Karmichael Hunt Stuff

[SouthernX]

If it were his first time been associated with drugs then I would agree, but it isn't, so i'm sorry but I think he has gotten off incredibly easy.

Totally agree with you mate but it’s like some of that legal double jeopardy jargon stuff.

Served his punishment for the last offense... this time around you gotta judge what happened on that night in the valley and the facts are it’s just a Xanax charge

 

[Serge]

Totally agree with you mate but it’s like some of that legal double jeopardy jargon stuff.

Served his punishment for the last offense. this time around you gotta judge what happened on that night in the valley and the facts are it’s just a Xanax charge

Facts are there two proven charges (not just Xanax) plus whatever evidence there was around the cocaine bag on the ground. The issue with the cocaine was that police thought the evidence was not strong enough for the Courts, who have a high threshold, but the ARU investigation could take this into account and probably did to a limited extent.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Lote doesn't think so !

Four games and $10k seems a very steep penalty for a "low level" code of conduct breach.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Lote doesn't think so !

Lote ended up being a reverse $2m fine, which is probably why we are here right now with Karmichael

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

Premier Grade rugby might not even want him

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Premier Grade rugby might not even want him

"Premier Grade might not even want him"....seriously I doubt that..Khunt is still a talented footballer who has let a lot of people down yes but in this day and age of known drug problem in society his crime is not as bad as say the Brisbane NRL player in the spotlight for past Domestic Violence and what he did to family in LA which is much more hideous.

I can understand if the Reds choose not to play him if fan/sponsor backlash was too much to bear, but in many ways he has been given the penalty and 4 match ban which he has served and I think sometimes trying to take things further than this as the 'moral' police is tad unrealistic. Let him play for an oz Super Rugby team I say but yes he has any other misdemeanour he is gone.

Personally like to see him play for the Reds but understand and respect if that decision is not made by Reds management and coach.

 

[Rock Lobster]

What will be more interesting is what Cheika does with him. He is one of his love childs and I'm tipping he is in the first Wallaby squad chosen if he stays in Oz

 

[Rugbynutter39]

What will be more interesting is what Cheika does with him. He is one of his love childs and I'm tipping he is in the first Wallaby squad chosen if he stays in Oz

Cheika does not play God if a player is available he will select him. The question is whether Reds will play him/keep him and if not then probably Europe bound I suppose as probably other OZ Super Rugby Franchises would not make a play for him (which to my mind is probably more because less room for him).

 

[James Pettifer]

Four games and $10k seems a very steep penalty for a "low level" code of conduct breach.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Number of games really doesn't matter as he has already missed them. 1 or 4 games would be the same real world impact but 4 sounds like they are being more firm.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Cheika does not play God if a player is available he will select him. The question is whether Reds will play him/keep him and if not then probably Europe bound I suppose as probably other OZ Super Rugby Franchises would not make a play for him (which to my mind is probably more because less room for him).

Force?

Would that be an option?

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Derpus]

Facts are there two proven charges (not just Xanax) plus whatever evidence there was around the cocaine bag on the ground. The issue with the cocaine was that police thought the evidence was not strong enough for the Courts, who have a high threshold, but the ARU investigation could take this into account and probably did to a limited extent.

Doubt it, if the ARU decided he was defo snorting bags again he'd be sacked for surely.

Seems like they've gone with the cops and given him a slap on the wrist. He should be reinstated now and we should all move on.

 

[Serge]

Doubt it, if the ARU decided he was defo snorting bags again he'd be sacked for surely.

Seems like they've gone with the cops and given him a slap on the wrist. He should be reinstated now and we should all move on.

The ARU would not have gone down a 'defo' track (I assume you mean definitely), however they would have taken into consideration what just about everyone undertaking a pub test would say - that he was almost certainly involved with cocaine again but legally we can't absolutely prove it so we will run with the line 'bringing the game into disrepute' and behind the scenes wash their hands of him. Regardless he was never outstanding in Union and is now on the age driven downhill slide anyway.

 

[TOCC]

I understand there are legal implications to sacking him, however even taking that into consideration I still think their response and punishment was piss poor

 

[dru]

You can surely sack anyone. No legal ramifications as long as you comply with the contract. If they expect him to "well fine, I'll just leave if it suits you" and not look to the Reds legal obligations - then yes, I guess there would be legal implications.

The only real step here is whether or not Thorn wants to persist with him. If no, they pay him out. If yes, start him in grade.

 

[Braveheart81]

The only real step here is whether or not Thorn wants to persist with him. If no, they pay him out. If yes, start him in grade.

Why would they pay him out though? What do they gain? I doubt they have a spare $300k or whatever to spend on someone else as well.

If they don't feel they can sack him without a substantial payout then keeping him on the books but hopefully frustrating him in grade to the point he seeks a release is surely the best option financially.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Mods can close the thread now.

Excitement is over, nothing to see here. Innocent all along.





Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

Why would they pay him out though? What do they gain? I doubt they have a spare $300k or whatever to spend on someone else as well.

If they don't feel they can sack him without a substantial payout then keeping him on the books but hopefully frustrating him in grade to the point he seeks a release is surely the best option financially.

Either they have obligations they have to fullfill or they don't. If they do, sure pay him out slowly if that is your want, poor form but hasn't stopped it before. Or pay him out and move on.

If there are obligations it is pay out either way. The cash is spent, if you want value for money then you work your way to getting him playing. If you want to make a moral statement it comes, in this case, with a cost.

Dont have a problem with him being demoted to grade as things go forward either way.

 

[Braveheart81]

As I said, I think the hope will be that he will look for other opportunities and then seek a release saving the Reds and ARU a lot of money.

 

[dru]

As I said, I think the hope will be that he will look for other opportunities and then seek a release saving the Reds and ARU a lot of money.

Sure. Or play him. And get the value you started with.

 

[TOCC]

Sure. Or play him. And get the value you started with.

but his 'value' is subjective..

-His marketing value is gone, sponsors won't pay to be aligned to him.
-His 'leadership and cultural value' is also gone, and its up to Thorn to determine whether he wants that around a group of young easily influenced players.
-His 'playing value' is all that he retains.