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
2nd offence is automatically 12 weeks suspension i think.
Andrew Johns admitted to taking drugs while playing and apparently hisxan imortal.
Fox dose alot for kids in the community and is not a bad fella. For mine fine him and after serving a suspension he plays for the Eels.
So you reckon we shoud pay him half a seasons salary to go around a few schools and kicking a ball around ?
He breaks the law , his contract , and throws our opportunity in our face , and his only punishment is having 12 extra weeks paid annual leave ? Oh and a fine ? How bigs the fine and who is it paid to ?
I could live with him going unpaid for 12 weeks and the club also fining him and it going to charity . Do you think Fox would accept this ? Doubt it.
I am not sure you want a bit each way here Wizard, I probably do as well!
Would the 12 weeks suspension be normally be paid for? I think the simple answer before it becomes finalised is to renegotiate a new contract. KPI's could then be built in and any of the bullshit that will make the do gooders feel better, you know undertakings etc......structure it with a club option to return it to the existing contract on satisfaction of the KPI's. Whatever happens it needs to be satisfied as a "win win" exercise so that he is at least grateful to the club. We don't have to finalise top 30 (last 2) to end june, lets say he can resume again in early June.
A question aside, once he is suspended and that expires, could not the new contract be enacted then to reduce the cost of his cap equivalency. i.e. pay him nominally to coach and train to the expiry of his suspension and then start again after adjustment for those non cap wages?
PS he has not been found guilty yet, do these players still get paid on a monthly basis after Nov 1.??
If he was suspended due to an act at work ( playing for the club) , then yes his salary would and should be covered. But do you think he should be paid what 115k ? For getting on the bags and driving whilst hes serving his suspension ? It's hardly a punishment lol.
" hey Wiz mate , you got pissed and drove which is against policy and is actually an instant sacking , not only once but twice. So what we've decided to do is put you on paid annual leave until you get your licence back in 12 weeks. Hopefully you learn your lesson "
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 .
Plopps is making noise that he has not been proven guilty YET! i.e. 5/6% come back false, secondly he could be going for rehab, regardless of his actual guilt......yes I expect he will come back guilty, but I would not ignore Adam's point that his arrest and criminal case should be handled by an expert Barrister in traffic control issues. As I stated if that was done in his first crime, he would have got off Scot free......also this is said on both occasions he may have thought it was through his system, traces can last longer than the 24 hour myth. The blatant outright lie to Gould is interesting in that he must have thought he would have got through the second test.
As Daz has elequently point's out Wiz, you are not really a lateral thinker and you have changed your mind every time a new position is taken, mainly because Daz is too smart for you and I am too beligerent, LOL.
Poppa, I won't claim to have read all the posts but I don't see what Wiz finds objectionable in what I've said. Without lab results of dosage we don't know if JAC was driving impaired. Cocaine remains detectable in the system long after effects have stopped. That's just biology. JAC 100% broke the law as the DUI condition for drugs is zero, and he was stupid as he would know up to 72 hrs the drug remains detectable so take Uber. And nobody is suggesting getting on the drugs wasn't stupid. So what's Wiz's point re: driving? Ditto suspension. It's just a fact that suspension with pay is the norm. For many reasons of contractual integrity. The Radley case shows suspension without pay is possible. But that's rare. And probably due to Chooks trying to get a salary cap exemption end use Radley's pay to hire a temp replacement! Again, it's unclear what Wiz finds objectionable there.
Evdryone is free to infer from agreed facts - JAC broke the law and it was stuoif talent drugs again and to drive - to whether the best option is sacking him or rehabilitating him. Nobody is free to make up their own facts, though, like dosage established by a lab or suspension options.
Name the crazy claims I've made, Wiz. My bet is you can't. Put differently, you don't grasp points made but instead of just trying harder it's "that's crazy".
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