Eels Salary Cap MK II

[Bigfella]

So in summary of the majority of these articles

The problems are manifested in the 2013 regime with limited carryover, the only recent issue is that a director of a company involved in Watmough's TPA was also a non executive director of a software company providing a professional service to the club.

The NRL has cleared the club for salary cap for 2015 and 2016, but the Terrorgraph and leaks from a number of probably disaffected people keep an old issue rolling for their personal purposes.

The club has agreed to constitutional changes set out by the NRL but we sell clickbait and media, so on it goes

The people in charge consistently say they are clearing all these problems and yet this blog and media just want to smash a club that is popular, yet let the Broncs and others escape from real scrutiny

A whole series of inaccurate statements followed up with the traditional conspiracy theory.

I like it.

Emjaycee nailed it. There is nothing damning about a "discussion paper" which isn't setting policy or making resolutions of the board.

 

[oldmancraigy]

So in summary of the majority of these articles

The problems are manifested in the 2013 regime with limited carryover, the only recent issue is that a director of a company involved in Watmough's TPA was also a non executive director of a software company providing a professional service to the club.

The NRL has cleared the club for salary cap for 2015 and 2016, but the Terrorgraph and leaks from a number of probably disaffected people keep an old issue rolling for their personal purposes.

The club has agreed to constitutional changes set out by the NRL but we sell clickbait and media, so on it goes

The people in charge consistently say they are clearing all these problems and yet this blog and media just want to smash a club that is popular, yet let the Broncs and others escape from real scrutiny

Exactly.

The one thing that might be an issue is rarely talked about...

 

[Bigfella]

Maybe someone should tell the NRL that we have been fully cleared.

That should shorten their investigation.

Let them know hat we have made all the changes they required too.

That will put the points to bed.

That will give them more time to help the roosters win another premiership.

 

[I bleed blue & gold]

Can someone please remind me what month in 2013 the current board came into power? Cheers.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

source: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l/news-story/4e56d6e680c0694cc35a26ef3bb22524




source: https://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

Just playing devil's advocate, but I can see nothing in the DT article that categorically proves we contravened the salary cap rules in relation to TPA's.

It doesn't say we negotiated any of the deals - sourcing a potential TPA partner is not negotiating the deal. Nothing in the salary cap rules that prevents a club from approaching company X and asking if they would be prepared to offer player X a TPA. Put the player manager and company X in contact and they do the negotiation. Hiring someone in the corporate sales team to help these introductions IS NOT negotiating the deal as the Telecrap wants readers to believe.

A club is allowed to guarantee up to $600,000 in TPA's under the Marquee Player clause and the total of all the DT claims doesn't exceed that amount so suggesting there is something wrong with the club guaranteeing Hayne, Sandow, Hock and Mossop a total of $395,000 isn't necessarily against the rules.

The only concerning part of the whole article for mine is the statement about an "unregistered" TPA for Sandow.

Just refer to Fifita's contract with the Dogs, they agree on a figure then when the contract is sent it showed apparently the figure was made up of part TPA. Now did the dogs organise this ? Wouldn't this be a smoking gun for the NRL get a full audit / investigation of the dogs and their player contracts ? If they are investigating us why not the dogs ? It's f**ken bullshit!!! Some clubs can get away with murder!!

 

[Gronk]

Can someone please remind me what month in 2013 the current board came into power? Cheers.

The Eels board has been split since the ParraFirst ticket led by former Eels great Steve Sharp gained five of the seven seats at the Parramatta Leagues Club elections on May 11

http://www.stawelltimes.com.au/story/1748090/leabeater-sends-out-sos/

 

[IFR33K]

Can someone please remind me what month in 2013 the current board came into power? Cheers.

May 2013, but I dare say some some the of the 2014 contracted players were signed prior to the current board stepping in.

 

[eel01s]

Just refer to Fifita's contract with the Dogs, they agree on a figure then when the contract is sent it showed apparently the figure was made up of part TPA. Now did the dogs organise this ? Wouldn't this be a smoking gun for the NRL get a full audit / investigation of the dogs and their player contracts ? If they are investigating us why not the dogs ? It's f**ken bullshit!!! Some clubs can get away with murder!!

Agree it's bullcrap. Just shows that all clubs are involved in organizing tpa's to some extent. The system has to change to allow greater transparency. Notice at the time not a word from the NRL about how the proposed Fifita deal had changed? We had Foran's TPA included under the cap after one of our official's made a comment.

 

[IFR33K]

You guys are clutching at straws. It's been a level playing field for all clubs....

 

[Bigfella]

Just refer to Fifita's contract with the Dogs, they agree on a figure then when the contract is sent it showed apparently the figure was made up of part TPA. Now did the dogs organise this ? Wouldn't this be a smoking gun for the NRL get a full audit / investigation of the dogs and their player contracts ? If they are investigating us why not the dogs ? It's f**ken bullshit!!! Some clubs can get away with murder!!

Exactly the same provision was reported in foran's contract.

I think the NRL as a result directed the third party amount to be included in our cap. It didn't comprise a breach.

If what you say is right about the dogs - they wouldn't have committed any breach until:

1. A contract was actually effected; AND
2. The payments were made; AND
3. The club misrepresented the proportion under the salary cap for a given year.

The Fifita deal didn't go through.

It doesn't sound like a great example of the conspiracy theory to me, and I'm not sure anyone will come up with one that is convincing. It's certainly never going to wash with the NRL.

 

[Gronk]

"The current leadership at the Parramatta Eels remain concerned at the damage ongoing media speculation is doing to the integrity of the NRL's current salary cap investigation," a club statement said.

"The story seems to relate to allegations of internal discussions three years ago in 2013, under the tenure of previous administration."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/04/06/eels-stars-caught-cap-probe-report

 

[I bleed blue & gold]

http://www.stawelltimes.com.au/story/1748090/leabeater-sends-out-sos/

Thanks mate.

 

[IFR33K]

Exactly the same provision was reported in foran's contract.

I think the NRL as a result directed the third party amount to be included in our cap. It didn't comprise a breach.

If what you say is right about the dogs - they wouldn't have committed any breach until:

1. A contract was actually effected; AND
2. The payments were made; AND
3. The club misrepresented the proportion under the salary cap for a given year.

The Fifita deal didn't go through.

It doesn't sound like a great example of the conspiracy theory to me, and I'm not sure anyone will come up with one that is convincing. It's certainly never going to wash with the NRL.

OFF MEMORY, the dogs altered the Fifita contract after he had agreed to their initial offer.

The contract was modified, and had more $$$ from third party sponsors, And less from the dogs. They had breached the 'arms length tpa's', as it seems the dogs had organised these sponsors.

But, not surprisingly, everyone turned a blind eye.

 

[hineyrulz]

How can they take points of a cap complient squad???

If we are sweet for this year and this stuff was from 2 or 3 seasons ago just give us a spoon for that season..........

When the Warriors got docked 4 points I'm pretty sure they were still over for that year.

 

[IFR33K]

How can they take points of a cap complient squad???

If we are sweet for this year and this stuff was from 2 or 3 seasons ago just give us a spoon for that season..........

When the Warriors got docked 4 points I'm pretty sure they were still over for that year.

Yep. I'm starting to think the NRL is clutching straws if they need to interview SS and mention 2013/14.

 

[Gronk]

OFF MEMORY, the dogs altered the Fifita contract after he had agreed to their initial offer.

The contract was modified, and had more $$$ from third party sponsors, And less from the dogs. They had breached the 'arms length tpa's', as it seems the dogs had organised these sponsors.

But, not surprisingly, everyone turned a blind eye.

Correct and based on what MJC posted above

A club is allowed to guarantee up to $600,000 in TPA's under the Marquee Player clause

Then the Dogs must have arranged independent TPA's, otherwise Fafita would not have worried if they were club guaranteed marquee TPAs.

The fact that the contract did not proceed is a moot point. It clearly demonstrates that the Dogs do arrange TPAs as this Fafita re-shuffled deal was news to both Fafita and his manager.

 

[Snoochies]

How can they take points of a cap complient squad???

If we are sweet for this year and this stuff was from 2 or 3 seasons ago just give us a spoon for that season..........

When the Warriors got docked 4 points I'm pretty sure they were still over for that year.

Yep and how far back can the NRL seriously look into each club? What's the difference in finding something in 2013 or 2003? Both are in the past, why should the current squad suffer?

 

[IFR33K]

Correct and based on what MJC posted above



Then the Dogs must have arranged independent TPA's, otherwise Fafita would not have worried if they were club guaranteed marquee TPAs.

The fact that the contract did not proceed is a moot point. It clearly demonstrates that the Dogs do arrange TPAs as this Fafita re-shuffled deal was news to both Fafita and his manager.

Surely at the time, the dogs would of used up their marquee allowances. They've had a strong squad the past few years.

And if it was only slight changes to the contract, why would Fifita of pulled out?????? I'm guessing the contract was heavily modified, and Fifita didn't want to take a risk with these sponsors.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

How can they take points of a cap complient squad???

If we are sweet for this year and this stuff was from 2 or 3 seasons ago just give us a spoon for that season..........

When the Warriors got docked 4 points I'm pretty sure they were still over for that year.

I think the Warriors were over the cap by $1 million over two years, I don't think it related to TPA's, they just spent to much.

Roosters / storm around 2002-04 are examples of sides thar breached TPA's, they were just fined.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

It clearly demonstrates that the Dogs do arrange TPAs as this Fafita re-shuffled deal was news to both Fafita and his manager.

That was my point, and if it happened once, it's probably has happened several times before. Thus it appears the eels are being investigated for a matter that the NRL turned a blind eye too with the dogs.