Should CHN be sacked?

[TwinTurbo]

In theory of course, but you can’t apply the law where you don’t have jurisdiction. Hopefully since that incident they’ve found a way to de-register any player who commits a similar act regardless of where it was committed.

OK, so I'm confused. Is what you are saying that the Players Code of Conduct only applies in Australia (and maybe New Zealand)? That they can do anything they like outside of Australia and there's nothing, not a thing, that the NRL can do to enforce the required Conduct? The reason I ask is because they would be applying the terms of a legal Australian contract in Australia, does it matter where the contrary conduct happened?

To expand the question, what about games played overseas, can the NRL apply suspensions for on field discressions?

Go Dogs

 

[diddly]

The NRL and clubs have invested both time and money to educate players from an early age about what is acceptable behaviour or not
In particular around females and social media in general
As a society we have really made huge progress in the work place with programs teaching responsibilities
I don’t know the legalities for all these off field incidents and understand they can be very complicated,But very disappointing when they occur
The hierarchy must be at a loss with all these constant headlines

it shouldn't be the clubs responsibility to teach adults how to behave - it use to be a family n parental responsibility

 

[DinkumDog]

OK, so I'm confused. Is what you are saying that the Players Code of Conduct only applies in Australia (and maybe New Zealand)? That they can do anything they like outside of Australia and there's nothing, not a thing, that the NRL can do to enforce the required Conduct? The reason I ask is because they would be applying the terms of a legal Australian contract in Australia, does it matter where the contrary conduct happened?

To expand the question, what about games played overseas, can the NRL apply suspensions for on field discressions?

Go Dogs

Great question Turbo and the answer is I’m not sure - what I was saying was the NRL simply can’t be acting arbitrarily and something was stopping consistency in punishment outcomes for previous misdemeanours. Surely since those (eg: Lodge) they’ve taken advice on how they can apply equal and consistent outcomes to indiscretions regardless of criminality per se or where the indiscretion was committed. Otherwise there’s no progress and they’d be open to ridicule.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Great question Turbo and the answer is I’m not sure - what I was saying was the NRL simply can’t be acting arbitrarily and something was stopping consistency in punishment outcomes for previous misdemeanours. Surely since those (eg: Lodge) they’ve taken advice on how they can apply equal and consistent outcomes to indiscretions regardless of criminality per se or where the indiscretion was committed. Otherwise there’s no progress and they’d be open to ridicule.

Surely if that was the case they should have explained why they couldn't apply the same level of punishment. Then told everyone that if there was loophole in the Players Code of Conduct that missed overseas discretions that it had been closed. But they didn't here's what Greenberg said at the time;

I saw a young man who'd been through a really difficult episode in his life but someone who was absolutely and genuinely committed to turning his life around," Greenberg said at the Fox League launch in Sydney.
"Two years is a very long time in a rugby league player's career. They have very short lifespans at the best of time. He's sacrificed a lot.
"I'm not condoning anything that he's done but the game is forgiving. There are many examples ... [players] who have done time in prison, made some grave errors, but have come back and been great shining lights for families, their communities and their sport and I hope Matt Lodge is one of those.
"The game of rugby league has an ability to help shape the rest of his life. He's a young man who's made a very bad error. He's getting a second opportunity. He needs to take that with both hands and not disrespect the opportunity."

Now if we apply the same logic to the Okunbor and CHN cases, "young men", "errors" and "second opportunity". They have committed far lessor breaches of player conduct, nothing illegal in comparison to what Lodge did, nothing anywhere near as severer as what Lodge did, unlike Lodge there are no victims just willing participants. As a result I fail to see how they can be more severely punished than Lodge was. Okunbor is a clean skin as well, with nothing in his past.

Go Dogs

 

[DinkumDog]

Surely if that was the case they should have explained why they couldn't apply the same level of punishment. Then told everyone that if there was loophole in the Players Code of Conduct that missed overseas discretions that it had been closed. But they didn't here's what Greenberg said at the time;


Now if we apply the same logic to the Okunbor and CHN cases, "young men", "errors" and "second opportunity". They have committed far lessor breaches of player conduct, nothing illegal in comparison to what Lodge did, nothing anywhere near as severer as what Lodge did, unlike Lodge there are no victims just willing participants. As a result I fail to see how they can be more severely punished than Lodge was. Okunbor is a clean skin as well, with nothing in his past.

Go Dogs

As you describe it you’re correct.
The issue this time appears that due to the lack of criminality, the club will decide the punishments and the NRL has said they will stand by the Bulldogs decision (ie: if the Bulldogs terminate employment the NRL will not register a contract at another club at least for 2020). So yes, there may again be discrepancies but in this case we can at least see why. Other questions remain.

 

[youoboys]

Why did you stop starting every post with your name Nasheed? It's a shame. Really.

It just warns us quicker that what follows your name is complete garbage and a waste of time to read ... "Bulldogs fan" gives us .... well ... me anyone, a false sense that you may have something meaningful to say. But alas, once again it's verbal dioherrea. Oh well ...

Bulldogs fan here: Slovenia Steve, what’s yo beef son! Why you comin at me up all in my business!! Everything I say is meaning ful. Your jealous boi. Bounce!

 

[DoggyStyla]

Bulldogs fan here: Slovenia Steve, what’s yo beef son! Why you comin at me up all in my business!! Everything I say is meaning ful. Your jealous boi. Bounce!

Maybe it’s your poor english and writing skills? Or the complete dribble you speak? I’m not bagging you, just helping determine the issue Slovenia Steve has with you matey.

 

[Mozzie]

I don't think either should be sacked for what they did. But unfortunately for them their actions did a lot of damage to not only them but the club and in turn the NRL
if it happened half way through the season. 2 million dollar sponsorship all bedded in and it wasn't 3 days out of the start of the NRL season with everybody saying how great it is with no scandal's to begin the season. 3 game suspension and we move on but I believe at least Okunbor might be gone and Chn might just only just get off by the skin of his teeth.

 

[Malpass]

Sunday footy show had david riccio on he said they will be both sacked by the club. Hope he's wrong.cop a heavy fine and suspension as we need them playing

 

[MatstaDogg]

Sunday footy show had david riccio on he said they will be both sacked by the club. Hope he's wrong.cop a heavy fine and suspension as we need them playing

All the media and co are continually saying sack them, sack them, to the point where it's like they are trying to influence the decision that they will have no point but to do it. That's my take on it. I don't think either should be sacked, but i wouldn't be surprised if they did. I think the whole sack one keep one won't happen as I think if one gets sack, they both will.

 

[ash160]

If they are sacked I guarantee CHN will be running around for the Roosters next year and getting a dream run media wise. Same for Okunbor.

I think suspensions would be sufficient punishment

 

[doggieaaron]

Okunbor has to go chn not

 

[TwinTurbo]

Sunday footy show had david riccio on he said they will be both sacked by the club. Hope he's wrong.cop a heavy fine and suspension as we need them playing

Did David Riccio happen to say on what grounds they will be sacked? The NRL will have invent something to justify it because there’s nothing we heard of so far that goes even close to supporting it.

Go Dogs

 

[Malpass]

Did David Riccio happen to say on what grounds they will be sacked? The NRL will have invent something to justify it because there’s nothing we heard of so far that goes even close to supporting it.

Go Dogs

He said the club will be sacking the players after they meet tomorrow. The NRL not involved..
I suppose if the club went easy on them the NRL would then have input.

I hope he's wrong .but we've lost 2 big sponsors and it's most likely undone the good work the club was doing on the north coast region.
So the players may become scapegoats....

 

[Alan79]

I think that most agree that this is a trial by media based on morals. Both have been in breach of club code of conduct. But the simple act of bringing a girl back to the hotel rooms on tour isn't the factor that is being used as an example of being disgraceful in the Media's eyes. It's the supposed moral decision of it being with school students, regardless of the fact that it was legal and consensual. So if the club or the NRL opt to sack them, do we then see a situation where sacking players based on moral choices should be applied. Are there rules in place that keep under 18's from joining dating apps? (I've never joined one so I don't know).

Let's just say that if DeBelin gets off his rape charges, should he still be sacked for the immoral act of cheating on his pregnant partner?, Do we then see that applied for every player that cheats on a partner. Because at the end of the day the majority of judgemental articles on this are on the moral high ground. They couldn't give a shit about the fact that the clubs code of conduct was broken. If the two players had slept with 50yo women this would have been a nothing situation where a fine and short term suspension would have been applied. Because of the simple fact that the young women were still at school we're supposed to apply different standards.

Now in different situations, was getting drunk and assaulting police officers/bouncers an act of moral fibre? Does anyone in that situation get sacked based on moral judgement? We've seen numerous players make poor decisions regarding alcohol, drugs and driving under the influence. Generally this isn't a termination offence until you have committed illegal acts multiple times. The head of the game will come out and provide a reference if you are a high profile player that is a big drawcard to the game. So where should moral judgement apply to the severity of a punishment here.

Even in my early 20's my morals caused me to steer clear of willing young women who were still at school. But I have friends who didn't apply my morals in similar circumstances. As long as people are of legal age their choices become their own. Even in Okunbors case, the text message exchange shows that he made contact with the young lady in question outside of the school given the fact that he had to ask if she was at the school. Seems like they potentially made contact through a dating site as well.

At the end of the day this is two issues. One being that they broke the code of conduct. The other that they used questionable morals. Any punishment applied needs to be based on the code of conduct. It's not the clubs or the NRL's place to dictate what is morally right.

 

[Tassie Devil]

Maybe it’s your poor english and writing skills? Or the complete dribble you speak? I’m not bagging you, just helping determine the issue Slovenia Steve has with you matey.

Would never bag out someone for poor English or writing skills as ... mine aren't that good myself! I don't like when people make light of such situations as what Okenbor do as I think it only encourages such behaviour to continue. Good to have a laugh about things, I'm all for that. But Nasheed continually picks shithouse ways to have a laugh.

 

[doggieaaron]

He said the club will be sacking the players after they meet tomorrow. The NRL not involved..
I suppose if the club went easy on them the NRL would then have input.

I hope he's wrong .but we've lost 2 big sponsors and it's most likely undone the good work the club was doing on the north coast region.
So the players may become scapegoats....

It was said as his opinion not fact

 

[Tassie Devil]

Some very interesting points on here, and can actually see what you're all seeing. On the outside it seems extremely harsh, especially in the case of CHN, to sack them for sleeping with women with the main indescretion being bringing them back to their hotel rooms.

There's absolutely no doubt this has been blown out of proportion, and has been a trial by media. Unfortunately because this has been so public their fates were pretty much decided the day it hit the press, and this isn't really fair on either player. They deserve a fair and unbiased trial.

However, and I think this is the main point, the Bulldogs knew that any misbehaviour would be treated in the way it has by the media. This is due to what happened on Mad Monday, Napa, Coffs Harbour etc. etc. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that if we hit the headlines for ANYTHING our club would be hung out to dry. Taking into account our search for a major sponsor which EVERYONE knew was ongoing and also was connected to our "family values" thus the need to stay out of the press.

As a result, I'm without doubt that the club were quite direct and clear with their expectations for everyone. I think we would've gone overboard with the warnings. The Pay and the leadership group would've been repeating this mantra to stay out of trouble. Focus on footy. etc. etc. Any punishment needs to take this into account, as it's not as simple as them breaking the 'don't bring a girl back to your rooms' rule as they're going against repeated orders from the club and most likely leadership group. Too many are downplaying them sleeping with girls as simply "boys being boys" but to me it shows a complete disregard and disrespect for the club and worse the playing group.

We can debate other clubs have had players do MUCH worse than these boys but continued to employ them ... and I'd agree that it's unbelievably hypocritical that abusive players who broke the law are supported more than our lads who didn't do anything 'criminal'. But, it really isn't important what other clubs do or don't do ... it's about our club setting standards where certain values and behaviour have to be met. If we were to go soft at this point, what would that mean about these standards we set? That they're just something on paper but not really believed in?

Unfortunately the club has to act on this quite strictly otherwise the turnaround they're trying to make is basically worthless. Okunbor has to go. End of for me. Think it's quite harsh on CHN but back the club if they decide he's leaving.

The team on Thursday showed what unity and teamwork means to a club. What those two boys did was to go completely against that displaying an incredibly selfish approach. Do we keep them at the club and risk not only future sponsorships but the team unity?

 

[Tassie Devil]

He said the club will be sacking the players after they meet tomorrow. The NRL not involved..
I suppose if the club went easy on them the NRL would then have input.

I hope he's wrong .but we've lost 2 big sponsors and it's most likely undone the good work the club was doing on the north coast region.
So the players may become scapegoats....

Wouldn't say scapegoats as a scapegoat is somoene blamed for the something bad that was done when they didn't do it themselves.

Let's not try to be smart with this. Those two boys are entirely at fault for this problem. They were 100% aware of the potential issues at play here. Calling them a scapegoat is a copout. They're 100% at fault for this and no one else.

 

[bullanth]

I believe this question deserves a thread of its own, with the immediate playing future of one of our best in the air.

After all the publicity from the past week, it is now clear that CHN and Okunbor have committed very different offences. Although the two have been lumped together, has CHN really done an offence warranting a suspension?

While I don’t entirely agree with his actions and believe he should face club sanctions, I don’t believe sacking him is the right option. He makes our side stronger, and as we can see through our performance last night, he’s needed. Sacking him will just allow another club to pick him up, and be realistic, who are the dogs going to pick up to replace him?

It’s not so much that the dogs need him that I want him to stay, however, that truthfully he deserves to stay with the club. CHN was never at the school event, while she was of consensual age. It’s not so much even a moral issue as while CHN has a son with his ex-partner, I believe he was not in a relationship at the time of the offence. The only mistake CHN made was bringing the girl back to the team hotel, hence, a hefty fine and temporary suspension would suffice for an adequate punishment.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

The club was on a promotional visit of an are they put a lot of money in,to have 2 high profile players and pick up a couple of schoolgirls,and take them back to motel rooms,was not on the clubs agenda,and beyond the rules,which they did not obey,the club is bigger than any individual,chn great player or not should be sacked,not to mention our 2 million in lost sponsorship,get rid of both.