Eels Salary Cap MK III

[strider]

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 .

If their smoking gun is recordings of a bunch of dudes saying TPAs get space under the cap we need more of them, then they have got to be kidding themselves. Of course this discussion would happen at every club.

Just saying we need more TPAs doesnt make you the biggest cap cheats in the history of the world as we are being branded.

Do they have the subsequent evidence of specific TPAs we have been dodgy with?

 

[strider]

I asked a few days back ...

What was the NRLs findings on super CEO Scott Seward out of their investigation? Clearly he would have been in the thick of it in his time here.

I know he is no longer involved in the NRL, but surely if you are branding merkins as worthy of being deregistered, you would also have to mention something about one of the main players. Surely his ass would get branded with, a dont let this merkin be involved again, symbol???

Convenient Seward didnt get mentioned anywhere. Did he get a deal? From his friend?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

So, basically, I've been right all along?

Why does Avenger speculating on something make you right all along? They're not going take the points deduction down to 4 points on those grounds, and no court will force them to. The only way that will happen is if we manage to get them to overturn some of the findings re the indpendence of TPAs or the invoicing stuff. If we had applied for Watmough to be terminated prior to making which ever deal put us over the cap (under the revised cap values and allowing for any f**kups by the NRL in double-counting etc) that would be different.

 

[Jake the snake]

Why does Avenger speculating on something make you right all along? They're not going take the points deduction down to 4 points on those grounds, and no court will force them to. The only way that will happen is if we manage to get them to overturn some of the findings re the indpendence of TPAs or the invoicing stuff. If we had applied for Watmough to be terminated prior to making which ever deal put us over the cap (under the revised cap values and allowing for any f**kups by the NRL in double-counting etc)that would be different.

Spot on. End of argument.

 

[Avenger]

Why does Avenger speculating on something make you right all along? They're not going take the points deduction down to 4 points on those grounds, and no court will force them to. The only way that will happen is if we manage to get them to overturn some of the findings re the indpendence of TPAs or the invoicing stuff. If we had applied for Watmough to be terminated prior to making which ever deal put us over the cap (under the revised cap values and allowing for any f**kups by the NRL in double-counting etc) that would be different.

All this time Greenberg has stated that we have lost all our points because we have operated with a team that is over the cap. If Choc's retirement is approved and his salary is not included in this years cap why wouldn't they consider reducing the points penalty? It appears to at least to me that the NRL is hanging their hat on the fact that we are not cap complaint this year.

 

[Avenger]

Spot on. End of argument.

No it's not. We still have some recourse. See above.

 

[Bandwagon]

If their smoking gun is recordings of a bunch of dudes saying TPAs get space under the cap we need more of them, then they have got to be kidding themselves. Of course this discussion would happen at every club.

Just saying we need more TPAs doesnt make you the biggest cap cheats in the history of the world as we are being branded.

Do they have the subsequent evidence of specific TPAs we have been dodgy with?

The "proof" would have to be in the transactions and wouldn't be to difficult to isolate. Variations to player contracts would be registered, so any contracts with variations downwards lodged post that meeting would form the basis of their list

From there, corresponding TPA's lodged legitimately in the players name, or indeed transactions that looked iffy for similar amounts would indicate strongly the club compensating those same players for a loss in contract value.

That alone would not be enough evidence to come to a finding of guilt, but add some witness corroboration, and any other documentation that seemingly supports that allegation and they have a reasonably convincing case.

As we've seen, the level of evidence the NRL requires and the quality of it is by no means going to be scrutinized and tested at any where near the level it would be be through the court system. I would suggest a decent amount of circumstantial evidence would be given far more weight in the NRL investigation that would be allowed for in civil proceedings.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I think the Eels are fine with their barrister.

All that comment does is make me think the Club is already onto this and heading down the road of sense (for once?).

 

[Gronk]

All this time Greenberg has stated that we have lost all our points because we have operated with a team that is over the cap. If Choc's retirement is approved and his salary is not included in this years cap why wouldn't they consider reducing the points penalty? It appears to at least to me that the NRL is hanging their hat on the fact that we are not cap complaint this year.

No I agree with Baz and said as much in the other thread earlier.

Part of the penalty was because of alleged cash payments, inflated service contracts etc. You get punished for that shit.

I don't buy that because we can fudge numbers now that it somehow exonerates new found infractions.

It's like a real estate agent who has been dipping into his trust account, somehow arguing that he should not be punished because he has put all the money back.

We need to prove that our TPAs were not dodgy. Simple as that.

 

[hybrideel]

I asked a few days back ...

What was the NRLs findings on super CEO Scott Seward out of their investigation? Clearly he would have been in the thick of it in his time here.

I know he is no longer involved in the NRL, but surely if you are branding merkins as worthy of being deregistered, you would also have to mention something about one of the main players. Surely his ass would get branded with, a dont let this merkin be involved again, symbol???

Convenient Seward didnt get mentioned anywhere. Did he get a deal? From his friend?

I believe Seward has been placed in witness protection

 

[hindy111]

All this time Greenberg has stated that we have lost all our points because we have operated with a team that is over the cap. If Choc's retirement is approved and his salary is not included in this years cap why wouldn't they consider reducing the points penalty? It appears to at least to me that the NRL is hanging their hat on the fact that we are not cap complaint this year.

Know he has not. He stated we will play for points once we have a team that complies with the cap.

The punishment could be cause of previous years and just for the fact they lied and tried to hide it.

I do agree thou the fact they have said - We are taking the 12 points off them until the team is under the cap suggests this is the case.
But NRL could come back and say no its punishment for previous years and a compilation of things.

 

[Avenger]

All that comment does is make me think the Club is already onto this and heading down the road of sense (for once?).

I don't know mate. My contact has nothing to do with the board or any factions.

 

[Bandwagon]

Why does Avenger speculating on something make you right all along? They're not going take the points deduction down to 4 points on those grounds, and no court will force them to. The only way that will happen is if we manage to get them to overturn some of the findings re the indpendence of TPAs or the invoicing stuff. If we had applied for Watmough to be terminated prior to making which ever deal put us over the cap (under the revised cap values and allowing for any f**kups by the NRL in double-counting etc) that would be different.

I think there is potentially an argument that the club believed it's self compliant up until such time as the NRL released it's rulings on the TPA's etc and included them in our cap, particularly if we can successfully challenge some of those determined to be illegitimate and it is technically only at that point we are over. Should Watmough's case get back dated to February, and then be enough to claw back the amounts the NRL have deemed we are over by, we would then be in a position of technically not having been over the cap at any time.

As I see it, looking at it retrospectively is quite justifiable as the cap is not week by week, it is annual. That means that the amounts the NRL is claiming us to be over the cap are forward projections based upon how much we will be over come seasons end. If all of the above leads to a change in said projections to the point we are no longer looking like breaching the cap limits, we are not, and have not been fielding a team that is over the cap.

Given the reasoning as I understand it, the decision to dock us of 12 points was on the basis that those points were gained with a non compliant squad, should our squad then be proven to technically been compliant, that would suggest to me fair reasoning to challenge the points penalty to receive a reduction.

 

[hindy111]

If we where 200k under the cap already. And we release Morgan which gives us about 80 k to play with. That means we need to shave 270?
If some of those TPA's have been counted twice as suggested and we only have to then shave 150. If watmough counts for 500k and we have 300k spare (under the cap)
How funny would it be if we then went and signed a player for this season!

Not lets stretch this some more. Hayne gets cut from 49rs. Decides he wants to return. We offer him a small contract for the rest of the season. What does the NRL do? I am sure Rugby would be ready to take him like Falou

 

[IFR33K]

Ok. So Greenberg gave SS some options on how to handle third party agreements, while the former was running the dogs. Saying this is how the dogs handle tpa's. I thought club are meant to remain at arms length?????? I'd be very interested to hear what exactly those options were and what advice was given.....

 

[IFR33K]

If we where 200k under the cap already. And we release Morgan which gives us about 80 k to play with. That means we need to shave 270?
If some of those TPA's have been counted twice as suggested and we only have to then shave 150. If watmough counts for 500k and we have 300k spare (under the cap)
How funny would it be if we then went and signed a player for this season!

Not lets stretch this some more. Hayne gets cut from 49rs. Decides he wants to return. We offer him a small contract for the rest of the season. What does the NRL do? I am sure Rugby would be ready to take him like Falou

Screw signing anyone else. I'd be content if we were in the mix come September.

 

[yy_cheng]

Wouldn't it be funny if we were under the cap if thry accept Watmoughs retirement and then we go get hayne for the rest of the season

 

[Gronk]

Wouldn't it be funny if we were under the cap if thry accept Watmoughs retirement and then we go get hayne for the rest of the season

 

[yy_cheng]

Tbh, i wouldn't think hayne will fit into our teams bonding with Foran as our leader.

I think it will bring back shades of hindy and hayne

But would love to see it happen to piss off Greenberg

 

[Jake the snake]

All this time Greenberg has stated that we have lost all our points because we have operated with a team that is over the cap. If Choc's retirement is approved and his salary is not included in this years cap why wouldn't they consider reducing the points penalty? It appears to at least to me that the NRL is hanging their hat on the fact that we are not cap complaint this year.

I see your point and the angle you are coming from but what you are forgetting is We assembled a team which was over the cap with Watmough in the team at that point of time with Watmough fully fit. There has to be a penalty for that. If Watmough was still fit / playing with the current team and we had no insurance option what would our position be?

If there's no penalty / deterrent every team would do the same. The NRL's view would be that we should not have been able to negotiate and recruit other players whilst we were over the cap. Yes, we now have the opportunity to get back under on a insurance technicality but it still doesn't erase the signings we made in the past when we were not supposed to.