Scandal Tarryn Thomas charged with 'threatening to distribute intimate image' + driving with suspended license

[perplexed]

Club Statements

Dr Sonja Hood stands with Tarryn Thomas through serious DV allegations - Club Statement

North Melbourne President Dr Sonja Hood has issued the following […]

www.bigfooty.com

UPDATE: Tarryn Thomas "to take time away from the club"

Tarryn Thomas thread >> North Melbourne club statement: Tarryn Thomas […]

www.bigfooty.com

Fined, no conviction recorded:

Tarryn Thomas - North Melbourne club statement

Tarryn Thomas appeared in Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court today where an […]

www.bigfooty.com

 

[CrowToon]

Even if you don't think the public scrutiny is correct, his potential earnings are far greater as a result of his public access. His personal brand/image is a source of income with the brands that he chooses to partner with.

Then from the perspective of the AFL and North Melbourne, they have to consider the impact of their actions/inactions and how it aligns with the beliefs and principals of it's corporate partners. You just have to look at the TAC dropping sponsorship deals with multiple clubs over the journey for players drink driving, speeding etc.

I find all of the above ridiculous. If people can't separate the business from the person then it says more about people imo.

Let people have a private life. Criminal activity (once proven) is the only acceptable reason to bridge the divide.

 

[coldlunch]

I find all of the above ridiculous. If people can't separate the business from the person then it says more about people imo.

Let people have a private life. Criminal activity (once proven) is the only acceptable reason to bridge the divide.

professional sports is not a regular business. every player has a public-facing role that comes with media and community engagement commitments, as well as either direct or indirect corporate sponsorship obligations. all of that means they have a greater responsibility to uphold a certain standard of behaviour than someone working on a mine site, for example, who could run amok in their personal life without endangering their employer's public image.

 

[CrowToon]

professional sports is not a regular business. every player has a public-facing role that comes with media and community engagement commitments, as well as either direct or indirect corporate sponsorship obligations. all of that means they have a greater responsibility to uphold a certain standard of behaviour than someone working on a mine site, for example, who could run amok in their personal life without endangering their employer's public image.

Yes I'm very clear on what the rationale is. I just don't agree that anyone should have zero personal time and that they should be touchable by their employer when they are off. It's sick if you think about it.

 

[Elixuh]

This isn't a troll. Im okay with other people having a differing view to me. That's healthy.

As for your question, it would mean I could accept an argument that his behaviour could be linked as it might be seen that he is acting on behalf of the organisation.

He’s not a plumber, he’s a public figure. It’s the same thing conceptually. Exactly the same thing.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Yes I'm very clear on what the rationale is. I just don't agree that anyone should have zero personal time and that they should be touchable by their employer when they are off. It's sick if you think about it.

Part of afl players contract would definitely include a clause where it states something like "must uphold values of club and league. Any values broken could result in suspension and/or termination." A lot of large organisations would have this for everyday normal people but the business wouldn't be aware of their indiscretions because the media doesn't report on them

 

[weltschmerz]

Part of afl players contract would definitely include a clause where it states something like "must uphold values of club and league. Any values broken could result in suspension and/or termination." A lot of large organisations would have this for everyday normal people but the business wouldn't be aware of their indiscretions because the media doesn't report on them

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...nded-AFL-Rules-effective-28-February-2023.pdf page 31

 

[Profop]

Yes I'm very clear on what the rationale is. I just don't agree that anyone should have zero personal time and that they should be touchable by their employer when they are off. It's sick if you think about it.

I mean it’s not like the AFL is actively surveilling the players at all times. Reality is far more misbehaviour is likely swept under the rug then is actually reported or punished

This guy is seemingly a repeat offender who can’t stop abusing women. I think most employers would rightfully want to remove that sort of a person from their culture having been brought evidence

The blokes a reputational ticking time bomb whose already received the chances and training that most employers likely wouldn’t have even bothered with first go

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Embarrassing leak

 

[Percel]

Surely today was the day for North to actually stand for something and use the AFL decision as cause to finally cut ties. Their responses regarding Thomas have always been pathetic and weak - they had a chance to overcome it today and they're still sitting on their hands.

Blew your load early champion, you need to read up on it

now go clean up

 

[Percel]

The blokes a reputational ticking time bomb whose already received the chances and training that most employers likely wouldn’t have even bothered with first go

this

 

[nobbyiscool]

Blew your load early champion, you need to read up on it

now go clean up

You really are the most precious group of supporters in the league aren't you?

 

[Percel]

You really are the most precious group of supporters in the league aren't you?

Naah, TT is a grub, it was your uneducated froth that made you like a dick.

he’ll get his, don’t you worry my dude

 

[kaiserchief13]

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...nded-AFL-Rules-effective-28-February-2023.pdf page 31

And because of that the afl commission has probably executed clause 2.1 (a) (iv) (E)

 

[weltschmerz]

And because of that the afl commission has probably executed clause 2.1 (a) (iv) (E)

the best part is that sounds like you're just shit talking but that's actually the relevant clause

 

[Rich01]

Would be nice of the AFL to announce the sentence as well as what the offender actually did, rather than leak it through a lackey on their own radio station.

Piss weak behaviour from the league.
Bad show first up from Dillon.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I find all of the above ridiculous. If people can't separate the business from the person then it says more about people imo.

Let people have a private life. Criminal activity (once proven) is the only acceptable reason to bridge the divide.

Maybe but thats a bygone era its not where the afl is now.

 

[Percel]

Would be nice of the AFL to announce the sentence as well as what the offender actually did, rather than leak it through a lackey on their own radio station.

Piss weak behaviour from the league.
Bad show first up from Dillon.

Yep, announce it, and move him on if guilty. Footy doesn’t need this.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Would be nice of the AFL to announce the sentence as well as what the offender actually did, rather than leak it through a lackey on their own radio station.

Piss weak behaviour from the league.
Bad show first up from Dillon.

The irony of tom 'no credibility' morris being anyone's lackey.

 

[memoryofmchale]

Depends what your job is.
I require a clean police check for my job, and wouldn't be sacked on an allegation

As for Thomas, his suspension is the old "nothing to see here" whilst awaiting investigation

He hasn’t been sacked on an allegation. He has a whole legal team at his disposal. Do you not think the AFL would cover themselves?

 

[memoryofmchale]

Because until you are found guilty of a criminal offence you have the right to be presumed innocent. If he is found guilty of a criminal offence then by all means but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that employment requires you to conform to certain standards when you are off the clock.



Sure, but I don't believe there should be that scrutiny. Im not debating whether its new or not (nor did my comment reflect that). I'm stating I don't agree with that.




It only causes damage because people hold the misguided belief that someone should be a slave to their workplace 24/7. Was he wearing company clothing when doing what he was alleged to have done?

Bloke is paid to show up and perform at certain times, not outside of them.

Cringe comment. Bloke should respect women 24/7. Nobody should be immune to scrutiny over this unless they have some sort of medical condition or disability that prevents them from respecting people. In Tarryn and most other people, that is not the case. And if he can’t, the AFL is the least of his worries.

We don’t know what the AFL integrity unit found but we do know they’ll have very good evidence. They’re dealing with a contract worth over $500,000. He won’t be suspended because he might have and the AFLPA plus legal teams would be on top of it if he had.

The AFL wouldn’t reveal the truth about this but they will have covered all bases.

 

[CrowToon]

Part of afl players contract would definitely include a clause where it states something like "must uphold values of club and league. Any values broken could result in suspension and/or termination." A lot of large organisations would have this for everyday normal people but the business wouldn't be aware of their indiscretions because the media doesn't report on them

It may well have the clause. I just don't agree with it.

Cringe comment. Bloke should respect women 24/7. Nobody should be immune to scrutiny over this unless they have some sort of medical condition or disability that prevents them from respecting people. In Tarryn and most other people, that is not the case. And if he can’t, the AFL is the least of his worries.

We don’t know what the AFL integrity unit found but we do know they’ll have very good evidence. They’re dealing with a contract worth over $500,000. He won’t be suspended because he might have and the AFLPA plus legal teams would be on top of it if he had.

The AFL wouldn’t reveal the truth about this but they will have covered all bases.

This is not about disrespecting women. Stop conflating issues.

 

[Engimal v3]

Done as a Roo I hope. The club backed him in, and he's thrown it in our face. He's an unnecessary distraction on the group.

 

[Rich01]

Yep, announce it, and move him on if guilty. Footy doesn’t need this.

What stinks more than the accusations is the inability for league HQ to make a statement themselves.

Get it out in the open. And be brave enough to announce the punishment themselves.

Embarrassing for a ‘journo’ to be reporting this before the AFL do.

And the AFL aren’t helping North in any of this. They need to make a statement as well, and obviously can’t until the have the official hand down from HQ. Horribly managed by the league.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

18 weeks for "not threatening" women, I'm sure.

 

[Outtatym]

Done as a Roo I hope. The club backed him in, and he's thrown it in our face. He's an unnecessary distraction on the group.

I don't disagree but was it not already done before he got in trouble the first time ?