Bulldogs duo have de-registrations overturned on appeal

Why would they waste weeks negotiating it to pull out on the eve of the deal being signed? It doesn’t make any sense The evidence is that both the Bulldogs and the sponsor have publicly said that this incident caused them to withdraw the sponsorship. The rest is just baseless conspiracy theories

It’s not a stupid argument at all. 25 year old NRL players using school visits to pick up school girls is pretty shady...it goes beyond a silly decision Both the Dogs and the sponsor announced that the deal was about to be signed...but you think it’s porkies? Based on what? The vibe...?

nat the publicity didnt cost any sponsorship...They wanted out and used it as an excuse.....Think about it....They say they were willing to put $2mil into an NRL club and didnt like controversary or bad behaviour? Well perhaps they didnt know about the NRLs history because the NRl and Canterbury have been involved in controversy for years...there is probably 20 incidents a year in the NRL that are as bad or worse...All a big excuse

TB thats the stupidest arguement ive seen ..... Its not right for any age person to hang around a school acting badly with bad intentions but if that 60yo is in a raincoat because its raining and he is picking up his 16yo grand daughter then all good.....The players made a silly decision but the deregistration was way over the top and would never stand up in a court. Plenty of young men make silly decisions but for you to rant constantly on the moral grounds is a joke....The female that met CHN had not had anything to do with him at the school event....And as for the claims that it cost a sponsor I also think thats a big porky....Its more accurate to say that they were wanting to pull out and they found an excuse.....If they had looked at Canterburys record and morals bothered them then they would have run a mile right from the start and would never be looking at sponsoring a NRL club at all if Morals bothered them...

Innocent? They admitted to their actions. You do understand that no person or entity is saying what these guys did was illegal don't you mbp? Or are you missing the point? Like it or not, when a talented sportsman chooses a career path paying high end remuneration which is reliant of attracting media, sponsors & family spectator attendance, the rules of life change somewhat. The majority of sportsmen understand that these actions have consequences. The bulldogs major sponsor walked away in reaction to this incident. The club & their team mates should be suing these guys not the other way around.

Comment of the week.

Ok. I understand where you are coming from. A 22yo meets a 16yo in any other circumstance Dad may not like but it's not news and it's not illegal. I look at it from an employers POV. I'm sure when they put the caveat around guests back to the motel, never did they even consider it would be a school girl/s they invited back. If it had have been another 22yo girl, it doesn't make news. But that publicity was shocking and cost them a $2m sponsor. I'm sure thos two factors contributed greatly to the punishment. I'll be honest, when the deregistration was announced, I though it was OTT but I can understand trying to be as strict as possible. While not illegal, the brand damage to both Dogs and NRL was huge and costly.

The club will pay the duo all back pay owing.

Baz, breath = wasted, sorry. I'm not Einstein however even I can see the nuance of what you are saying. TBH I think you would have to be deliberately argumentative to continue in the face of the explanation of your position even if you disagree.

Jacko, they may still have been in breach of their contract and able to be legally dismissed. I think "registration" and "contract" don't mean the same thing.IE Canterbury may legally be a able to let them go because they broke their contracts (pretty sure that wasn't argued) however that wouldn't stop another club offering them a contract unless they were also de-registered by the NRL. The appeals committee overturned the de-registration not the contract cancellation. I believe this to be the case however if someone knows for sure I'm incorrect happy to be wrong.

Adam, some posters only appear on these boards at certain times and to make provocative statements to troll other's comments. You see them regularly jump in, often several new screen names on the same topic, they could even be the same person for all I know, then you never hear from them again. Best ignored I think.

The awareness was mainly talking to students about the different courses at the University I was studying at and then further dividing ourselves to talk to individuals who had specific choices. Like if someone was aiming to study Engineering then he/she would come to the group where all Engineering students were at to speak on finer details of what the course was all about. What I'm trying to say is I was young at that time. All of you here are speaking through adults eyes and forgetting how you were all at the same age as these guys. We didn't sign any Code of Conduct but I am also sure no Lecturer of ours would have allowed us to sleep with any of the younger pupils. Still this wouldn't have changed the fact that at that age, I still would have done it. Yes it would be stupid in hindsight but we also signed a lot of papers before going to universities about drinking, dating, impregnating, noise disturbance and the list goes on but sometimes at that age you still make them, you get caught and you learn. These two people are young, yes they should get punished for breaching the Code of Conduct but they are at the age were they can learn now and make amends because I'm sure they won't do it again.

Agreed I started writing a comment yesterday about power imbalances associated with age gap and the setting of the meeting and the footy player’s fame, wealth, etc but what’s the point? It actually leaves me stunned at how many people think a 25 year old picking up a 16 year old in a school is fine...

It's about power dynamics and plenty of people are missing the point. It's why teachers aren't allowed to have relations with students, even if they are 17/18. Heck uni lecturers can't have relations with their students because of the power dynamics. If people can't understand that there are some serious introspection they need to have.

You can't argue with him. I'm in complete agreement with you, but you can't teach common sense...

Can I ask what the ‘awareness’ campaign was around? This isn’t a legal arguement and no Police were involved. Your personal decisions are yours but if you signed a Code of Conduct agreement not to have anyone back to your club hotel room and you get caught, you have broken said agreement and you will be punished accordingly by the club and NRL for whom you are representing.

Any school which allows Lodge and players like AFB, Packer and many others in on a visit will let these two players in. They've been punished and you move on.

I believe what this pair did was after hours and I do not think they did anything wrong. While I was in my final year of studies at the age of 22 we were required to do some awareness with High school students. While during the awareness, if I tried to hook up with any of the students then I would be wrong but after completing the awareness and I go home and one of the students wanted to hang out with me I would definitely go out since we both would be of consenting age and it's way after the visit/awareness. I know, the above premise is different due to sponsors and the business aspects of it but to say they still need to be punished is not right. They are not registered sex offenders or did a crime to not be accepted to play again. Once all legalities are presented to the new company/club I'm sure they can play again and they would have learned through the therapies or whatever and will not do it again.

We’ll send them to Forty Twenty’s school. He’ll be waiting out the front for Year 10s at bell time anyway…

Point out ONE post where I’ve said anything about telling a young woman what they can do... My focus has 100% been on the behaviour of the 25 year old footballers being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to represent their club and uphold the image of the game at a school Not once have I said the young women have done anything wrong