What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Eels Salary Cap MK III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,875
Well we need to get on to this quick, like tomorrow and give the evidence we have to proof it to the NRL, or should we wait til the approve watmough's retirement first then hit them with this?

Well were pursuing legal preceedings in the supreme court against them tomorow so who knows what will come out of that.
 

Basil Brush

Juniors
Messages
1,200
This shit just got interesting.

Problem is we have a lot ignorant NRL supporters including certain Eels fans.

My advice would be ignore everything News Limited says including the Daily Telegragh and Fox with Kent.

Also ignore Hadley as he only wants Fitzgerald back and that would be the worst thing ever.

We are on the right track.
 

Avenger

Immortal
Messages
33,174
No, mate.

Just that you have a bit more good oil than me and, I'm guessing, a bit more inside info.

I'm kinda hoping that this isn't just your calculations but maybe a bit of confirmation of what other people are now thinking?

Source knows nothing. I'll take it from me. This kinda of legal shit is my bread and butter. ;-)
 

phantom eel

First Grade
Messages
6,327
I honestly believe they won't want us anywhere near the finals and have a contingency plan just in case
Greenburg is on record as saying if a cap compliant Eels can qualify for the finals, he's all for it. He has said the NRL is available to help the cup get under the cap by next Friday, given the recent revelations/decision to deem our TPA agreements as part of our salary cap expenditure.

Doesn't sound like it fits the conspiracy theories to me?
 

Dibs

Bench
Messages
4,215
Greenburg is on record as saying if a cap compliant Eels can qualify for the finals, he's all for it. He has said the NRL is available to help the cup get under the cap by next Friday, given the recent revelations/decision to deem our TPA agreements as part of our salary cap expenditure.

Doesn't sound like it fits the conspiracy theories to me?

I hope your right but it fits perfectly if you ask me. Of course he wants to make it look like we are still in it, then pull the rug right out from under us if we are in the 8. Would you expect him to say any different assuming he wanted to keep ratings and crowds going well?
 
Messages
11,677
Source knows nothing. I'll take it from me. This kinda of legal shit is my bread and butter. ;-)

Well make sure you push this to them.

I can only do so much in terms of sending communication. There's only so many emails saying the same stuff that I can send. I don't have contacts in the club these days so we need people like you to ensure that the likes of us, who know our shit, are being listened to.

I figure there's still a lot of scrambling at the club, at present, and that the dust hasn't really settled, so there may be a lack of focus on the right areas and still a little bit of panic that's leading us down the wrong paths.

If we wait too long it might be too late.

I absolutely know that this is 100% legally valid. We would win this court case hands down. Looks like you're informed enough to know this, too.

If you need to go and headbutt your source to get his attention then do it.

Time to fight, Avy. If it takes you and I getting into the trenches to win this f**king thing then so be it.
 

yy_cheng

Coach
Messages
18,701
Former Eels boss Scott Seward asked NRL CEO Todd Greenberg for advice on third party agreements
Date
May 5, 2016 - 10:00PM
51 reading nowBe the first to commentRead later
Michael Chammas and Chris Barrett
Tweet
inShare
submit to redditEmail articlePrintReprints & permissions


Play
0:00
/
0:00
Fullscreen
Mute
'It's just a joke': Parramatta Eels fan
Parramatta Eels fan expresses concern over salary cap breach.
Former Parramatta Eels chief executive Scott Seward approached NRL CEO Todd Greenberg for advice on third-party agreements, recordings from a Parramatta board meeting in 2013 reveal.

Fairfax Media has obtained the transcript provided in the breach notice the NRL handed to Parramatta on Tuesday which mentioned Greenberg, however the NRL boss has denied providing any advice that contravened NRL rules in regards to third-party payments.

The transcript also identifies plans from football manager Daniel Anderson, in which he talks about lowering player salaries and replacing them with third-party agreements as to clear space in the salary cap.

Former Parramatta Eels chief executive Scott Seward.
Former Parramatta Eels chief executive Scott Seward. Photo: Gene Ramirez GRA
Fairfax Media can also reveal Seward contacted Greenberg last month, asking for advice on whether he should agree to be interviewed by the NRL to assist their salary cap investigation into Parramatta.

Seward, who is a close friend of Greenberg from their time together at the Bulldogs, admitted in the December, 2013 board meeting to have sought feedback from Greenberg about the way Canterbury handled third-party agreements during his tenure as club chief executive.​

Eels club officials discussed the need to implement third-party agreements at the January board meeting, with Seward referencing his conversation with the now NRL boss, who was listed as Seward's referee when he applied for his job at Parramatta.

"We do need, and what we'll do, is we'll actually sit down and go through TPAs as a whole," Seward said in the meeting.

"There's a few different options. I've spoken to Greenberg about the way that Canterbury, and the best options. I've spoken to [Wayne] Beavis to tell us how f--ked we are, um, and the like.

"But it is a case of sitting down and working out the best way we can do it. Because right now we are batting this game with one arm tied behind our back. The Roosters have probably got $1.5 million in TPA, and that's fair, that's the game. That's the way it is."

A spokesman for the NRL said any advice Greenberg provided to Seward on third-party agreements was in accordance with the rules.

There was great conjecture last month when Seward met with the NRL to give his version of events, with Parramatta asked to waive a non-disclosure agreement to allow their former CEO to testify against the club.

Seward was torn about whether he should tip the bucket on his former colleagues and went to Greenberg for advice.

An NRL spokesman confirmed the exchange, saying: "Mr Greenberg advised Mr Seward by text to have an open and honest discussion with the head of the integrity unit, Nick Weeks, and to provide any evidence he had."

The Eels were desperate to save money on their salary cap and devised a plan, which was in breach of the NRL's rules, to reduce the salary of certain players and replace them with third party agreements.

Such a ploy would free space on the salary cap, however the NRL picked up on the conversation during their thorough investigation.

"Yeah we can make the contract variation, cause we've got until March 1," Anderson said in the meeting.

"So we can find one in February, make a contract variation to a player's contract, take it off their salary, give it to them in a TPA, and the salary cap value comes down."



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...agreements-20160505-goneie.html#ixzz47n20QYwJ
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
 

Basil Brush

Juniors
Messages
1,200
Greenberg is a grub but so are Hadley and Kent.

Funny thing is Steve Sharp is a very decent bloke but possibly very nieve.
 

phantom eel

First Grade
Messages
6,327
The current court injunction - on which the superm court rules tomorrow - is just about the named 5 not having to agree to NRL directions to stand down from PNRL Board, is that right? (Noting that PNRL Board is the entity that has the relationship with the NRL, and is different to the PLC Board - although the directors for both boards are the same.) Once the court rules on that matter, the current court action/injuction/case is over.

Simultaneously, the NRL is requiring us to get under the cap based on their new defintion of having counted all of our TPAs by Friday week. Indications are that NRL will be amenable to acepting Watmough's insurance payment as cap exempt, meaning that we can become cap compliant by next Friday and compete for points again. We can and should still be aiming to do this, so that the game against the Rabbitohs (and the rest of the season) means something.

Getting under the new definition of our cap should be the priority, so that Brad Arthur and the playing squad have something to keep them going during all this. Negotiations or court actions about the 12 lost points, and whether they should be 12, be reduced to 8, or even the originally mooted 4 :D can take place AFTER we've ensured our team gets on the paddock entirely compliant with curent NRL wishes. Those decisions may take a long time, so we need to to think about those thinks after the squad (minus Watmough, and maybe with one other tweak) gets the all clear.

If the named 5 directors also want to fight their presumed exclusion from the PNRL Board (while staying on the PLC Board, unless OLGA/LGR make a ruling otherwise) and dergistration from rugby league roles, then they can do that too - but it seems like it needs to be a separate court action to the current one, and a separatecourt action to anything to do with challenging the points penalty (if that eventually comes to court action, after a period of negotiations based on our written response to the elements in the breach notice first).

TL : DR? Eventual court action about the penalty/process/future of named 5 is fine, but - because we're mid-season with a chance of keeping this squad together and fighting to make the semis - surely it needs to wait until we get the cap all clear first, in time to play on as a live concern next Friday night.
 

Glenn

First Grade
Messages
7,315
like I said, this shit just got interesting...

get some popcorn and enjoy the show

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...n-third-party-agreements-20160505-goneie.html

aeTIyF.jpg
 

phantom eel

First Grade
Messages
6,327
like I said, this shit just got interesting...

get some popcorn and enjoy the show

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...n-third-party-agreements-20160505-goneie.html
I'm not sure what's so interesting about that...? The Greenburg stuff doesn't indicate the nature of TPA advice Seward received, and the article includes a statement that any advice provided by Greenburg while at Canterbury to his former colleague was within the rules.

I can't flaw DA's logic about how TPAs can be used to reduce salary components toward the cap, and that may well have been the advice received from greenburg. However DA's phrasing on the transcript saying "we need to find one" about arranging TPAs could well be the problem - doesn't bode well for arguing they were at arms length and shouldn't count toward our cap :(.
 

Avenger

Immortal
Messages
33,174
Well make sure you push this to them.

I can only do so much in terms of sending communication. There's only so many emails saying the same stuff that I can send. I don't have contacts in the club these days so we need people like you to ensure that the likes of us, who know our shit, are being listened to.

I figure there's still a lot of scrambling at the club, at present, and that the dust hasn't really settled, so there may be a lack of focus on the right areas and still a little bit of panic that's leading us down the wrong paths.

If we wait too long it might be too late.

I absolutely know that this is 100% legally valid. We would win this court case hands down. Looks like you're informed enough to know this, too.

If you need to go and headbutt your source to get his attention then do it.

Time to fight, Avy. If it takes you and I getting into the trenches to win this f**king thing then so be it.
I think the Eels are fine with their barrister.
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
78,859
Seriously, and we need to be careful about getting ahead of ourselves here, but essentially if this is proven true, we've just lost 12 points for being $150k over the cap??

Or are the 12 points also tied to previous years indiscretions?

Who says the previous years value they have been going on about is correct either? If they got this years number wrong, how much more did they get wrong.

$3m over 4 years???
$570 this year ... which might actually be $150k
$2.43m the previous 3 years ... about $800k a year .... what might that end up really being?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top