Stewart banned till rnd 5

[t1tan]

Cherrington should be sacked. Immediately. He admitted it, that's enough for me.

Charged or not, Stewart should still have the presumtpion of innocence.

Watmough, I'm not so sure. He punched a sponsor. It looks unlikely that he will get charged, but there definitely needs to be some punishment from the club.

If these two players were toyota cup newbies would they be stood down/fined/disciplined already?

 

[adamkungl]

If these two players were toyota cup newbies would they be stood down/fined/disciplined already?

Probably. I don't know Manly's stance on such issues, and anyone claiming to is just talking sh*t, unless they can bring up some previous recent incident to prove it.

My opinion isn't going to change on Cherrington whether it was some NYC player, a rising star like Cherrington, or if it was Minichiello.

 

[fred92]

Perhaps KRUDMONK the N.R.L. feels that the Manly club is becoming an embarrasment to their competition. The club was asked by Gallop to stand Stewart down but decided to let him play, shirk their responsibilites and incredibly say its up to the coach to decide if he plays or not. Shame on the C.E.O. the Board for belatedly making this decision.Your newly acquired halo of respectability has gone, in my eyes and surely in other`eyes``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````




















s











\\\\\\\\\

 

[Slackboy72]

What legal grounds to the NRL have for deciding that a player with no criminal conviction is not allowed to play?

What legal grounds to the NRL have for deciding that a player with criminal convictions is not allowed to play either?

Brett Stewart is employed by Manly not the NRL.
If there is something in the registration documentation or the standard player contract then that is something they may be able to act on but I can't see what chance they have of stopping him conviction or not.*
In fact it might be seen as an unlawful restraint of trade to stop him.


[*Quite happy to be proved wrong]

 

[RufusRex]

standing people down from a role with full pay pending investigations is not a new concept in any form of employment.

Manly being recalcitrant in this instance may bear poison fruit in others ... We know how hit and miss the citings from the judiciary are - maybe the microscope could be well and truly pointed at manly.

 

[coolumsharkie]

NRL has banned him under the conduct code till Rnd 5.

Foxsports news.

 

[Generalzod]

Finally some action from the NRL.

 

[Nemesis]

NRL has banned him under the conduct code till Rnd 5.

Foxsports news.

NRL has also fined the Manly club $100,000.. source 2GB.

 

[melbourne_belle]

I pretty much hate Manly, but that is a bit rough.

 

[coolumsharkie]

5 matches? WTF!!

 

[Dutchy]

Finally some action from the NRL.

I thought it was up 2 clubs as the employers to make the decision. Unless there is a conviction?

 

[Danish]

Its until his trial date, obviously.

 

[Shorty]

Juicy.

 

[clipser]

that is bullsh*t... absolute bullsh*t

 

[butchmcdick]

What legal grounds to the NRL have for deciding that a player with criminal convictions is not allowed to play either?

Brett Stewart is employed by Manly not the NRL.
If there is something in the registration documentation or the standard player contract then that is something they may be able to act on but I can't see what chance they have of stopping him conviction or not.*
In fact it might be seen as an unlawful restraint of trade to stop him.


[*Quite happy to be proved wrong]

I am guess here too but do you think the NRL has nothing in their contracts about being able to stand players down for any reason it deams serious enough ?

 

[Lungfish]

I guess because the NRL has been weak on similar issues they felt they had to put the foot down.....very dissapointed.

 

[coolumsharkie]

Its until his trial date, obviously.

so after he has it adjourned he can play?

 

[Harold Bishop]

Thats fine with me. A new precedent has been set, next time anyone in the same position should be given the same sentence. Doesn't matter if you are Laffranchi, Crocket or Stewart.

 

[Pierced Soul]

welcome to the NRL - the land of incosistency....

crockett and laffranchi wer eboth allowed to keep playing, why the knee jerk to stewert or is it his profile?

if they make a blanket ruling, say anyone charged with a serious offence is stood down then i ahve no probs with it, but in this case ti seems stewart is being banned cos of his profile

 

[butchmcdick]

I thought it was up 2 clubs as the employers to make the decision. Unless there is a conviction?

And the clubs play in the NRL and they get to say who does and doesn't play.

Look at it this way. If stewart king hit somebody on the football field the NRL would suspend him even though he is employed by manly