What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

D day for Parramatta

Name three players Parramatta must keep if they are to make the playoffs.

  • Total voters
    120
Last Week

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,726
El Diablo said:
but they would also like to know what evidence is being used against them that was provided by Seward to check it's validity
Click to expand...

Which you would think would be in the breach notice. (although, as you've already pointed out, this wasn't provided to the Eels in their copy initially. Fair to say that they've since received it as no more has been said of it)

The NRL have said the entire time that all of their decisions and judgements were made based off what was in the breach notice. That's where the evidence stops.

They can't just introduce new facts in response to the Eels' response to the breach of notice (unless they are fresh to the NRL). To do so would be duplicitous.
 
Snappy

Snappy

Coach
Messages
11,844
Last Week said:
Nothing about this has anything to do with the law or the legal system except for the injunction that was previously in place.

NRL rules do not equal law.
Version provided by Seward is not a legal statement.
Click to expand...

Yes. However the statement would have still been set out in a legal type format, in point form, with most substantial and relevant points of evidence.

The statement is basically a summary of the main points of the interview, in an easy to read legal format, and signed off.



El Diablo said:
but they would also like to know what evidence is being used against them that was provided by Seward to check it's validity

if his statement isn't included then they have nfi
Click to expand...

But his statement was included. It was the interview transcripts that they initially didn't get.



Last Week said:
Which you would think would be in the breach notice. (although, as you've already pointed out, this wasn't provided to the Eels in their copy initially. Fair to say that they've since received it as no more has been said of it)

The NRL have said the entire time that all of their decisions and judgements were made based off what was in the breach notice. That's where the evidence stops.

They can't just introduce new facts in response to the Eels' response to the breach of notice (unless they are fresh to the NRL). To do so would be duplicitous.
Click to expand...

The NRL have said they have over 750k pages of evidence. Do you think all those were included in the Breach Notice ?

Of course not. The Breach Notice would contain the details of most substantial points of evidence, which included the Statement from Scott Seward.
 
El Diablo

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Last Week said:
Which you would think would be in the breach notice. (although, as you've already pointed out, this wasn't provided to the Eels in their copy initially. Fair to say that they've since received it as no more has been said of it).
Click to expand...

there has on May 11 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/413a011e1d6bb18c6f2fc638c6fea647

The club have until June 3 to defend themselves against allegations they rorted the salary cap to the tune of $3 million over four seasons. But the Eels are digging in their heels about the material arising from both the interview Seward gave to the NRL’s Integrity Unit and any other contact he had with Greenberg over player remuneration.

Greenberg’s relationship with Seward has become a focal point of the Eels’ defence to the cap allegations, their interest piqued by the NRL’s failure to include copies of the former chief executive’s interview transcripts or draft statements in five volumes of evidence provided to the club last week.

It is understood Parramatta’s legal team has begun the process of gaining access to that material as it turns the blowtorch on the relationship between Seward and Greenberg.

It has already emerged that Greenberg provided advice to Seward on third-party deals in 2013. But the Eels want to know the extent of that advice to determine whether the NRL chief’s relationship with Seward amounts to a conflict of interest.

A lengthy statement from Seward was included in information passed onto Parramatta but the Eels want to see a full transcript of that interview as well as any draft statements that were written before the document was finalised.

Seward was able to provide evidence to the NRL only after Parramatta agreed to overlook the confidentiality provision that was part of his settlement with the club when he parted ways with the Eels last June. But it seems the NRL is not keen to release the full Seward transcript.
Click to expand...

so why hide it Toddles?
 
Last edited:
Snappy

Snappy

Coach
Messages
11,844
El Diablo said:
you really are stupid

how do you even function :?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could actually make a counter argument instead of name calling, as you're making yourself look like quite the fool.

Look at what you wrote, then look at what I wrote in response.

Again, it appears that you are failing to grasp the concept of a statement.
 
Last Week

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,726
Snappy said:
Yes. However the statement would have still been set out in a legal type format, in point form, with most substantial and relevant points of evidence.

The statement is basically a summary of the main points of the interview, in an easy to read legal format, and signed off.
Click to expand...

You need to stop because you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about. That, and you're assuming.
 
Snappy

Snappy

Coach
Messages
11,844
Assuming that the NRL would set out a statement in a legal type format ? Pretty safe assumption IMO.
 
Captain Apollo

Captain Apollo

Coach
Messages
15,536
The following was published today by the Sydney Morning Herald -

Parramatta Eels woes continue as NRL lumps $500,000 of illegal third-party agreements into 2017 salary cap

Date: May 18, 2016 - 9:45PM
by Michael Chammas

It's the half-million dollar hangover that will continue to haunt the Parramatta Eels next season.

In a development that could cruel Parramatta's chances of bringing Jarryd Hayne back to the club, Fairfax Media can reveal the fallout from the NRL's salary cap investigation isn't over, with $500,000 worth of third-party agreements guaranteed by the club for 2017 to be included in next year's salary cap.

The salary cap will rise from $6.8 million to $7.1 million next season, however the club's indiscretions over the past few years means the Eels will only have $6.6 million at their disposal in 2017.

The Eels had $770,000 worth of third-party agreements for the past three years added to the salary cap for this season, which required the club to shed Nathan Peats, Ryan Morgan and retire Anthony Watmough before it was allowed to begin competing for points lat Friday.

On top of the $500,000 next year and the $770,000 for the past three years, it is also understood the club will have another $150,000 worth of TPA's included in the salary cap in 2018.

Fairfax Media understands third-party arrangements with Kieran Foran, Michael Jennings, Semi Radradra, Beau Scott and Watmough will all be included in next year's salary cap, casting huge doubt over the club's ability to afford Hayne at the expected going rate of $1.2 million a season.

If Corey Norman is successful in negotiating the $850,000-a-season deal he is asking for, it is estimated the club will have close to $3.6 million tied up in five players (Foran, Jennings, Scott, Radradra and Norman), leaving just $3 million to spend on the remaining 20 players in the top 25 squad.

Manu Ma'u, Tim Mannah, Tepai Moeroa and Brad Takarangi are among the other high-profile players tied to the club for next season on a total value of about $1 million.

But easing their cap woes is the departure of Peats to the Titans last week, the immediate retirement of Watmough and the defection of Junior Paulo to Canberra next year.

The club also has $600,000 to spend on a marquee player allowance, the majority of which has been allocated to accommodate Foran's multi-million dollar deal.

While Hayne has previously indicated he would like to play for Parramatta if he decided to return to the NRL, the Eels' first priority remains retaining Norman.

The Queenslander is off contract at the end of this season and had agreed to hold off testing his value on the open market out of respect for Parramatta's salary cap woes.

The Eels and his manager Paul Sutton are in the process of of trying to land a deal, however Parramatta's offer of $2.1 million over three seasons is well short of the $2.5 million Norman is hopeful of securing.

Norman will be unlikely to attract third-party arrangements with the dark cloud over the club, the Eels will have to fit the bulk of his contract in the salary cap for next season.

ON CONTRACT
Kieran Foran (2019)
Michael Jennings (2019)
Manu Ma'u (2017)
Tim Mannah (2017)
Semi Radradra (2018)
Beau Scott (2018)
Brad Takarangi (2017)
Kaysa Pritchard (2018)
Peni Terepo (2017)
David Gower (2017)
Clinton Gutherson (2017)
Daniel Alvaro (2018)
Kenny Edwards (2017)
John Folau (2017)
Bevan French (2018)

OFF CONTRACT
Michael Gordon
Danny Wicks
Anthony Watmough (retired)
Isaac De Gois
Vai Toutai
Junior Paulo (Canberra)
Nathan Peats (Titans)
Corey Norman
Cameron King
Luke Kelly
James Hasson
Mitch Cornish
Click to expand...
 
B

betcats

Referee
Messages
23,956
What they need is for Foran to use that clause about the management of the club and leave Parra, then the eels can sign Hayne and go back to winning spoons.
 
Card Shark

Card Shark

Immortal
Messages
32,237
Condsidering the Eels have lost 2 of 3 games since the penalty, when the NRL would've been hoping for for 3 wins, I wouldn't be surprised if the 12 point penalty is wound back to keep them in the race.
 
phantom eel

phantom eel

First Grade
Messages
6,327
Card Shark said:
Condsidering the Eels have lost 2 of 3 games since the penalty, when the NRL would've been hoping for for 3 wins, I wouldn't be surprised if the 12 point penalty is wound back to keep them in the race.
Click to expand...
That's a big assumption... I'm not sure the NRL would have been "hoping" for anything, and I don't think keeping them in the race was the NRL's primary concern.

They chose 12 points because that's the amount of points we earned this year while having non-compliant TPAs in place. NRL gave us the all clear again ahead of the Souths game. If they'd found out later - or if it took us longer to release a player or two, we would have lost more points. They can't really reduce the points penalty under any circumstance now, unless they'd notified us of the breach at an earlier stage of the season and we'd got under the cap again in an earlier round.
 
Captain Apollo

Captain Apollo

Coach
Messages
15,536
Following was posted earlier today on the ABC news website http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-...es-proceedings-against-eels-officials/7484538 -

Parramatta Eels' action against NRL dismissed by Supreme Court amid salary cap breaches

Updated about 3 hours ago
Tue 7 Jun 2016, 10:51am

The Supreme Court has dismissed proceedings brought by five Parramatta officials attempting to block the NRL's move to de-register them for involvement in the club's salary cap breaches.

The NRL has given Eels chairman Steve Sharp, chief executive John Boulous, deputy chairman John Issa, director Peter Serrao and football manager Daniel Anderson until tomorrow to show cause why they should not be deregistered for their involvement in alleged salary cap breaches totalling about $3 million.

Parramatta has until Friday to show cause why the team should not be stripped of 12 competition points and the club fined $1 million.

The Eels stand to lose the 12 competition points they earned during the first nine rounds of the 2016 competition before becoming salary cap compliant for round 10.

Legal teams representing the five Parramatta officials and the NRL will return to the Supreme Court on Friday to settle the NRL's claim for its legal costs.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top