Do you want Brad Arthur as coach

[I'm a loser baby...]

The Max Factor? This could explain our disappointing signings.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I'm not so sure about it. I wonder how much are we saving and do them savings outweigh the financial benefits of having a more successful team? Winning puts bums on seats and brings in sponsors. Surely we are trying to MAXimise our earnings?

I'm working on the theory that Max's appointment wasn't meant to be a long term one and therefore isn't as focused on those sorts of long term issues.

He is meant to get our books in order first and foremost and then put some systems and processes in place to ensure we are 'above board' with TPAs.

With any luck he might even avoid going to too many games.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

I'm working on the theory that Max's appointment wasn't meant to be a long term one and therefore isn't as focused on those sorts of long term issues.

He is meant to get our books in order first and foremost and then put some systems and processes in place to ensure we are 'above board' with TPAs.

I reckon if we don't have TPA's it's because no one will touch us with one. Why would the club be actively seeking to not have them? What are you blokes saying? that we havn't spent all or close to all the cap (Semi is never coming back and they know it) or that we are actively not pursuing TPA's. Why wouldn't we be at least trying to get TPA's?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I'm working on the theory that Max's appointment wasn't meant to be a long term one and therefore isn't as focused on those sorts of long term issues.

He is meant to get our books in order first and foremost and then put some systems and processes in place to ensure we are 'above board' with TPAs.

With any luck he might even avoid going to too many games.

Max's appointment was only ever meant to get the salary cap shit off the back pages and maybe stop anyone asking questions about Seward and his testimony and his links to Greenberg. It was never for our benefit. And now we can't compete with the top teams despite having the resources. If Max can't effect real change, and I have real doubts he can, then he needs to f**k off.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I reckon if we don't have TPA's it's because no one will touch us with one. Why would the club be actively seeking to not have them? What are you blokes saying? that we havn't spent all or close to all the cap (Semi is never coming back and they know it) or that we are actively not pursuing TPA's. Why wouldn't we be at least trying to get TPA's?

No, we're saying that all Tpas are dodgy. And now we're not doing them because of that. The incentive isn't there. But if you want to be competitive you have to.

 

[emjaycee]

Sounds like a shitty running joke. No wonder it never caught on.

I know I am late to this post but maybe the AFL Guy got to the joke and changed its running style?

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Max's appointment was only ever meant to get the salary cap shit off the back pages and maybe stop anyone asking questions about Seward and his testimony and his links to Greenberg. It was never for our benefit. And now we can't compete with the top teams despite having the resources. If Max can't effect real change, and I have real doubts he can, then he needs to f**k off.

I agree and wouldn't be surprised to learn that he has cut a lot of costs, but surely those costs are not costs pertaining to player's salaries.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I agree and wouldn't be surprised to learn that he has cut a lot of costs, but surely those costs are not costs pertaining to player's salaries.

Not to those under the cap. But the TPAs that most clubs use to supplement those salaries.

 

[emjaycee]

Was discussing this today, has anyone mentioned that maybe BA wasn't given the chance to spend the amount of money he really wanted to last year?

Just a thought, we have heard Donnelly has been cutting costs, maybe he never allowed us to spend to much money either as far as our roster is concerned?

Given that the total amount of the salary cap is paid back as a grant to the club from the NRL, why the hell wouldn't Max allow BA to spend it all? It isn't really a cost to the business. On the other hand, there was a reduction/limit put on non-player football expenses which were prior to 2018 uncapped and was where Seaweed and co. blew a heap of the PLC's money. This is what Max cut. In 2018, the NRL introduced an upper limit on total non-player football spend to try and curb the rich clubs spending and stop the poorer clubs going broke.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Not to those under the cap. But the TPAs that most clubs use to supplement those salaries.

Why would the club not seek TPA's? If we can't get any because we are still on the nose, I get that. But why would we have a policy of no TPA's? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[emjaycee]

Why would the club not seek TPA's? If we can't get any because we are still on the nose, I get that. But why would we have a policy of no TPA's? It doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe because the club is not allowed to.
The player/player manager must technically bring the TPA to the club for ratification and passing onto the NRL. If the club actively seeks a TPA for player X it is in breach of the salary cap rules and likely to be fined or maybe even lose points.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Why would the club not seek TPA's? If we can't get any because we are still on the nose, I get that. But why would we have a policy of no TPA's? It doesn't make sense to me.

Because clubs can't arrange TPAs, or they count under the cap. And TPAs also can't be used as an inducement to play for a particular club. Crazy, right? Yeah, but that's the rules, even though we all know that's what they are. And an administrator has very little incentive to break the rules even though everyone, including the NRL, knows that that's the way the game is played.

 

[emjaycee]

Because clubs can't arrange TPAs, or they count under the cap. And TPAs also can't be used as an inducement to play for a particular club. Crazy, right? Yeah, but that's the rules, even though we all know that's what they are. And an administrator has very little incentive to break the rules even though everyone, including the NRL, knows that that's the way the game is played.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Maybe because the club is not allowed to.
The player/player manager must technically bring the TPA to the club for ratification and passing onto the NRL. If the club actively seeks a TPA for player X it is in breach of the salary cap rules and likely to be fined or maybe even lose points.

I get that. These blokes are implying that the club has a blanket ban on them. Not only that, all clubs arrange them. Not all clubs guarantee them though or at least havn't been busted doing it. The only feasible reason I can see to not have them is that no one is offering or no one is interested. It shouldn't be because the club has a policy of not having any at all.

 

[emjaycee]

I get that. These blokes are implying that the club has a blanket ban on them. Not only that, all clubs arrange them. Not all clubs guarantee them though or at least havn't been busted doing it. The only feasible reason I can see to not have them is that no one is offering or no one is interested. It shouldn't be because the club has a policy of not having any at all.

We have a policy of not doing what we are not allowed to do, even though other clubs do what they are not allowed to do, because the NRL doesn't enforce any club that does or doesn't do what it should or shouldn't do, unless someone from within the club does what they shouldn't do and blow the whistle on the club if it is doing something it shouldn't.

Clear now?

PS: we do have a couple of TPA's at least. Totally legit ones. Mennings has a long standing one with Puma (I think it is) and that is still in place and has been since his days at the Roosters at least.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

We have a policy of not doing what we are not allowed to do, even though other clubs do what they are not allowed to do, because the NRL doesn't enforce any club that does or doesn't do what it should or shouldn't do, unless someone from within the club does what they shouldn't do and blow the whistle on the club if it is doing something it shouldn't.

Clear now?

PS: we do have a couple of TPA's at least. Totally legit ones. Mennings has a long standing one with Puma (I think it is) and that is still in place and has been since his days at the Roosters at least.

Rightio. Thankyou. That's all I wanted to know. So we do have a few. We are just being strict to the letter of the law about them being at "arms length". got it!

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

This is the model other clubs use to judge 'arm's length'.

And this is ours

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Of course they do, but other teams are allowed to play what's in front of them when they see fit.

Brad has them playing as robots.

All the forced passes disagree. If it looks like we're playing one-out-shit-up-the-middle it's because we are down on confidence and scared to make mistakes. Arthur's has repeatedly said he is happy for the players to play what's in front of them, as long as they can defend their mistakes.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I reckon if we don't have TPA's it's because no one will touch us with one. Why would the club be actively seeking to not have them? What are you blokes saying? that we havn't spent all or close to all the cap (Semi is never coming back and they know it) or that we are actively not pursuing TPA's. Why wouldn't we be at least trying to get TPA's?

Do you understand TPAs need to come from someone willing to part with the money? A club genuinely facilitating TPAs can only direct potential sponsors (not current ones because that's against the rules outside of the capped MPA). So these businesses are asked if they would rather throw the money at an individual player than sponsor the club. They can have the player come to the business and greet customers or whatever. But the player can't wear his Eels gear.

Or they can just sponsor the club and get access to the brand and all the marketing opportunities attached to that. Unless the player is first picked in Origin every year the return on investment would be far better just sponsoring the club instead of throwing in a legitimate TPA. Genuine businesses want something in return for their money. Realistically the only TPAs are going to come from wealthy fans happy to spend cash to help the club buy players. And those are technically illegal.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I reckon if we don't have TPA's it's because no one will touch us with one. Why would the club be actively seeking to not have them? What are you blokes saying? that we havn't spent all or close to all the cap (Semi is never coming back and they know it) or that we are actively not pursuing TPA's. Why wouldn't we be at least trying to get TPA's?

I didn't say we shouldn't have TPAs. I just suggested that Max would be focused on ensuring that they are legit.