Greenberg lays down law to NRL clubs

He has laid down the law by a stern directive via telephone hook up to club captain s to give their players a message to clean their act up. If this fool was serious about this he would have had all CEO s and captains face to face and done a bit of fist thumping. But we all know this will never happen.

I wonder if this tough stance on off field issues will last longer than his tough stance on enforcing rules on field.

This isn't about the "NRL brand", it's about the fact that players are role models looked up to by kids all over the country. It's not OK for a role model to assault someone — that's harmful to society. I feel like the current penalty system isn't working — the NRL needs to send a message by banning players for life. There are plenty of other highly skilled players at ready and waiting to fill in the gaps they'd leave behind.

How can this guy talk about fixing the image NRL has. He backed GI (who was found guilty) and now trying to find the bulldogs for something Napa did like 4 years ago at the roosters. This is the type of crap that is stopping people watching the game

Greenberg laying down the law? wasn’t it Keating who once said “like being ravaged by a dead sheep”

More white noise from Todd. The only players he comes down on are the "lesser profile" ones. Inglis found guilty, no punishment but happy to provide a reference for him. Sam Burgess penis gate was quickly & quietly swept under the carpet. But as soon as a reserve grader spits in public he'll be punished.

Greenberg is out of his depth. He should quit as CEO. This is from the same guy that stupidly let Matt Lodge back in the game,too weak to ban Tim Simona for life from the NRL,and a weak penalty for Inglis the speeding drink driver. Greenberg is all talk. Actions are what matter. Any of the players that are facing rape charges,if found guilty must be banned from the NRL for life,regardless what penalty the court dishes out.But,I will believe it when I see it. Finally,when/is the NRL investigating who leaked the Napa videos? Surely that is a criminal offense,and more serious than what Napa actually did. The leak should be facing criminal charges,and if guilty banned for life from the NRL.

I’m an avid Manly fan BA and I’m assuming that the CEO was helping the victim who was no doubt in need of help. If it can be shown that he was cynically trying to convince her to change her story then I’ll believe that when it emerges. What were you thinking and saying when reports emerged in the papers that a drunk and stumbling Brett Stewart tackled a young girl to the ground and also sexually assaulted her? Police called , AVO issued and Brett Stewart dragged off and charged? I can only guess what you were saying but I will make a stab and suggest that it was nonsense.

on Walker - 100% agree that he should have been suspended. An AVO is enough for some time on the pine. But then, it's complicated by the fact that the victim has retracted her statement. It stinks as much as the Greg Bird incident.

I agree and have said all along that there are situations where the NRL has to wait. The Hayne one unfortunately is an example of that because of the he said she said nature. The Whighton one clearly showed they can make a call before the courts do. In the Walker case though for example – the order of events; Incident occurs – paramedics are called to the home (think about the possible scenarios in which paramedics are called to a house and treat someone.) An AVO was issued. The Club CEO (not the cleanest skin in Australian sport) openly tells the media he is having regular conversations with the victim in the days immediatly after the incident. The couple turn up at court together with her wanting to retract her statement. … I am sorry, but unless you are an avid Manly fan, that scenario stinks to the highest of all heavens… and if the NRL are not speaking to the police and the lady in quesiton to get to the bottom of that, then they are not even trying to clean up their game. And maybe they have, but if they have, just say we have done an internal investigation and Walker is clear to play based on the evidence we currently have. And if that is the case, so be it and play on, but at least try to take control of the situation.

Most large businesses these days have a code of ethic's and behaviour's so more so should someone like the NRL who are more in the public eye than the average Joe. I worked for one of the four major banks and whilst their rules were fairly rigid you knew where you stood. Early on I had an incident which wasn't a sackable offence but I soon learned where the line in the sand was. Do any of the clubs employ human relations and qualified counseling people to deal with issues like this. Probably not , their main focus is on salary cap and administrative issues. Greenberg's statement reeks of he doesn't know what to do and his solution of a phone hook up with club captains is pretty feeble. He seems to be too passive to the head of any organisation.

The NRL struggles to attract big sponsors/advertisers for big money when " the brand" is tarnished so inevitably in the long run the next generation of players will suffer. If the govt ban alcohol/betting advertising for sports, the NRL will be hit hard and have to fall back on Bunnings etc. BTW did Wighton get aggro because he was pushed over while urinating in a secluded (ie not a public) place.

NRL chief draws line in the sand - how many times has this happened?? Dozen or maybe more.

Thanks for your response Todd ... err I mean BA. So somehow the NRL basically proves that JDB was naked in a young girls house while his pregnant wife was wondering where he is? How do they they prove that and unless the female is under age I'm not really sure what the charge is? The only way they can suspend him is if they decide that he is possibly guilty of something before the court case. Todd is in the SMH today defending the Lodge situation among others yet threatening to crack down really hard on much lesser incidents. He runs the risk of losing the plot. However angry he is he still needs to be fair if he wants to keep his job. Brett Stewart was unfairly dealt with , that is as clear as day and that happens when people make amateur judgement's on the run before it goes to court.

But each of those examples you provided, the yardstick of proof is substantially easier than in 'he said', 'she said' claims. Jack Wighton - yes, video footage. Looked horrific. The NRL were right to impose a suspension. (Largely similar to the Ben Stokes incident actually). Wighton was on the juice, made a complete fool of himself and game. Your AVO example. I would do the same thing. But then, and AVO in your example has already been issued, therefore there is clearly enough evidence for a judge to warrant such action before additional investigations. Therefore, should that happen to an NRL player, yes 100% suspend them pending a court case. For sure. But, in the cases of Hayne, De Belin et al...you really cannot suspend them. As it stands, it's one side's word against another. If such players are found to be guilty, then whether or not the NRL provisionally suspended them or not is largely moot isn't it? They will be going to prison...and that's the real punishment there, and the only thing we'll focus on, and the only thing they will be remembered for. Look at Hazem El Masri a couple of years ago. His reputation was left in tatters over a false accusation and the NRL (and white ribbon for that matter) rushing to immediate , presumptive, and ultimately false judgement. It became apparent the alleged victim was lying. Bottom line, there really are situations where the NRL legally can't do anything.

One of the problems is the NRL always have a knee jerk reaction. They should be on the front foot and have some sort of set of rules regarding physical violence or sexual related cases. Its very obvious the programs they have aren't working very well. Twice now Greenberg has spoken to CEO s and now club captains trying to move the responsibility away from the NRL. In some ways you can't blame the media as they have always been there and always will be. The habitual offenders never seem to learn from their mistakes You can't blame the media for stupidity. The journos that report these cases probably don't really care what the public think of them. These cases will continue to emerge while there are no real deterrent s or penalties involved.

Spruce - So why do the NRL have an integrity unit? If the standards are just those met by society, then why not just let the police handle everything? Jack Whighton - suspended for 10 games in about July. Court case finished in November. I can only assume it is because they saw the video footage and whether Jack instigated the fight or not, fact was, it was a fight, a bad look, so they suspended him. I have not heard a single person complain about that except for the die hard Raider fan) and that was done before any court had handed down judgement. That happened this year. Precedence that it has been done. If they didn't suspend him and Whighton played the last 10 games of the year, the Raiders make the finals and then it comes out after the season and he gets suspended then - everyone complains that he shouldn't have been playing all this time. You are a business. Do your due diligence. You are perfectly entitled to set your own standards and ensure they are being met. A court hearing will be decided based on the facts presented by prosecutors and if a court can't differentiate that from what the NRL does as a private business, that is an issue for the court system to work out, not the NRL's problem. If an employee of mine has an AVO put on him in relation to a domestic issue I would investigate it and if it was a situation where it would impact my business, or if my business was White Ribbon accredited and my staff had agreed to meet certain standards as they pertain to treating women, I would move that person on in a heart beat.

So like I said, not all incidents, but in plenty of cases there can be sufficient evidence that actions, while not legally prosecuted are still sufficient to warrant suspension - even if it is suspension with pay. You just have to actually investigate. I also think too many people think innocence is black and white. Manly fans bring up Brett Stewart being a "victim". Anyone who has had the misfortune to grow up in Wollongong knows the entire Stewart family all to well and knows they put themselves in plenty of positions to be accused of a great many things. Not saying Brett Stewart did what he was alleged of doing, but if the NRL had evidence that he did something that was not illegal, but was of poor judgement - then suspend him based on that and suspend him further at a later date if he is found do have done something illegal or additional to your cause for original suspension (as an example). So for Dylan Walker - There was cause for your wife to be treated by paramedics at your home - did she have a medical incident or significant accident caused by herself - yes or no? - If the answer is no, then with the Police AVO that was issued, that is enough for me to suspend him in the short term because something has happened that does not fit with the messages the NRL shares. If further police investigations and legal proceedings disclose something even darker - then add on. JDB - Were you and a friend naked in a young girls home while your pregnant partner was home wondering where you were? Yes or no? Yes - Suspended and if criminal charges develop - then the suspension will be added on to big time. You don't have to take the above literally, but you get the point (hopefully) You want to play in the NRL? then pull your head in. Do dumb things or the wrong things and you will be suspended - do illegal things and you will be lucky to play again.

BA - I get what you are saying, but it's misguided. The bare reality is the NRL really cannot do what you are asking them to do. They can't conduct their own investigations...it would have a massive influence on not only the police's investigations, but then in court. The NRL is allowed to have higher standards, and they can apply them after a court has made judgement.

Anyone can do a quick investigation and pretend that they have established what happened like they did in the Radradra , Stewart, El Masri and SKD cases but the uncomfortable truth is that these quick investigations often come to the wrong conclusions. I don't have the answers but what if any of these fake incidents occurred in the week before a GF and these players missed a win or even worse a close loss? Would it be fair to have suspended these players based on a quick and wrong investigation? If it is standard procedure to suspend a player who is accused of something serious then it's only a matter of time before a vindictive partner pulls a fake stunt before a huge game. The most serious allegations in recent years have been proven to be false yet many are assuming the latest batch are true. I'll reserve my judgement for the appropriate time. Dealing with accused players in an angry fashion by the NRL is fraught with danger. The last thing an innocent victim like Brett Stewart needs is to have the NRL laying the slipper in as well as the press and fans.