#12/15

[Chipmunk]

Joel Caine is tweeting that there is a good chance 26 points (71% chance) will be enough for 8th spot this year.

Given that the teams who are technically running 7th and 8th have only won 44% of their matches (the equivalent of under 11 wins for the season) it is not out of the realms of possibility. However, by the end of Round 10 all teams in the Top 8 will have won 50% of their matches.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Given that the teams who are technically running 7th and 8th have only won 44% of their matches (the equivalent of under 11 wins for the season) it is not out of the realms of possibility. However, by the end of Round 10 all teams in the Top 8 will have won 50% of their matches.

He is basing his argument on the 9th place team come finals time. The majority of teams that finish 9th have 26 points. Technically the side that comes 8th ( if we don't make the finals) actually finished 9th assuming we made the finals if we didn't lose points.

 

[The Engineers Room]

The other positive for us will be if we win all these games our for and against will very likely be the highest if there is a tie for 8th.

 

[Chipmunk]

He is basing his argument on the 9th place team come finals time. The majority of teams that finish 9th have 26 points. Technically the side that comes 8th ( if we don't make the finals) actually finished 9th assuming we made the finals if we didn't lose points.

That would presume that one of the teams in the Top 8, probably reasonably high in the Top 8 (Top 4) weren't stripped of their points until towards the end of the season. Comparing our situation to that of Melbourne 2010 (which is the closest thing we have to compare) the team who ran 8th still won 12 matches. In that same season, after 10 rounds, the teams that were running 7th and 8th were still on 10 points (after Melbourne was excluded from points), which is the exact situation that will happen after Round 10 this season.

 

[Swiftstylez]

To be fair to HJ, even though I don't agree with his theory, he is bang on right about the 12 point penalty. Greenberg was clear that the points were stripped because the team that won them were over the cap, nothing more. The fine and de-regs of the board members are the penalties for the history of ongoing rorting and general dodginess.

So HJ's theory does hold water, I just doubt that we'd be allowed to back date Watmough's retirement, arguing we knew that he was going to retire, and this overspent knowing we were going to recoup it from insurance is a flimsy argument, even though it does make sense.

The Watmough back dating is a hail mary, it's the only chance of getting those 12 points back, it's a million to one shot, but the chance is there.

It is not a hail mary it is the truth. If eels fans were eskimos the nrl could sell you ice. What advantage have we had without Watmough, especially considering the type of advantages the cowboys get with their free houses or the broncos got by the ceo simply standing down (whether legal or not)???? Our deception getting caught aside (if it is), we do not have an advantage this year whether other teams legally use TPA's or not especially since Watmough has soaked up money rather than contributed.

Without transparency from the NRL the whole thing is a witch hunt, show us the numbers and scale of deception, not just tell us. Oh and fix your system rather than use the eels as a scapegoat deterrant.

 

[Swiftstylez]

I condone the board fighting the sanctions if the devil is in the detail

 

[The EELiminator]

I condone the board fighting the sanctions if the devil is in the detail

do you also condone the team playing for no points week after week as the court case drags on?

 

[Swiftstylez]

do you also condone the team playing for no points week after week as the court case drags on?

Read my post The NRL did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts, it is over if this is the result.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Backdated or not - it doesn't matter. As far as we were concerned he was going to play for us - we were therefore over the cap. End of story.

So we are over the cap RIGHT NOW?

It shouldn't matter if we backdate it or not..
The cap is a full year figure, we are allowed to spend $6.8 million in the year on top 25 players. We are projected to spend $7.37 million. The penalty for projecting to finish this way is that all our points have been taken away.
So ditch $570k from the full year projection, and we are sweet (ie, Watmough, and we are then $300k under [if speculation re his salary is correct]).

If we have to count some of his salary, then they should give us back the points, because AS YET we haven't breached...

How can they penalize us by looking at things one way, then flip it around and require we comply in a different fashion? Makes no sense.

 

[Swiftstylez]

Yes Oldmancraigy, that is why we should be taking this to court. His inability to play with insurance filed before the season started puts us under the cap at least now. The board may have been deceptive if the NRL's findings are correct but we aren't rampantly out of control like the NRL is trying to make everyone believe.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

To be fair to HJ, even though I don't agree with his theory, he is bang on right about the 12 point penalty. Greenberg was clear that the points were stripped because the team that won them were over the cap, nothing more. The fine and de-regs of the board members are the penalties for the history of ongoing rorting and general dodginess.

So HJ's theory does hold water, I just doubt that we'd be allowed to back date Watmough's retirement, arguing we knew that he was going to retire, and this overspent knowing we were going to recoup it from insurance is a flimsy argument, even though it does make sense.

The Watmough back dating is a hail mary, it's the only chance of getting those 12 points back, it's a million to one shot, but the chance is there.

It is no Hail Mary.

The backdating will be automatic to the time of injury. I checked this again with people today who are more experienced than me regarding injury compensation and insurance.

If the injury is deemed career ending then any salary we have paid will be reimbursed. At this point the insurance company takes full legal responsibility for that money.

What this will mean is that at no point did we ever pay that money as part of a salary. What we actually did was cover the insurance payments during the process of the insurance investigation (hence the reimbursement).

This means that the money will be removed from our cap and...critically...we would never have actually paid it.

hence, and pay attention...we were never over the cap in 2016.

This will be the end of the story.

***

I have attempted to put feelers out to the Club but, as yet, no replies.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

How can they penalize us by looking at things one way, then flip it around and require we comply in a different fashion? Makes no sense.

They cannot. Hence, we will have our points returned to us.

 

[Swiftstylez]

Hollywood you are correct. Watmough should not be included in our cap.

 

[ash411]

It is no Hail Mary.

The backdating will be automatic to the time of injury. I checked this again with people today who are more experienced than me regarding injury compensation and insurance.

If the injury is deemed career ending then any salary we have paid will be reimbursed. At this point the insurance company takes full legal responsibility for that money.

What this will mean is that at no point did we ever pay that money as part of a salary. What we actually did was cover the insurance payments during the process of the insurance investigation (hence the reimbursement).

This means that the money will be removed from our cap and...critically...we would never have actually paid it.

hence, and pay attention...we were never over the cap in 2016.

This will be the end of the story.

***

I have attempted to put feelers out to the Club but, as yet, no replies.

It does make sense, I've already said that.

Whether or not the NRL accepts that and gives us back the points is another matter entirely. Unless we can get a judge to order them to, which is more likely what will have to happen. But if we force the issue that way, we can expect an icy relationship with the NRL for the foreseable future.

 

[Swiftstylez]

^ I'll take icy over being a club that has been trialed by the media as cheats.

 

[akers]

It is no Hail Mary.

The backdating will be automatic to the time of injury. I checked this again with people today who are more experienced than me regarding injury compensation and insurance.

If the injury is deemed career ending then any salary we have paid will be reimbursed. At this point the insurance company takes full legal responsibility for that money.

What this will mean is that at no point did we ever pay that money as part of a salary. What we actually did was cover the insurance payments during the process of the insurance investigation (hence the reimbursement).

This means that the money will be removed from our cap and...critically...we would never have actually paid it.

hence, and pay attention...we were never over the cap in 2016.

This will be the end of the story.

***

I have attempted to put feelers out to the Club but, as yet, no replies.

I do agree with everything you say above, lets say we become cap compliant what prevents the NRL saying the 12 point punishment is not only for 2016 but all previous breaches?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

It does make sense, I've already said that.

Whether or not the NRL accepts that and gives us back the points is another matter entirely. Unless we can get a judge to order them to, which is more likely what will have to happen. But if we force the issue that way, we can expect an icy relationship with the NRL for the foreseable future.

The NRL will not allow it.

It will have to go to court. The case will last for as long as it takes for the judge to ask two questions:

"Insurance dudes, did you give Watmough a payout for a career ending injury?"

and "Did you reimburse the Parramatta Eels for the payments they had made between the date of injury and the completion of the insurance process?"

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I do agree with everything you say above, lets say we become cap compliant what prevents the NRL saying the 12 point punishment is not only for 2016 but all previous breaches?

They have already said we can accrue points in 2016 once cap compliant.

So they can change it to whatever they want, it doesn't matter. That change will last about 5 seconds in court.

 

[forward pass]

They have already said we can accrue points in 2016 once cap compliant.

So they can change it to whatever they want, it doesn't matter. That change will last about 5 seconds in court.

HJ - the NRL just need to come out and say the 12 point penalty was mostly for previous years breaches, governance failures, failure to report, illegal 3rd party agreements etc. In which case the Watmough thing will make no difference - only with regards to points moving forward.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

HJ - the NRL just need to come out and say the 12 point penalty was mostly for previous years breaches, governance failures, failure to report, illegal 3rd party agreements etc. In which case the Watmough thing will make no difference - only with regards to points moving forward.

Haven't they already said that it was for having a team over the cap? Thus no points until we're under. They'll look pretty silly if they change their reasons now.