So I highly recommend that everyone reads the following piece. It's not by a journalist but by a sports lawyer, Darren Kane, who does columns for Fairfax.
I'd suggest it's probably the best, most informed piece on the entire saga. Someone has actually bothered to read the NRL code of conduct, rules and breach processes. I wonder how many of the journalists reporting on the breach, have actually bothered to do so.
One very important fact that I would like to highlight. Four points is a bit of a line in the sand. It's harder for the club to wage a legal battle if the NRL limits the penalty to four points.
To quote the piece.
"What the club can do is request that any determination as to guilt or penalty be reviewed by the NRL Appeals Committee, chaired by former High Court Justice Ian Callinan, QC. The caveat is that, if four or less competition points are deducted, there is no right of appeal."
You'll note that the Warriors were deducted four points. Titans had a suspended four points. We had a suspended four points.
I've been of the opinion since this started that we would also get four points and a big fine. The offences, if proven, are comparable to those of the Titans and Warriors - within ballpark dollar references. Given the original suspended penalty was four points, it's really impossible to the club to argue for any less because there was a condition on us being cleared of that, that we not breach cap rules in the future. From both party's point of view, I think it represents a fair outcome if the breaches are proven.
If a case is to be found against any directors or staff, I would imagine the NRL would breach them directly. I think there will be a larger suspended penalty, that will relate to outcomes the NRL would like to achieve in terms of the future position. This will be the main area that will cause a delay because the NRL is going to want a watertight case that is withing their jurisdiction, because they know that the club is more than likely to resist any "interference" and will be inclined to fight it legally and perhaps even take it to the Supreme Court.
I'm also inclined to agree with the suggestion that we won't see any outcome until rep-round.
Replies
Yes, I personally believe the non-suspended penalty will be four points. There is no justification based on current evidence and compared to prior precedent to do any more than that, and as I've point out, it becomes a whole lot more difficult for the NRL to push through more than four points. I don't think the board will take legal action over four points, and I think fans will accept four points as a fair outcome. When you go beyond that, you go into a world of pain for all parties. You're talking about drawn-out legal actions and a likely supporter revolt. It just would not be smart or fair. To use the "whacking" terminology used in the article, if the NRL is going to whack, it needs to whack individuals.
Can I also say, that the silver lining that is coming out of this (and is referred to in the piece I've linked to) is I think EVERY BODY finally recognises the need for constitutional reform and structural separation. Outside of current board members, I'm yet to bump into anyone who thinks this isn't the way forward.
How does it stand if the NRL puts the position as follows. reinstatement of the suspended 4 points deducation for previous breaches, as the condition was for no further breaches. Add 4 more points penalty for the new breaches making total of 8 points.
Penatlies against the club in the form of fines to the equivelant of the new breaches, along with fines against those serving on the board at the time of the breach.
I have been waiting for the facts to be revealed and some decision handed down . Things could be better or worse than we feel .There is a constitutional issue as well with the status of Directors.
As far as I recall , a Director cannot only be removed from PNRL , but must also go from PLC .
As for constitutional reform ...be very careful as there can be unexpected consequences .PLUS you need 75% .
No idea, and I'm not commenting either because I don't know what evidence the NRL has. No, they do not, but it remains how far they could push the demands related to a suspended penalty.
Colin, that's a possibility. I would hope that's worse case. They won't fine individuals, they'll breach them and take away their official registrations. That said there is a clause in there I believe that allows them to fine non-playing individuals (and I'm working from memory here so don't quote me) up to $20k or something. Would be interesting to see if director insurance covered that!
I'm with you on that. I would think though there could be a case against the board, that has members that are associated with the club through several terms, I am thinking that there was mention of one breach dating to 2012.
Phil perhaps you can clear this aspect up for me. I actually found a True Blue membership of mine for season 2010, which would have been my last year. The AGM for that year, was held in 2009? that was when Spagnolo got elected but did not take affect until May of 2010.
When did the current board get elected, & took control?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 7 Next