Rothfield: Cronk was going to sign with Eels last Wednesday

[Glenn]

According to Skeepe Cronk toured Canberra's facilities last Thursday http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showpost.php?p=6793222&postcount=1052, it may be possible Storm management has told him they will only release him to a team that is not Parra... Dennis burned many bridges between Parra and Melbourne...

Firstly if you believe Skeepe, Canberra would have won every premiership had it not been for a conspiracy with the refereeing.

Secondly the words restraint of trade springs to mind.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Some players signed two contracts. One legal, one illegal.
The legal one stands, apparantly.

Suity

Is that for real the NRL's ruling???

If so it is the most geniused thing I ever heard.

They sign one "legal" contract to go to the NRL and be kept as the amount the player counted against the cap. They sign one "illegal" one which was the amount they were getting paid.

According to the "legal" contracts the salaries totalled $4.2million (then there was the problem of certain sponsorships organised by the club etc - which took them 700k further over).
According to the "illegal" contracts the salaries totalled more like $5.5m (and then the 700k extra).

IF the NRL is allowing them to 'only count the legal' contracts then it's a big pat on the back for the cheaters. Well done, you cheated to accumulate the best talent and now we're rewarding you by letting you pay them the fake contract amount.

Un-be-lievable.

[ps - I really hope you're wrong on this Suity - but it would explain why people have been saying that Cronk is only on $350k at the Storm... yeah right, but if that's what the contract they lodged with the NRL said then that might be the amount he counts...]

 

[forward pass]

Is that for real the NRL's ruling???

If so it is the most geniused thing I ever heard.

They sign one "legal" contract to go to the NRL and be kept as the amount the player counted against the cap. They sign one "illegal" one which was the amount they were getting paid.

According to the "legal" contracts the salaries totalled $4.2million (then there was the problem of certain sponsorships organised by the club etc - which took them 700k further over).
According to the "illegal" contracts the salaries totalled more like $5.5m (and then the 700k extra).

IF the NRL is allowing them to 'only count the legal' contracts then it's a big pat on the back for the cheaters. Well done, you cheated to accumulate the best talent and now we're rewarding you by letting you pay them the fake contract amount.

Un-be-lievable.

[ps - I really hope you're wrong on this Suity - but it would explain why people have been saying that Cronk is only on $350k at the Storm... yeah right, but if that's what the contract they lodged with the NRL said then that might be the amount he counts...]

Mate you are mis-reading things. That is not what Suity said.

Both contracts count towards the cap - that is why they went over. Where have you been for the last 3 months?

 

[parra-matters]

Secondly the words restraint of trade springs to mind.

This is what i was thinking, under the circumstances of what has happened, Cronk can now earn a lot more at another club, the storm not releasing him is a restraint of his trade and his earnings. The are hypocrites really, it's alright for them to pay players under the counter so they can earn more and keep them at the club but won't release a player who can earn way more somewhere else and wants to leave.

 

[eels81236]

This is what i was thinking, under the circumstances of what has happened, Cronk can now earn a lot more at another club, the storm not releasing him is a restraint of his trade and his earnings. The are hypocrites really, it's alright for them to pay players under the counter so they can earn more and keep them at the club but won't release a player who can earn way more somewhere else and wants to leave.

I'm certainly no expert in the area but I was of the opinion that....


Once the Storm has the rights to the player and they are still under contract (either of the two signed) they are under no obligation to release him.
If they do release him I believe they can place restrictions on him like "we will only release you to a non finals team" or "anyone but Parra" etc..
It happens ALL THE TIME when a player wants to break a contract.
Think Hannant only being released to a QLD team by the Dogs. Think SBW not playing for another NRL team bar the Dogs upon a possible return from thugby. Once the original contract period that the player is trying to break has ended then the player is once again a free agent.
If they release him from a contract with no restrictions he would be a true "free agent". If released with restrictions or demands in place then he would be somewhat a "restricted free agent".

IMO restriction of trade is just a phurphy.

 

[Suitman]

Mate you are mis-reading things. That is not what Suity said.

Both contracts count towards the cap - that is why they went over. Where have you been for the last 3 months?

Thankyou.

Suity

 

[parra-matters]

still stopping a player earning more when they are paying others around the cap.
Cronk could just take a leak in the street somewhere then do a running on a taxi and he might get punted instead.

 

[Suitman]

I wonder what Mrs Cronk thinks about the Storm's attitude in stopping her husband earning another $150 k's a year?

Suity

 

[boxhead]

This is pretty staggering news.....but also sort of a confirmation of what I suspected (Phil Rothfield isn't exactly the most reliable person).......
Cronk hasn't looked happy in Storm games for a long time, no surprise that he wants out; but signing with us? Would be amazing if it did happen, but who knows; just because the Storm keep saying no doesn't mean News Ltd or the NRL might step in........

 

[caylo]

I'm certainly no expert in the area but I was of the opinion that....


If they do release him I believe they can place restrictions on him like "we will only release you to a non finals team" or "anyone but Parra" etc..
It happens ALL THE TIME when a player wants to break a contract.
Think Hannant only being released to a QLD team by the Dogs. Think SBW not playing for another NRL team bar the Dogs upon a possible return from thugby. Once the original contract period that the player is trying to break has ended then the player is once again a free agent.
If they release him from a contract with no restrictions he would be a true "free agent". If released with restrictions or demands in place then he would be somewhat a "restricted free agent".

that incorrect I think. I thinks its situation dependant (i.e Hannat being home sick - so he must go to a club near home). In a situation when a player is released because he wants to leave the club it must be released from the terms of the contract and stopping him from going to one or two clubs is restrictions of trade.
In Sonnys case he was made to sign a second contract that allowed him to play another sport sighting the fact that he was sick of RL

 

[eels81236]

still stopping a player earning more when they are paying others around the cap.
Cronk could just take a leak in the street somewhere then do a running on a taxi and he might get punted instead.

Pissing in the street may not be such a bad idea.

Off topic a little...
This reminds me of issues I can often have with my staff.
Employees are "relatively" happy with what they earn. If they get $50 an hour they think they are doing ok. They are happy with their lot in life. It is not until they learn that one of their workmates is on $55 that they feel that they are hard done by and all of a sudden I am the world's worst payer and somehow ripping him off!!
Employees are happy unless they think someone else is on a better wicket than them. It's only human nature I guess.
That is all.

 

[Eels Dude]

still stopping a player earning more when they are paying others around the cap.
Cronk could just take a leak in the street somewhere then do a running on a taxi and he might get punted instead.

The illegal contract with Cronk would still stand so not exactly a restraint of trade. As long as they're still paying him the 500k inclusive of 100k illegal payments but register the real (illegal) 500k contract with the NRL than the Storm's individual contract with Cronk still stands.

 

[Avenger]

If Cronk wants to come you would think they would let him go. The storm situation is a unique one. Not a good time for them to dig their heels in. They should not be allowed to keep all 4 as they are the crux of the scandal.

 

[fish eel]

I wonder what Mrs Cronk thinks about the Storm's attitude in stopping her husband earning another $150 k's a year?

Suity

Probably thinking

'sh*t, thats a lot of shoes and handbags I could buy from Westfields'

 

[Eels Dude]

If Cronk wants to come you would think they would let him go. The storm situation is a unique one. Not a good time for them to dig their heels in. They should not be allowed to keep all 4 as they are the crux of the scandal.

The problem is the NRL can't force Storm to release any of the big 4 without the players agreeing to it because THAT would be a restraint of trade. They can keep all 4 as long as they honuour the illegal contracts with the players, it'd just end up with them paying 2.5 million bucks for 4 players with the rest of their squad made up of nuffies on minimum wage which is a very risky thing to do.

 

[boxhead]

If Cronk wants to come you would think they would let him go. The storm situation is a unique one. Not a good time for them to dig their heels in. They should not be allowed to keep all 4 as they are the crux of the scandal.

Perfectly agree. Cronk obviously isn't happy at the Storm and *apparently* wants a release; if this is true, wouldn't Melbourne be inclined to say yes? What will test this whole speculation is whether Cronk comes out to the Melbourne officials and openly says he wants out; if that happens, I think we will snatch him up.

Honestly though, I'd rather see him smiling again.....so if he just wants to leave the Storm and go anywhere else (don't care where), I'll be happy; even if it isn't with Parra.
Still, if we did sign him.....well...if we got him on a long deal, then we would never have to worry about a halfback for a long time...

Also, it may end up that if Greg Inglis doesn't leave the Storm, then Cronk may very well be given the all-clear to come to Parra. This whole thing could very well depend on the GI situation......but also perhaps not.

 

[Ike E Bear]

I know others disagree with this, but if I was Melbourne, I wouldn't let Cronk go. I'd rather lose Inglis hands down - although I can understand why they don't want to pay him to play elsewhere, I think they are playing hardball in an attempt to get an amnesty on any shortfall in his new deal counting against their cap.

Just look at how badly we want Cronk (or someone just like him). Many other teams would cut off their CEO's right arm for him as well. Fact - halfbacks are not easy to unearth or manufacturer ... something we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt since Sterling retired.

I'd infinitely prefer Cronk than any other halfback that we could potentially recruit for 2011 (which is a damn short list). I'd rather lock down someone like Cronk than bring in an oldie to "guide Mortimer". Problem is, Melbourne understand that and probably won't part with him unless absolutely necessary.

I'm not holding my breathe at all.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Crock was never signing with the Eels,load of rubbish.

 

[caylo]

Perfectly agree. Cronk obviously isn't happy at the Storm and *apparently* wants a release; if this is true, wouldn't Melbourne be inclined to say yes? What will test this whole speculation is whether Cronk comes out to the Melbourne officials and openly says he wants out; if that happens, I think we will snatch him up.

Honestly though, I'd rather see him smiling again.....so if he just wants to leave the Storm and go anywhere else (don't care where), I'll be happy; even if it isn't with Parra.
Still, if we did sign him.....well...if we got him on a long deal, then we would never have to worry about a halfback for a long time...

Also, it may end up that if Greg Inglis doesn't leave the Storm, then Cronk may very well be given the all-clear to come to Parra. This whole thing could very well depend on the GI situation......but also perhaps not.

I have to agree that at this point its prob GI or Cronk and with Cronk having offers on the table that cove rhis salary maybe the storm are waiting on GI to see if they can get another club to cover his complete contract. I dont think thou the storm will worry to much if they lose cronk because Smith will go to halfback and Hinchcliffe to hooker IMO with GI or a jnr moving to 5-8, which would still be up there with the strongest 1,6,7,9

 

[The EELiminator]

If Cronk wants to come you would think they would let him go. The storm situation is a unique one. Not a good time for them to dig their heels in. They should not be allowed to keep all 4 as they are the crux of the scandal.

i agree if they try to dig their heels in and demand the same money players are being paid there from other clubs they might be stuck with a few extra players and have to let them go cheap next year at the last minute to get under the cap