Past #26: Tarryn Thomas [Part III] - [C.Twomey] AFL rules TT is eligible to play in all competitions as of 14 October

[shinboner magic]

From what I’ve been told the club are done with him and he will never play for NMFC again.

That’s sad on so many levels

 

[Makeshift Park]

The Truck thinks he is no chance of returning to play with us in 2025:

Ralph: The question is how, not if, Roos rid themselves of Thomas​

The writing is on the wall, according to JON RALPH: Tarryn Thomas and North Melbourne are never, ever getting back together. The only question whether the club dumps him now or tries to extract a slither of value from him at the trade table.

Spoiler: [Article continues]

Arden Street seems certain to be a Tarryn Thomas-free zone next year.
As North Melbourne continues the cultural overhaul it believes will set its premiership foundations, Thomas will not be part of the club’s medium-term future.
The only real query, as the Kangaroos await an official penalty that will wipe out most of his 2024 season, is the exact manner of Thomas’ departure from the club.
Will the terms of that suspension give the Roos just cause to terminate his contract and save them a significant sum in their salary cap for 2024?
Or does he remain on the club’s list while being paid through his suspension, with the possibility the Roos might extract some meagre trade collateral in the October meat market?
All those scenarios lie ahead for North Melbourne, in an era when simply sacking a player is not so easy, given his rights under the collective bargaining agreement.
But what has become clear is that North Melbourne has drawn a line in the sand.
Too many chances, too many opportunities to make good have been ignored.
As the Herald Sun reported last week, the Roos have braced for a lengthy suspension for some time now.
The AFL said on Monday that an 18-week penalty had not been agreed as part of the integrity department process that is ongoing – and the Roos were still awaiting league guidance.
But as part of the well-worn method of punishment meted out by the AFL, almost every suspension is through negotiation or horse-trading.
So as much as North Melbourne says it is not aware of the exact allegations or punishment ahead, it would be the first club to be totally blindsided by an impending ban.
The AFL believes the latest allegations are serious enough to come down hard on Thomas, and if the eventual penalty isn’t 18 weeks, it will be close enough to end his season in any capacity.
Sacking a player given their rights under AFL rules is an incredibly complex situation.
The current allegation against Thomas is not believed to have involved a police complaint, and he escaped conviction after charges were downgraded last year.
Thomas is also due about eight months’ salary of a contract of between $600,000-$700,000 for 2024. So the Roos will have to weigh Thomas’ rights with removing a significant distraction to an entire football club.
The question for the Roos is whether they might have traded him last year when clubs, including Essendon, were interested enough to at least inquire about his services.
AFL clubs have always been seduced by talent – and no doubt one will present to give him another chance in 2025 – but Thomas and North Melbourne breaking up is now inevitable.

 

[DuckYeah]

What I am having issues with in this thread and am calling for a stop to is misogyny. There’s no reason for any argument.

I’m not even going to humour your archaic views on revenge pr0n and carrier service offenses though, in particular historical accusations. If it had any relevance to what is happening now that would be even more disappointing.

I’m also not going to humour the idea if an 18 week suspension comes down on him that Tarryn Thomas is somehow the victim.

Well he’s not a criminal and he’s being persecuted and prosecuted? So what is it? Is this a social justice warrior moment?

 

[buttox]

It effects how much of the cap we pay this year though, given he is in the last year of the contract, it could be grounds to terminate, depending on the outcome of the decision
Just looking for:
a) precedence (not sure there is much there, would need someone who knew the mechanations of how Carey was removed)
b) what they would actually come at him with, the CBA above is still the old one but not sure they would have changed that wording

100% though, they would have far smarter people at AFL House and NMFC running through the exact wording to have pieces in play depending on the result

If he's deregistered all bets are off. Not sure he gets anything. If we sack him we pay for certain. I don't think for example the AFL would penalize us for paying under the 95% when we had every intention of paying if he is deregistered.
It's such a unique situation my money's on the AFL writing the rules anew right now.
Live footage below

 

[DuckYeah]

What I am having issues with in this thread and am calling for a stop to is misogyny. There’s no reason for any argument.

I’m not even going to humour your archaic views on revenge pr0n and carrier service offenses though, in particular historical accusations. If it had any relevance to what is happening now that would be even more disappointing.

I’m also not going to humour the idea if an 18 week suspension comes down on him that Tarryn Thomas is somehow the victim.

There is no evidence to suggest he has done any wrong doing other than being an ignorant spoiled young man who could be affected by drugs or other social issues.

He hasn’t done a Nick Stephens, he hasnt done a Fabian Francis.. what has he done to deserve such scrutiny? Until theres evidence and he is hanged out to dry I will defend the bloke. Sorry.

 

[krakouers]

If he's deregistered all bets are off. Not sure he gets anything. If we sack him we pay for certain. I don't think for example the AFL would penalize us for paying under the 95% when we had every intention of paying if he is deregistered.
It's such a unique situation my money's on the AFL writing the rules anew right now.
Live footage below

This is it,
We would have our own legal team looking at options but until the AFL come out with the charges and facts, we just don’t know…
Still think there is hope there for him, but there are many who would let him go

 

[DuckYeah]

Actually Ben Cousins is a fantastic argument. A legitimate spousal abuser and convicted domestic violence perpetrator and is now doing radio or tv? … WHERE IS THE INTEGRITY?

Tarryn though, such a criminal, must make an example of him..

 

[Engimal v3]

No one but Tarryn to blame here. Cya mate.

 

[krakouers]

Actually Ben Cousins is a fantastic argument. A legitimate spousal abuser and convicted domestic violence perpetrator and is now doing radio or tv? … WHERE IS THE INTEGRITY?

Tarryn though, such a criminal, must make an example of him..

He did do time at Acacia

Edit:
Also, was deregisted and did a stint at mid 2000’s Richmond… some would say he did his punishment there

 

[The Filth Wizard]

There is no evidence to suggest he has done any wrong doing other than being an ignorant spoiled young man who could be affected by drugs or other social issues.

He hasn’t done a Nick Stephens, he hasnt done a Fabian Francis.. what has he done to deserve such scrutiny? Until theres evidence and he is hanged out to dry I will defend the bloke. Sorry.

Do you really think because you personally haven’t seen any evidence that there is no evidence, even though it’s the worlds worst kept secret the AFL have seen enough to pretty much consign his career to a trash can?

Regardless, nobody is pulling you up on your blind faith in Tarryn’s innocence. All that was said is sexist bullshit posting won’t be tolerated on this forum and you decided to keep arguing what was essentially a blanket post.

 

[buttox]

This is it,
We would have our own legal team looking at options but until the AFL come out with the charges and facts, we just don’t know…
Still think there is hope there for him, but there are many who would let him go

I wonder how an appeal would go if they take it to court. Not sure the accuser would want that and I'm not sure how the AFL's protection of the victim would go in a court of law were you are supposed to be able to face your accusers.
Lot of money at stake if it's deregistration. Multiple millions Tarryn could claim as lost.
God I'm glad I'm not a lawyer at times like this.
Although the pay would be nice

 

[DuckYeah]

Do you really think because you personally haven’t seen any evidence that there is no evidence, even though it’s the worlds worst kept secret the AFL have seen enough to pretty much consign his career to a trash can?

Regardless, nobody is pulling you up on your blind faith in Tarryn’s innocence. All that was said is sexist bullshit posting won’t be tolerated on this forum and you decided to keep arguing what was essentially a blanket post.

Well evidence enough for AFL “integrity” unit but not enough for a criminal investigation.

Blind faith in Tarryns innocence? The rule of law and everyone has a fair trial before being cast as guilty? Thats blind faith? Strike me down master of social justice

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Doesn't "off the record" when speaking to journos generally mean you don't report on it, or give any indication where info came from....?

Like, I agree with what he's saying, but that seems like betraying some sort of confidence.

 

[El Triggso]

(Character?) …It’s everything to me.

One wrong character in the dressing room is a lot of problems, mate.

I will always forsake the quality of a player for the right character…

 

[krakouers]

I wonder how an appeal would go if they take it to court. Not sure the accuser would want that and I'm not sure how the AFL's protection of the victim would go in a court of law were you are supposed to be able to face your accusers.
Lot of money at stake if it's deregistration. Multiple millions Tarryn could claim as lost.
God I'm glad I'm not a lawyer at times like this.
Although the pay would be nice

You sign a contract, in your employment there are codes of conduct on your behaviour.
You may not be liable for formal charging (depending on what happens) but if you breach them while an employee or acting as an employee, they have grounds
The extents are sorted in the courts after mediation etc
It’s going to be interesting though, I do hope he spends time looking at himself, what he’s done, how he has behaved and become a better person for it
Edit: ( DuckYeah in response to your last one )

 

[Passmore]

From what I’ve been told the club are done with him and he will never play for NMFC again.

That wouldn't be any great surprise.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[gustaaf]

I suspect that North will likely cut ties with TT by terminating his contract. We'll have wasted years of development, a truckload in wages, a lot of time and effort to keep TT on the straight and narrow, and a precious first round draft pick that we don't get any return on. That's a hefty price when North has been mostly blameless in this sorry saga. If TT isn't going to be at the club in 2025, what's the point of keeping him here in 2024 just to have him potentially play a few VFL games at the end of the season?

If TT does stay on whilst being suspended until round 20, I doubt we'd have to pay him anywhere near his full salary. If we did the AFL would be the only sporting competition in the world where players are entitled to full pay despite being suspended for deplorable off field behaviour that they are fully responsible for. Perhaps the Essendon players received full pay during their drugs suspension, but that would only have been because the club was largely responsible for causing their players to get suspended. If TT remains at North in 2024 he would probably be entitled to a partial payment for training with the club, but that should only be a relatively small proportion of his contracted wage.

Apart from drugs suspensions, when was the last time a player was suspended for close to a full season? The longest I can come up with is 10 weeks. It does indicate that what he has done is perhaps worse than what we have been hypothesising about. I strongly believe the AFL needs to explain why it has decided on the very lengthy suspension by outlining TT's transgressions and also by advising when the violations took place to provide context. They don't have to identify his victim, which protects her privacy. We the fans are the number one stakeholders in the sport and without us there is no multi billion dollar industry. We have a right to know and a right to understand why our club is being punished so severely by losing a highly talented player.

I find it almost unbelievable that North have had no involvement in the investigative process, including the hearing TT had to attend a few weeks ago. Clubs are always involved in AFL disciplinary processes that involve their players, so why not in this instance? It is bizarre that the club only finds out after the AFL is done and has made its decision. North doesn't even know what TT has done.

 

[DuckYeah]

(Character?) …It’s everything to me.

One wrong character in the dressing room is a lot of problems, mate.

I will always forsake the quality of a player for the right character…

Its footy this is not the DPP. Its all about FLAGS and being the best. We are not doing this for a ring around the rosy and sit by a campfire having a few beers after a close loss on a Saturday. We all pay serious money to this club to be successful, you aint getting success without some gun players who **** up. Look at DeGoey in the flag last year.. do Collingwood win without De Goey? Probably not

 

[buttox]

You sign a contract, in your employment there are codes of conduct on your behaviour.
You may not be liable for formal charging (depending on what happens) but if you breach them while an employee or acting as an employee, they have grounds
The extents are sorted in the courts after mediation etc
It’s going to be interesting though, I do hope he spends time looking at himself, what he’s done, how he has behaved and become a better person for it

To a point yes.
The pies took the Maynard thing to court. Courts could force an injunction.
I can't see a judge passing judgement without a discussion of the incident with all parties under oath.
That won't be fun for the victim or TT.
Bit to play out yet. The AFL are clearly crossing Rd and dotting is tonight.
The media leak is probably testing the water for any media backlash.

 

[DuckYeah]

You sign a contract, in your employment there are codes of conduct on your behaviour.
You may not be liable for formal charging (depending on what happens) but if you breach them while an employee or acting as an employee, they have grounds
The extents are sorted in the courts after mediation etc
It’s going to be interesting though, I do hope he spends time looking at himself, what he’s done, how he has behaved and become a better person for it
Edit: ( DuckYeah in response to your last one )

Precedent not set last year. Dont care. Sexual assault is all good? Is it?

Sexual assault. Thats criminal and charges.

Free to play.

 

[Makeshift Park]

I wonder how an appeal would go if they take it to court. Not sure the accuser would want that and I'm not sure how the AFL's protection of the victim would go in a court of law were you are supposed to be able to face your accusers.
Lot of money at stake if it's deregistration. Multiple millions Tarryn could claim as lost.
God I'm glad I'm not a lawyer at times like this.
Although the pay would be nice

If it came to that, I wouldn't be surprised if the woman involved could get a non-publication order order on her identity.

(and rightly so - if the dispute is essentially contractual between the AFL and TT, I'm not sure why the world needs to hear her testimony on the stand)

It would be interesting to see what position the AFLPA takes though.

 

[Roostorm]

Spoiler: [Article continues]

Arden Street seems certain to be a Tarryn Thomas-free zone next year.
As North Melbourne continues the cultural overhaul it believes will set its premiership foundations, Thomas will not be part of the club’s medium-term future.
The only real query, as the Kangaroos await an official penalty that will wipe out most of his 2024 season, is the exact manner of Thomas’ departure from the club.
Will the terms of that suspension give the Roos just cause to terminate his contract and save them a significant sum in their salary cap for 2024?
Or does he remain on the club’s list while being paid through his suspension, with the possibility the Roos might extract some meagre trade collateral in the October meat market?
All those scenarios lie ahead for North Melbourne, in an era when simply sacking a player is not so easy, given his rights under the collective bargaining agreement.
But what has become clear is that North Melbourne has drawn a line in the sand.
Too many chances, too many opportunities to make good have been ignored.
As the Herald Sun reported last week, the Roos have braced for a lengthy suspension for some time now.
The AFL said on Monday that an 18-week penalty had not been agreed as part of the integrity department process that is ongoing – and the Roos were still awaiting league guidance.
But as part of the well-worn method of punishment meted out by the AFL, almost every suspension is through negotiation or horse-trading.
So as much as North Melbourne says it is not aware of the exact allegations or punishment ahead, it would be the first club to be totally blindsided by an impending ban.
The AFL believes the latest allegations are serious enough to come down hard on Thomas, and if the eventual penalty isn’t 18 weeks, it will be close enough to end his season in any capacity.
Sacking a player given their rights under AFL rules is an incredibly complex situation.
The current allegation against Thomas is not believed to have involved a police complaint, and he escaped conviction after charges were downgraded last year.
Thomas is also due about eight months’ salary of a contract of between $600,000-$700,000 for 2024. So the Roos will have to weigh Thomas’ rights with removing a significant distraction to an entire football club.
The question for the Roos is whether they might have traded him last year when clubs, including Essendon, were interested enough to at least inquire about his services.
AFL clubs have always been seduced by talent – and no doubt one will present to give him another chance in 2025 – but Thomas and North Melbourne breaking up is now inevitable.

And there we have it…looking in hindsight according to Ralphy we probably should have offloaded to clubs in trade…I love how he says clubs including Essendon inquired….which makes me think it’s total bs and dons were the only one… but now because we held onto him we are stuffed …and have bugger all hope of anything if we hang on and look at a trade this year….

But if we did do the rumoured trade with * you can guarantee that we’d probably be paying a significant part of the contract ….and the media would be taking pot shots at our inability to look after said player or how well * screwed us to pay up…despite what we have done….

but low and behold this was the bit that caught my eye…. AFL CLUBS have always been seduced by talent and no doubt one will present to give him another chance in 2025…..( on a bargain basement wage too l bet…with media lauding how wise they are with spending less then the wasteful Roos and how awesome they are backing in their club culture..)

makes me want to throw a typewriter at the wall with this small snippet …..couldn’t give a rats about the many hours / resources/ necks on the line that our club has expended….just roll up and sign and back in your culture.

We‘re damed if we do or don’t……the fact he’s placed that in his article encouraging a club to pick him up if we part ways is infuriating…..and to top it off the nuff nuffs on x are already spouting garbage about other club cultures compared to ours…conveniently ignoring what we have done…….



As the saying goes when it rains it pours…..regardless of what the club has done ….sigh…..

 

[Arthur Cloke]

From what I’ve been told the club are done with him and he will never play for NMFC again.

If we are on the verge of a finals birth come round 19 - Taz will be playing - mark my words.

 

[buttox]

I suspect that North will likely cut ties with TT by terminating his contract. We'll have wasted years of development, a truckload in wages, a lot of time and effort to keep TT on the straight and narrow, and a precious first round draft pick that we don't get any return on. That's a hefty price when North has been mostly blameless in this sorry saga. If TT isn't going to be at the club in 2025, what's the point of keeping him here in 2024 just to have him potentially play a few VFL games at the end of the season?

If TT does stay on whilst being suspended until round 20, I doubt we'd have to pay him anywhere near his full salary. If we did the AFL would be the only sporting competition in the world where players are entitled to full pay despite being suspended for deplorable off field behaviour that they are fully responsible for. Perhaps the Essendon players received full pay during their drugs suspension, but that would only have been because the club was largely responsible for causing their players to get suspended. If TT remains at North in 2024 he would probably be entitled to a partial payment for training with the club, but that should only be a relatively small proportion of his contracted wage.

Apart from drugs suspensions, when was the last time a player was suspended for close to a full season? The longest I can come up with is 10 weeks. It does indicate that what he has done is perhaps worse than what we have been hypothesising about. I strongly believe the AFL needs to explain why it has decided on the very lengthy suspension by outlining TT's transgressions and also by advising when the violations took place to provide context. They don't have to identify his victim, which protects her privacy. We the fans are the number one stakeholders in the sport and without us there is no multi billion dollar industry. We have a right to know and a right to understand why our club is being punished so severely by losing a highly talented player.

I find it almost unbelievable that North have had no involvement in the investigative process, including the hearing TT had to attend a few weeks ago. Clubs are always involved in AFL disciplinary processes that involve their players, so why not in this instance? It is bizarre that the club only finds out after the AFL is done and has made its decision. North doesn't even know what TT has done.

Joel Smith will be getting minimum 2 years for the nose beers.

 

[amaz199]

Has spent most of his career not taking responsibility and selfishly thinking about no one but himself and it's seemingly caught up with him.

It's a shame for our football club but it's an even bigger shame for him.

I genuinely hope he gets his life together and makes something of his career even if it's elsewhere. While that would be a kick in the guts for us, it is a beautiful thing to see someone grow from their mistakes and mature into a person of integrity and character.

I hope so too but **** me this will sting.

I was genuinely happy to see him enjoying footy again kicking goals and giving us a sniff. Even when he's not fully fit he's so talented it negates whatever is hampering him. The North supporters always got excited when he had the ball in his hands. They knew something special would happen.

I kinda wish we had the leadership Wells had when he was young. I hope this situation galvanises the club to keep pushing forward.