Green eyed Mick wrote: ↑March 7, 2019, 6:42 pm
It probably takes time to draft a complex, legally sound rule change like this.
agreed, not too worried about this, the NRL will put in the policy and i very much doubt any court in the land will rule against them here.
But then I dont know **** about the law, so i'm basically talking totally and completely out of my **** and just applying my "common sense"
greeneyed wrote:It wouldn’t surprise me at all that De Belin’s lawyers knew precisely what they were doing with the timing. Ben Ikin and Paul Kent were getting stuck into the NRL over it, but I’m not going to be too critical of the NRL. They’ve taken the right stance and made clear what they were going to do in a timely way.
Well I guess there’s a first for everything. Thank god the raiders aren’t involved, hey Ferg?
greeneyed wrote:It wouldn’t surprise me at all that De Belin’s lawyers knew precisely what they were doing with the timing. Ben Ikin and Paul Kent were getting stuck into the NRL over it, but I’m not going to be too critical of the NRL. They’ve taken the right stance and made clear what they were going to do in a timely way.
Well I guess there’s a first for everything. Thank god the raiders aren’t involved, hey Ferg?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is this get stuck into GE week?
His Ricky valve is welded shut. It’s got to end up venting some other direction or he explodes...
Fuifui Bradbrad wrote: ↑March 8, 2019, 5:03 pm
Mole is reporting that St George Bank have threatened to walk from sponsoring the Dragons if DeBelin is allowed to play
Good on em
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
greeneyed wrote:It wouldn’t surprise me at all that De Belin’s lawyers knew precisely what they were doing with the timing. Ben Ikin and Paul Kent were getting stuck into the NRL over it, but I’m not going to be too critical of the NRL. They’ve taken the right stance and made clear what they were going to do in a timely way.
Well I guess there’s a first for everything. Thank god the raiders aren’t involved, hey Ferg?
Fuifui Bradbrad wrote: ↑March 8, 2019, 5:03 pm
Mole is reporting that St George Bank have threatened to walk from sponsoring the Dragons if DeBelin is allowed to play
Good on em
Wow. How long have they been associated with the Dragons? Edit. I found a site that suggests they have been a sponsor for over 30 years.
I guess this is the reason the NRL has taken the action they have, hey Dragon's.
Some League players and many League officials are just so disconnected from the public and from the business world. The Sydney NRL Bubble is much more murky and disconnected than the Canberra bubble.
What did De Belin and St George think would happen by taking such a fierce stance against the NRL’s decision?
Fuifui Bradbrad wrote: ↑March 8, 2019, 5:03 pm
Mole is reporting that St George Bank have threatened to walk from sponsoring the Dragons if DeBelin is allowed to play
Good on em
You know things are bad when a bank is the one that is comfortably taking the moral high ground after all the stuff they've been getting up to.
Fuifui Bradbrad wrote: ↑March 8, 2019, 5:03 pm
Mole is reporting that St George Bank have threatened to walk from sponsoring the Dragons if DeBelin is allowed to play
This is excellent news. There's no way the Dragons choose de Belin over their long term major sponsor.
I still think whoever is advising de Belin needs a smack around the head. Yes, let's take all these actions and paint de Belin as an arrogant, self-centered douchecanoe who can't take no for an answer. That's a great way to publicly paint a guy charged with gang rape. I'm sure it'll work as a strategy. /s
Honestly I'd like to see his teammates show some gumption and refuse to play with him. His actions are being incredibly disruptive to the team's preparations and he clearly doesn't give a toss.
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
gergreg wrote: ↑March 9, 2019, 11:06 am
I can see why DeBelin is contesting the 'stand down'. It's a way for him and his legal team to express his innocence.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
But it's a no-fault stand down. The NRL aren't saying "he's guilty so he's gotta stand down", the NRL are saying "this is a very serious charge, he needs to be given time to focus on it, and we have to show the community that we are taking this serious charge seriously".
If de Belin was a police officer, a teacher, a doctor with the same charge he'd be stood down too.
Frankly, his behaviour thus far is what's making him look guilty.
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
St George Illawarra Dragons sponsor vows to stick solid
St George Illawarra's major sponsor has stated its intentions to stick solid despite the NRL club's name coming under fire during the Jack de Belin saga.
LimeGreenMachine wrote: ↑March 9, 2019, 11:53 amSt George Illawarra Dragons sponsor vows to stick solid
St George Illawarra's major sponsor has stated its intentions to stick solid despite the NRL club's name coming under fire during the Jack de Belin saga.
gergreg wrote: ↑March 9, 2019, 11:06 am
I can see why DeBelin is contesting the 'stand down'. It's a way for him and his legal team to express his innocence.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
But it's a no-fault stand down. The NRL aren't saying "he's guilty so he's gotta stand down", the NRL are saying "this is a very serious charge, he needs to be given time to focus on it, and we have to show the community that we are taking this serious charge seriously".
If de Belin was a police officer, a teacher, a doctor with the same charge he'd be stood down too.
Frankly, his behaviour thus far is what's making him look guilty.
I completely understand that, but by fighting the 'stand-down' his legal team is projecting his innocence.
gergreg wrote: ↑March 9, 2019, 11:06 am
I can see why DeBelin is contesting the 'stand down'. It's a way for him and his legal team to express his innocence.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
But it's a no-fault stand down. The NRL aren't saying "he's guilty so he's gotta stand down", the NRL are saying "this is a very serious charge, he needs to be given time to focus on it, and we have to show the community that we are taking this serious charge seriously".
If de Belin was a police officer, a teacher, a doctor with the same charge he'd be stood down too.
Frankly, his behaviour thus far is what's making him look guilty.
I completely understand that, but by fighting the 'stand-down' his legal team is projecting his innocence.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
But my argument is that it's actually doing the opposite. It's now evident he's incredibly self-centred, doesn't give a toss about anyone other than himself, is incredibly arrogant (a corrective advertising campaign, come on!) and won't take no for an answer.
That's a really bad look when the charge is aggravated sexual assault.
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
Pfft. There is an argument that the NRL standing him down is not actually supporting the player and is in fact assigning guilt to the player - remember Brett Stewart? The NRL can sing from the rooftops that this is a No fault policy all they want but when it comes to his trial - if he didn't contest the stand down - I reckon the prosecution directly questions him on why he didn't contest the stand down.
I have said repeatedly here that I agree with the NRL in that they need this line in the sand moment to protect their brand but the optics of it aren't great for DeBelin. He is fighting to avoid a long prison sentence, if his legal team tells him that this action will improve his chances he doesn't give a **** whether somebody on the GH thinks it makes him look selfish.
I'm no lawyer but i would guess ff the prosecution are at a point where they're trying to score points on whether JDB made legal challenges to the "No Fault Stand Down" policy from the NRL, their case is probably pretty **** weak and they dont have a realistic chance of conviction.
i wouldnt think the DPP would consider that at all. But again, not a lawyer, just seems like a total non factor in the case.
Yeah I'm just spitballing. He might (be)/(simply think he is completely innocent) and the stand down is a punishment he isn't willing to cop, for financial reasons and the optics of it?
gergreg wrote: ↑March 9, 2019, 7:04 pm
Yeah I'm just spitballing. He might (be)/(simply think he is completely innocent) and the stand down is a punishment he isn't willing to cop, for financial reasons and the optics of it?
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
if i had to guess. I'd say
1. Yeah he probably feels like he hasnt been convicted and should have a right to do his profession with the presumption of innocence.
2. If he plays, he probably think he's in line for SOO and Test duties, that's probably 150k worth of cash he's probably missing out on.
3. I think he probably thinks with Norman on board now, they're a shot at a premiership (they aren't lol) and he wants to be on the park to a) try and achieve that, and b) not derail that with his absence.
4. Yeah, i guess there would be some level optics involved.
St George Illawarra Dragons want NRL to foot the bill for Jack de Belin's replacement
St George Illawarra is demanding the NRL foot the bill for Jack de Belin’s replacement if the star forward’s legal bid to return to the field is unsuccessful.
The NRL has indicated that clubs will be able to apply for a salary cap exemption to replace players affected by the new stand-down rules. However, affected clubs are required to keep paying the wages of players they aren’t able to use and would also need to pay for their replacement if an exemption is granted.
Sid wrote: ↑March 9, 2019, 10:32 pm
Hadn’t the nrl already said that they will ?
No, they have said they’d have to apply for cap relief. But what the Dragons are now asking for is extra grant money from the NRL to pay the new player as well! That is, on TOP of the salary cap exemption! Because they’re still paying the stood down player.
Sid wrote: ↑March 9, 2019, 10:32 pm
Hadn’t the nrl already said that they will ?
No, they have said they’d have to apply for cap relief. But what the Dragons are now asking for is extra grant money from the NRL to pay the new player as well! That is, on TOP of the salary cap exemption! Because they’re still paying the stood down player.
I can see their point. They believe their player is innocent and they are aggressively defending him.
The NRL should call their bluff. Announce they will reimburse all the clubs if their players are found not guilty and fine all the clubs for bringing the game into disrepute if they are guilty. The fine should be approximately twice what they had to fork out in player salaries.
Sid wrote: ↑March 9, 2019, 10:32 pm
Hadn’t the nrl already said that they will ?
No, they have said they’d have to apply for cap relief. But what the Dragons are now asking for is extra grant money from the NRL to pay the new player as well! That is, on TOP of the salary cap exemption! Because they’re still paying the stood down player.
I can see their point. They believe their player is innocent and they are aggressively defending him.
The NRL should call their bluff. Announce they will reimburse all the clubs if their players are found not guilty and fine all the clubs for bringing the game into disrepute if they are guilty. The fine should be approximately twice what they had to fork out in player salaries.
I like your thinking.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
I saw a snip on abc news saying the NRL stand down policy had been enacted today, not sure if true. And DeBelin was due back in court on Thursday to challenge again?
I think to avoid any disruption it would be in the Dragons interest to not name him.
No, he's still challenging the rule, he's just withdrawn the injunction application to be allowed to play this weekend. Hearing for the rule challenge is April 16. So he's still a berk, just someone with a brain has finally got it through his thick skull that forcing the issue at Round 1 wasn't helping.
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)