“Rugby league is a professional game run by amateurs”.
I don’t know who the above quote is attributable to, but I like to think it was delivered by the legendary Jack Gibson in his dry and laconic style back in the late 1970s.
What is really sad is that, forty years later, the exact same thing could be said of the current NRL administration. Although the game has grown massively over those four decades, the blunders being made by those charged with running the competition are massive and look amateurish.
The big question is; at what point should we demand the game’s administrators to stop stuffing things up or get shipped out? An even bigger question is just who has the power and inclination to remove those who constantly steer NRL HQ into icebergs?
These icebergs are very easy to see and each should have a logical, considered and consistent approach to avoid them. Yet, this week it is all hands to the pump at NRL HQ, as they desperately try to stay afloat from the impact of hitting two of them.
Firstly, how on earth can Todd Greenberg justify allowing the Rabbitohs to use the cap space that was allocated to the recently retired Greg Inglis, to go back into the player market?
In recent times, both the Eels in regard to Anthony Watmough and the Sea Eagles in regard to Brett Stewart have tried to get the same treatment but were refused.
Now the NRL has seemingly done a total 180 and is letting the Cardinal and Myrtle do it. That stinks. If they are going to do that, then they must let the Bulldogs medically retire Kieran Foran and the Dragons do the same with Gareth Widdop. If they don’t, they are effectively granting commercial advantage to one team over others.
As the administrators of the game, they are in charge of creating as level a playing field as possible. While most of us have accepted that NRL HQ seems pretty unconcerned about carrying out that role as a priority, this inequity is the most blatant evidence of that I’ve seen to date.
While Inglis was a superb player and we should rightly honour his career, that can’t extend to giving the Rabbitohs this unparalleled leg-up. Greenberg and co. need to right that wrong ASAP or they may well find themselves in another massive and totally avoidable mess, like the one they’ve created through their standing down of Jack de Belin.
Jack de Belin. (AAP Image/Darren Pateman)
You know those dreadful people who say “I told you so”? Well, on this issue, I’m totally one of them.
To me, it was clear as day that standing down the St George Illawarra forward, who had pled not guilty and had not been found guilty of any of the charges against him, was fraught with risk.
I – along with quite a few others – pointed out that standing De Belin down, even on full pay, was effectively declaring him guilty and pre-empting the verdict.
In my opinion, the very concept that the stand down was based on what the potential penalty might be – should the person be found guilty – was just absurdly stupid. You can be accused of something that carries five life sentences but if you aren’t guilty of that crime, that potential sentence is not at all relevant. That’s just basic logic, people.
Many of us following De Belin’s legal challenge of his stand down have been astounded by the NRL’s defence of their actions.
The NRL is attempting to justify their decision to stand De Belin down on a drop of six percentage points in a thing called the “Net Promoter Score”, a tool created by an organisation called Futures Sport and Entertainment.
Justice Melissa Perry of the Federal Court, who is hearing the case, said as much by declaring the Net Promoter Score “incapable of bearing any probative weight” and that the evidence was of a “speculative nature.”
Justice Perry was of the opinion that the NRL’s Chief Operating Officer – Andrew Abdo – should have limited the influence of the Net Promoter Score when deciding how to approach the De Belin issue as it was largely irrelevant.
Yet the NRL is putting it up as a key plank in their defence.
Who are the lawyers and decision makers in their organisation who think that basing such a harsh penalty on a player – not to mention his club – on a survey that asked respondents “Are you likely to recommend rugby league to your family and friends?” was a reasonable course of action?
Further, how is it possible that Greenberg could then have gone ahead with standing De Belin down when he has now admitted in court that “the only evidence [he] had was the charge he was facing.”
NRL CEO Todd Greenberg. (Photo: MAtt King/Getty Images)
The NRL CEO kept digging by then producing 500 emails sent to the NRL from fans, many of whom wanted a hard-line stance in standing down players accused of serious crimes.
There were lots of people baying for witches to be burnt at the stake in Salem too. There were also a whole lot of people very keen to see the House of Un-American Activities Committee act on Senator Eugene McCarthy and Roy Cohn’s baseless accusations and destroy peoples lives.
We should have learned these historical lessons by now and realised just how stupid it is to base one’s actions on such flimsy reasoning.
However, Greenberg wasn’t finished with the sources he used to push through the ‘Stand Down Policy’.
“I’m the father of a daughter who plays regular touch football and a number of her friends have shared that the conduct of players is the reason they will no longer play casually.”
Greenberg might as well have gone with, “It’s Mabo. It’s the vibe.”
None of those pieces of ‘evidence’ lend themselves to forming a reasonable position in my view. In my opinion using those kinds of justifications only serves to do one thing: demonstrate that the present powers that be at NRL HQ are completely unsuited to running the game.
Greenberg’s justification for letting them do so? “Perception goes to brand and reputation, which results in revenue.”
Putting the penalties imposed on De Belin and the Dragons aside, how much is it costing the NRL to defend their actions in court? How does this fiasco affect the perception of NRL HQ, and through that their brand and reputation?
At the time of De Belin’s stand down, ARLC Chairman Peter Beattie – shortly before sending the long deceased Laurie Nicholls his regards via tweet – tweeted this:
“What we are doing is to set a benchmark and a standard to defend the game of rugby league.”
Well, lads, in my opinion the only benchmark and standards you have set are in regard to ineptitude.
This was further reinforced when De Belin’s barrister, Martin Einfield, pointed out to Greenberg a tweet from Beattie’s (now deleted) Twitter account from February 27 that said: “De Belin is innocent unless proven guilty. Neither the ARLC and or the NRL, are in possession of any evidence that enables us to form a view on this matter.”
Yet you acted to stand him down all the same.
Greenberg’s response? “Our chairman does tweet a quite a bit.”
That’s the least of your problems right now Todd. While it is possible that the court may uphold your administration’s actions in regard to standing down De Belin, should this case go the way that presently appears likely and the Federal Court overturns your administration’s actions, you and your team will be effectively branded as incompetent.
How will you possibly be able to justify remaining in your role?
Surely you must be embarrassed by all of this. Surely it’s time rugby league was a professional sport run by professionals.
mushi
Roar Guru
"You know those dreadful people who say “I told you so”? Well, on this issue, I’m totally one of them." Great work Tim. Perhaps next time you cover a case don't presume the outcome from a couple of snappy media quotes on early arguments and testimony.
elvis
Roar Rookie
30% of people before a jury go free, that's a sizable percentage the DPP thought there was something to it but wasn't. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/court-verdicts-more-found-innocent-if-no-jury-involved-20131122-2y17l.html
GoGWS
Roar Guru
An ‘innocent’ player standing down on full pay... for the betterment of the code as a whole. Look the players still do have the presumption of innocence before the law regarding the criminal charge, and they do not suffer financially if standing down on full pay (though admittedly not playing can have longer term impacts to careers). The team suffers by not having them available but at the same time it does avoid the risk of have an adverse verdict - imagine have your year’s highlights filled with a convicted rapist for example. This isn’t an easy issue. If I was an NRL player I’d favour a no fault stand down approach and take my chances than I wouldn’t be called upon to stand down, as 99.99% won’t have to. I think there’ll be very few stand downs, and fewer still where an ‘innocent’ player stands down (on full pay). Time for the players collective I think to sort out a better deal that protects the majority of players.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Greenburg says in the SMH this morning that the laying of charges against JDB could be catastrophic for the games revenue in the future because ratings could drop sharply and the next deal in 2023 could be much lower. If that's true then JDB is only responsible if he is guilty. The idea that the no fault stand down policy would have any impact at all on alleged future sexual assaults of this magnitude are laughable. Fake allegations could well increase because the damage to the player and club are greatly enhanced.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
Absolutely correct. Let’s say a Teacher is up on serious child-related charges and has his/her day in court in 6 mths time. Does anyone think it’s a good idea for them to keep on teaching in that interim period? The sensible thing would be to stand them down on full pay until the case is resolved.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
Settle petal.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
The best way forward is for the players and NRL to get together I agree but a couple of points seem to be constantly ignored in this whole debate. At this point in time there is no issue at all in the NRL with players committing crimes that attract these long prison sentences. It's coming down hard on a problem that doesn't exist. The big problem so far in the most serious charges is the bad publicity created for the game which unfortunately is the sole responsibility of these vindictive woman. It's not a popular thing to say and it attracts all sorts of juvenile reaction but it is 100% true at this point. The JDB case could be different but I for one will only regard him as a criminal if the courts decide his guilt. The more minor offences are the big problem at the moment and I agree with whatever fair measures the NRL take to minimise these. I don't know how the NRL can deal with cases like JDB's or Brett Stewarts because for me the damage is done once the person is charged regardless of whatever action is taken next. Players like Kenny-Dowell and the others who were all found not guilty were allowed to play on without the dramas that many are imagining if JDB plays. On the other hand if the players agree that any future charges like the JDB one should see the player stood down then maybe that's what will happen. The question then would be I imagine is what happens when a player who knows he has been unfairly accused takes the stand down rule to court. The idea that an innocent player would be happy to be out of the game for up to 2 years is breathtaking. the way the clubs like Saints and Manly dealt with their players being charged is for me the way our society is meant to deal with these issues. They stand by the player and the sponsors don't panic and wait for the verdict.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
‘JDB made to look guilty’ – herein lies the knub of the problem. The lens our culture looks through always is individual rights. OK that is the way the legal system works but it isn’t necessarily the way a collective of players has to organise it’s competition. Is it? Surely as a collective they can all be big boys and comes together and agree that players facing serious criminal charges must go and sit in the corner until they’re cleared. Why can’t the players as a collective agree to do this? They can and they should. Trade off ‘individual’ rights (of the accused) for the rights the many individuals players who stand to lose by sponsors abandoning the game. The NRL has tried to do this on the run but it can only work if the players association and players understand and buy in.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Reliable evidence? Well from what clubs have said, sponsors have left the game and it’s cost lost revenue in the vicinity of $10m in club sponsorships. That’s the evidence. Fair enough comment that many fans couldn’t care less but clearly many sponsors do care.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Again, if the players as a collective all buy in to a ‘no fault’ stand down for serious criminal charges (7+ years) then why can’t it work. You all buy in, and then when the inevitable does happen, and history shows it’s a when not an if, then that player goes away and deals with charges. Simple. And there is no inquiry about the individual case other than are the police charging you with an offence (7+ years). The NRL ties themselves in knots trying to use NPS data to saying it is damaging the game. You don’t need dodgy data like this - just talk to clubs who can’t sign or keep sponsors. All that is needed here is leadership of the players association - get the players together to make a decision for the collective good of the players as a whole. The extreme fringe is actually take money from every player by putting themselves on a position where they’re damaging the reputation of the game and sponsors are leaving in droves.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Funnily enough I played golf with a mate today. He played professional League and Rugby in England. He’s an Oxford graduate and now works in management consulting. He’s also worked with the NRL as part of that. We got on the discussion of NRL and I said the biggest issue Rugby League has had is it’s been run by ex Rugby League players. He seems to think Greenberg is a pretty decent operator, though not perfect.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I like this quote from the Silvertails fan forum on the topic " I am not certain that a judge will consider 'financial' reasons a suitable justification or a compelling argument for denying a person natural justice " I've heard many people say that De Bellin should stand himself down or Saints should stand him down and don't understand their stance but all you have to do and imagine the disaster that would have resulted if Manly stood Brett Stewart down instead of supporting him. The impact on Stewart could have been catastrophic and the less important impact on the club would be no title in 2011 or GF in 2013.
db
Guest
You're right, it was Thailand. The charge related to the smuggling of more than 8kg of heroin. I don't know what length of sentence would be attached to a similar crime in Australia. He was still playing at the time. It occurred after the end of the season and he told his wife that he was going on an end of season trip with Newtown Jets teammates. It was the only case I could recall off the top of my head involving such a lengthy jail term. The other player I thought of was Craig Field. He was tried for murder but was subsequently convicted of manslaughter, an offence that brings a period of incarceration less than 10 years.
The Barry
Roar Guru
You. Are. Wrong. Why would a sponsor want their brand associated with a person, a club or a game who is going to be going through a gang rape trial for the next two years? Would you?
Adam Bagnall
Roar Guru
The Barry was in the hotel room with them apparently. He's full of facts just ask him
Reesy
Roar Rookie
Beattie and Greenberg are the biggest threats to the game of rugby league - by a fair margin as well. Incompetence never ceases to amaze.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Well, Inglis has retired and Souths have money in the salary cap...
Reesy
Roar Rookie
“He went out on the sauce for more than 12 hours on a pub crawl, picked up a random, drunk 19 year old, took her back to his cousins empty apartment with a team mate before having group sex that may or may not have been gang rape, while his unknowing, pregnant fiancé was at home asleep.” Careful - not sure the group sex part has been conceded yet.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
No , once again it’s you who doesn’t get it. JDB is only responsible for any decline in sponsorship if he is found guilty. Are you saying that any decline in sponsorship surrounding Stewart and the others who were cleared is their fault? I’ll answer for you , no it wasn’t. Your answer is to stand JDB down for a brief period for trumped up charges of infidelity and having a few drinks and then let him play for the year leading up to the trial and you have the gall to bag the NRL and posters like me. If it’s all about the NRL taking action then they have taken the action which you and many others supported and all the sponsors should be happy and come flooding back. It’s funny how the mob descended on posters like me but now the courts are exposing the NRL the mob is deserting them and distancing themselves from them. How about you explain in a lengthy article how you would deal with the problem because your solution at the moment is appalling, yet you put yourself on a pedestal above the NRL and posters like me.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I remember him and you are right. Different kettle of fish really as the sentence was only that long because it was in Asia and from memory he was retired?