Eels Salary Cap MK II

[Chipmunk]

They're not, they just don't have a massive microscope trained on them. Everything looks obvious and massive under a microscope.

I doubt there would be a microscope if someone didn't tell them where to look, which wouldn't happen at any other club.

 

[ash411]

I doubt there would be a microscope if someone didn't tell them where to look, which wouldn't happen at any other club.

That's my point.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

If that's true and we are cap complaint for 2016 why punish the team and fans? Why not just ban the board members from representing the club ?

Why ever punish the team and the fans? Because you have to provide a deterrent to the behaviour at the centre of the problem. Would you be happy if, say, the Storm decided to come up with some great cap rort, which was subsequently discovered, and the NRL said 'no worries, it's not the team or fans fault, we'll just take action against a few administrators'?

There has to be at least the threat of losing meaningful competition points, or it is basically open slather.

Another point is that our salary cap compliance in 2016 is potentially affected by undisclosed front-loading a players total benefits (i.e. including TPAs) in previous years.

But who knows.....we haven't actually been found to have done anything wrong yet.

 

[parra pete]

Yeah I got nothing

A heart attack?????

 

[Joshuatheeel]

we haven't actually been found to have done anything wrong yet.

You sure? The papers and commentators seem to think we are already guilty!! But can't say what for yet.

 

[Gronk]

Why ever punish the team and the fans? Because you have to provide a deterrent to the behaviour at the centre of the problem. Would you be happy if, say, the Storm decided to come up with some great cap rort, which was subsequently discovered, and the NRL said 'no worries, it's not the team or fans fault, we'll just take action against a few administrators'?

There has to be at least the threat of losing meaningful competition points, or it is basically open slather.

Another point is that our salary cap compliance in 2016 is potentially affected by undisclosed front-loading a players total benefits (i.e. including TPAs) in previous years.

But who knows.....we haven't actually been found to have done anything wrong yet.

All of these hypothetical qns will make more sense when we know what rules have been broken, if any.

I think the position of most is that technical breaches are untidy rather than what News Ltd describe as "culture of systemic breaches of salary cap rules".

If merkins can't run a club properly and they need to go. Like the Mayor of Geelong who was way over his head, the executive make the call for change.

If the latter can be proved, then the NRL have no choice but to dock points viz; Storm, Dogs & Warriors.

 

[Chipmunk]

Why ever punish the team and the fans? Because you have to provide a deterrent to the behaviour at the centre of the problem. Would you be happy if, say, the Storm decided to come up with some great cap rort, which was subsequently discovered, and the NRL said 'no worries, it's not the team or fans fault, we'll just take action against a few administrators'?

There has to be at least the threat of losing meaningful competition points, or it is basically open slather.

Another point is that our salary cap compliance in 2016 is potentially affected by undisclosed front-loading a players total benefits (i.e. including TPAs) in previous years.

But who knows.....we haven't actually been found to have done anything wrong yet.

Who owns the trademark and brand Parramatta Eels NRL? If I'm not mistaken the ARL Commission owns all the clubs trademarks and "Licenses" them out to individual clubs. Was this not part of the settlement post Super League?

Just take the License off the Leagues Club and be done with it. This will punish the perpetrators and not the fans and the team. After all, the NRL essentially provides the funds to pay the players anyway.

 

[Oscarman]

I doubt there would be a microscope if someone didn't tell them where to look, which wouldn't happen at any other club.

Strangely enough they are most likely the ones who did it and are showing where the bodies are as it may benefit them now. Nothing like self-interest.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Just take the License off the Leagues Club and be done with it. This will punish the perpetrators and not the fans and the team. After all, the NRL essentially provides the funds to pay the players anyway.

Then lose a club backer with very deep financial pockets ? Na NRL won't want to do that and have to financially support another club.

They would want to force changes along with keeping the club as the owner / financial backer of the club.

 

[ash411]

Who owns the trademark and brand Parramatta Eels NRL? If I'm not mistaken the ARL Commission owns all the clubs trademarks and "Licenses" them out to individual clubs. Was this not part of the settlement post Super League?

Just take the License off the Leagues Club and be done with it. This will punish the perpetrators and not the fans and the team. After all, the NRL essentially provides the funds to pay the players anyway.

And then what? there's no team without the leagues club. Unless you have a spare 12 million dollars a year (estimated, I think that's how much the leagues club spent on the Eels last year) you can spend on the operations of the team?

On edit: actually, we currently have around 20,000 members, if we each kicked in $600 as a minimum (on top of what you already pay for your membership of course), we could afford to run the team...

 

[Chipmunk]

And then what? there's no team without the leagues club. Unless you have a spare 12 million dollars a year (estimated, I think that's how much the leagues club spent on the Eels last year) you can spend on the operations of the team?

On edit: actually, we currently have around 20,000 members, if we each kicked in $600 as a minimum (on top of what you already pay for your membership of course), we could afford to run the team...

There you go.....

 

[Chipmunk]

Then lose a club backer with very deep financial pockets ? Na NRL won't want to do that and have to financially support another club.

They would want to force changes along with keeping the club as the owner / financial backer of the club.

Well the NRL can't have it's cake and eat it too. You get what you get with the Parramatta League Club and leave them to it.

 

[Kornstar]

And then what? there's no team without the leagues club. Unless you have a spare 12 million dollars a year (estimated, I think that's how much the leagues club spent on the Eels last year) you can spend on the operations of the team?

On edit: actually, we currently have around 20,000 members, if we each kicked in $600 as a minimum (on top of what you already pay for your membership of course), we could afford to run the team...

Would we then call ourselves the Parramatta Packers?

 

[yy_cheng]

Would we then call ourselves the Parramatta Packers?

Blue Bay Packers

 

[ash411]

Would we then call ourselves the Parramatta Packers?

How about the Parramatta F**K you Telegraph?

 

[Gronk]

How about the Parramatta F**K you Telegraph?

+1

 

[oldmancraigy]

Big fine: probably no points (or 2)
NRL member on board, or at meetings.
Tele to blow up
Fitz to cry.

 

[The Colonel]

Parramatta Rams! Much more marketable....

 

[jono]

Parramatta Rams! Much more marketable....

Get the flock out of here!

 

[Chipmunk]

Big fine: probably no points (or 2)
NRL member on board, or at meetings.
Tele to blow up
Fitz to cry.

Wishful thinking of heard something?