Canberra Raiders back NRL integrity unit taking over player punishment

[Lui_Bon]

I think Players should be stood down on pay while facing these kinds of serious charges.
Why in the world would anyone have a problem with the club being able to go and replace the player?
So the team has to run a player short in their roster, as what, some kind of punishment for having a player charged?
It makes total sense to make the player exempt from the cap during the period they are stood down on pay!

I realize the discussion has continued, but to answer this question: "Why in the world would anyone have a problem with the club being able to go and replace the player"

The answer is because the Club can not distance itself from the people it employs. Like it or not, the man works for the St George Illawarra Dragons. He effects their fanbase, their sponsorship, the fans and sponsors of every other club - in short, they signed the alleged criminal, they provided his "pastoral care", they can not now walk away saying "oh well, turns out he was a criminal, we'll sign someone else on his money".

Sadly that's the price they pay while he is subject to the law of the land, which includes a supposition of innocence for him. I don't believe that it can be realistically or fairly applied to the club to just go out and find a like-for-like replacement. In playing terms. And if he's innocent, the damage remains, and a proportionate loss of roster strength to his club is a small price to pay.

As for whether he gets paid or not, I guess maybe he should be paid, because he's innocent until proven guilty. After all, if he's guilty, that's the last payday he's ever getting. And if he's innocent, well, he's at least paid his debts.

[cat]

So a club is better off with somebody accused of a serious crime rather than a injury to a player in an international game. Surely this is a joke.

This is the long and short of it. Your club is better off if you do a rape than an ACL.
No compensation. No extra incentive to rehire bad eggs.

Quite right. Its greatly reducing the risk for clubs to sign players with questionable histories.

Or if the nrl was smart if a club signed a player with a dodgy record ala dugan, lodge, pearce etc or that player gets in trouble a second time at the same club then if that player mucks up again the club doesn't get the salary cap compo and is potentially fined.
That might make clubs really think before signing these kinds of fellas

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Grün Maschine]

so we wouldve got some relief for wighton last year?

[edwahu]

so we wouldve got some relief for wighton last year?

It's not clear since unlike Jack, JDB will be stood down and sacked. Depends on the details of what the Roosters want.

[thedevilingreen]

I actually thought Greensburg would be good for the NRL but he's just as bad as Gallop ever was. Whole organization need to be burnt down and rebuilt from the top down

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

The contract of the person replacing him would have to be written in a way that it is not guaranteed. Simple.
Then if DeBelin comes back, they have the flexibility to manage their cap...

How many 600k players you know that will accept the potential to be dumped and clubless mid season?

Far more likely the NRL bends over backwards to let them keep both, maybe releasing a minimum wage player for optics.

I don’t know why people thought Greenberg would be good. Always been a goose. Clearly hates the Raiders. Not a good combo.

[edwahu]

You'd have to think Greenberg is toast once things calm down a bit.

[Botman]

The contract of the person replacing him would have to be written in a way that it is not guaranteed. Simple.
Then if DeBelin comes back, they have the flexibility to manage their cap...

How many 600k players you know that will accept the potential to be dumped and clubless mid season?

Far more likely the NRL bends over backwards to let them keep both, maybe releasing a minimum wage player for optics.

I don’t know why people thought Greenberg would be good. Always been a goose. Clearly hates the Raiders. Not a good combo.

How many 600k a year players are available to replace him fullstop?

That’s not the NRL’s problem, that’s saints problem to solve

They make the rules to allow them to replace players, it’s up to the clubs to find the player

[-PJ-]

They make rules up on the run to please themselves.

It's disgusting leadership from the front office.

It's like where I work.

[edwahu]

The contract of the person replacing him would have to be written in a way that it is not guaranteed. Simple.
Then if DeBelin comes back, they have the flexibility to manage their cap...

How many 600k players you know that will accept the potential to be dumped and clubless mid season?

Far more likely the NRL bends over backwards to let them keep both, maybe releasing a minimum wage player for optics.

I don’t know why people thought Greenberg would be good. Always been a goose. Clearly hates the Raiders. Not a good combo.

How many 600k a year players are available to replace him fullstop?

That’s not the NRL’s problem, that’s saints problem to solve

They make the rules to allow them to replace players, it’s up to the clubs to find the player

That's why the club's are asking for it to be able to be rolled over. Which I wouldnt put past the NRL allowing.

[gangrenous]

Didn’t realise you worked for a political party PJ

[Ginga]

I actually thought Greensburg would be good for the NRL but he's just as bad as Gallop ever was. Whole organization need to be burnt down and rebuilt from the top down

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

And then Peter Beattie swoops in to take over.... Or we end up with another Dave Smith banking type

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

The NRL is a very reactive, rather than strategic, organisation.

[TongueFTW]

Good article. The issue with changes like this is always the second order effects, or unanticipated changes. Clubs will care less about the background of the player, but if the bans are going to be more strict going forward, the players won't be allowed back in so theoretically, the player knowing that he can be replaced and won't be able to move to another club *should* lead to better behaviour. I say *should* because there is no chance any player out on the piss stops to consider any of this.

Honestly, if I was a player, I would just give up the booze for my career. I played soccer (football) at a very low level, and I wouldn't touch alcohol during the season. I don't think giving up alcohol is that big a sacrifice for a career of being paid crazy amounts to play football. Forgetting the behavioural issues, it has such a big effect physically, on recovery in particular.

[magoo]

It will be very interesting to watch what happens when 1 of the glamour clubs loses a star player during a test match. Imagine sidemouth if S Burgess does a acl or Gould if Cleary is out for the season in the 1st soo. Pretty sure we will be hearing a very different song.

[Ginga]

Did I hear the Sharks just signed Segeyaro despite the NRL still finalising the fine/penalty for previous breaches?
Well I guess technically Shaun Johnson isnt the last player signed and therefore need not worry about being forced out by the NRL?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[BJ]

The NRL is a very reactive, rather than strategic, organisation.

Nailed it!

[LimeGreenMachine]

Did I hear the Sharks just signed Segeyaro despite the NRL still finalising the fine/penalty for previous breaches?
Well I guess technically Shaun Johnson isnt the last player signed and therefore need not worry about being forced out by the NRL?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Apparently the NRL haven't registered it yet.

[Northern Raider]

The contract of the person replacing him would have to be written in a way that it is not guaranteed. Simple.
Then if DeBelin comes back, they have the flexibility to manage their cap...

How many 600k players you know that will accept the potential to be dumped and clubless mid season?

Far more likely the NRL bends over backwards to let them keep both, maybe releasing a minimum wage player for optics.

I don’t know why people thought Greenberg would be good. Always been a goose. Clearly hates the Raiders. Not a good combo.

How many 600k a year players are available to replace him fullstop?

That’s not the NRL’s problem, that’s saints problem to solve

They make the rules to allow them to replace players, it’s up to the clubs to find the player

What makes a $600k player is a $600k contract. It really gives them free cap room to sign whoever they want.

[Northern Raider]

I actually thought Greensburg would be good for the NRL but he's just as bad as Gallop ever was. Whole organization need to be burnt down and rebuilt from the top down

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

And then Peter Beattie swoops in to take over.... Or we end up with another Dave Smith banking type

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

This is one aspect Greenberg is good at. Surrounding himself with idiots to make him look better.

[LP Raider]

Did I hear the Sharks just signed Segeyaro despite the NRL still finalising the fine/penalty for previous breaches?
Well I guess technically Shaun Johnson isnt the last player signed and therefore need not worry about being forced out by the NRL?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Apparently the NRL haven't registered it yet.

Heard on the radio this morning that more has been uncovered in regards to the Sharks and salary cap cheating.

[LimeGreenMachine]

Yeah there is an link to an article in the Sharks thread

[Sid]

on the plus side we won't have to worry about injuries to players in rep games any longer if dragons or sea eagles decide to buy Rapana with their $600k relief

[Sid]

The contract of the person replacing him would have to be written in a way that it is not guaranteed. Simple.
Then if DeBelin comes back, they have the flexibility to manage their cap...

How many 600k players you know that will accept the potential to be dumped and clubless mid season?

Far more likely the NRL bends over backwards to let them keep both, maybe releasing a minimum wage player for optics.

I don’t know why people thought Greenberg would be good. Always been a goose. Clearly hates the Raiders. Not a good combo.

How many 600k a year players are available to replace him fullstop?

That’s not the NRL’s problem, that’s saints problem to solve

They make the rules to allow them to replace players, it’s up to the clubs to find the player

Seems pretty easy to make players available through contracts breaking nowadays.

[Northern Raider]

on the plus side we won't have to worry about injuries to players in rep games any longer if dragons or sea eagles decide to buy Rapana with their $600k relief

T'would be the ultimate irony.

[Beejay]

I think Players should be stood down on pay while facing these kinds of serious charges.
Why in the world would anyone have a problem with the club being able to go and replace the player?
So the team has to run a player short in their roster, as what, some kind of punishment for having a player charged?
It makes total sense to make the player exempt from the cap during the period they are stood down on pay!

I realize the discussion has continued, but to answer this question: "Why in the world would anyone have a problem with the club being able to go and replace the player"

The answer is because the Club can not distance itself from the people it employs. Like it or not, the man works for the St George Illawarra Dragons. He effects their fanbase, their sponsorship, the fans and sponsors of every other club - in short, they signed the alleged criminal, they provided his "pastoral care", they can not now walk away saying "oh well, turns out he was a criminal, we'll sign someone else on his money".

Sadly that's the price they pay while he is subject to the law of the land, which includes a supposition of innocence for him. I don't believe that it can be realistically or fairly applied to the club to just go out and find a like-for-like replacement. In playing terms. And if he's innocent, the damage remains, and a proportionate loss of roster strength to his club is a small price to pay.

As for whether he gets paid or not, I guess maybe he should be paid, because he's innocent until proven guilty. After all, if he's guilty, that's the last payday he's ever getting. And if he's innocent, well, he's at least paid his debts.

It's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here, but I'll do my best to respond to a few things;

**The answer is because the Club can not distance itself from the people it employs. Like it or not, the man works for the St George Illawarra Dragons. He effects their fanbase, their sponsorship, the fans and sponsors of every other club - in short, they signed the alleged criminal, they provided his "pastoral care"**
Clearly this has damaged the Dragons brand and affected current and future sponsorship. The Dragons (and DeBelin) have already been punished in some way whether he gets found guilty or not. Also I think 'pastoral care' for a footy club is a stretch.. some of these blokes are signing 1-2 year contracts to play football.

**they can not now walk away saying "oh well, turns out he was a criminal, we'll sign someone else on his money"**
He's not yet a criminal. We are in the difficult spot of credible allegations being made. If we are standing down a player on these allegations, due to their seriousness and the fact and NRL player is in a public position of respect (and we should). Well then, the club should be able to fill their roster spot while the player is being stood down.
If Debelin is found Guilty, or pleads guilty at any stage his contract will be torn up. So your quote above of "oh well, turns out he was a criminal, we'll sign someone else on his money" is bloody exactly what will happen. And does happen.

**As for whether he gets paid or not, I guess maybe he should be paid**
He should definitely get paid. I can't really see how anyone could make the argument that he shouldn't while declaring his innocence. Even if you wanted to not pay him, you legally couldn't.

I can see that people are getting worked up about this based on comparing it to Rapana. But really they are completely different.
Rapana got injured in a Rep game, so the Salary Cap exemption is to help the clubs that are providing the players for these Rep games. To take the edge of their motivation to rule them out of Rep games ect.
DeBelin we are standing him down for Moral and PR reasons. He is saying he's innocent, but the NRL won't let him play until he clears his name.
If you are going to stand someone down in that instance, it's entirely reasonable to allow the club to 'replace' the player in the squad, and for the same amount makes sense.

[hrundi89]

I think Players should be stood down on pay while facing these kinds of serious charges.
Why in the world would anyone have a problem with the club being able to go and replace the player?
So the team has to run a player short in their roster, as what, some kind of punishment for having a player charged?
It makes total sense to make the player exempt from the cap during the period they are stood down on pay!

I realize the discussion has continued, but to answer this question: "Why in the world would anyone have a problem with the club being able to go and replace the player"

The answer is because the Club can not distance itself from the people it employs. Like it or not, the man works for the St George Illawarra Dragons. He effects their fanbase, their sponsorship, the fans and sponsors of every other club - in short, they signed the alleged criminal, they provided his "pastoral care", they can not now walk away saying "oh well, turns out he was a criminal, we'll sign someone else on his money".

Sadly that's the price they pay while he is subject to the law of the land, which includes a supposition of innocence for him. I don't believe that it can be realistically or fairly applied to the club to just go out and find a like-for-like replacement. In playing terms. And if he's innocent, the damage remains, and a proportionate loss of roster strength to his club is a small price to pay.

As for whether he gets paid or not, I guess maybe he should be paid, because he's innocent until proven guilty. After all, if he's guilty, that's the last payday he's ever getting. And if he's innocent, well, he's at least paid his debts.

Completely agree.

[edwahu]

I think Players should be stood down on pay while facing these kinds of serious charges.
Why in the world would anyone have a problem with the club being able to go and replace the player?
So the team has to run a player short in their roster, as what, some kind of punishment for having a player charged?
It makes total sense to make the player exempt from the cap during the period they are stood down on pay!

I realize the discussion has continued, but to answer this question: "Why in the world would anyone have a problem with the club being able to go and replace the player"

The answer is because the Club can not distance itself from the people it employs. Like it or not, the man works for the St George Illawarra Dragons. He effects their fanbase, their sponsorship, the fans and sponsors of every other club - in short, they signed the alleged criminal, they provided his "pastoral care", they can not now walk away saying "oh well, turns out he was a criminal, we'll sign someone else on his money".

Sadly that's the price they pay while he is subject to the law of the land, which includes a supposition of innocence for him. I don't believe that it can be realistically or fairly applied to the club to just go out and find a like-for-like replacement. In playing terms. And if he's innocent, the damage remains, and a proportionate loss of roster strength to his club is a small price to pay.

As for whether he gets paid or not, I guess maybe he should be paid, because he's innocent until proven guilty. After all, if he's guilty, that's the last payday he's ever getting. And if he's innocent, well, he's at least paid his debts.

It's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here, but I'll do my best to respond to a few things;

**The answer is because the Club can not distance itself from the people it employs. Like it or not, the man works for the St George Illawarra Dragons. He effects their fanbase, their sponsorship, the fans and sponsors of every other club - in short, they signed the alleged criminal, they provided his "pastoral care"**
Clearly this has damaged the Dragons brand and affected current and future sponsorship. The Dragons (and DeBelin) have already been punished in some way whether he gets found guilty or not. Also I think 'pastoral care' for a footy club is a stretch.. some of these blokes are signing 1-2 year contracts to play football.

**they can not now walk away saying "oh well, turns out he was a criminal, we'll sign someone else on his money"**
He's not yet a criminal. We are in the difficult spot of credible allegations being made. If we are standing down a player on these allegations, due to their seriousness and the fact and NRL player is in a public position of respect (and we should). Well then, the club should be able to fill their roster spot while the player is being stood down.
If Debelin is found Guilty, or pleads guilty at any stage his contract will be torn up. So your quote above of "oh well, turns out he was a criminal, we'll sign someone else on his money" is bloody exactly what will happen. And does happen.

**As for whether he gets paid or not, I guess maybe he should be paid**
He should definitely get paid. I can't really see how anyone could make the argument that he shouldn't while declaring his innocence. Even if you wanted to not pay him, you legally couldn't.

I can see that people are getting worked up about this based on comparing it to Rapana. But really they are completely different.
Rapana got injured in a Rep game, so the Salary Cap exemption is to help the clubs that are providing the players for these Rep games. To take the edge of their motivation to rule them out of Rep games ect.
DeBelin we are standing him down for Moral and PR reasons. He is saying he's innocent, but the NRL won't let him play until he clears his name.
If you are going to stand someone down in that instance, it's entirely reasonable to allow the club to 'replace' the player in the squad, and for the same amount makes sense.

The issue is the labour market in the NRL is controlled in order to ensure parity of the competition and the liquidity of the clubs. This is totally different to the real world. There is no legal obligation to provide cap relief to the clubs and it undermines both of the stated purposes of the Cap if it's not implemented properly.

[Danaman137]

EDIT

EDIT

Both of these comments are disgusting. Think about what you say before you press enter lads. Awful stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

So a club is better off with somebody accused of a serious crime rather than a injury to a player in an international game. Surely this is a joke.

This is the long and short of it. Your club is better off if you do a rape than an ACL.
No compensation. No extra incentive to rehire bad eggs.

Quite right. Its greatly reducing the risk for clubs to sign players with questionable histories.

Or if the nrl was smart if a club signed a player with a dodgy record ala dugan, lodge, pearce etc or that player gets in trouble a second time at the same club then if that player mucks up again the club doesn't get the salary cap compo and is potentially fined.
That might make clubs really think before signing these kinds of fellas

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Sounds reasonable to me. So... in the case of De Bellin, ummm, there'd be absolutely no difference?

And please explain to me again the last time Dugan broke the law and had to be stood down by a club? I'm a bit hazy on that one?

[Beejay]

Jack DeBelin doesn't have a questionable history. And he has no prior incidents.
If DeBelin was on the market last year and we signed him in say November last year, everyone here would be jumping for joy. And with good reason.
So why do want to punish the Dragons because he has uncontested allegations against him. Would you think it fair that the Raiders would be punished now if we signed DeBelin last year?
You'd all be squealing blue murder if we lost $600k out of our Cap, and a state of origin level player due to uncontested allegations, that we had literally no foresight or control over.
The Brett Stewart allegations were horrific as well, but they turned out to be made up by an overbearing manipulative father.

I think he should be stood down. But i'm not sure why everyone wants to start dishing out the punishment to the Dragons immediately before DeBelin has even put his defence forward...

[Northern Raider]

So a club is better off with somebody accused of a serious crime rather than a injury to a player in an international game. Surely this is a joke.

This is the long and short of it. Your club is better off if you do a rape than an ACL.
No compensation. No extra incentive to rehire bad eggs.

Quite right. Its greatly reducing the risk for clubs to sign players with questionable histories.

Or if the nrl was smart if a club signed a player with a dodgy record ala dugan, lodge, pearce etc or that player gets in trouble a second time at the same club then if that player mucks up again the club doesn't get the salary cap compo and is potentially fined.
That might make clubs really think before signing these kinds of fellas

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Sounds reasonable to me. So... in the case of De Bellin, ummm, there'd be absolutely no difference?

And please explain to me again the last time Dugan broke the law and had to be stood down by a club? I'm a bit hazy on that one?

Accessing a rooftop without the correct safety equipment?

[Bay53]

Quality NRL players are not wigets. You can’t just make more of them. If you get salary cap relief when a player is stood down, another club is losing a player which potentially just inflates the whole market.

[edwahu]

Quality NRL players are not wigets. You can’t just make more of them. If you get salary cap relief when a player is stood down, another club is losing a player which potentially just inflates the whole market.

I predict there would be a lot of homesickness in other squads if this scenario played out with a 1m+ player.

[The Nickman]

Jack DeBelin doesn't have a questionable history. And he has no prior incidents.
If DeBelin was on the market last year and we signed him in say November last year, everyone here would be jumping for joy. And with good reason.
So why do want to punish the Dragons because he has uncontested allegations against him. Would you think it fair that the Raiders would be punished now if we signed DeBelin last year?
You'd all be squealing blue murder if we lost $600k out of our Cap, and a state of origin level player due to uncontested allegations, that we had literally no foresight or control over.
The Brett Stewart allegations were horrific as well, but they turned out to be made up by an overbearing manipulative father.

I think he should be stood down. But i'm not sure why everyone wants to start dishing out the punishment to the Dragons immediately before DeBelin has even put his defence forward...

Because it's not the Raiders Beejay, and we're FURIOUS if it's any player/team that's not the Raiders.

I reckon a Raiders player could literally walk down the street headbutting and punching ***** and we wouldn't care, we'd probably even complain the sentence is too harsh!!