CEO - Shane Richardson

[hsvjones]

but I can’t see the nrl having any grounds to withhold because he wasn’t convicted. Regardless of whether anyone thinks it to be true or not

NRL already confirmed he would be approved if he wanted to come back. It was straight after it was dropped.

 

[TSP]

but I can’t see the nrl having any grounds to withhold because he wasn’t convicted. Regardless of whether anyone thinks it to be true or not

Im not sure that their rules depend on an actual conviction to rub someone out of the game.

He is still subject to an ADVO.

Charges against former Panthers player Taylan May dropped - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

They could have other rules such as bringing the game into disrepute to wipe someone out. Id have to check.

I understand that everyone was ready to go but the "alleged" victim didnt turn up to court nor the lady who became aware of something who phoned the Police.

As the "alleged" witnesses were not available to be cross examined, their evidence could not be tested.

The Police tried to get an adjourment to try to get the "alleged" witnesses to court, but the magistrate refused.

Not about this case specifically, but i understand a lot of DV victims dont go through with the cases.

Not because they like being bashed but because of emotional and financial reasons.

If Taylan had been convicted, he probably wouldnt be able to play and that might have severe financial impacts on his "alleged" victim, family, kids etc.

So unless there is some financial relief, its really tough for these "alleged" victims in this situation.

I wish i had a solution to help these victims of DV.

The more observent of the panel here will easily make out whether or not i think hes guilty. But it doesnt matter what i think about it. Its irrelevent.

 

[TSP]

And more broadly, the NRL is extremely cowardly and especially useless about addressing DV.

It spends more time and effort on gambling, drinking ads and all kinds of wasteful shite.

Just my own view.

 

[Red88_Tiger]

Im not sure that their rules depend on an actual conviction to rub someone out of the game.

He is still subject to an ADVO.

Charges against former Panthers player Taylan May dropped - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

They could have other rules such as bringing the game into disrepute to wipe someone out. Id have to check.

I understand that everyone was ready to go but the "alleged" victim didnt turn up to court nor the lady who became aware of something who phoned the Police.

As the "alleged" witnesses were not available to be cross examined, their evidence could not be tested.

The Police tried to get an adjourment to try to get the "alleged" witnesses to court, but the magistrate refused.

Not about this case specifically, but i understand a lot of DV victims dont go through with the cases.

Not because they like being bashed but because of emotional and financial reasons.

If Taylan had been convicted, he probably wouldnt be able to play and that might have severe financial impacts on his "alleged" victim, family, kids etc.

So unless there is some financial relief, its really tough for these "alleged" victims in this situation.

I wish i had a solution to help these victims of DV.

The more observent of the panel here will easily make out whether or not i think hes guilty. But it doesnt matter what i think about it. Its irrelevent.

Read ha jones reply above this one

 

[TSP]

Read ha jones reply above this one

Yeah, i am aware they cleared him to play.

But i was wondering whether or not they could say "nah, we dont care you got off, we arent going to let you play anyway."

Which i think you were asking about?

Its not a right to play in the NRL is it?

 

[hsvjones]

Yeah, i am aware they cleared him to play.

But i was wondering whether or not they could say "nah, we dont care you got off, we arent going to let you play anyway."

Which i think you were asking about?

Its not a right to play in the NRL is it?

I wasn't asking I was just saying what the NRL said so people were aware he is right to sign anywhere.

I'm sure the NRL could change their minds but I don't think they will as no charges etc.. Not saying it's right either

Good footy player but IMO has a lot of baggage off the field so club will be careful with Richo in charge

 

[Ecto-1]

Yeah, i am aware they cleared him to play.

But i was wondering whether or not they could say "nah, we dont care you got off, we arent going to let you play anyway."

Which i think you were asking about?

Its not a right to play in the NRL is it?

His accuser didn’t even show up to court and is back being his partner so there’s no cause for him not to play.

 

[TSP]

His accuser didn’t even show up to court and is back being his partner so there’s no cause for him not to play.

Whatever happened i dont think her being back with him neccesarily means he should play. It doesnt follow.

 

[lathami]

We've won 5 from 9. Lost 2 games by 2 points and scoring plenty of 4 pointers. Coach seems to be doing something right.

Like the ugliest dogs, let’s face it bulldogs have a face only a mother can love. Suits them though.
Like the inbreds we have had a soft draw do far, for the inbreds it continues. Let’s see how we go this weekend before we get to far ahead of ourselves!!

 

[cochise]

His accuser didn’t even show up to court and is back being his partner so there’s no cause for him not to play.

I think he had a blow up when he went to a meeting with the NRL about being registered. He then walked out of the meeting and went on a massive rant on social media.

I think there may be a chance he blew his to return to the NRL.

 

[Ecto-1]

Whatever happened i dont think her being back with him neccesarily means he should play. It doesnt follow.

What I meant is there is no cause to not allow him to play if even his accuser has backed out. He could sue the league if they tried to deny him.

 

[Ecto-1]

I think he had a blow up when he went to a meeting with the NRL about being registered. He then walked out of the meeting and went on a massive rant on social media.

I think there may be a chance he blew his to return to the NRL.

That’s probably why he had to go do treatment before he could be signed up.

 

[TSP]

What I meant is there is no cause to not allow him to play if even his accuser has backed out. He could sue the league if they tried to deny him.

How?

I thought the NRL could block anyone from playing because its their comp?

 

[Ecto-1]

How?

I thought the NRL could block anyone from playing because its their comp?

Look at Esra after what he did and was found guilty he only got an 8 week punishment. Taylan has officially been found to have done anything wrong. Besides the few issues Penrith got him released for.

 

[Stevec]

"The players weve signed or otherwise"

Wtf this mean?

Exactly ! Talking " double Dutch "

 

[TSP]

Look at Esra after what he did and was found guilty he only got an 8 week punishment. Taylan has officially been found to have done anything wrong. Besides the few issues Penrith got him released for.

Mmm... but Taylan is still under an ADVO.

 

[TSP]

I suppose whether anyone is for or against Taylan signing, its pretty much out of our hands and not our fans or members decision to make.

I have heard of fans suspending their support for their club as a personal protest during an individual players tenure.

And in a bizarre twist of logic, if one thinks he did it, letting him play and earn an income...youd think some of that would trickle down to his partner who is the alleged victim.

Anyway, plenty to wrestle with post alleged event.

 

[hank37w]

Mmm... but Taylan is still under an ADVO.

ADVO means very little they hand them out at the drop of a hat and having one out against you does not make you a criminal.

You are only guilty of an offence if you do not abide by the conditions in that order.

Anyway that is my understanding of it.

 

[TSP]

ADVO means very little they hand them out at the drop of a hat and having one out against you does not make you a criminal.

You are only guilty of an offence if you do not abide by the conditions in that order.

Anyway that is my understanding of it.

You are absolutely right.

Having an ADVO out on you techincally doesnt make you a criminal.

But it is still a court order prohibiting certain conduct and if you are found to have breached it, you may be guilty of a criminal offence.

That said, it can adversely impact you in some occupations and it is an order of the court.

My point was that hes not exactly off scott free, there is still an order ( or was one) and they usually go for 2 years.

As you know, the orders themselves, theres 10 different types of various strengths and an open one that can be tailored.

If shes back living with him as is rumoured, its likely low level.

Anyhow, as i said anyway we look at it, doesnt matter because the way out club is structured doesnt give us any real decision making power. I think it should, but thats a massive organisational task.

I havent come across anyone here who i think shouldnt have a say in club affairs, even if i disagree with them.

Under a democratic system, if the club is planning to sign him, we could take it to a vote if people felt strongly either way.

It would be an amazing grass roots power.

And let the record show that the experts who used to run the club, they gave us multiple spoons.


Meathead.

 

[hank37w]

My point was that hes not exactly off scott free, there is still an order ( or was one) and they usually go for 2 years.

As you know, the orders themselves, theres 10 different types of various strengths and an open one that can be tailored.

If shes back living with him as is rumoured, its likely low level.

I believe there is less than 6 months remaining on it.