Terrycampese wrote: ↑February 26, 2019, 10:00 pm
FROG wrote: ↑February 26, 2019, 7:32 pm
The fraction of the players salary (for injuries) is meant to be proportionate to the time he is off the field. This was not a rule that was designed for the raiders. It just so happened that our club is the first to apply for it. I think it's a fair outcome. One of your players gets injured playing rep footy, you can't sign another rep level player but they'll give you some $ to play with to help cover the loss. Seems fair and reasonable to me.
JDB s situation is completely different. As I mentioned above, he has pleaded not guilty and at this point in time has not been convicted. He has a right to earn an income just like anyone else and has a binding contract to play football. If the code choses for the player to be made unavailable for charges that are not yet proven then I feel it's fair the club receive salary cap dispensation. I appreciate the sentiment that it shouldn't be for the whole salary but don't think it's helpful to make comparisons with other salary cap relief scenarios. And there is absolutely no basis to somehow suggest that this demonstrates bias against the raiders. It's this victim mentality that really grates me.
Occasional reader, first time poster.
Just feel the need to interject on the matter of whether it's fair for JDB to be suspended.
I've seen a lot of people online commenting on JDBs "right" to work until he is convicted.
It doesnt seem like any of the people saying this are experts in employment law... nor am I, but my understanding is very different from most of the comments.
A person charged with such serious offences, as I understand, could certainly be stood down without pay by their employer.
As far as I know, he would be able to seek damages IF he were acquitted AND his employer was negligent or malicious in suspending him. That certainly would not be the case here given the facts surrounding th matter. The onus should undoubtedly be on the dragons to, at the least, suspend him with pay and cop the dent in their cap.
Player discipline is a responsibility of a club and, if you want to be really sympathetic, you could liken the incident to a freak injury which sees many players out of action without relief. But given the information made public so far, the dragons should have taken responsibility until further notice... not held the NRL to ransom awaiting a payout.
Ill add, that every NRL player signs a contract that says something along the lines of, they wont bring the game into disrepute. Innocent or guilty, this story could easily be argued as bringing the game into disrepute. So, standing him down at least gives the NRL the perception of not accepting this behavior. Its what happens next that's tricky.
There is the Brett Stewart precedent.... messy messy messy. And this is what the argument against standing him down is.
There is the Wighton precedent too, however, he pleaded guilty. Thus different story.
So, Im in the 'With or without pay' camp. As its the Dragons that actually pay him, if the NRL stands him down, should Dragons still foot the bill? With the innocent until proven guilty, Id say cap dispensation should be allowed. However, only for the amount accrued during the time he is stood down (now til end of April?). If that allows Dragons to hire a min wage player, so be it. If not, bad luck, at least you saved X dollars on the cap that yr.
Should he be fund guilty, contracts are torn up, Dragons are only out what they paid him til the point of standing down. Meaning, they now have whatever is left on JDBs contract, plus the dispensation, to buy a new player.