Todd Greenberg has got to go!

[taipan]

This. Actual convicted players should be never to play again. That will do more for the brand then standing down those BEFORE convicted

And the players who receive all the bad publicity, despite an overkeen press pushing it, don't damage the brand more?
It wasn't just one guy, it was what in the off season ? 6.
Try telling that to females looking for a sport for their kids to play, or the sponsors that are lost, or will not commit.
And the list of dramas over the offseason, had little impact, because it was really the admins fault? Sheesh.
Perhaps being tougher at least stopped more drama at grassroots growth.


In fact I agree on one point, the Broncos should never have signed the guy ,when it was also shown on CCTV footage.That is a point against Greenberg.

Press look for sensationalism ,such as this, and the Dog's end of season, and give it all the publicity because it sells papers, and the code has to pick up the pieces, because of d*ckheads, and it's apparently the admin's fault.

 

[franklin2323]

I can see both sides of the coin re whether players should be stood down or not by the Greenburg rule.

The biggest issue I have is that Greenberg brought it in retrospectivelty to include the cases of DeBelin and Walker, because it was the "off season from hell".
A line in the sand needed to be drawn for all issues, going foward, not including ones going backwards.

All you say is anyone found guilty of a crime that comes with a jail sentence as of when was it Feb 28. Is banned for life then it isn't the issue it is now and can show sponsors it is being looked at

 

[franklin2323]

And the players who receive all the bad publicity, despite an overkeen press pushing it, don't damage the brand more?
It wasn't just one guy, it was what in the off season ? 6.
Try telling that to females looking for a sport for their kids to play, or the sponsors that are lost, or will not commit.
And the list of dramas over the offseason, had little impact, because it was really the admins fault? Sheesh.
Perhaps being tougher at least stopped more drama at grassroots growth.


In fact I agree on one point, the Broncos should never have signed the guy ,when it was also shown on CCTV footage.That is a point against Greenberg.

Press look for sensationalism ,such as this, and the Dog's end of season, and give it all the publicity because it sells papers, and the code has to pick up the pieces, because of d*ckheads, and it's apparently the admin's fault.

What changed for JDB between the incident and being stood down?

The media reported what he is accused of. That led to this so it is the same as those cases you speak of.

 

[taipan]

Of course. Scott Bolton is probably borderline

Fonua-Blake, Tetevano bashed their women. Lodge we know. Packer we know. Ferguson we know

Yet all are deemed good enough to take the field and someone who so is just guilty of being a pig to his pregant wife isn't... It isn't a good look

Bolton charge is borderline I agree.Wasn't Ferguson's similar.
Lodge should never have got a gig in my book.
Packer served his time in the small wall place, and out of the game.The guy has a degree and is a model citizen.
Don't know the Fonua-Blake situation.
Tetevano, what was the judges decision?

I don't feel comfortable with some of them playing, but we had a rash of events over the off season.What is the admin supposed to do? Just carry on and wait till all cases closed?

I have daughters,I know their reaction to the off season.

 

[Timmah]

Of course. Scott Bolton is probably borderline

Fonua-Blake, Tetevano bashed their women. Lodge we know. Packer we know. Ferguson we know

Yet all are deemed good enough to take the field and someone who so is just guilty of being a pig to his pregant wife isn't... It isn't a good look

This is an interesting one. Everyone entitled to their view of course, I'm in between. I don't like the idea of these guys playing, but at the same time I don't know that it's the NRL's place to reprosecute their offences after they've served their time. One key marker of rehabilitation for many people is being able to get back into the workforce. Whether that's the NRL or another less high-profile workplace is another matter.

 

[taipan]

What changed for JDB between the incident and being stood down?

The media reported what he is accused of. That led to this so it is the same as those cases you speak of.

All not one not two but three sets of allegations of sexual assault involved in the cases over the off season, have resulted in them being stood down on the no fault basis.If it were just him,I would agree.
The code had to do something.

Who knows, if it was just a one off allegation over the off season, the necessity to stand down may not have come in .

There is a code off conduct into bringing the game into disrepute ,in their contracts.
Where the NRL got it askew, was not ATT having a stand down no fault clause inserted.

When any serious charge is made ,the club would have to report anything to the integrity Unit.It's a matter of someone a witness or whoever sprucing it to the press ,and it is front page stuff.

The NRL consulted with senior lawyers for their assistance.You can argue about the timing, you can argue about standing down or not, and bag Greenberg, but what you can't blame, is the admin for players putting the code into this situation.We can bag the press ,and I do plenty of times.But that's these vultures' jobs .

 

[Shark62]

Let’s compare the codes:

1. The AFL - few if any accusations of domestic or other sexual violence. Huge coverage of its women’s comp. 50000 at its women’s grand final. Massive increases in female participation. Massive consequential increases in sponsorship purely because of all of the above. So much goodwill they don’t know what to do with it.

2. The NRL - let’s get an accused rapist back on the field as it’s not fair! Sponsors threatening to leave. Constant media negativity. Considered to be a game for Neanderthals.

As I said earlier. These blokes undertake comprehensive training in respect for women and the importance of avoiding trouble.

These blokes got a massive pay rise yet they still don’t get it.

This isn’t about previously poor decisions. It’s about getting future ones right.

The off season from hell was a godsend in my view. Now we’ve got no excuse for allowing these pillocks any room to move when it comes to ruining our brand.

 

[Perth Red]

Maybe so but it isn't a good look imo...

Charged with a crime can't play
Actually guilty and fine to go.

How does it change the image?

I get what the NRL is trying to do but it is the wrong way around

Agreed, but lets see if he lets another crim back in after this new stance has been drawn. Again Packer and Lodge, doubt there would be many who would miss them but NRL liked the glow of being a rehabilitation organisation. But then it got to a situation where players pushed them into a corner and now the line is drawn. If he does go back on this line in future then he deserves all the flak he gets. I have no problem with an organisation learning and setting out new policy to reflect the changing environment .

 

[unforgiven]

Agreed, but lets see if he lets another crim back in after this new stance has been drawn. Again Packer and Lodge, doubt there would be many who would miss them but NRL liked the glow of being a rehabilitation organisation. But then it got to a situation where players pushed them into a corner and now the line is drawn. If he does go back on this line in future then he deserves all the flak he gets. I have no problem with an organisation learning and setting out new policy to reflect the changing environment .

I think in cases where the player has done their punishment and can show that they have turned their life around then being able to re enter the NRL can be a positive, but a lot of that comes from personal experiences.

 

[Chimp]

You simply can't stand someone down based on allegations alone, unless there is other evidence available (CCTV footage) that allows the NRL to make a decision that the player has broken their code of conduct regardless of any criminal case. It's not fair and I'm pretty confident will be found not legal to stand someone down based on allegations alone, particularly when the Policy is actually using wording based on potential criminal case outcomes (11 year sentence) as a yardstick for when the Policy will be applied - it does fly in the face of 'innocent until proven guilty' and calling it a 'no fault' Policy doesn't change this.

People comparing this to other jobs where people are suspended need to remember that most other jobs do not receive the same public attention through the media, therefore there it's less likely that standing down could influence the trial, and also, being suspended on full pay for a period of time in most other jobs wont affect that individuals future earnings if they are later found to be not guilty - in the case of an NRL player, if they're forced to sit out 2 years, their contract could expire during that time and they're not going to get resigned anywhere until the case has concluded, and even if then the contract value is likely to have dropped significantly following 2 years out.
The fact Greenberg is resorting to anecdotal evidence of 'some of the girls from my kids team are quitting because of this' and 'we've received some emails supporting us' is yet another embarrassment - he's a CEO for gods sake, that's the sort of arguement youd expect from a kid in the head teachers office.

 

[Perth Red]

You simply can't stand someone down based on allegations alone,

I guess it isn't just based on allegations. The NRL would consider that the fact a person has been charged would show there is enough evidence to warrant a charge and therefore warrant a standing down.
Better the game is protected than the individual, imo.

 

[Iafeta]

Bolton charge is borderline I agree.Wasn't Ferguson's similar.
Lodge should never have got a gig in my book.
Packer served his time in the small wall place, and out of the game.The guy has a degree and is a model citizen.
Don't know the Fonua-Blake situation.
Tetevano, what was the judges decision?

I don't feel comfortable with some of them playing, but we had a rash of events over the off season.What is the admin supposed to do? Just carry on and wait till all cases closed?

I have daughters,I know their reaction to the off season.

Zane Tetevano was found guilty and got an initial 18 month sentence. Iirc it was 8 charges he was convicted of.

AFB pleaded guilty and got $1000 fine and 12 month suspended jail sentence.

 

[Perth Red]

I have daughters,I know their reaction to the off season.

My wife has refused to watch an NRL game this year other than Melbourne. Said she is damned if she is going to follow a bunch of over paid dckheads who cant behave and treat women like sht. She's been a rugby league fan all her life. I'm sure her response isn't unique after this off season.

 

[Chimp]

I guess it isn't just based on allegations. The NRL would consider that the fact a person has been charged would show there is enough evidence to warrant a charge and therefore warrant a standing down.
Better the game is protected than the individual, imo.

But the game is just a game - Brett Stewart talks openly about how seriously impacted his life has been, surely that's more important? The NRL is going against the principles of natural justice.

 

[Shark62]

My wife has refused to watch an NRL game this year other than Melbourne. Said she is damned if she is going to follow a bunch of over paid dckheads who cant behave and treat women like sht. She's been a rugby league fan all her life. I'm sure her response isn't unique after this off season.

I’ve been delivering white ribbon training across the state public service. The NRL is consistently raised as a haven for women bashers. That’s the legacy we have because of these numbskulls right now.
I note those arguing the other view here never mention the fact that these players are given comprehensive education on how to avoid all of these issues. An inconvenient truth?

 

[Chimp]

I’ve been delivering white ribbon training across the state public service. The NRL is consistently raised as a haven for women bashers. That’s the legacy we have because of these numbskulls right now.
I note those arguing the other view here never mention the fact that these players are given comprehensive education on how to avoid all of these issues. An inconvenient truth?

No doubt the players getting in bother are to blame, and there's no excuse for it, but that doesn't mean the NRL can punish players based on allegations alone. The Brett Stewart and SKD cases are great examples of why they should avoid that.

What the NRL could and should do is have a hard line stance on players who are convicted - draw the line in the sand that any player found guilty of certain crimes will be banished from the game forever.

A message of 'everyone has the basic human right of innocence until proven guilty, and we will support that, and will also support the alleged victim until the case concludes. However, anyone convicted of a crime of this nature will never be allowed back in our game' would be much more appropriate, and would get much wider support.

If these imbecile players know for sure that they're gone for good if they do some of this shit, then that should act as a deterrent, whilst ensuring the NRL can still be seen to be taking the moral high ground. As things stand, players have always known that if they're a good enough player, they'll get another gig in the game regardless of how poorly they behave - protecting against that is the thing that needs to be put in Policy.

 

[Shark62]

No doubt the players getting in bother are to blame, and there's no excuse for it, but that doesn't mean the NRL can punish players based on allegations alone. The Brett Stewart and SKD cases are great examples of why they should avoid that.

What the NRL could and should do is have a hard line stance on players who are convicted - draw the line in the sand that any player found guilty of certain crimes will be banished from the game forever.

A message of 'everyone has the basic human right of innocence until proven guilty, and we will support that, and will also support the alleged victim until the case concludes. However, anyone convicted of a crime of this nature will never be allowed back in our game' would be much more appropriate, and would get much wider support.

If these imbecile players know for sure that they're gone for good if they do some of this shit, then that should act as a deterrent, whilst ensuring the NRL can still be seen to be taking the moral high ground. As things stand, players have always known that if they're a good enough player, they'll get another gig in the game regardless of how poorly they behave - protecting against that is the thing that needs to be put in Policy.

The NRL had an obligation to all of its major stakeholders to protect the reputation of the game. What the courts do is a different matter.
Selling the game to sponsors and families with an accused rapist running around doesn’t work and the NRL has the right to stand a player down in those circumstances.

 

[Chimp]

The NRL had an obligation to all of its major stakeholders to protect the reputation of the game. What the courts do is a different matter.
Selling the game to sponsors and families with an accused rapist running around doesn’t work and the NRL has the right to stand a player down in those circumstances.

We'll have to agree to disagree - IMO the only way the can stand someone down is if they have evidence they've broken the code of conduct - allegations alone are not evidence.

 

[Shark62]

We'll have to agree to disagree - IMO the only way the can stand someone down is if they have evidence they've broken the code of conduct - allegations alone are not evidence.

All good mate

 

[Perth Red]

But the game is just a game - Brett Stewart talks openly about how seriously impacted his life has been, surely that's more important? The NRL is going against the principles of natural justice.

No its not. Many many jobs would stand you down in this scenario on full pay. I am sure mine would. Sucks for the player but A) dont get into those situations and B) lay the blame for this response at the other dckhead colleagues who have forced the NRL's hand.
NRL has to look after the game, that its is first responsibility. Its not just a game, its a $billion business with strong a community presence that is its customer lifeline.