General Greg Bird charged

Jesbass_old

Guest
lol. A baker's dozen involved in the prank, but no idea how many in the room.

Maybe he didn't get charged because he paid her off with some Danish pastries and some Swiss rolls? Depends on his European heritage, I guess... :lol1:
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
I'm not sure that you've answered my question? I'm wondering why the approach from the judiciary was against the club, (and it usually is in similar, less extreme situations), and not the individuals responsible. Does this mean that the staff are employed by the club but not by the NRL, whereas a player is employed by the club but also registered with the NRL?

(Blatantly thinking out loud...again.)

I think in the Bellamy case you'll find that the NRL did slam the Storm with a $50,000 fine.

Still, beyond that, the individuals on the judiciary felt defamed and sought personal remedies outside of the NRL.

A $10,000 fine for going off at an official for instance wouldn't be grounds for the referee not to seek leave to seek legal remedies if they felt defamed. I guess you could look at the $10,000-$50,000 system as a deterrent, a penalty if you will, but it doesn't carry a 'legal' record as a civil law suit does and therefore can't override the individuals or collective groups seeking legal remedies of their own beyond the repurcussions already sanctioned.

polar bob, good stuff with your posts. You summed up exactly what I was trying to say so much better than I could. I guess the overriding things to remember are;

* The NRL has via it's code of conduct which is sanctioned and supported by the players body and players are aware of it, the ability to deregister any player they see fit from their competition. The points are vague at best, but it's open to the extent that it's as the NRL sees fit really.

* The Courts main interest in upholding the AVO is not to deny rights, but to place an arbitratory method of protecting both parties security, and as polar bob also says, the ability to collude and concoct alibis. There already appears to have been some collusion given the changes in attitude/sentiment/statements of both parties.

Overall, I think Bird will be dishonourably disregistered from the NRL and end up in Super League. My own instinct strictly off the record is I'm always weary when there appears to be so many changed stories over the one incident, an incident that included the accused allegedly telling a friend he had dobbed him into the police to protect his own image. Incidental to the actual alleged assault, that's the part that I think a lot of people, the Sharks and NRL included, have a major problem with.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
I think in the Bellamy case you'll find that the NRL did slam the Storm with a $50,000 fine.

Yep. I've stated that in two posts. I was asking why they didn't fine Bellamy and Waldron, but the club instead. I know it's their standard policy, but if a player can get de-registered for stepping out of line, why is a club held responsible for an individual's actions when it's a coach or CEO? (Of course, if criminal activity kicks in, they might react differently.)

Still, beyond that, the individuals on the judiciary felt defamed and sought personal remedies outside of the NRL.

A $10,000 fine for going off at an official for instance wouldn't be grounds for the referee not to seek leave to seek legal remedies if they felt defamed. I guess you could look at the $10,000-$50,000 system as a deterrent, a penalty if you will, but it doesn't carry a 'legal' record as a civil law suit does and therefore can't override the individuals or collective groups seeking legal remedies of their own beyond the repurcussions already sanctioned.

polar bob, good stuff with your posts. You summed up exactly what I was trying to say so much better than I could. I guess the overriding things to remember are;

* The NRL has via it's code of conduct which is sanctioned and supported by the players body and players are aware of it, the ability to deregister any player they see fit from their competition. The points are vague at best, but it's open to the extent that it's as the NRL sees fit really.

* The Courts main interest in upholding the AVO is not to deny rights, but to place an arbitratory method of protecting both parties security, and as polar bob also says, the ability to collude and concoct alibis. There already appears to have been some collusion given the changes in attitude/sentiment/statements of both parties.

Overall, I think Bird will be dishonourably disregistered from the NRL and end up in Super League. My own instinct strictly off the record is I'm always weary when there appears to be so many changed stories over the one incident, an incident that included the accused allegedly telling a friend he had dobbed him into the police to protect his own image. Incidental to the actual alleged assault, that's the part that I think a lot of people, the Sharks and NRL included, have a major problem with.

All of which I was unaware of until today, but thanks for the heads up. We really do seem to get the raw end of the deal with NRL news in New Zealand. Being in Europe probably didn't help, either - when did this whole thing go down?
 

Viking_old

Guest
Bellamy and Waldron aren't employed by the NRL and haven't done anything illegal so the NRL must have something in place that makes the club accountable for the actions of it's employees. I know the players are registered with the NRL but are coaches and club staff? In theory, a player could be de-registered with the NRL but continue to be employed by their club. I don't see how the NRL can de-register a player who hasn't been found guilty yet and hasn't admitted to any indiscretion.

It's just a matter of time though.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Bellamy and Waldron aren't employed by the NRL and haven't done anything illegal so the NRL must have something in place that makes the club accountable for the actions of it's employees. I know the players are registered with the NRL but are coaches and club staff? In theory, a player could be de-registered with the NRL but continue to be employed by their club. I don't see how the NRL can de-register a player who hasn't been found guilty yet and hasn't admitted to any indiscretion.

It's just a matter of time though.

Well, as a member of the media, I have to be registered with the NRL, even though they don't employ me.

Either way, I think it's a sad reflection on the NRL that as an organisation they're too insecure to handle criticism, and that they fine clubs for employees who criticise referees or their performances, etc.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
I think Jes you answered your own question... yes, Waldron and Bellamy hit the NRL, but it certainly wasn't criminally reprehensible nor did they lie about it in such a covert way like Greg Bird. I think if Bellamy had have done what Bird did, he would be deregistered. In the case of the CEO, I'm sure the NRL would be talking to the club's directors and making their views abundantly clear, but I think by that stage the CEO would be fired anyway and fail to receive any offers from a rival organisation. So it kind of works in swings and roundabouts, but sometimes clubs are a little reluctant to forego a star player and that's largely why the deregistering process happens, to have an impartial hand guiding along the process. Although in this case, it appears the Sharks have largely acted on that course anyway. What the deregistering would help prevent is other clubs picking up the player which would have been an unfair detriment to the club who cut him.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
I think Jes you answered your own question... yes, Waldron and Bellamy hit the NRL, but it certainly wasn't criminally reprehensible nor did they lie about it in such a covert way like Greg Bird. I think if Bellamy had have done what Bird did, he would be deregistered. In the case of the CEO, I'm sure the NRL would be talking to the club's directors and making their views abundantly clear, but I think by that stage the CEO would be fired anyway and fail to receive any offers from a rival organisation. So it kind of works in swings and roundabouts, but sometimes clubs are a little reluctant to forego a star player and that's largely why the deregistering process happens, to have an impartial hand guiding along the process. Although in this case, it appears the Sharks have largely acted on that course anyway. What the deregistering would help prevent is other clubs picking up the player which would have been an unfair detriment to the club who cut him.

I like the cut of your gib, although I disagree with your last sentence. If a club chooses to cut a player due to breaches of conduct, that's their call, and if another club purchases them, then that's just too bad. (The likes of Taulapapa and Faumuina spring to mind.)

If the NRL cut him through de-registration, then fair enough.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
I'm speaking more of the likes of Todd Carney and Greg Bird potentially... players who are probably at the top end of the scale in terms of overall ability and leading a team around the park. Taulapapa and Faumuina, while sad, were never in their league, which would make it difficult for clubs to terminate those players, giving them additional leverage to abuse their priveledges knowing they won't get the punt, unless the clubs know that player won't come back to haunt them for doing the right thing.