Eels Salary Cap MK III

[Gronk]

If it's proved we are only 200k over the cap. What would be the penalty regarding points deduction ?

I think the reduction in penalty has more to do with debunking the cash payments and dodgy inflated service contract payment claims rather than reducing our current cap excesses.

 

[parra-matters]

If it's proved we are only 200k over the cap. What would be the penalty regarding points deduction ?

You would think it would be reduced to 4 or 6, it's less that half of what they claimed.
Normally if you are over the cap by a couple of hundred thousand it's only a fine.

 

[Eelementary]

If it's proved we are only 200k over the cap. What would be the penalty regarding points deduction ?

It depends - the original allegations from the NRL are that we breached the cap for years.

Why do we think that "only" being over by $200,000 this season means we cop a smaller penalty?

We signed Jennings while over, and if the NRL's allegations prove to be correct..

Mind you, they're backing up faster than Lance Armstrong reversing out of his driveway to go to Drugs'N'Stuff...

 

[Sphagnum]

#sackkent

 

[akers]

It depends - the original allegations from the NRL are that we breached the cap for years.

Why do we think that "only" being over by $200,000 this season means we cop a smaller penalty?

We signed Jennings while over, and if the NRL's allegations prove to be correct..

Mind you, they're backing up faster than Lance Armstrong reversing out of his driveway to go to Drugs'N'Stuff...

What was The $465k fine for then at the start of the years,we can't be punished twice can we.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I think the reduction in penalty has more to do with debunking the cash payments and dodgy inflated service contract payment claims rather than reducing our current cap excesses.

Yes, I think so. If they stand, we won't get much back.

 

[Eelementary]

What was The $465k fine for then at the start of the years,we can't be punished twice can we.

I don't know.

I'm honestly confused.

All I know is that it seems we are not in as much trouble as first thought, but who really knows?

 

[Suitman]

Can someone explain to me the circumstances behind the NRL's request (to the court) for the 60 page doc to be confidential ? Why now are they so worried about leaks when they have kept their hands in their pockets and watched News Ltd go to town on us over the past few months ?

I want to know why nobody has even questioned the NRL on this subject.
What do the NRL have to hide?

 

[akers]

I don't know.

I'm honestly confused.

All I know is that it seems we are not in as much trouble as first thought, but who really knows?

Me too..

 

[eels_fan]

How it seems to me is that it is no-where near as bad as the NRL made it out to be on Tuesday, but because we've dared to challenge them and called them out on the holes in their so called 'investigation' we may now pay an even heavier penalty...

 

[Chipmunk]

It depends - the original allegations from the NRL are that we breached the cap for years.

Why do we think that "only" being over by $200,000 this season means we cop a smaller penalty?

We signed Jennings while over, and if the NRL's allegations prove to be correct..

Mind you, they're backing up faster than Lance Armstrong reversing out of his driveway to go to Drugs'N'Stuff...

We're only over the cap because the NRL has determined our TPAs need to be included in our salary cap and this was only done in the last week or so. At the time of signing Jennings the club had no reason to believe that it was over the saalry cap.

 

[Sphagnum]

Who is gonna be the ultimate scapegoat for all of this? That's the more important question. Smells like a massive setup. Has done right from the start.

 

[Eelementary]

We're only over the cap because the NRL has determined our TPAs need to be included in our salary cap and this was only done in the last week or so. At the time of signing Jennings the club had no reason to believe that it was over the saalry cap.

True. I failed to consider that.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I can't really think of a reason that the NRL would be after us. Sure, we're a bit of a shambles, and a strong parra is better for the comp, but I wouldn't have thought that was enough incentive. The most likely reason is that they/Greenberg think we are cheating. And they may well be right. But I still don't buy Greenberg's supposed sincerity, and that he just wants to fix our club. And the fact that he is friends with our chief accuser, and was even his referee, is a bit suss. And that this accuser was punted by the club, and could well be a disgruntled ex employee... At the very least it seems to be a conflict of interest for Greenberg. Is it fair that he now sit in judgement on this matter?

 

[Chipmunk]

Can someone explain to me the circumstances behind the NRL's request (to the court) for the 60 page doc to be confidential ? Why now are they so worried about leaks when they have kept their hands in their pockets and watched News Ltd go to town on us over the past few months ?

I'd say the NRL is not confident that there so-called evidence will stand up to public and legal scrutiny.

 

[Sphagnum]

How it seems to me is that it is no-where near as bad as the NRL made it out to be on Tuesday, but because we've dared to challenge them and called them out on the holes in their so called 'investigation' we may now pay an even heavier penalty...

That won't happen. The NRL needs this to be settled out of court. They don't have the power everyone claims they do in a matter like this.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Can someone explain to me the circumstances behind the NRL's request (to the court) for the 60 page doc to be confidential ? Why now are they so worried about leaks when they have kept their hands in their pockets and watched News Ltd go to town on us over the past few months ?

I can't explain it but I'm curious too. If they fail then I guess we'll see.

 

[parra-matters]

What was The $465k fine for then at the start of the years,we can't be punished twice can we.

Most of it was 2nd tier cap fines for being over it by around $300k, the cap for NRL was over by about $100k and there was some over in the youth cup cap.
I'd say the $3mil they say we have been over combined in the last 5-6 years is including 2nd tier and youth cup caps as well not just NRL.

 

[Gronk]

We're only over the cap because the NRL has determined our TPAs need to be included in our salary cap and this was only done in the last week or so. At the time of signing Jennings the club had no reason to believe that it was over the saalry cap.

And to be fair, the NRL are entitled to do this. An analogy would be that you claim to your mates that "I owe the ATO no tax this year" after you send in your tax return. After they audit you however, the ATO tell you that you can't put in a new pool and claim it as a business expense just because your staff came over for a Xmas party.

I think the NRL were very cheeky however by simply saying that were were fielding a team that was $570k over the cap :shock:, when the finer detail was that we were actually 2016 compliant but they have deemed past TPAs illegal, so they have included them in our 2016 cap.

Which then brings us to the "$3M over the cap in the past 4 years" claim. We're still waiting for the break down of that.

Which makes me conclude at this point that their agenda here is to oust the board and cause change. I have no problem with this fundamentally, but their methods I think will go down as a flawed and a damaging strategy.

 

[parra-matters]

They probably included the $140k that manly owes Foran as well.