News Okunbor Appeal Date Set

[Natboy]

Apologise to you? You couldn't even answer the question .
And you had several other 'facts' wrong in your post.
Perhaps we should 'settle' the matter?

Don’t waste your time on the trog mate. She’s the authority on everything

 

[LordSidious66]

Yet the shit with Russell Packer and Reynolds wasn't enough for Rashays to withdraw there sponsorship with the tigers.

 

[DinkumDog]

Yet the shit with Russell Packer and Reynolds wasn't enough for Rashays to withdraw there sponsorship with the tigers.

Happy to be corrected but Rashays were only onboard at the Tigers in the 2014/15 period as I'm aware.
Subsequently Packer was gone from the Tigers before Rashays were onboard and Rashays were gone from the Tigers before the Reynolds incident.

 

[LordSidious66]

Happy to be corrected but Rashays were only onboard at the Tigers in the 2014/15 period as I'm aware.
Subsequently Packer was gone from the Tigers before Rashays were onboard and Rashays were gone from the Tigers before the Reynolds incident.

Just checked there site and they are no longer there. Thanks for the correction. Hope we get a sponsor soon.

 

[DinkumDog]

Just checked there site and they are no longer there. Thanks for the correction. Hope we get a sponsor soon.

No worries mate and yes indeed on a major sponsor. Worst possible time right now to be trying to convince companies to part with a couple of mil discretionary spend which is why it was so frustrating to lose one earlier this year.
We'll get there...

 

[wendog33]

Why we are arguing over this I wouldn't know but as usual the indignant posse require proof.

My post was about the other teams not talking the talk and our team being worse off for it because the punishments are lop-sided.

If anyone would like to click the link here is evidence of other NRL team's players misdemeanours, whether convicted or not.

At no time did I say cases such as Greg Ingliss etc were convicted. They probably should have but in a lot of cases the players pleaded guilty and received good behaviour bonds....but only cos they pleaded guilty.

Article is from Feb 2019 so there are a few more to add.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/t...l/news-story/61bc26cdb901a29fa70defc8c7ba01b5

I won't be replying to the barrage I get from the posse. Just setting the record straight and thank you @Psycho Doggie for the interesting discussion.

A shame the posse have to ruin that as well.

 

[DinkumDog]

Why we are arguing over this I wouldn't know but as usual the indignant posse require proof.

My post was about the other teams not talking the talk and our team being worse off for it because the punishments are lop-sided.

If anyone would like to click the link here is evidence of other NRL team's players misdemeanours, whether convicted or not.

At no time did I say cases such as Greg Ingliss etc were convicted. They probably should have but in a lot of cases the players pleaded guilty and received good behaviour bonds....but only cos they pleaded guilty.

Article is from Feb 2019 so there are a few more to add.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/t...l/news-story/61bc26cdb901a29fa70defc8c7ba01b5

I won't be replying to the barrage I get from the posse. Just setting the record straight and thank you @Psycho Doggie for the interesting discussion.

A shame the posse have to ruin that as well.

I simply called out the errors of your post Wendy, of which there was more than one and you refuse to acknowledge. @Psycho Doggie agreed too.

At the same time I did not hesitate to acknowledge the example pointed out by The Godfather as a fair example.

Yet you seek an apology, continue with ‘posse’ garbage and have the gall to question the maturity of others. It’s clear to see who has the issue Wendy.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

I do sympathise with the perception that we get hard done by as a club, and it undoubtedly happens. If these two players end up at another club, will it suck? At one level absolutely it will!

But when we win a Premiership, and we will again one day, I want it to be like our other Premierships, built on a solid and skillful team that played for each other and didn't have any rubbish. Don't give me Cronulla 2016, which will always be stained by peptides and Cocaine Benny. Give me Dogs 1995, a team that was about to be broken apart because of external forces, who were the underdogs, but who stuck together and fought for the moment and for Baa.

 

[wendog33]

I do sympathise with the perception that we get hard done by as a club, and it undoubtedly happens. If these two players end up at another club, will it suck? At one level absolutely it will!

But when we win a Premiership, and we will again one day, I want it to be like our other Premierships, built on a solid and skillful team that played for each other and didn't have any rubbish. Don't give me Cronulla 2016, which will always be stained by peptides and Cocaine Benny. Give me Dogs 1995, a team that was about to be broken apart because of external forces, who were the underdogs, but who stuck together and fought for the moment and for Baa.

Agree there.

I stated I did not agree with what the players did. My suggestion in replying to you was to find a better way to deal with these issues so that the club was not disadvantaged and another club gain by our misfortune...and point out all the different anomolies with player misdemeanours as seen on that list I linked. All good with your view. Thanks.

 

[wendog33]

I simply called out the errors of your post Wendy, of which there was more than one and you refuse to acknowledge. @Psycho Doggie agreed too.

At the same time I did not hesitate to acknowledge the example pointed out by The Godfather as a fair example.

Yet you seek an apology, continue with ‘posse’ garbage and have the gall to question the maturity of others. It’s clear to see who has the issue Wendy.

I'm afraid I still don't understand why you are so upset.

I've given you a list of players that have offended, charged or convicted or given good behaviour bonds and gone on to play and therefore disadvantaged their original club.

You admitted you forgot about Packer.

What else do you disagree with?

Could you state precisely what it was that you say are errors in my post.

 

[DinkumDog]

I'm afraid I still don't understand why you are so upset.

I've given you a list of players that have offended, charged or convicted or given good behaviour bonds and gone on to play and therefore disadvantaged their original club.

What else do you disagree with?

Could you state precisely what it was that you say are errors in my post.

I’m not upset, just stating facts.
I’ve already called out the errors in your post. You said CHN and JO will win their ‘legal case’ (it is not a legal case it is an appeal on a civil matter of employment). You said they will ‘have their day in court’ (it is not a court appearance, it is a hearing before the NRL-IU) and you called out the prospect of an ‘out of court settlement’ which is not remotely correct in this case. You also suggested the club did not stand by the players when that also isn’t the case. The club stood the players down pending investigation. Some have suggested that was the wrong decision or they should have ‘buried’ it - after one of the girls involved posted her exploits on social media. The club had no choice but to get in front of the matter and the players were offered welfare counselling before and after their termination and it was the NRL who de-registered them, making their Bulldogs contracts null and void. That is different from the club ‘sacking’ them. So you’re also wrong with suggesting ‘fines and suspensions’ as a sanction as the club cannot employ them when the NRL won’t register them.

It’s precisely why the appeal process is directly with the NRL and the Bulldogs are not involved in it.

It’s fine to have opinions Wendy but I suggest you arm yourself with facts before posting those opinions and don’t be so defensive when you are called out on them as being incorrect - which they are. If you want to keep arguing go for it.

 

[LordSidious66]

I’m not upset, just stating facts.
I’ve already called out the errors in your post. You said CHN and JO will win their ‘legal case’ (it is not a legal case it is an appeal on a civil matter of employment). You said they will ‘have their day in court’ (it is not a court appearance, it is a hearing before the NRL-IU) and you called out the prospect of an ‘out of court settlement’ which is not remotely correct in this case. You also suggested the club did not stand by the players when that also isn’t the case. The club stood the players down pending investigation. Some have suggested that was the wrong decision or they should have ‘buried’ it - after one of the girls involved posted her exploits on social media. The club had no choice but to get in front of the matter and the players were offered welfare counselling before and after their termination and it was the NRL who de-registered them, making their Bulldogs contracts null and void. That is different from the club ‘sacking’ them. So you’re also wrong with suggesting ‘fines and suspensions’ as a sanction as the club cannot employ them when the NRL won’t register them.

It’s precisely why the appeal process is directly with the NRL and the Bulldogs are not involved in it.

It’s fine to have opinions Wendy but I suggest you arm yourself with facts before posting those opinions and don’t be so defensive when you are called out on them as being incorrect - which they are. If you want to keep arguing go for it.

So if they win the dogs can sign them again if they wanted to?

 

[DinkumDog]

So if they win the dogs can sign them again if they wanted to?

Yes, they will be free to be employed by any NRL club, it’s a matter of whether the Bulldogs would want them back if they qualify for NRL registration.

 

[wendog33]

I’m not upset, just stating facts.
I’ve already called out the errors in your post. You said CHN and JO will win their ‘legal case’ (it is not a legal case it is an appeal on a civil matter of employment). You said they will ‘have their day in court’ (it is not a court appearance, it is a hearing before the NRL-IU) and you called out the prospect of an ‘out of court settlement’ which is not remotely correct in this case. You also suggested the club did not stand by the players when that also isn’t the case. The club stood the players down pending investigation. Some have suggested that was the wrong decision or they should have ‘buried’ it - after one of the girls involved posted her exploits on social media. The club had no choice but to get in front of the matter and the players were offered welfare counselling before and after their termination and it was the NRL who de-registered them, making their Bulldogs contracts null and void. That is different from the club ‘sacking’ them. So you’re also wrong with suggesting ‘fines and suspensions’ as a sanction as the club cannot employ them when the NRL won’t register them.

It’s precisely why the appeal process is directly with the NRL and the Bulldogs are not involved in it.

It’s fine to have opinions Wendy but I suggest you arm yourself with facts before posting those opinions and don’t be so defensive when you are called out on them as being incorrect - which they are. If you want to keep arguing go for it.

Their "day in court" was a euphemism regarding their current request for a lifting of their de-registration. You took it literally. You say it's not a court case. Not legally but I referred to it as similar to the court of public opinion.

You say I suggested the club didnt stand by the players. Where did I say that. Will apologise if I did. I dont know one way or the other.

Dinkim I believe your eagerness to find fault, and single out my posts, have clouded your judgement. Sometimes you have to give posters on here the benefit of the doubt as regards your legal opinions, and just go with... we all have different opinions and want to state them. A great deal of reading between the lines is necessary on a fan page.

My opinion, and I can't give yours, only mine, is that if these guys do challenge the legality of their de-registration, then it will be overturned in their favour. If there was further proceedings and they did sue for instance then the NRL as well as the club would be involved and they have to provide evidence of where they broke the law to justify that sacking decision.

My point is that should be avoided as other matters embarrassing to the club may be submitted by their defence counsel.

I suggested fines and suspensions as a remedy going forward ... not a fait accompli or suggesting the club was wrong to not impose them. I accept totally the club's stand. It's just that I don't think the outcome is good for the club and a better way found with fines etc. Some fans want to get rid of them. Thats fine by me. Everyone is entitled to their views.

My issue was trying to find an equitable solution to clubs loosing players only for them to play elsewhere. The NRL "sack" them but they get new contracts aporoved by NRL HQ.

Again your comprehension is amiss.

If there is any further explanation you require would you please number them as your posts are difficult to individually address. And may I suggest you go back and read my original post and subsequent post to @Psycho Doggie for clarification.

Perhaps we should start another thread dedicated to this issue so it doesn't clog up this thread and members can decide if they want to read the back and forth between us

 

[Natboy]

Their "day in court" was a euphemism regarding their current request for a lifting of their de-registration. You took it literally. You say it's not a court case. Not legally but I referred to it as similar to the court of public opinion.

You say I suggested the club didnt stand by the players. Where did I say that. Will apologise if I did. I dont know one way or the other.

Dinkim I believe your eagerness to find fault, and single out my posts, have clouded your judgement. Sometimes you have to give posters on here the benefit of the doubt as regards your legal opinions, and just go with... we all have different opinions and want to state them. A great deal of reading between the lines is necessary on a fan page.

My opinion, and I can't give yours, only mine, is that if these guys do challenge the legality of their de-registration, then it will be overturned in their favour. If there was further proceedings and they did sue for instance then the NRL as well as the club would be involved and they have to provide evidence of where they broke the law to justify that sacking decision.

My point is that should be avoided as other matters embarrassing to the club may be submitted by their defence counsel.

I suggested fines and suspensions as a remedy going forward ... not a fait accompli or suggesting the club was wrong to impose them. I accept totally the club's stand. It's just that I don't think the outcome is good for the club and a better way found with fines etc. Some fans want to get rid of them. Thats fine by me. Everyone is entitled to their views.

My issue was trying to find an equitable solution to clubs loosing players only for them to play elsewhere. The NRL "sack" them but they get new contracts aporoved by NRL HQ.

Again your comprehension is amiss.

If there is any further explanation you require would you please number them as your posts are difficult to individually address. And may I suggest you go back and read my original post and subsequent post to @Psycho Doggie for clarification.

Perhaps we should start another thread dedicated to this issue so it doesn't clog up this thread and members can decide if they want to read the back and forth between us

I’ll bookmark this in case I can’t sleep tonight. Thanks!

 

[TwinTurbo]

The problem I have is relativity, my view (as it has always been) is that the punishment doesn't fit the indiscretion (it wasn't a crime) as we know it. How many other players have breached the NRL Player Code of Conduct (CoC) and not received comparable punishment? To the best of my knowledge the CoC came about as result of the Pierce incident in 2016 which wasn't criminal but brought the NRL into considerable disrepute. So it has been around for 4 years and have seen one player contract containing it from 2018. So how many players could be considered to have breached the CoC in that 4 year period? How does their punishment align with the contract deregistration of CHN and JO? I don't think it matters whether the player was charged with a criminal offence or not, whether they were convicted or not. A proven and/or admitted breach of the CoC is still a breach of the COC and should attract punishment commensurate with the level of disrepute wrought upon the NRL. The only escape would be complete exoneration and/or withdrawal of the charges., Reynolds being an example. The fact that Inglis had no conviction recorded is irrelevant in that his conduct breached the Code. Similarly Lodge, it matters not that the breach was overseas, he still broke the CoC as it was reported locally. Does anyone seriously believe that their conduct didn't breach the CoC?

The question is, were any of the above or other CoC breakers deregistered? I can't recall any, not a single one. So only JO and CHN's breaches of the CoC alone were deemed worthy of contract deregistration? It doesn't pass the proverbial "pub test", well not mine anyway.

Go Dogs

 

[El Padrino]

come on Dinkum, just apologise

is it because you dont apologising to women?

 

[wendog33]

I’ll bookmark this in case I can’t sleep tonight. Thanks!

You're welcome. Hope it helps.

 

[DinkumDog]

come on Dinkum, just apologise

is it because you dont apologising to women?

You can’t be serious.

 

[DinkumDog]

Their "day in court" was a euphemism regarding their current request for a lifting of their de-registration. You took it literally. You say it's not a court case. Not legally but I referred to it as similar to the court of public opinion.

You say I suggested the club didnt stand by the players. Where did I say that. Will apologise if I did. I dont know one way or the other.

Dinkim I believe your eagerness to find fault, and single out my posts, have clouded your judgement. Sometimes you have to give posters on here the benefit of the doubt as regards your legal opinions, and just go with... we all have different opinions and want to state them. A great deal of reading between the lines is necessary on a fan page.

My opinion, and I can't give yours, only mine, is that if these guys do challenge the legality of their de-registration, then it will be overturned in their favour. If there was further proceedings and they did sue for instance then the NRL as well as the club would be involved and they have to provide evidence of where they broke the law to justify that sacking decision.

My point is that should be avoided as other matters embarrassing to the club may be submitted by their defence counsel.

I suggested fines and suspensions as a remedy going forward ... not a fait accompli or suggesting the club was wrong to not impose them. I accept totally the club's stand. It's just that I don't think the outcome is good for the club and a better way found with fines etc. Some fans want to get rid of them. Thats fine by me. Everyone is entitled to their views.

My issue was trying to find an equitable solution to clubs loosing players only for them to play elsewhere. The NRL "sack" them but they get new contracts aporoved by NRL HQ.

Again your comprehension is amiss.

If there is any further explanation you require would you please number them as your posts are difficult to individually address. And may I suggest you go back and read my original post and subsequent post to @Psycho Doggie for clarification.

Perhaps we should start another thread dedicated to this issue so it doesn't clog up this thread and members can decide if they want to read the back and forth between us

Walk it back Wendy...

Let’s leave it there.