Eels Salary Cap MK II

[IFR33K]

Was that what the four points was about? Or were they in case we didn't adequately implement the governance review recommendations? And hasn't the NRL announced that we passed that reuirement and the NRL is no longer holding those particular four points over our heads?

Don't jounros or their editors get paid to fact check any more... :crazy:

Yes, the potential 4 point deductions was about implementing changes. Which we did. Thank god it ain't these jurnos running the investigation.

 

[ash411]

Just a quick note to those people banging on about "If X happens, I'm done and handing in my membership card and will go follow <insert sport here>".

Do it right now.

If you are even thinking of abandoning the club we love in its toughest time, f**k you and the horse you rode in on, no one wants you here.

It really annoys me when people are willing to throw in supporting a team they've love for (in some cases) 30+ years because of one thing. I'm not saying this isn't bad, potentially the worst thing in Parra's history (if everything bad is true) but that's no excuse to jump ship.

Shame on you.

 

[hineyrulz]

The suspended sentence was governance review AND no further breaches.

Weren't we already fined the 4 points but it was up to get our house in order to prevent the loss of the 4 points??? Which we did until this new stuff came to light.

 

[emjaycee]

Weren't we already fined the 4 points but it was up to get our house in order to prevent the loss of the 4 points??? Which we did until this new stuff came to light.

There is sufficient ambiguity in the NRL release from May 2015 to suggest that the 4 points are still at risk. It states "no further salary cap breaches" as a dependency on not loosing sarcasm the 4 points and the current salary cap/tpa issues began prior to the 29th Feb deadline.

 

[emjaycee]

What begins ? The campaign for the board to stand down ? I would have thought that it started last year when the suspended points were applied.

I thought MJC was referring to every other "journalist" hitching their wagon to the campaign. If that's the case, Webster's a bit late to the party

It is only recently the media has directly started linking the tenure of our Board/Management with the size of the penalty imposed. And it is now being repeated in most related articles and opinion pieces.

Given I reckon this was the intended outcome since November, my comment relates to the fact the real penalty is now in the open.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

.
Under those rules, clubs cannot source TPAs on behalf of players and any agreements signed must be with companies, suppliers or sponsors at arm&#8217;s length from the respective club.

Based on what the media has reported on, nothing indicates we have breached this !! All the emails minutes just state we have such and such TPA outstanding. And there is no indication whether they are discussing independent TPA and or club sourced ones

So the question is what is the definition of "sourcing"??? Does it mean that uncle Nick cannot direct any player manager to such and such company ??

Surely the NRL aren't that naive to think clubs have no role in sourcing TPA in some way.

 

[forward pass]

Didn't the DT state that Seward had already flown up and spoken to the NRL about this? So he hasn't at all?

 

[Gronk]

Based on what the media has reported on, nothing indicates we have breached this !! All the emails minutes just state we have such and such TPA outstanding. And there is no indication whether they are discussing independent TPA and or club sourced ones

So the question is what is the definition of "sourcing"??? Does it mean that uncle Nick cannot direct any player manager to such and such company ??

Surely the NRL aren't that naive to think clubs have no role in sourcing TPA in some way.

Greenberg was a CEO of an NRL club and he cannot say that his hands are clean about similar deals.

How can he possibly prosecute an argument which demands strict compliance, when he (most likely) was up to his neck in these ;-) TPA ;-) deals AND he knows that they are the norm at every franchise ?

 

[IFR33K]

The apparent main issues here, seem to be chocs tpa's. The owner of One of the companies that sponsor choc, owns another company, and it's believed he/she does some work for the eels. Does that not comply with 'arms length' policy?

If it doesn't, surely that's not enough to deduct points.

 

[parra-matters]

everybody is jumping at shadows at present, wait and see what the NRL does, the media didn't print the full email trail they just printed the bits that helped their story.
The NRL will get all the info and make judgement based on that not whats in the paper.

 

[ash411]

The apparent main issues here, seem to be chocs tpa's. The owner of One of the companies that sponsor choc, owns another company, and it's believed he/she does some work for the eels. Does that not comply with 'arms length' policy?

If it doesn't, surely that's not enough to deduct points.

Because it isn't really about tpa's anymore.

The NRL has a stick up their a$$ about the board and want them out, and they are using the Watmough tpa problem as a way to use the threat of points to remove the board.

Either that, or points deductions aren't even on the table, and its the media screaming about points throwing random amounts around not having any real clue what is happening in the NRL investigation.

 

[Bigfella]

The apparent main issues here, seem to be chocs tpa's. The owner of One of the companies that sponsor choc, owns another company, and it's believed he/she does some work for the eels. Does that not comply with 'arms length' policy?

If it doesn't, surely that's not enough to deduct points.

One of the problems for us as fans is that we really don't know what the facts and issues are.

What has become clear though is that the media coverage has been incredibly unfair to us as a club.

The talk of penalties as though they have already been decided had been around for a long time.

Basic procedural fairness suggests that the decision of whether we are in breach should come first, and penalty should follow.

I hope we do have a legal team working on this now because the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

 

[Stagger eel]

Oh Stags, 4 points is nothing... don't you remember the posts you read? :lol:

10 points is a different ball game, and shows the NRL has caved into the interests of the media, an agenda being fed by factional warlords to wrest control of the club via/from its members.

Be very careful about what you're really supporting when you move/vote for that no confidence motion on 2 May ;-).

and there in lies the problem...

most members such as myself couldnt give a flying f**k who"s on the board, I support the footy team in all 5 grades and 1 of those grades is under threat of having their season derailed under our noses due to some incompetence of a few administrators running our club...

please dont use the word support in relation to the board or management to me because they're not the reason I support the club and never have been.

oh and by the way Bart I'll make a promise to you, Ill be at the AGM but wont wont be lifting a single finger for any motions to be moved, do you seriously believe my single vote will make a difference??

 

[Bigfella]

Because it isn't really about tpa's anymore.

The NRL has a stick up their a$$ about the board and want them out, and they are using the Watmough tpa problem as a way to use the threat of points to remove the board.

Either that, or points deductions aren't even on the table, and its the media screaming about points throwing random amounts around not having any real clue what is happening in the NRL investigation.

Surely he second part must be the more likely scenario?

 

[Gronk]

The apparent main issues here, seem to be chocs tpa's. The owner of One of the companies that sponsor choc, owns another company, and it's believed he/she does some work for the eels. Does that not comply with 'arms length' policy?

If it doesn't, surely that's not enough to deduct points.

It prolly goes deeper than that.

If I was a CEO I'd say to an IT company that the $250k contact should be bumped to $300k and one of your subsidiary companies TPA sponsor a player for $50k.

Bill Shorten did a deal as a union leader like that. IIRC a construction company paid his campaign manager's salary ?

All this sounds very corrupt, but welcome to the world of TPAs.

Again, they cannot prosecute this argument and pretend that it does not go on elsewhere AND when our fellow franchisees are not subject to the same forensic audits.

 

[ash411]

Surely he second part must be the more likely scenario?

Depends on who you talk to. But yeah, the second part is my opinion, but I have no idea.

Here's a question for the group.

Let's say next week the NRL holds a press conference, stating that they've completed their investigations, and are fully satisfied that Parramatta are clear of any wrongdoing, the Watmough tpa issue was a mis-judgement (or something) and a small technical breach, for which we are being fined $10,000. No points shall be deducted, and was never even considered as an option.

If that were to happen, do you still support the no confidence motion at the AGM?

 

[IFR33K]

One of the problems for us as fans is that we really don't know what the facts and issues are.

What has become clear though is that the media coverage has been incredibly unfair to us as a club.

The talk of penalties as though they have already been decided had been around for a long time.

Basic procedural fairness suggests that the decision of whether we are in breach should come first, and penalty should follow.

I hope we do have a legal team working on this now because the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I understand we have broken some rules, but the smear campaign out there is a disgrace. Especially when you consider the media is dating back to 2013/14.

I read on the other site, Kent was talking as thou we'll be deducted all our points. Toovey then asks him, have the eels been found guilty of anything yet? Kent apparently couldn't answer that simple question.

Let's hope sanity prevails, so we can concentrate on what we all love. Watching some footy.

 

[IFR33K]

It prolly goes deeper than that.

If I was a CEO I'd say to an IT company that the $250k contact should be bumped to $300k and one of your subsidiary companies TPA sponsor a player for $50k.

Bill Shorten did a deal as a union leader like that. IIRC a construction company paid his campaign manager's salary ?

All this sounds very corrupt, but welcome to the world of TPAs.

Again, they cannot prosecute this argument and pretend that it does not go on elsewhere AND when our fellow franchisees are not subject to the same forensic audits.

Yep. I understand that's what probably happened. But f**k me, if there's isn't much else to it lets all move on. Get them cap compliant and move on.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

The apparent main issues here, seem to be chocs tpa's. The owner of One of the companies that sponsor choc, owns another company, and it's believed he/she does some work for the eels. Does that not comply with 'arms length' policy?

If it doesn't, surely that's not enough to deduct points.

I don't think Watmough's issue is that major, didn't they just fail to incorrectly inform the NRL about ? Looking at past fines for salary cap breaches, it seems a few clubs have stuffed up on similar issues and just been fined.

It's the other shit from 2013/14 that's the concern I reckon

 

[IFR33K]

I wonder if sticky has leaked any info....