewart and Semi kept playing prior to their verdict how many sponsors actually pulled the pin? Did ratings significantly drop? Did the next tv deal suffer as a result?

Serious?

Jaycar pulled their sponsorship of the dogs for a bit of harmless mad Monday nudity.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...-over-mad-monday-scandal-20180907-p502bw.html

Cricket Australia lost sponsorship over the cheating scandal.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/411debb2-32f5-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498

 

[Bazal]

No I wouldn’t want my business to go broke in those cases but I’m not sure if clients (sponsors) would actually leave the NRL if Jack De Belin played this year. When Brett Stewart and Semi kept playing prior to their verdict how many sponsors actually pulled the pin? Did ratings significantly drop? Did the next tv deal suffer as a result?

But youd have to admit that the NRL, be that the CEO or the board or whoever, are in a better position than we are to judge that potential effect, right?

My point is not necessarily that the NRL made the right call. More that it's a lot more complicated than just "innocent until proven guilty." They found themselves in a position, thanks to JDBs actions, where they had to be seen to be doing something...

 

[Noise]

Serious?

Jaycar pulled their sponsorship of the dogs for a bit of harmless mad Monday nudity.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...-over-mad-monday-scandal-20180907-p502bw.html

There was irrefutable video proof and the dogs players all admitted to it.

De Belin has pled not guilty. What has he done? Cheated on his mrs?

Also, what happened as a result of semi and Brett Stewart being allowed to play?

 

[Noise]

But youd have to admit that the NRL, be that the CEO or the board or whoever, are in a better position than we are to judge that potential effect, right?

My point is not necessarily that the NRL made the right call. More that it's a lot more complicated than just "innocent until proven guilty." They found themselves in a position, thanks to JDBs actions, where they had to be seen to be doing something...

Agree with you there. They felt they had to be seen to do something. I just don’t think they did the right thing

 

[Happy MEel]

There was irrefutable video proof and the dogs players all admitted to it.

De Belin has pled not guilty. What has he done? Cheated on his mrs?

Also, what happened as a result of semi and Brett Stewart being allowed to play?

You reckon sponsors give a shit whether there is irrefutable proof or not? They care about their brand and it being linked with another brand that has been tarnished (rightly or wrongly). Don’t forget it’s not just the loss of current sponsors but the loss of potential sponsors in the future.

This was a particularly bad offseason for rugby league. If it becomes the norm I can genuinely see less money being poured into the game.

Furthermore, do you reckon little Johnny’s mum cares if there is irrefutable proof when deciding which sport to let him play?

 

[Happy MEel]

Agree with you there. They felt they had to be seen to do something. I just don’t think they did the right thing

What would the right thing have been?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I think a better way of looking at it is, would you, as manager of a daycare centre, want an educator who is accused of negligence to continue working with children with those allegations over them? Would you want to tell parents that they were innocent until proven guilty even if it meant yoiur reputation as a daycare suffered?

Would you, as hypothetical NRL CEO, want him representing your brand with those allegations all through the papers?

I think the best course of action the NRL could take is to state that they have faith in the justice system, that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence and they will let events take their course. Say that you've learned from past cases that it's not fair to punish people before they're guilty. If any player is found guilty of such crimes then we won't let them in the Hall of Fame. For six months!

 

[Noise]

To highlight how dumb this 11 years sentence rule is; If Jack De Belin or any other NRL player commit any of the following crimes in NSW they will be able to play until their verdict is handed down:

Sexual assault 2nd degree (53a-71) Nine months - 10 or 20 years, depending on the circumstances

Sexual assault 3rd degree with a firearm (53a-72b) Two years ^ + - 10 or 20 years, depending on the circumstances

Selling or transporting assault weapon (53-202b) Two years or Six years (if sale is to a minor) - 10 years

Manslaughter 2nd degree with a firearm (53a-56a) One year (+) - 10 years

Burglary 2nd degree with a firearm(53a-102a) One year (+) -10 years

Possessing child pornography 2nd degree (53a-196e) Two years - 10 years

Contaminating public water or food for terrorism (53a-303) Five years - 10 years

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0619.htm

 

[Noise]

What would the right thing have been?

This (except for the hall of fame bit, I'd say 9 months)

I think the best course of action the NRL could take is to state that they have faith in the justice system, that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence and they will let events take their course. Say that you've learned from past cases that it's not fair to punish people before they're guilty. If any player is found guilty of such crimes then we won't let them in the Hall of Fame. For six months!

 

[Bazal]

There was irrefutable video proof and the dogs players all admitted to it.

De Belin has pled not guilty. What has he done? Cheated on his mrs?

Also, what happened as a result of semi and Brett Stewart being allowed to play?

Dylan Walker has also pled not guilty but, on the whole, not too many seem upset with his being stood down.

What JDB is accused of is objectively much worse.

Agree with you there. They felt they had to be seen to do something. I just don’t think they did the right thing

Unfortunately for JDB that's entirely the point. The NRL cannot maintain an image while allowing a player accused of a pretty horrible crime to play. It's a business, and reputation and image is important.

There are other factors too... Players as role models, NRL clubs, players and other people as social influences, the NRLs own social programs and the impact of perceived hypocrisy on that, etc etc

Did they make the right choice? I can't say, honestly. But they had a very difficult decision to make that goes beyond the simple presumption of innocence.

I'm leaning towards the idea that they made the most necessary choice in a situation where there was no objectively right or wrong call.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Ok @Noise and @I’m a loser baby ..what about the same offence De Belin is accused of (rape). Would you want that person looking after your kids until their case is over? It doesn’t have anything to do with child related employment. Additionally, would you honestly continue to employ them as a director, especially considering it is front page news and every family of the service is now aware of the specific details of the alleged incident?

If he's accused of rape then no, wouldn't want him anywhere near my kids. Even if I didn't think he was any danger of raping children. Who would want their kids looked after by such a person? But it's another flawed analogy. Children learn a great deal from their elders. Adults less so.

 

[Bazal]

Children learn a great deal from their elders.

And their heroes...

 

[Noise]

Dylan Walker has also pled not guilty but, on the whole, not too many seem upset with his being stood down.

The Walker situation is strange. They came up with this 11 year sentencing rule (obviously for the De Belin case) but on the same day came up with another rule that says Todd Greenburg can stand players down if the sentence is under 11 years at his own discretion? Why come up with this 11 year sentence rule at all if he can just make it up as he goes along? It's a farce

 

[Happy MEel]

This (except for the hall of fame bit, I'd say 9 months)

So by extension, if everyone is innocent until proven guilty, should we not allow the justice system to remand people charged with serious crimes in custody until they are officially convicted?

 

[Incorrect]

I think the best course of action the NRL could take is to state that they have faith in the justice system, that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence and they will let events take their course. Say that you've learned from past cases that it's not fair to punish people before they're guilty. If any player is found guilty of such crimes then we won't let them in the Hall of Fame. For six months!

"Now Get Out! You're banned from this historical society! You and your children, and your children's children..... For 3 months..."

 

[Noise]

So by extension, if everyone is innocent until proven guilty, should we not allow the justice system to remand people charged with serious crimes in custody until they are officially convicted?

If they are seen as a genuine risk to society by the courts/judicial system then they should be remanded in custody. It is all about the risk they present to society. That is determined by the courts.

 

[Bazal]

The Walker situation is strange. They came up with this 11 year sentencing rule (obviously for the De Belin case) but on the same day came up with another rule that says Todd Greenburg can stand players down at his own discretion? Why come up with this 11 year sentence rule at all if he can just make it up as he goes along? It's a farce

I think the eleven year thing is weird, FTR.

And I said in the other thread I think the NRL trying essentially to control what players do with consenting sexual partners is nonsense.

It's not a good day or two for them on the whole really