D day for Parramatta

[Nice Beaver]

Didn't realise you were being benevolent. Thanks for pointing that out.

Should Brett Stewart have just accepted the NRL's ruling?

:lol:

Oh dear. The last inane ramblings of someone right on the edge.

Firstly, Brett Stewart pled not guilty and was unequivocally cleared of all charges. Parramatta have put their hand up and admitted they cheated the cap. One was innocent and stated so every step of the way, the other have admitted guilt. Understand?

Secondly, Brett Stewart was suspended by Gallop for "Bringing the game into disrepute". He was not suspended for the bogus charges brought against him. Were Parramatta stripped of their points for salary cap cheating or was it for jay walking?

:crazy:

 

[Nice Beaver]

No one should ever challenge a judiciary charge either, given the NRL is infallible

That would be the Match Review Committee.

But do go on.

 

[Parra]

Secondly, Brett Stewart was suspended by Gallop for "Bringing the game into disrepute". He was not suspended for the bogus charges brought against him. Were Parramatta stripped of their points for salary cap cheating or was it for jay walking?

So what is your answer?

Should Stewart have accepted the NRL penalty? Do you agree with what was done by the NRL for bringing the game into disrepute?

 

[bfoord]

Another fan of the administration. It's not really true though, is it. Rolled up dollars from previous years, the timing of Sewards statement, the fact that no club just has to do what it is told without going through a legitimate process. The timing was the NRL's choosing. And the timing and penalty is arbitrary and will be again next time.

you're right the timing was of the NRL's choosing, they chose a time that:

* Was a bye weekend, allowing the Eels 2 weeks to become cap compliant and play for points immediately

* Allowed the Eels still a chance to make the finals


Shame on the NRL ... They should have waited 2 extra matches ... the Eels season would then be over and they wouldn't have had 2 weeks to convince Peats to leave to become cap compliant.

 

[Parra]

They could've chosen that.

Shame is that Peats had to take the fall.

 

[typicalfan]

It is a shame. The Parra board should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[ACTPanthers]

They could've chosen that.

Shame is that Peats had to take the fall.

You do realise that if your club hadn't cheated, this would never had happened right...?

 

[SharkShocked]

You do realise that if your club hadn't cheated, this would never had happened right...?

I'm sure he does. But it's still a shame for Peats.

I heard on the news there was a group of people whether it was players or just a contingent of fans that were of the belief it should have been last in first out.

So realistically Jennings should have been the one to make way.

I'm pretty much on board with that line of thinking. Would have been better anyway - bloke is a ball hog and will eventually cause a drought for Semi.

 

[siv]

Has the NRL confirmed they are legal yet ?

 

[Nice Beaver]

So what is your answer?

Should Stewart have accepted the NRL penalty? Do you agree with what was done by the NRL for bringing the game into disrepute?

Holy shit, mate. :crazy:

Brett Stewart was not guilty. Parramatta are guilty and have admitted so.

What don't you get here? :lol:

 

[ACTPanthers]

I'm sure he does. But it's still a shame for Peats.

I heard on the news there was a group of people whether it was players or just a contingent of fans that were of the belief it should have been last in first out.

So realistically Jennings should have been the one to make way.

I'm pretty much on board with that line of thinking. Would have been better anyway - bloke is a ball hog and will eventually cause a drought for Semi.

But to blame the NRL for losing Peats is stupid - They cheated, got caught, and the club has made the decision to offload Peats... Again, none of this would've happened had the Eels NOT cheated.

 

[mxlegend99]

How can the Eels fans claim they are being hard done by? They have knowingly breached the salary cap in 5 of the last 6 seasons. They signed big name players for 2016 on big contracts knowing full well they were breaking the rules. Likewise with players in previous seasons. They want someone, they offer overs and dodgy it up in the cap. Giving them.an unfair advantage to sign the roster they had.

You then getaway with losing a player on massive overs forced into retirement (fixing your cap a heap aswell), losing a shit centre that wasn't wanted and only having to sacrifice one decent player from your top 17. It sucks for Peats but it's not the NRLs fault. They didn't choose who got sacked and they have been very generous in helping you get cap compliant and allowing you to play for points.

 

[MilkShark]

When the eels were stripped of their Nines trophy, were they stripped of the cash they won too?

 

[big hit!]

I'm sure he does. But it's still a shame for Peats.

I heard on the news there was a group of people whether it was players or just a contingent of fans that were of the belief it should have been last in first out.

So realistically Jennings should have been the one to make way.

I'm pretty much on board with that line of thinking. Would have been better anyway - bloke is a ball hog and will eventually cause a drought for Semi.

How long is Jennings contracted for? Is it just this season or multiple seasons?

As a player, Peats is big loss. An important player in an important position. Will represent NSW in the coming years.

From a cap and financials point of view, he was uncontracted beyond this season. It's a clean fix. It means Parra don't have to risk paying part of a contract (included in the salary cap) in the next few years of a player who isn't at their club. That sort of shit is a cap and roster management killer.

Shit on the player, shit circumstances, but Parra don't just have an obligation to one player - they have an obligation to all players, coaches, employees, members, supporters, sponsors, NRL, etc.

 

[big hit!]

I have been on the fence about Parra being able to play for points this season but the more I think about it, the more I am convinced they shouldn?t be allowed to. I understand they want to avoid the 2010 situation of a team playing for nothing but to be honest, this current scenario of letting Parra get under the cap brings even more questions to the fairness of the comp.

At least in 2010, every team that got beat by Melbourne was in the same boat whether they played them prior to or after the breaches came to light (who played them twice and who didn?t is another discussion entirely). With the Parra situation, you have a team like the bulldogs who lost twice to a team cheating the cap whereas other teams are yet to play Parra and will be playing a different, legal and presumably weaker team. In other words, teams like the bulldogs, Raiders and Cowboys are not being afforded the opportunity of competing for 2 points against a legal side like the rest of the comp is.

I don?t advocate compensating those teams because who is to say they would have beat a legal Parra team (the cowboys did on their 2nd attempt obviously)? The point is this is just a complete mess.

completely off topic, but the recent practice of teams playing each other twice within a few weeks is dumb procedure. 10 games in a 24 game season - parra and canterbury have already played each other twice. same as souths and easts. certain there are another couple of examples this season already.

 

[SharkShocked]

How can the Eels fans claim they are being hard done by? They have knowingly breached the salary cap in 5 of the last 6 seasons. They signed big name players for 2016 on big contracts knowing full well they were breaking the rules. Likewise with players in previous seasons. They want someone, they offer overs and dodgy it up in the cap. Giving them.an unfair advantage to sign the roster they had.

You then getaway with losing a player on massive overs forced into retirement (fixing your cap a heap aswell), losing a shit centre that wasn't wanted and only having to sacrifice one decent player from your top 17. It sucks for Peats but it's not the NRLs fault. They didn't choose who got sacked and they have been very generous in helping you get cap compliant and allowing you to play for points.

Pretty well summarised.

 

[Lambretta]

So what is your answer?

Should Stewart have accepted the NRL penalty? Do you agree with what was done by the NRL for bringing the game into disrepute?

His answer was that the two incidents are completely unrelated and have no bearing on one another - I would like to add that you're making yourself look like an idiot by trying to do so

Please stop

 

[Lambretta]

When the eels were stripped of their Nines trophy, were they stripped of the cash they won too?

The fine of a million dollars took this into account - so yes they were

 

[Lambretta]

I'm sure he does. But it's still a shame for Peats.

I heard on the news there was a group of people whether it was players or just a contingent of fans that were of the belief it should have been last in first out.

So realistically Jennings should have been the one to make way.

I'm pretty much on board with that line of thinking. Would have been better anyway - bloke is a ball hog and will eventually cause a drought for Semi.

to be honest I'm amazed they didn't go down that path
The Roosters have $600k space in their cap and are desperately short of a centre. We have Maubs playing there atm

He must be seriously on the nose at Bondi for us to have not offered it

 

[--Storm--]

Mate that works with the Titans reckons NRL forced them into taking Peats :lol:

Coaching staff wasn't keen one bit.