#12/15

[Dibs]

What are the chances that the nrl will agree it's a new injury and clear his retirement so his salary is not on the cap?

 

[Suitman]

You can't backdate his retirement until last July. That is silly.

He trained the off-season because he intended to play.

HJ is silly.

 

[forward pass]

HJ is silly.

And delusional - and amazingly he has some posters on here who agree with him. Fmd.

 

[Twizzle]

All irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that we will be salary cap compliant, whether by design or luck.

.

problem is here your lordship, this is not a court of law

its the NRL's rules and we showed intent to breach the cap and its my belief that that is how they see it

 

[yy_cheng]

How much money is involved here? It seems to be around $1.5m. You need to understand insurance. When that amount is involved and given the circumstances of the claim they will delay and obfuscate every last inch of the way. It will take years and in all likelihood will have to be determined by a court.

You really think they are going accept liabilty within the next 7 days just so the Parramatta football club can get out of the shite it got itself into? You obviously do not understand how insurance works.

Maybe we threaten to change insurance companies? We must pay some hefty premiums if u include even the leagues club insurances etc

 

[Chipmunk]

I was thinking HJ could just give Greenberg a call, outline his idea, and Greenberg would issue a press release to reinstate our points..

Of course it's going to have to go to court, but if the club gets legal advice that such a challenge has legal merit and a favourable verdict is likely, why would we not try?

Up to the club, but civil legal preceedings are always going to be a lottery in these instances. Just go and ask News Ltd and the ARL.

 

[Chipmunk]

What are the chances that the nrl will agree it's a new injury and clear his retirement so his salary is not on the cap?

If the Incompetent Five bugger off, 100%. They already would have decided this outcome prior to issuing the breach.

If the club challenge the breach notice, then Sweet f**k All.

 

[Chipmunk]

Maybe we threaten to change insurance companies? We must pay some hefty premiums if u include even the leagues club insurances etc

I'm guessing it's an NRL insurance scheme that they have arranged for all NRL players.

 

[yy_cheng]

I'm guessing it's an NRL insurance scheme that they have arranged for all NRL players.

Is that then why there are no more Brown paper bags?

 

[Dibs]

If the Incompetent Five bugger off, 100%. They already would have decided this outcome prior to issuing the breach.

If the club challenge the breach notice, then Sweet f**k All.

How could they? It's my understanding the nrl Doctor hasn't even examined him yet

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

You can't backdate his retirement until last July. That is silly.

He trained the off-season because he intended to play.

True, but intent doesn't count.

He is employed to play football. If he can't do that then that's it. If his ability to actually play football ended in July, then that's it.

But as I said, it's irrelevant.

What is relevant?

1) If the insurance payout is greater than the cap breach;
2) If the injury pre-dates Round 1.

If both of these are true then we are entitled to our points.

problem is here your lordship, this is not a court of law

its the NRL's rules and we showed intent to breach the cap and its my belief that that is how they see it

I couldn't give a crap how they see it.

As I said, the NRL will not agree with this. It will need to be taken to a court of law.

 

[forward pass]

True, but intent doesn't count.

He is employed to play football. If he can't do that then that's it. If his ability to actually play football ended in July, then that's it.

But as I said, it's irrelevant.

What is relevant?

1) If the insurance payout is greater than the cap breach;
2) If the injury pre-dates Round 1.

If both of these are true then we are entitled to our points.



I couldn't give a crap how they see it.

As I said, the NRL will not agree with this. It will need to be taken to a court of law.

I thought you were a smart guy HJ so I am starting to think you are just taking the piss.

But if you are really being serious, it amazes me that you can't really see what the actual issue is here. Our squad is deemed to have been assembled "illegally " so we have (and have had for 9 rounds) a squad that was put together using unfair advantage over other clubs. It does not matter a shit that Watmough hasn't played. It means nothing.

Simply put, if the club had stuck to its allowed cap, we would never have been able to add Jennings and probably even Scott. We were advantaged due this deceit and every other club disadvantaged due to those players coming to our club. That is straight out cheating. No ifs, buts or maybes.

You guys are looking at this all wrong. Anyway, keep hoping those points will be returned. Ha!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It doesn't matter if it takes 20 years for the insurance to pay out. We just need the NRL medical officer to approve and to accept it

Exactly. The impact on the salary cap is not contingent on insurance. They are two different matters.

This is why people complained that this was a loophole that rich clubs could exploit - because the insurance payout ultimately matters little to them.

 

[Gronk]

I thought you were a smart guy HJ so I am starting to think you are just taking the piss.

But if you are really being serious, it amazes me that you can't really see what the actual issue is here. Our squad is deemed to have been assembled "illegally " so we have (and have had for 9 rounds) a squad that was put together using unfair advantage over other clubs. It does not matter a shit that Watmough hasn't played. It means nothing.

Simply put, if the club had stuck to its allowed cap, we would never have been able to add Jennings and probably even Scott. We were advantaged due this deceit and every other club disadvantaged due to those players coming to our club. That is straight out cheating. No ifs, buts or maybes.

You guys are looking at this all wrong. Anyway, keep hoping those points will be returned. Ha!

I tend to agree. The retirement may retrospectively get you under the cap however the only way we can points back is disprove the allegations that our TPAs are dodgy. That they are at arms length. That we did not inflate service contracts and ask suppliers to TPA the inflated amount etc.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

You guys don't seem to be able to use common sense.

Let's say we were actually $500k under the cap and we were found to have $400k of "not at arms length" TPAs. What would happen?

They would get included in our cap, we'd still be $100k under, and we wouldn't get points deducted etc.

We might cop a fine for dodgy behaviour but we'd be under the cap so no points.

The NRL can "deem" whatever they want. The "issue" can be whatever it is. It matters not. A court will see us as under the cap and that will be the end of it.

Stop accepting whatever you're told by the NRL and media (who have their own personal, not necessarily legal, agendas) and start using your brains.

 

[Gronk]

You guys don't seem to be able to use common sense.

Let's say we were actually $500k under the cap and we were found to have $400k of "not at arms length" TPAs. What would happen?

They would get included in our cap, we'd still be $100k under, and we wouldn't get points deducted etc.

We might cop a fine for dodgy behaviour but we'd be under the cap so no points.

The NRL can "deem" whatever they want. The "issue" can be whatever it is. It matters not. A court will see us as under the cap and that will be the end of it.

Stop accepting whatever you're told by the NRL and media (who have their own personal, not necessarily legal, agendas) and start using your brains.

Fines have been handed out in the past to clubs because they had 2nd tier cap breaches or that they can't give a car to a player and not include it in the cap etc. When has a club been fined (as opposed to loss of points) for serious breaches like under the table cash payments, inflated service contracts ? Show me the precedent and then your position has some validity.

 

[Twizzle]

You guys don't seem to be able to use common sense.

Let's say we were actually $500k under the cap and we were found to have $400k of "not at arms length" TPAs. What would happen?

They would get included in our cap, we'd still be $100k under, and we wouldn't get points deducted etc.

We might cop a fine for dodgy behaviour but we'd be under the cap so no points.

The NRL can "deem" whatever they want. The "issue" can be whatever it is. It matters not. A court will see us as under the cap and that will be the end of it.

Stop accepting whatever you're told by the NRL and media (who have their own personal, not necessarily legal, agendas) and start using your brains.

common sense isn't necessarily agreeing with you

I hope your right mate, but I just cant see it

 

[forward pass]

Fines have been handed out in the past to clubs because they had 2nd tier cap breaches or that they can't give a car to a player and not include it in the cap etc. When has a club been fined (as opposed to loss of points) for serious breaches like under the table cash payments, inflated service contracts ? Show me the precedent and then your position has some validity.

...and dodgy supplier invoices intended to hide funds. That is about as serious as it gets. But Watmough is retiring so absolutely nothing to worry about folks!! Its all good.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

...and dodgy supplier invoices intended to hide funds. That is about as serious as it gets. But Watmough is retiring so absolutely nothing to worry about folks!! Its all good.

Yes it is, but let's see details of it ?

The NRL could easily leak details of it and it would easily put the public / fans against the eels board giving them no option to stand down.

But as there are no details released yet we don't know how serious it is. Was it a $10k inflated invoice on a one off occasion or several ? Is there evidence ?

 

[ash411]

Yes it is, but let's see details of it ?

The NRL could easily leak details of it and it would easily put the public / fans against the eels board giving them no option to stand down.

But as there are no details released yet we don't know how serious it is. Was it a $10k inflated invoice on a one off occasion or several ? Is there evidence ?

Does it matter? fraud is fraud. If we have inflated invoices to pay players then regardless of the amount that is a serious offence. It doesn't matter how much it was for.

You're right though, we haven't actually seen an invoice yet, but the point of the notice was to tell us what they are proposing to punish us for, so we can mount a defence. The evidence must be made available to us in the process of defending the allegations.