Karmichael Hunt Stuff

[Strewthcobber]

If there isn't a line in K Hunt's contract somewhere that reads close to: ""if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract."

I'd be pretty surprised.

RA and Super Rugby contracts, and the CBA for players refer to breaches of the ARU Code of Conduct.

Rugby Australia just found him guilty of a "low level" code of conduct breach and imposed their penalty - which was obviously not a termination.

The clause (or something similar) would be there, but the process has found he didn't do anything which would warrant a sacking.

They are going to have to pay out his contract

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

If there isn't a line in K Hunt's contract somewhere that reads close to: ""if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract."

I'd be pretty surprised.

It would also be the first thing any player's agent/lawyer would get struck out.

Presumably any code of conduct breaches would be dealt with by an agreed disciplinary process which is what happened.

Hunt may have had a prior indiscretion but he was still a highly desired signing and wouldn't have had to accept an entirely one sided contract.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Zero_Cool]

If there isn't a line in K Hunt's contract somewhere that reads close to: ""if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract."

I'd be pretty surprised.

It would be fucking madness to not have a morality clause in the contract of someone with a history half as coloured as K-Hunts.

RA and Super Rugby contracts, and the CBA for players refer to breaches of the ARU Code of Conduct.

Rugby Australia just found him guilty of a "low level" code of conduct breach and imposed their penalty - which was obviously not a termination.

The clause (or something similar) would be there, but the process has found he didn't do anything which would warrant a sacking.

They are going to have to pay out his contract

I imagine the ARU and QRU could and would have different clauses in each of their contracts. Also it would be very curious if the QRU were to allow the ARU to effectively bind them under their disciplinary action -- and have not had a significant hand in those proceedings.

 

[Beer Baron]

Would everyone (of the reds fans) be as anti Khunt return if the reds were losing???

 

[Strewthcobber]

It would be fucking madness to not have a morality clause in the contract of someone with a history half as coloured as K-Hunts.



I imagine the ARU and QRU could and would have different clauses in each of their contracts. Also it would be very curious if the QRU were to allow the ARU to effectively bind them under their disciplinary action -- and have not had a significant hand in those proceedings.

There aren't seperate QRU and ARU contracts. It's just one contract signed by all three parties.

 

[TOCC]

Would everyone (of the reds fans) be as anti Khunt return if the reds were losing???

Mu opinion hasn’t changed on the situation in the past 3 weeks, if anything I’m slightly less pissed at Karmichael because his actions haven’t had as big of an impact on the Reds season as I first thought it would.

 

[Zero_Cool]

There aren't seperate QRU and ARU contracts. It's just one contract signed by all three parties.

Even if that's the case I doubt the ARU would have all the disciplinary power without the QRU at least having some say in that discipline process.

What I'm more trying to say is that either the QRU have their own processes, or they have significant input into the process already undertaken -- and either got the outcome they wanted or will have their own process to get the outcome they want.

 

[Sully]

I have no problems with Hunt returning.

I also don't believe sports people are hero's or role models. Any belief that sports people are any less likely to take drugs or commit a crime than us is pure fantasy on our part.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Beer Baron]

I have no problems with Hunt returning.

I also don't believe sports people are hero's or role models. Any belief that sports people are any less likely to take drugs or commit a crime than us is pure fantasy on our part.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I agree - but i don't feel sorry for them getting dragged through the spotlight. The same media exposure enables them to earn the big $$.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Even if that's the case I doubt the ARU would have all the disciplinary power without the QRU at least having some say in that discipline process.

What I'm more trying to say is that either the QRU have their own processes, or they have significant input into the process already undertaken -- and either got the outcome they wanted or will have their own process to get the outcome they want.

Richard Barker is at least claiming they have had nothing to do with it so far.....

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sp...me-ban-for-xanax-offence-20180319-p4z545.html

"Rugby Australia has run this investigation and has determined the penalties announced today," QRU chief executive Richard Barker said.
"The QRU is working with Rugby Australia to understand the implications of today's announcement for the QRU."

 

[TOCC]

From what I've heard theres a number of power-brokers in QLD who don't want him in the game anymore and the QRU were hoping the ARU simply cancelled his contract, that decision has made life harder for the QRU.

 

[TheBigDog]

I don't understand how the QRU would have been hoping the ARU cancelled his contract. Would the terms of his contract (specifically what would constitute a reason for termination) have not been crystal clear to all parties? Hence once the evidence was presented a while ago, police reports given etc. and it was found that KHunt committed a low level offence or whatever it's being called it should have been apparent what the disciplinary action would be i.e. not terminating his contract.

Fairly poor management by the QRU if they just presumed it all all over for him and are now sitting around wondering what to do with the bloke who is technically eligible to play.

 

[Brian Westlake]

It would be fucking madness to not have a morality clause in the contract of someone with a history half as coloured as K-Hunts.



I imagine the ARU and QRU could and would have different clauses in each of their contracts. Also it would be very curious if the QRU were to allow the ARU to effectively bind them under their disciplinary action -- and have not had a significant hand in those proceedings.

Here’s the holy grail right here.... Define MORALITY for a legal contract.


Maybe dickhead instead?
Infinitely easier to enforce. “Son, you’re a dickhead. Wake up to yourself”
There are going to be no winners here unfortunately

 

[jimmydubs]

Maybe they had the option to cancel if he had a criminal conviction recorded. As he avoided that guessing they can’t.

I guess it’s another topic but guilty with no conviction recorded is BS. I know it’s very common but it just makes the whole thing subjective when the law shouldn’t be. Anyhow.

 

[Zero_Cool]

Here’s the holy grail right here.. Define MORALITY for a legal contract.


Maybe dickhead instead?
Infinitely easier to enforce. “Son, you’re a dickhead. Wake up to yourself”
There are going to be no winners here unfortunately

So a 'morality clause' normally has a set of clear guidelines ultimately exercising a morality clause is kind of always ambiguous.

 

[TSR]

I have no problems with Hunt returning.

I also don't believe sports people are hero's or role models. Any belief that sports people are any less likely to take drugs or commit a crime than us is pure fantasy on our part.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

There are numerous scenarios in which I can lose my job if I am found guilty of breaking the law or if I am found to have breached my organisations code of conduct (and a number of those instances include things outside work.)

Hunt signed a contract for big money - if he doesn’t feel he should be bound by a higher level of community expectation than he is welcome to play park football.

 

[The Honey Badger]

FFS get him back to training ASAP.

Get on with it. Play him if he is good enough.

If they can tolerate the treatment of Quade, they will wear this too.

The Reds could go deep in this competition, they could use at least one Superstar.



Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Sully]

There are numerous scenarios in which I can lose my job if I am found guilty of breaking the law or if I am found to have breached my organisations code of conduct (and a number of those instances include things outside work.)

Hunt signed a contract for big money - if he doesn’t feel he should be bound by a higher level of community expectation than he is welcome to play park football.

The only people holding him to higher level is you and people like you. Do you hold actors to a higher standard? Politicians? Musicians?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[James Pettifer]

The only people holding him to higher level is you and people like you. Do you hold actors to a higher standard? Politicians? Musicians?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

The sponsors do ...

 

[Gnostic]

The only people holding him to higher level is you and people like you. Do you hold actors to a higher standard? Politicians? Musicians?



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I certainly hold people in public office to high standards. As for very highly paid professionals, in any field I expect them to perform to the absolute nth degree, and that entails in all things. You and I cannot use drugs prescription or otherwise and go to work and we get a very small % of the fee that this nimby is receiving. It is not excessive to require as part of their contract they do not engage in any activity that impacts on their performance. Part of Hunt's contract payments is for him to be a public face of the Reds and Wallabies and promote the game, and now his brand is pretty toxic so he cannot perform that function in the least, then let us look at the actual game performance, and even if we accept the argument that Cocaine has no performance enhancing or detrimental effects (which I do not really accept) the fact is after his last indiscretion he said he had a problem and pleaded poor me and got off lightly, now he has placed himself in the same position even discounting the full allegations as tendered at the start of these matters, he has entered pleas of guilty to possession of drugs again. He has a problem and is NOT a high performance athlete, he is a talented person who does not have the dedication and focus required to be paid exorbitant sums to play a game where he has by his own actions compromised his ability to execute those duties.

If he worked on many of the same contracts I have and before my self employed days in the same employment I had he would be subjected to compulsory testing before and during shifts and positive tests result in immediate cessation of work and show cause why termination should not result (and the only time the show cause was successful was when it was declared prescription medication the employer knew about).

As for actors and musicians - genuine arguments have been made that they have to be three parts cut to do the job in the first place and it genuinely enhances performance right up to the point when they kark from what ever cause. It is not a good comparison.