Peter Fitzsimmons has written a lengthy piece on Fox today
sorry for screenshot
waiting for wiz and his " would never listen to the raging lefty " comment
anyway thought it interesting and prob pretty accurate
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies
The principle behind pay while suspended was made clear in the court cases against the NRL's no-fault stand down policy. Obviously a player is paid while suspended if the suspension is from an on-field incident. Though suspensions longer than 8 weeks and a club can deduct a small proportion of the match fee component of their salaries.
But suspensions for off-field do not necessarily or even normally suspend pay, because a player's financial relation to their club and the NRL is as both employee to play footy AND 'walking advertisement'. The latter is why DBL and Lomax arguments for restraint of trade went nowhere. Also the latter - walking advertisement - continues despite not playing.
Regardless, we know the Radley suspension without pay example is the outlier not the norm. It's possible JAC will be asked to accept no pay vs contract termination. But players suspended not only continue to be walking advertisements, but continue to train, including play roles on B teams in training. Hence the norm overall of suspension but with pay. Those saying suspension with pay makes no sense are just telling us they don't understand the dual relation players have as players (including training roles) and advertisement.
Hence why he should be and will be sacked. Hes already admitted guilt so unsure why plops is making statements about it still not being proven.
Unless people go to rehab when they're innocent ? You pair are both making some crazy claims on this one. Must be due to cultural reasons ?
Never seen so much defence go behind players busted DUI before. As opposed to how many of the opinions previously demanded the NRL sufficiently deal with opposition players caught in similar scenarios .
Victor Radley got 10 weeks unpaid. So it's possible JAC could get 12 weeks unpaid. JAC might have to agree, I think, lest restraint of trade considerations arise. Recall in DBL's restraint of trade case, one reason for finding it legal was suspension with pay.
Does anyone know if Roosters ever actually received the salary cap dispensation they requested? Basically the Chooks did not pay Radley $150k and asked for a salary cap exemption so they could pay someone else to take his spot. Not sure Eels could do much to get a ringer in to the left wing for 12 weeks on 'saved salary' of course!
Note there are also hard proportion limits on fines etc in players. No pay AND fine might break those limits.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next