Eels Salary Cap MK II

[phantom eel]

At least we can put the pitch forks that you and your mates have used in the past to good use..

Still upset about the demise of Stags and his mates I see... the truth of what this is about finally appears! ;-)

 

[phantom eel]

Haha..

My point is, if the Communications/IT manager at the club is the one organising for the IT work to be done, how is he in his scope of duties be expected to know who the subsidiaries are of the company he/she is dealing with? And even more so, how is he/she expected to know which players in our NRL squad have TPAs and who they are with? I don't imagine there is a big list on the wall of the leagues club office that lists every TPA for every player like a phone listing for a cross reference...

Exactly.

And even if it was in the other order (TPA after It work), who's to say that the person in the football club signing the document about the TPA for the NRL has access to a big list of ASIC reports connecting all of the subsidiary companies of all of the companies the leagues club entity as a whole has contracts with.

It's a big witch hunt, that the Telegraph and the factions are cheering on through their drama. My hope is that with the NRL being so forensic examining our Club's emails, mobile records and trawling our computers, that they might get to the end and say that they have found no proof that individuals concerned did anything intentionally untoward - and essentially clear our club/administration's name of all this, albeit with a small fine for a technical breech.

What would the doomsdayers post about then? :sarcasm:

 

[Bandwagon]

You do understand that some companies are wholly owned (or otherwise controlled) subsidiaries of other companies? Have a look at most listed companies in the world....within the consolidated group there are often dozens (hundreds) of separate legal entities.

If you could get around the TPA rules by simply interposing a separate legal entity, for the cost of $800 registration every player in the comp could have a TPA from a TP directly associated with the club.

Yes, I do understand that. However at what point is the line drawn? By which i mean, many companies hold interests in other companies at varying degrees, at what point does an interest become a conflict, and further to what degree is it the clubs responsibility to investigate who owns what so as to determine whether or not there is a potential for conflict.

Blackcitrus is a venture capitol organisation, as such, as I'm guessing you are aware, their business model would entail an exchange of capitol for a degree of ownership. Is it then the case that due to having a financial relationship with blackcitrus, that no entity in which they hold an interest can ever do a TPA deal with an Eels player?

Agreed, but the rule is "related entity".
Pay ASIC $19 and find out that one is owned by the other.

The rule of "related entity" as I understand it, is applicable to entities with a financial relationship to the club, not entities related to entities that have a financial relationship with the club.

Are you certain in your belief that the rule as you present it is correct? I do not think that the case. It would be impossible to police if it was. As Barry has stated above, the level of companies that own companies that own companies and so on, is huge.

 

[Stagger eel]

Still upset about the demise of Stags and his mates I see... the truth of what this is about finally appears! ;-)

Well I've never been in charge of the place dickhead so it's really a moot point :?

And you continually dismiss any responsibility to the chairman and his board for the ongoing issues that the club face it's unbelievable to say the least...

 

[hineyrulz]

It's amazing that the people who were the most critical of the previous board and their failings are so happy to give this mob a free ride no matter what their stuff ups.

 

[Bandwagon]

So anyways, the way I see it is that for the Watmough TPA with score cube to be deemed in contravention of the rules, given that Scorecube as an entity that has in and of it's self no other financial relationship with the club, the NRL needs to be satisfied they have enough evidence to conclude that Blackcitrus exercised it's control over scorecube to have them initiate the TPA, and further that the club was knowingly a party to this transaction in order to keep the TPA at arms length.

Now whilst on face value, that may appear a reasonable assumption to make, it's altogether another thing to substantiate it.

 

[IFR33K]

It's amazing that the people who were the most critical of the previous board and their failings are so happy to give this mob a free ride no matter what their stuff ups.

I was one of the most critical of spags. The reason I was so critical was because we were the laughing stock of the NRL both on and off the field. It was quite obvious early on (well to some anyways) where we were headed.

Sharp has by no means been perfect, but at least there's been continual on field improvement under his reign .

Like I said earlier, if we do in fact lose points, I would expect him to stand down. My only concerns is who takes over.

 

[hineyrulz]

I was one of the most critical of spags. The reason I was so critical was because we were the laughing stock of the NRL both on and off the field. It was quite obvious early on (well to some anyways) where we were headed.

Sharp has by no means been perfect, but at least there's been continual on field improvement under his reign .

Like I said earlier, if we do in fact lose points, I would expect him to stand down. My only concerns is who takes over.

Sadly thats a worrying question.

 

[phantom eel]

Well I've never been in charge of the place dickhead so it's really a moot point :?

Oops, an unintentional slip... meant to type Spags intead of Stags, of course ;-).

And you continually dismiss any responsibility to the chairman and his board for the ongoing issues that the club face it's unbelievable to say the least...

There are no "ongoing issues"... the current adminsitration satisfied the NRL that we had/would clean up the mess left from the 3P years, and the NRL cleared us from the loss of 4 competition points.

The only issue currently being "faced" by the Club is the NRL's investigation into the lodgement of Watmugh's TPA - and the guy hasn't even played a game this year! The team is travelling fine, why not stop being hysterical about everything the Telegraph prints? :lol:

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It's amazing that the people who were the most critical of the previous board and their failings are so happy to give this mob a free ride no matter what their stuff ups.

I wasn't critical of the previous board. Until the death riders are f**ked off it's impossible to judge the board fairly.

Though I am now pissed off at the old board for joining in the death riding. merkins need to be the bigger man when they get the sack and just f**k off. I hope the current board walk away if they too get rissoled.

 

[phantom eel]

So anyways, the way I see it is that for the Watmough TPA with score cube to be deemed in contravention of the rules, given that Scorecube as an entity that has in and of it's self no other financial relationship with the club, the NRL needs to be satisfied they have enough evidence to conclude that Blackcitrus exercised it's control over scorecube to have them initiate the TPA, and further that the club was knowingly a party to this transaction in order to keep the TPA at arms length.

Now whilst on face value, that may appear a reasonable assumption to make, it's altogether another thing to substantiate it.

Indeed. Even if the anti-Sharp forces leaked the supposed relationship between the two entities to the media (and hence NRL), the onus is on the NRL to prove the club acted knowingly to deceive. Alternatively, their investigation may turn up nothing, much to the disappointment of the club's factions and drama-oriented fans.

#deathriders

 

[Delboy]

Well he gave himself the big bucks without the members permission maybe he can let you chair the meeting without the members permission too??

At least we can put the pitch forks that you and your mates have used in the past to good use..

Where are the big bucks that so many people talk about , $25k per annum for the President is peanuts

Let's not get worked up about that, in reality the chairperson should earn a shed load more, that's really being picky. The amount set had been $10 k for about 25 years, so it certainly was time for a rise in the honorarium . The headline about the percent rise was an absolute mountain out of a molehill and was carried on like a pork chop by Raaaaay

Still don't know who to trust in this , but I dont want to give the leakers and backstabbers any credit whatsoever

 

[emjaycee]

What came first though?

Watmough's TPA or the IT work?

How do you/we know that the people making the decisions were away of the subsidiaries?

The IT money.
It was/is their responsibility to work it out if they are going to sign a declaration saying something doesn't exist.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Delboy, correct me if this is wrong, but I believe the issue is that the members said 'no' to the raise, but it was done anyway.

I agree the amount is no big deal, but did they have the right to do it?

 

[emjaycee]

Stop talking sense eels_fan, don't you know we have to follow the destabilisers' agenda and use this to blindly run down the current Board? :crazy:

I trust your not insinuating that I am one of these destabilisers with an agenda to run down the current Board Bart.

I am close to some people in the club and have been since before they were part of our club and in fact one of them could possibly lose his role as a result of this process - I have no agenda except to ensure that IF the NRL comes down hard on us, we as members of the PLC and concerned supporters of the club we all love, do not see our club set back into the dark ages of yesteryear. In my experience, that means we need to be prepared for all eventualities and have a plan to deal with whatever may come our way.

 

[emjaycee]

Exactly.

And even if it was in the other order (TPA after It work), who's to say that the person in the football club signing the document about the TPA for the NRL has access to a big list of ASIC reports connecting all of the subsidiary companies of all of the companies the leagues club entity as a whole has contracts with.

It's a big witch hunt, that the Telegraph and the factions are cheering on through their drama. My hope is that with the NRL being so forensic examining our Club's emails, mobile records and trawling our computers, that they might get to the end and say that they have found no proof that individuals concerned did anything intentionally untoward - and essentially clear our club/administration's name of all this, albeit with a small fine for a technical breech.

What would the doomsdayers post about then? :sarcasm:

Unfortunately my mail is that it has gone beyond the hope you still hold.

 

[emjaycee]

Oops, an unintentional slip... meant to type Spags intead of Stags, of course ;-).


There are no "ongoing issues"... the current adminsitration satisfied the NRL that we had/would clean up the mess left from the 3P years, and the NRL cleared us from the loss of 4 competition points.

The only issue currently being "faced" by the Club is the NRL's investigation into the lodgement of Watmugh's TPA - and the guy hasn't even played a game this year! The team is travelling fine, why not stop being hysterical about everything the Telegraph prints? :lol:

The bold bits are what YOU know about - some of us may know more.

 

[emjaycee]

Delboy, correct me if this is wrong, but I believe the issue is that the members said 'no' to the raise, but it was done anyway.

I agree the amount is no big deal, but did they have the right to do it?

OMC, just to clarify - the 2014 AGM for PLC had a resolution that was rejected to increase the honorarium to the PLC Board. The resolution was for each Director to get $20,000 and the Chairman to get $60,000. This was not passed and was not tabled again at the 2015 AGM. The PLC still pays each Board member $10,000 honorarium.

The PNRL Board at a board meeting voted to introduce an honorarium for the first time that would give each PNRL Board member $10,000 and the Chairman $15,000 from the PNRL.

As both boards are the same, the effect is an increase to the overall honorariums each person receives but technically it did not breach any members decisions and was within the right of the PNRL Board to decide.

 

[Stagger eel]

No no emjayce... It's over and done with Bart thinks we're over reacting therefore I now expect not to lose any more points and everything's sweet...

I won't be posting anymore about this until the NRL reveal their findings and hand down whatever punishment ( if any ) on the club...

Thanks Bart :thumb

 

[hineyrulz]

Pretty sure the 10k payment is an honorarium, I'm also sure past boards didn't accept the payment and donated it to the junior League. 25k may seem like chicken feed and it is but it's hard to defend his board when they give themselves a pay rise anyway........