http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...k/news-story/df8272802fe0a926898a8d51b8dd2930
Eels focusing on Scott Seward-Todd Greenberg link
Parramatta’s legal team has sought to erode former chief executive Scott Seward’s credibility in the appeal against NRL sanctions over the salary cap scandal, claiming he may have made self-incriminating statements in an attempt to spread or deflect blame.
The Australian has obtained the club’s application for leave to appeal their punishment for cap rorting, which is in the hands of the head of the NRL appeals tribunal, Ian Callinan QC.
The application remains afoot, although Parramatta administrator Max Donnelly is considering legal advice on its veracity.
It is widely expected Donnelly will end the club’s fight against the NRL within days, rendering the application null and void.
Seward, whose testimony shaped much of the case brought against the club, is a central component of the Eels’ attempt to mitigate their sanctions — the NRL fined the club $1 million and stripped it of 12 premiership points.
As well as targeting Seward, the club’s legal team once again raised concerns over his relationship with NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg and rejected suggestions the club’s former board had been uncooperative.
In relation to Seward — chief executive at the club from September 2013 to June 2015 — the Eels’ application was scathing. In particular, the club took aim at suggestions by Greenberg that Seward’s evidence carried weight when it was against his own interests.
“It is submitted there is no rule of evidence or common practice that follows this principle,” the club wrote.
“It is perhaps more reasonable to posit that Seward has made self-incriminating statements in an attempt to spread or deflect any blame against himself by embedding his behaviour in the context of an alleged ‘scheme’.
“The extent to which the Seward evidence is accepted is critical to the findings made by the NRL and is, to the extent the decision or determination was based upon this evidence, it is unreasonable or insupportable.”
In relation to claims of an ‘‘undisclosed payments register’’, which was allegedly provided by Seward and detailed the dodgy payments to players, the club openly questions its authenticity given the source.
“The consideration of this document is incredibly significant as the figures provided in the document have informed the salary cap calculation of the club dated 2 May 2016,” the Eels said.
“It is submitted the balance of evidence does not support a conclusion that the club, either acting through the actions of their chairman or collectively, engaged in deliberately deceptive conduct to ‘cover up’ the conduct of Seward.
“It is open to conclude that evidence of probative value which is beneficial to the club has been obtained by the NRL pursuant to their powers of compulsion, not provided to the club and not used to inform more favourable assessment of the facts which are the subject of this breach notice.
“The balance of evidence does not support a conclusion that the club sufficiently understood the nature of the Seward conduct or further that the Seward conduct was understood to primarily relate to subverting the salary cap.”
The club also risks the wrath of the NRL by once again raising the issue of Greenberg’s relationship with Seward — the game’s chief executive was a character reference for the ex-Eels boss.
Greenberg declined the club’s request to remove himself from the decision-making process as he dismissed any suggestion of an apprehended bias due to his previous dealings with Seward.
“The decision maker, being Mr Greenberg, is on record as someone who knows Seward and someone who Seward felt would support his character and integrity to a prospective employer,” the Eels said.
“It is submitted this clearly gives rise to an apprehension of bias irrespective of whether the evidence of Seward is corroborated. Documents and testimony provided by Seward constitute the vast majority of evidence relating to alleged breaches.
“In addition, it appears common ground that Mr Seward was significantly involved in the alleged breaches. In the reasons (for the breach) ... Mr Greenberg responded to the PNRL submissions addressing apprehended bias with no further elaboration than ‘I do not wish to respond to this other than to say that I have no such difficulty’.
“It is submitted this in no way properly addresses the reasonable apprehension of bias.”
The club also rebuts suggestions it had been uncooperative — one of the reasons given for the fine amounting to $1m.
“There is no evidence of any uncooperative behaviour by the club other than responding to the breach notice as allowed by Rule 10(1) of the NRL Rules and by exploring their corporate legal rights as a prudent organisation,” the club said.
