imported_Aaron C
Juniors
- Messages
- 141
<table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=185 align=right border=0> <tbody> <tr> <td width=10><SPACER type="block" width="10"></td> <td><!-- Start Photo 1 --><!-- End Photo 1 --><!-- Start Photo 2 --><!-- End Photo 2 --></td></tr></tbody></table><!-- story_ID: 2615780
sectionId:
length:
rowNumber: 2
sitePrefix: foxsports
Section: league
subSection: news
CUR_SEC_ID: LEAGUE_NEWS_SECTION_ID
SECTION_NAME: 5927 --><span>Smith may lose $60,000</span>
<span>By PETER FRILINGOS</span>
<span>17 August 01</span>
<span>Daily Telegraph</span>
<span>ST GEORGE Illawarra captain Craig Smith may be stripped of contract money for the six matches he misses while under suspension.</span> <span> Smith was suspended by the NRL judiciary on Wednesday night for striking Brisbane Broncos halfback Kevin Walters at Win Stadium last Sunday. Players' contracts carry a provision enabling clubs to deduct 1/30th of their payments for the season for every week a player is under suspension. The exercise of that entitlement is discretionary â it's a decision clubs make on a case-by-case basis. Smith is believed to be on around $300,000 a season so he stands to lose $60,000 should the Dragons decide to invoke the suspension clause. Dragons chief executive Peter Doust said last night the club was yet to discuss the issue. "We won't be making a decision on whether to appeal against Craig's suspension probably until Monday," Doust said. "On the payments issue the board has resolved it will discuss each case of suspension on its merits and determine whether any fines are appropriate. "That issue won't be addressed until the end of the month. "Craig has had money deducted from his contract for previous suspensions." With Wednesday night's penalty, Smith will have been suspended for 15 matches this season. He has served three matches for contrary conduct (knee-lifting) and six matches for a careless high tackle on Roosters centre Matt Sing in round 12. On the question of salary deductions for suspensions clubs often take a lenient stance. That happens when players are either deemed to be unlucky to have drawn suspensions or their offence is viewed as a one-off incident. In the main players' managers are against the 1/30th deduction provision and have campaigned to have it deleted from the standard players contracts. However, clubs are keen to have it retained to ensure they can be compensated against the actions of serial offenders.</span>
______________________________________________________________________
I find this outrageous!
Why should Smith pay for the crookedness and unfairness of a system that wrongfully accused him and in turn found him guilty?
Ithink, if the Dragon's administration is to remain credible in the eyes and opinions of their fans, then Craig Smith should not loose financially ..... because of Hall and his jokers.
Why also are the Dragons waiting almost one week from the judicial hearing to decide whether they will infact appeal the decision?
Is it because they are buildingthe strongest possibledefensive case for Smith to present to the Commitee, or is it because they're waiting for the media hype to die down in the hope that he will have a fairer hearing?
Or is it something of a more sinister nature on behalf of the Dragons? Have they given up on the most consistent performer this year (his records speak for itself ... check out the statistics on a number of URL's)and captain?
I'm somewhat confused on what's taking place in the Smith case at the moment. I'm hearing conflicting reports from all over the park.
I apologise for dwelling on the Smith saga, but after last nights convincing Dragons victory over an ordinary Knights outfit, I believe his services are priceless come Semi Finals time.
Comments welcome.
Cheers - Aaron C.
<!-- Start Email a friend links //-->
