The drugs scandal which engulfed the NRL earlier in the season has reared its head again, with the Sydney Roosters reportedly launching legal action against former sponsor over the incident.
Then-Roosters player Shaun Kenny-Dowall was arrested on drugs charges in May of this year, leading him to be stood down and later released by the club. The incident also saw Infinity Group Australia withdraw their sponsorship deal with the Roosters.
Kenny-Dowall pleaded guilty to drug possession but was not convicted over the matter, and is now playing for the Newcastle Knights, for whom he scored against the Roosters during his club debut.
Infinity also withdrew their back-of-jersey sponsorship deal with the Cronulla Sharks after their former CEO, Damian Keogh, stood down from his role at the club due to cocaine possession charges. Like Kenny-Dowall, Keogh escaped conviction but was placed on an 18-month good behaviour bond.
Fairfax Media is reporting the Sharks won’t be pursuing legal action against the group, having reached an “amicable split” with Infinity and signing a replacement deal with Bang & Olufsen.
However, Fairfax reports the Roosters will take their case to court, with a pre-trial conference set to take place later this month.
Infinity also withdrew their sponsorship of the Parramatta Eels following last year’s salary cap scandal.
The news that the Roosters are taking their former sponsors to court brings the drugs scandal back into the spotlight after it had dwarfed most coverage of representative round back in May.
In addition to Kenny-Dowall and Keogh, New Zealand captain Jesse Bromwich and teammate Kevin Proctor were filmed buying cocaine outside a Canberra nightclub hours after their side was comprehensively beaten by the Kangaroos in the annual Anzac Test.
Both players were handed suspensions for this year’s Rugby League World Cup, and both copped further sanctions from their clubs. Bromwich was suspended for two games by the Melbourne Storm, while Proctor missed four for the Gold Coast Titans.
Squidward
Roar Rookie
From what I hear they were going broke and were desperate to get out of all sponsor deals and jumped at these chances
TigerMike
Guest
Haha Love the Roar articles they're the best
mushi
Guest
Yep it could be: - monies owed but unpaid, - a disagreement on the % of the season's value delivered prior to exiting vs payments made, or - reasonable fees and costs relating to replacing a sponsor that are supposed to be shared/worn by the sponsor on early exit The fact pattern might vary greatly from the sharks, thena gain it might not. But this doens't really tell us any of that
Emcie
Roar Guru
Didn't they try suing someone over the Mitchell Pearce video too? They sure like dragging old scandals back to the surface
mushi
Guest
Depends on the contract. If you sign up for a fixed term with limtied rights to break the contract then you were taking taht risk entering into it. But, depnding on what they are actually looking for, I agree with the below couple of comments saying it's a bold move.
Kilgore Trout
Roar Rookie
Ditto Nat .Suing their ex-sponsor . How Roosters is that ! There must be a few Eastern Suburbs lawyers without any proper jobs on at the moment . Hard to see any winners emerging from this , especially for the Roosters in the long term . Appears short sighted an ill conceived to me .
David Brown
Roar Rookie
I agree Agent11, what is the basis for taking them to court. I thought initially it was for the sponsor selling gear to the player!
Agent11
Guest
would be nice if the article mentioned on what grounds the roosters are suing on, rather than just rehashing the details of the drug scandal....
Nat
Roar Guru
It's a bold move to chase them to court. How does a club sack the player for the issue then go after the sponsor for doing the same. Good luck explaining that to the next potential sponsor.
Conan of Cooma
Roar Rookie
It's their brand name, surely they can withdraw their sponsorship based on how their name is represented by the sponsored team players?
M.O.C.
Roar Guru
Do they think they have a case because he was not convicted despite admission? I wonder what their contract stated?