Delineating between fact and fiction
Given suspicions around motives on ones opinion, for the record I am a season ticket holder of the Eels however I have no ties to the incumbent or previous board. Its fair to say Im an average punter thats at arms-length from the inner workings of the club. Nor do I have a legal background.
I refuse to be drawn into how or why Parramatta got into this position, whether it was a result of driving market forces, desperation due to a flawed salary cap structure, whether other clubs are undertaking similar practices, or the like (notwithstanding Gus balanced SMH write-up was certainly thought provoking and raised valid points that need to be addressed for the games long-term viability). Nor will I speculate on the political agendas of any said parties, both factions within the club and those externally associated with the club.
In the lead-up to Tuesdays big reveal there was a lot of noise, with seemingly aligned media outlets pushing propaganda and those genuinely neutral entities cleverly piggybacking off the interest to increase clicks and circulation. In essence, with the public opinion effectively pre-framed, Tuesday was merely ratifying mostly what people had heard or read.
Tuesday came, and as certain as taxes being contentious in the budget announcement, there was a groundswell of hysteria and inevitably further unsubstantiated rumours, triggering an avalanche of emotional reactions largely crucifying those responsible.
Before I continue I must stress that I am not naïve to think the NRL hasnt applied due diligence in their investigation and has water-tight evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Parramatta club has engaged in some unscrupulous practices. The NRL would have utilised resources (legal counsel) to vet the findings and proposed sanctions before issuing the breach notice.
The facts, at point in time, are preliminary and are yet to be countered by the accused. Until then, I will reserve judgment. In the interim, I ponder a couple of fundamental principles
intent and context.
As it stands, what was perhaps perceived (or hoped by supporters) as a few unseasoned and potentially blissfully ignorant administrators engaging in questionable behaviour and activities has essentially escalated into multiple governing administrators (current and their predecessors) undertaking fraudulent and deceptive conduct. The press release made reference to a systemic and intentional rort, through devising and implementing a system that was deliberately designed to complement the salary cap and avoid detection. These are strong allegations, and according to facts tendered by the NRL and endorsed by media commentators, are being floated as being undisputed.
In the same vein as the parallel between a charge of murder vs manslaughter, its important a distinction of intent is made. A few isolated, unrelated transgressions under the guardianship of a particular regime that compound to a serious issue of mismanagement, is vastly different to a planned, elaborate scheme to conceal illegal player payments and executed knowingly by several administrations. Intent should be a key contributor to consequences, and as such I suggest its contingent upon league headquarters to (within reason) help the community understand the nature and extent of the alleged corruption and therefore validate the proposed penalties.
I was similarly surprised by the other headline statement that Parramatta had cheated the cap by an incredulous $3mil over the past 4 years. This is incongruent with previous assertions from the Parramatta club (and seemingly endorsed by the NRL) of being cap complaint for 2016, and previous years being marginally above tolerance due to in part to technical nuances (for example around the 2nd tier cap and assumed exemptions for injured players etc) in which penalties had been duly imposed. The quantum of the alleged breach would place it in the magnitude in the range of historical indiscretions.
Its critical Mr Greenberg defines the context by qualifying the breach at a more granular level. This is important for the legitimacy of the salary cap model, and the credibility of the NRL itself in setting precedents and benchmarking the equality of penalties against previous breaches. In the absence of a mandated charter on consequences for contravening NRLs agreement and rules, rightly or wrongly the public (and NRL licensees), assess the scale or seriousness of the cheating through a frame of reference (which for many the Bulldogs or Storm scenarios are likely to be anchor points).
There is a lot of confusion and speculation, the game needs the facts
explicit and tested. There are more questions than answers. Did the NRL defer the announcement and what flow-on effects has this created? What is the demarcation between salary cap and TPA breaches? Furthermore between guaranteed and non-guaranteed TPAs, and what should appropriately be included in the salary cap? This list is not exhaustive. I am not familiar with legislation and I do not contemplate the answers through a legal lens. I believe all points of interest should pass the time honoured reasonableness test.
I respect the right of the NRL to exercise due process. I am not sure whether they are required to release the detail of their findings, however I would encourage a brief synopsis at the appropriate time to qualify the determination and associated penalties, especially given this case has been played out in the public domain and has generated significant interest. Make no mistake, the outcome will have far-reaching implications.
Mr Greenberg, as CEO of the NRL, has an obligation to protect the NRL brand and product. The damage created to the brand through years of instability at Parramatta is rightfully Mr Greenbergs first priority
this sentiment was well emphasised in the press release and I suspect would be shared by the lion share of Parramatta members. Mr Greenberg would also be acutely conscious of the growing popularity of substitute products and their expanding footprint into traditional rugby league territories.
Parramatta has a similar duty of care to its members, and equally should be afforded the same opportunity to protect their brand and product. The residual impacts of the final outcome will have both monetary and non-monetary implications to the Parramatta club. Financially, its conceivable Parramatta will experience material losses in gate receipts, membership penetration and revenue (attrition of current, adoption of new members), and merchandise sales. It will be more difficult to measure the unfavourable impact on brand equity, and the ability for Parramatta to grow its presence (as a symptom of the negative stigma of cheating and having its brand tarnished).
In arriving at his final determination, Mr Greenberg will need to delicately balance all considerations and be careful not to shoehorn or retrofit facts to achieve a desired outcome. The common hypothesis seems to be that the NRL would like to facilitate a clean out of the current governance regime, in which they will receive little resistance given the well documented deep-seeded issues hamstringing the club (and therefore the NRL brand and product). However given the seriousness and complexity of the accusations, Mr Greenberg would be encouraged to exercise caution in expediting the process and leveraging public and media backlash to apply pressure (I would assume some individuals would be concerned with admitting liability and subsequent personal reputation issues). Mr Greenberg should also apply diligence in how it deconstructs the penalties and utilises mechanisms to achieve its objectives (for example using points accrual as a lever and linking it to its stand-down orders). There is too much at stake, and if not carefully executed could expose the NRL to legal recourse, have long-term impacts for Parramatta and broader implications for the game.
Its clear Parramattas governance requires reform, and arguably its overarching constitution. The NRL should also use this opportunity to reform the salary cap. The Parramatta club has lacked integrity, at this critical juncture for the game the NRL needs to be demonstrate its integrity
through transparency.
