What does the NRL do when contracted players are accused of misbehaving, breaching their contracts or carrying out criminal behaviour?
These are not simple questions and of course there are no simple answers.
The current problem that is sending Todd Greenberg and the NRL commission into paralysis is what to do with Jack de Belin. De Belin is currently facing charges that, because he is pleading not guilty, look like will not come before the courts for at least one year.
Jack has been asked if he would voluntarily stand down. As is his right, he said no.
The buck now passes to his club with whom he has a contract and/or the NRL. Do they stand him down or will this breach his contract?
Greenberg is trying to stack up the pack of PR cards that seem to have collapsed. He has been making solemn pronouncements to tell us all that we can’t let this happen.
Role models can’t beat up people.
De Belin’s lawyers are readying their writs and summons for a dash to the Supreme Court to seek an injunction to stop anybody prohibiting Jack from carrying out his contract i.e.: playing rugby league for the Dragons.
What a schemozzle!
There is an answer which I think most sensible people (except die-hard Dragons supporters) will support.
Do not let Jack play until his case is over. Remove his contract from the salary cap.
Do not pay him his full contractual sum but a living wage until his case is finished.
When the case is over, if he is acquitted then pay him all to which he is entitled. The remaining term is then included into the cap.
From a legal point of view the club has only postponed the full terms of the contract. This solution will limit the amount of damages Jack may suffer as result of the suspension.
Now, you say, what if he is convicted?
The wording of his current contract will then apply and the club may be able to deduct money or terminate the contract for default. The club and the NRL will have been seen to act fairly. Isn’t this what we all want?
Reesy
Roar Rookie
Not following your comment “you don’t what you “. Maybe you meant to say that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Says the guy who thinks one party can “postpone the full terms of a contract” without the other party agreeing. Good work.
keith hurst
Roar Pro
Hi Reesy Sorry you don't what you are talking about. Keith
Reesy
Roar Rookie
Keith, the NRL standing down JDB is precisely about public relations and managing the brand. However they can’t dock his salary in the manner you describe based on an accusation as the law doesn’t allow it nor would such a contractual clause hold up (and he could sue). On your point regarding natural justice standing him down and also docking his pay would be a denial of natural justice to JDB, hence he has been stood down on full pay.
Paul
Roar Guru
Keith, this is obviously brand new to the game and will no doubt have teething problems, the first of which is the actual contracts all players have signed. I'm sure not one has a clause that starts "in the event of being stood down for being charged with a crime................ you will be paid X percentage of your wage". I'm equally sure, from here on in, ALL contracts will something in there to cover this type of situation, not because of natural justice, but because the Club is only getting a percentage of the players real value, ie players are paid to play, not train and their wages should be adjusted to reflect that.. In the meanwhile, JDB and now Dylan Walker look like they'll be on full wages till their cases are settled.
keith hurst
Roar Pro
Paul Your points are sensible. There must be something in between paying him nothing or paying him everything. Here is the paradox: Standing him down seems to say "your guilty" Paying him his whole contract seems to say "Shame this is not your fault". Both of these statements can't go together. Standing down can only be seen as a decision by the NRL for PR purposes. They seem to be saying "A person who does these things shouldn't be allowed to play." Isn't that an accusation of sorts. It seems to be accepting the fact that he is guilty which he is denying flatly. I am not privy to his contract nor the NRL regulations but what we are trying to get is natural justice. They haven't got it right.
Paul
Roar Guru
Keith, I'm a dies-hard Dragons fan, but am happy to consider reasonable arguments about issues pertaining to my team, including your points. I don't understand who benefits from JDB, or any player for that matter, being penalized by paying him a "basic living wage"? For a start, is that something the NRL can legally do or would the player need to accept those terms ( he'd be an idiot to do so but who knows)? What if his allocated basic living wage does not cover his cost of living? I'll bet most if not all players have commitments that chew up virtually all of their contracted pay, so unless the NRL was willing to consider and pay each individual's cost of living requirements, the players being unfairly treated financially, on top of his suspension from the game. I also get a strong whiff of "presumption of guilt" in this approach. Surely it's enough to stand him down under the terms the League has set ie he can train with the team and would be paid his contract wage? I agree there needs to be some sort of quid pro quo with the Club, after all they're paying a player full whack to have him train and not play. Surely though, that's a matter between the Club and player when it comes time to talk about contracts, or perhaps this is a point that needs to nutted out between the NRL & the RLPA?