Hi Beejay, I think you made more sense of my post than I did. In my usual inarticulate way, I think what I was trying to say was a) the Dragons should suffer because they nurtured him, and they're the Dragons - who stopped us from having Souths Logan. But more seriously because clubs must take some responsibility for the actions of their employees, even though that's a test that even cabinet ministers fail. b) because of point a), the club should not just get off scot free by replacing a crim with someone else. It's the vibe of the thing - and yes, I'm aware he isn't at this moment guilty of anything. c) glad we agree that as an as-yet innocent man, the club should honour its contract.Beejay wrote: ↑February 27, 2019, 9:06 amIt's not clear to me exactly what you are saying here, but I'll do my best to respond to a few things;Lui_Bon wrote: ↑February 26, 2019, 10:53 pmI 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"Beejay wrote: ↑February 26, 2019, 5:27 pm 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!
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.
**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.
Though on that last point, given the purpose of the slaray cap was always stated to be stopping clubs from spending beyond their means (rather than stopping Murdoch and Polites from buying everyone), perhaps clubs shouldn't be able to just lash out on an extra 600 grand while still up for the existing 600k?
So when you ask "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...", I'd have to ask, why should the Dragons be allowed to double dip?