Eels Salary Cap MK II

[84 Baby]

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.

Triple M have lost me as a listener for putting this clown on air.
Some memorable quotes from my final time listening:
"I don't want to prejudice the investigation"
When the chimp started referring to prior board members being part of current problem "but the leaked documents that kicked off the investigation were from time under Steve Sharp"

 

[parra-matters]

Who here has been on a board or committee that keeps that good minutes.?
Every detail of everything said, cross table discussions etc. I'm thinking this was a set up to pin it all on someone or some people.

 

[IFR33K]

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.

Also, I think warriors guaranteed Steve price and maybe wiki a job post retirement as well.

 

[84 Baby]

Also I don't think Jerkakoff understands the meaning of arm's length. Plus I like how he always writes "there is no suggestion of wrongdoing by the player." Wouldn't an unbiased journalist a) not need to include that or b) also write the same thing for all the parties? Innocent until proven guilty

 

[natheel]

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.

My guess is now with the latest "evidence" that Norman was being paid excess TPAs then that gives the NRL grounds to dock points now as we have a player aquired illegally (if it turns out to be true)

 

[natheel]

Who here has been on a board or committee that keeps that good minutes.?
Every detail of everything said, cross table discussions etc. I'm thinking this was a set up to pin it all on someone or some people.

I'm part of a body corporate committee and we don't take minutes at all even though it's requested we do

 

[Gronk]

I'm on the board for Mossack Fonseca and we don't keep all that great minutes either.

 

[yy_cheng]

Dont you guys record every meeting?

Every work meeting we have that needs to be minuted is recorded.

 

[parra-matters]

Dont you guys record every meeting?

Every work meeting we have that needs to be minuted is recorded.

Cricket ones we don't, i have been to strata one's where people have recorded it, not the office bearers but. The person had not notify the meeting he was recording it.

 

[Bigfella]

Cricket ones we don't, i have been to strata one's where people have recorded it, not the office bearers but. The person had not notify the meeting he was recording it.

Casper intends to record all the meetings of the touch club.

 

[yy_cheng]

Casper intends to record all the meetings of the touch club.

so all you will hear are moans and oh god oh god yes yes faster...

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

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.

Fifita never signed a contract with the Dogs. He signed an MOU, with total projected income over 4 years of $3.2mill. Then the Dogs presented him with a contract worth $800k less over 4 years, and he didn't sign it. The fact that the guaranteed amount under the contract was less than in the MOU suggests that they did not organise specific TPAs in advance, and that that they did not guarantee those amounts. Anyway......the contract was never executed.

 

[Bigfella]

It's hard to think of a worse example to use as evidence of other clubs cheating the salary cap or of NRL favouritism.

But they keep on keeping on.

 

[IFR33K]

Fifita never signed a contract with the Dogs. He signed an MOU, with total projected income over 4 years of $3.2mill. Then the Dogs presented him with a contract worth $800k less over 4 years, and he didn't sign it. The fact that the guaranteed amount under the contract was less than in the MOU suggests that they did not organise specific TPAs in advance, and that that they did not guarantee those amounts. Anyway......the contract was never executed.

Never did I once state a contract was signed

I went back and found an article, and it states fafitas management couldn't finalise a deal with the dogs because of the dogs tps.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

It's hard to think of a worse example to use as evidence of other clubs cheating the salary cap or of NRL favouritism.

But they keep on keeping on.

Why?

What are the eels being investigated for? TPA's

What is the media claiming about the eels? That we had TPA which are not at arms length from the club and we were involved in negotiating TPA

Now here is some of the Fifita contract details with the dogs:

. felt they’d been misled over what proportion of the deal was guaranteed, and what proportion fell to third party agreements, which the club cannot secure.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...on-after-divorce/story-fni3g67w-1226873949085

While the MOU outlined a deal worth $800,000 a year and $3.2 million in total, the Nine Network aired parts of that and the contract proper, which stipulated he would earn $375,000 next year, $425,000 in 2016, $650,000 in 2017 and $675,000 in the final year. That amounts to more than $1 million less than the agreed amount.................

High-level playing contracts such as the one offered to Fifita usually include three elements – the portion paid under the salary cap, the marquee player allowance and the third-party agreements. Under salary cap rules the latter cannot be guaranteed by clubs. However, it's understood all Bulldogs players promised TPAs have received those entitlements over the past five years and the club was confident Fifita would receive all monies promised in the MOU.

.

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...g-of-andrew-fifita-fiasco-20140430-zr1ys.html

So the dogs had a MOU with Fifita which was $1 million more then the amount they would going to include under the cap for Fifita. Now wouldnt that indicate any TPA with Fifitia indicated the dogs were involved with negotiating them? If not why would it be included in the MOU?

Now let's think about what the Telecrap would report tomorrow morning if they were leaked a MOU between Foran and the eels that was $1 million dollars more then the contract we registered with the NRL.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Never did I once state a contract was signed

I went back and found an article, and it states fafitas management couldn't finalise a deal with the dogs because of the dogs tps.

True, but you did say that they 'altered the contract'. They did not. The contract presented was different to the MOU. That's not altering a contract.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

For all the conspiracy theorists out there, here is a list of teams that have lost points for salary cap breaches:

Melbourne
Canterbury
Warriors.

Here's a list of teams that been found to have breached the caps collectively by more than $400k, and have not thus far been penalised points:

Parramatta.

 

[Gronk]

For all the conspiracy theorists out there, here is a list of teams that have lost points for salary cap breaches:

Melbourne
Canterbury
Warriors.

Here's a list of teams that been found to have breached the cap by more than $450k, and have not thus far been penalised points:

Parramatta.

To be fair, our NRL cap breach was not $450k+. You were being cheeky there.

This fine and threat came about after the Eels had overspent in each of the four salary cap categories - (NRL Top 25 $101,718), (NRL 2ND tier $233,036), (NYC Top 20 - $60,915) and (NYC 2nd tier $8277)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/96588843266856cebb156ceca852d13a

 

[IFR33K]

True, but you did say that they 'altered the contract'. They did not. The contract presented was different to the MOU. That's not altering a contract.

Out of all the merkins out there, I was hoping u knew what I meant.

 

[Bigfella]

Why?

What are the eels being investigated for? TPA's

What is the media claiming about the eels? That we had TPA which are not at arms length from the club and we were involved in negotiating TPA

Now here is some of the Fifita contract details with the dogs:



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...on-after-divorce/story-fni3g67w-1226873949085



http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...g-of-andrew-fifita-fiasco-20140430-zr1ys.html

There are many reasons why.

An Mou can't be binding in the nrl.

Further, the amendments were all properly documented and it led to the deal breaking down so no enforceable agreement was reached. It obviously wasn't a wink wink nudge nudge otherwise Fifita would have proceeded.

But even more importantly, it's not a breach of any kind until and unless it has been allocated to the cap in a particular way.

The Dogs may have declared the full amounts of TPA as assessable under the cap.

The example is completely premature. Apart from the fact it is relying on small amounts of evidence and IFREEKS memory which has a habit of being exposed to be completely wrong.





So the dogs had a MOU with Fifita which was $1 million more then the amount they would going to include under the cap for Fifita. Now wouldnt that indicate any TPA with Fifitia indicated the dogs were involved with negotiating them? If not why would it be included in the MOU?

Now let's think about what the Telecrap would report tomorrow morning if they were leaked a MOU between Foran and the eels that was $1 million dollars more then the contract we registered with the NRL.