What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The punch that cost the Sharks $20,000 - Zappia stands down

Timmah

LeagueUnlimited News Editor
Staff member
Messages
100,912
Remember the agreement is signed by two parties. So the comments Cronulla made about the incident involving shadow boxing may have been construed as breaking the agreement first.
Jacquelin Magnay broke the story, not the Sharks.
Actually apart from the original punch that caused her black eye, and which there doesn't seem to be any real dispute that it was intentional, nothing else that I've read actually looks to fall within police jurisdiction. Sexual harassment is against the law but not criminal. It is handled, usually by conciliation, by the anti-discrimination board, the end result normally being some sort of compensation.
Then she can take it to the anti-discrimination tribunal or through the courts as a breach of contract law or something. How the f**k can you defend someone using the media as their first course of backlash? Pathetic.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Remember the agreement is signed by two parties. So the comments Cronulla made about the incident involving shadow boxing may have been construed as breaking the agreement first.

Cronulla gave her permission to break the agreement and speak to the NRL in May but there was nothing said. why has she decided to speak to 7 and not the NRL?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/nrl-waiting-for-jenny-to-speak-up/2009/05/24/1243103433702.html

NRL waiting for Jenny to speak up

Jacquelin Magnay | May 25, 2009

THE NRL has been trying to contact the woman who was punched accidentally by Cronulla chief executive Tony Zappia to determine the circumstances surrounding a $20,000 payout to her.

Today, the future of the embattled Sharks is under intense scrutiny by the NRL, which wants answers to questions about the accidental punch by Zappia which left the former employee, Jenny Hall, so badly injured she had to have four days off work.

The NRL also wants to ask the Sharks board about its finances and ability to operate, given its mounting debts of more than $12 million, its operating loss of $1.4 million last year and the recent loss of five sponsors, including the major sponsor LG Electronics.

The Sharks board is also expected to be quizzed about the circumstances of player Reni Maitua testing positive to drugs, the future of Paul Gallen's captaincy in light of racial vilification allegations raised on the field on Saturday night and the 2002 group sex scandal raised by Four Corners.

The Sharks board members have declared they will hold fresh elections before July 31 this year, once the current election is completed this week. Board members have been unable to respond to community pressure to resign because of club rules surrounding the election.

However, the club has told NRL officials that it is willing to release Jenny Hall from a confidentiality agreement so that she can tell her story.

Yesterday Hall's lawyer could not be contacted to confirm such an approach or to ascertain whether such a confidentiality agreement existed.

However, a source close to the woman claimed that while Hall believed the punch by Zappia, which severely blackened and infected her eye, was accidental, Hall was shocked and upset at Zappia's response and that he showed no compassion. She has told friends that the incident happened in a corridor near the football offices.

It is unknown whether Hall was granted sick leave or was asked to take annual leave for the initial time off.

Sources say Hall agreed the hit was an accident and Zappia was conciliatory. It is claimed that at one point he said jokingly, words along the lines of, "do you want to spank me?". Hall is believed to have immediately replied: "No I don't want to spank you."

The source said Hall's eye had become badly infected and, with her swollen face, she was embarrassed that people might think she was a victim of domestic violence.

The NRL has demanded a report from the Cronulla board on the incident. Zappia has told NRL officials that he was shadow boxing with Hall.

Last night Zappia told the Herald: "I can assure you the club has done everything it can to get Ms Hall to speak to the NRL."

"As I understand it, as of Friday, she has refused to do so," Zappia said.


"I cannot answer your questions, not because I don't want to but because I cannot by law. If I could answer them believe me I would, as your questions suggest that you have listened to conflicting [and wrong] stories surrounding the matter."
 

ngap

Juniors
Messages
581
Jacquelin Magnay broke the story, not the Sharks.

True but they then commented on the story and came out saying about the shadow boxing. Confidentiality agreements are great if an incident is over and finished but can mean you can't come out and discuss if a three party brings something up.
 

DJShaksta

First Grade
Messages
7,226
Actually apart from the original punch that caused her black eye, and which there doesn't seem to be any real dispute that it was intentional, nothing else that I've read actually looks to fall within police jurisdiction. Sexual harassment is against the law but not criminal. It is handled, usually by conciliation, by the anti-discrimination board, the end result normally being some sort of compensation.

True, so she was a effectively given $20k and gagged with the confidentiality agreement. Why would she come out now and air this edited tape recording of not for more money???
She was obviously more than happy with $20 grand to ease her suffering when the incident took place 10 months ago.
But fast forward to when every man and his dog are looking to put the proverbial boot into the Sharks and out she comes with a tape recording and an interview with Ch7. Why???? simple answer - MONEY.
 
Messages
2,016
Then she can take it to the anti-discrimination tribunal or through the courts as a breach of contract law or something. How the f**k can you defend someone using the media as their first course of backlash? Pathetic.

We don't know it was her first recourse. I would expect she tried initially to get the club to take it more seriously than they seem to have done. All of this almost certainly comes down to the club not taking her seriously, and accepting Zappia's view of the incident.

I don't blame her for using the media to get action. It gets results, especially when the other party to the dispute you're in doesn't want to do much other than bury it.
 

DJShaksta

First Grade
Messages
7,226
We don't know it was her first recourse. I would expect she tried initially to get the club to take it more seriously than they seem to have done. All of this almost certainly comes down to the club not taking her seriously, and accepting Zappia's view of the incident.

I don't blame her for using the media to get action. It gets results, especially when the other party to the dispute you're in doesn't want to do much other than bury it.

She accepted the $$$ and signed the agreement!
Stiff $h!t what she thought. She ratified their actions when she took the cash.
If she thought she was being hard done by why the f**k did she sign the agreement and take the $20 grand?
 

Timmah

LeagueUnlimited News Editor
Staff member
Messages
100,912
We don't know it was her first recourse. I would expect she tried initially to get the club to take it more seriously than they seem to have done. All of this almost certainly comes down to the club not taking her seriously, and accepting Zappia's view of the incident.

I don't blame her for using the media to get action. It gets results, especially when the other party to the dispute you're in doesn't want to do much other than bury it.
It gets results :lol:. More like it gets us a trial-by-media as opposed to due process.
 

fish eel

Immortal
Messages
42,876
So what if the girl took some money and gave a tape to channel 7?

She wouldnt have had a tape to give them if Zappia wasn't such a prick. Refusing sick leave, asking her to spank him. You reap what you so.

Everyone saying she broke an agreement - I take it you are all privy to the agreement that was reached with Cronulla to make that claim?
 

Timmah

LeagueUnlimited News Editor
Staff member
Messages
100,912
As opposed to you assuming everything you heard on the tape was true and correct? Believe Channel Seven at your own peril :lol:
 
Messages
2,016
She accepted the $$$ and signed the agreement!
Stiff $h!t what she thought. She ratified their actions when she took the cash.
If she thought she was being hard done by why the f**k did she sign the agreement and take the $20 grand?

Why is it stiff sh*t what she thought? If the situation had been managed in any vaguely competent manner by the club, rather than apparently covering the CEO's arse, what she thought now might be "well, I'm happy its been dealt with", and she wouldn't be going to the media. What she thought of how her complaints were handled is obviously very critical.

As for signing the agreement, maybe she felt pressured? Maybe she just wanted out of a bad environment and make a fresh start somewhere else? Maybe she was poorly advised? Maybe on further reflection she thinks exposing the sh*thouse management culture at the Sharks is worth going public on and risking the settlement she got? Maybe she just decided the Sharks are a bunch of pricks who deserve to be brought crashing down? Who knows?
 

Timmah

LeagueUnlimited News Editor
Staff member
Messages
100,912
Have you heard the entire contents of the tape, unedited? Channel 7 were so unbelievably selective with the audio they played, it was chopped up all over the place. If the evidence is completely factual and in context Zappia should and obviously has been removed from the club. Channel 7's journalistic integrity remains in question for me.
 

Timmah

LeagueUnlimited News Editor
Staff member
Messages
100,912
Geez these sweeping statements are f**king tiring...
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Have you heard the entire contents of the tape, unedited? Channel 7 were so unbelievably selective with the audio they played, it was chopped up all over the place. If the evidence is completely factual and in context Zappia should and obviously has been removed from the club. Channel 7's journalistic integrity remains in question for me.

Cronulla have asked for the recording http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/zappia-stands-down/1534304.aspx
He said the board would request that Channel Seven provide the tape so that the board could establish its "authenticity" and staff members would also be interviewed in relation to the allegations.

will 7 hand it over in full?
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
Half the problem is the wanton re-hashing of incidents that have already been reported... and are then reported as if they're new.
Not really. Comes back to what I'm trying to say in that if the incident doesn't happen in the first place, then it can't be reported/rehashed or whatever.

Responsibility this time falls squarely in Zappia's lap for his own behaviour. I've stuck up for him in enforcing the same principle in the game's interest toward Sharks players for their loose and damaging behaviour, but it seems he's been a hypocrit.

People making a living out of rugby league have to take responsibility for their own actions - an awful lot of players do. The rest of them need to badly, or be pulled into line by their employers (as Zappia seems about to be).
 

bartman

Immortal
Messages
41,022
Geez these sweeping statements are f**king tiring...
Not as tiring as the apparent continued defence of the indefensible, (by people wanting to mainly lay blame on the media, or women for how they report and publicise unprofessional behaviour) rather than condemn the behaviour itself as the cause of those resultant ills...
 
Top