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.

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...t/news-story/577bd877af24e4f5712954301959a871

Cap breach overstated, hints auditor as Watmough puts Eels first

The Australian
May 6, 2016 12:00AM

Brent Read
Senior sports writer
Sydney

Parramatta yesterday submitted papers to fast-track Anthony Watmough’s retirement, but their greatest cause for optimism was provided by former salary cap auditor Ian Schubert amid suggestions he had calculated the club’s salary cap breach could be significantly less than the figure claimed by the NRL.

Schubert, brought in by the Eels as a consultant to help the club negotiate their cap minefield, has spent recent days poring over myriad cap allegations made against the club by the NRL.

It is understood he believes the situation is nowhere near as dire as the NRL has indicated — in handing down its findings against the Eels, the game’s governing body suggested Parramatta were more than $560,000 over the cap for this season. Schubert’s calculations, which put the breach closer to $200,000, represent an alarming discrepancy between his own figures and those that were included in the documentation handed to the club by the NRL.

Should he be proven correct, it would dramatically heighten the chances of the club being under the salary cap in time for their game against South Sydney next week, particularly if the NRL takes a sympathetic view towards their application to have Watmough *retired under the career-ending injury guidelines.

The Eels yesterday filed the paperwork for Watmough’s retirement — he is yet to play this year as he struggles with a debilitating knee injury — and the former NSW and Australia forward broke his silence to confirm he would do whatever was best for the club.

He also spoke of his belief that the five officials at the centre of the allegations would do the same. Those five — chairman Steve Sharp, fellow directors Tom Issa and Peter Serrao, chief executive John Boulous and football manager Daniel Anderson — are due to return to the Supreme Court this morning as they continue *action against the NRL.

The NRL has refused to deal with the club while the legal action remains afoot and it is understood some of the parties, who have requested an extension in their time to respond to the NRL allegations, are open to stepping aside if it would remove an impediment to the Eels getting under the cap.

Others are believed to be ready to seek directions from the court ordering the NRL to work with them until they have the opportunity to respond to the allegations, a view that would serve only to inflame an already tense situation.

Their incendiary stance — it is believed the directors received initial legal advice that the NRL investigation was shoddy and full of holes — was yesterday mirrored by one of the directors to emerge with his reputation intact.

Parramatta lord mayor Paul Garrard accused NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg of grandstanding during a meeting with the players earlier this week to announce the salary cap sanctions. “Tell the truth if you want to be a white knight,” Garrard told The Australian.

Garrard’s anger was inflamed by suggestions the directors believed as late as last week that they were as much as $200,000 under the cap for this season.

However, The Australian understands the NRL rolled all the club’s third parties for the past three years — $760,000 in total — into this year’s payments because they believed they were guaranteed, pushing the club over the cap.

The Eels mitigated some of the damage yesterday when Melbourne announced they had signed Eels centre Ryan Morgan for the remainder of the year.

Morgan’s move came on another dramatic day for the club, with the NSW Office of Liquor and Gaming confirming it was investigating the NRL findings to see whether there had been any breaches of the Registered Clubs Act that require further action.

Watmough also spoke for the first time about his future, indicating he would be prepared to retire if it meant the club would be able to steer its way out of trouble.

“The club’s bigger than me and, if I get the chance to do the right thing and have to do what I have to do for the boys to move forward, it’s a no-brainer for me,” Watmough told the Nine Network.

“My best interest has always been the club and, if it comes to that, it comes to that.

“(Rugby league has) definitely passed the body by. We’re sewww.leagueunlimited.comess people out there at Parra — the playing group is anyway. I can’t speak from outside of that. I’ve done all I can do. I can’t do any more.”
 

phantom eel

First Grade
Messages
6,327
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.
Sensible post Jake. That's why chasing a rduction in points etc via the courts simply has to take a back seat at the moment compared to getting our squad cap compliant so that the team can play for points next Friday.

Worry about everything else, hypotheticals, future board composition etc later on - we've got the whoel season for that.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
75,737
However, The Australian understands the NRL rolled all the club’s third parties for the past three years — $760,000 in total — into this year’s payments because they believed they were guaranteed, pushing the club over the cap.
Merkins !
 

Glenn

First Grade
Messages
7,315
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...n/news-story/c08c8a850ec8f1151ac288173e5eaa6d

KIIS FM radio host Jackie O opened this morning’s show with a public apology to Parramatta Eels captain Kieran Foran.
This follows reports that Foran and his former partner launched legal against Jackie O over her on-air claims the footballer was not the father of one of his two young children.
Last night a statement was released from Australian Radio Network in response to these claims.
“It has been reported in other media that legal action has been taken against KIIS 1065 regarding comments made on air. As of 9pm today KIIS 1065 has not sighted any legal letter,” the statement read.
“Jackie and the KIIS team are mortified that anything said has caused hurt to Kieran Foran and his family at such a difficult time. We apologise unreservedly for this and wish them all the best.”
 

phantom eel

First Grade
Messages
6,327
From El D's linked article in the Australian:

However, The Australian understands the NRL rolled all the club’s third parties for the past three years — $760,000 in total — into this year’s payments because they believed they were guaranteed, pushing the club over the cap.
That would mean that being deemed $570K over the cap for this year really meant that we had been $190K under the cap, until these TPAs were included as a result of the investigation.

Schubert and Arthur will get us under by next Friday - the question is will the Directors do the right thing so the NRL allows us to play for points against Souths, and take up any legal challenge to the final penalties (to be determined by the NRL some time after we've provided them with our written submission to the breaches) until later on in the piece?
 
Messages
13,875
Can they do that ?
I mean add these years in for sure but the past years have gone wouldn't they be part of the fine?
This smells
 

Glenn

First Grade
Messages
7,315
So after this exhaustive investigation, they may still have not come to the correct figures.
Looks like incompetence is not just limited to the GO5.
 
Messages
11,677
I don't know mate. My contact has nothing to do with the board or any factions.

So, then, what? You and I just leave it to chance that they'll figure this out?

Considering the implications of success in this avenue, isn't that a little silly? And if it appears that we're the only ones who can see it, to date, don't we have an obligation to ensure the information gets to where it is needed?
 
Last edited:

strider

Post Whore
Messages
78,859
However, The Australian understands the NRL rolled all the club’s third parties for the past three years — $760,000 in total — into this year’s payments because they believed they were guaranteed, pushing the club over the cap.

So this is where it all boils down to .... every single TPA being considered illegal .... are they all? .... media reports suggest some are, but are they all?

If the NRL has overstated things with no evidence then i reckon our best bet is to prove it. Get supposedly cap compliant now via watmough n whatever - then keep pushing with proving the NRLs claim is overs and get some of the 12 back later

If this report is accurate it claims previous years TPAs are rolled into this year. What about the supposed $3M over 4 years? WTF does that come from?
 
Messages
11,677
strider, the second Watmough's gets accepted then we will be under the cap and can resume playing for points.

This then gives us until the finals to our case forward regarding retrospective cap compliance.

If Watmough gets us under the cap then we do not need to shed players. From that point on we can show a little patience, make a public declaration of our intent to have our points returned and let that ball roll where it may. We do not have to rush it, or panic about it. It does not need to happen tomorrow. There's plenty of time until the finals so we will have a good timeframe to get our ducks in a row.

So, for now, we worry about next Friday's deadline. We get clearance to play for points again without having to shed players. Once we achieve that...different story altogether.
 

IFR33K

Coach
Messages
17,043
So this is where it all boils down to .... every single TPA being considered illegal .... are they all? .... media reports suggest some are, but are they all?

If the NRL has overstated things with no evidence then i reckon our best bet is to prove it. Get supposedly cap compliant now via watmough n whatever - then keep pushing with proving the NRLs claim is overs and get some of the 12 back later

If this report is accurate it claims previous years TPAs are rolled into this year. What about the supposed $3M over 4 years? WTF does that come from?

This is going to get a lot messier before it get better.

First of all, clubs will be in uproar if they are made to play us over the cap, while the NRL can't make us dispose of players. Also, could u imagine if we remained non cap compliant and teams that lost to us narrowly missed the 8!!!! That there would be a major lawsuit against the NRL.

Secondly, if we are in fact found to be cap compliant, I can't see how the NRL can't return points. Maybe not all, but most.

Not sure the NRL wants a lengthy court battle with any club.

I suggest the NRL think long and hard before it makes its next move. ;)
 
Messages
17,534
Sensible post Jake. That's why chasing a rduction in points etc via the courts simply has to take a back seat at the moment compared to getting our squad cap compliant so that the team can play for points next Friday.

Worry about everything else, hypotheticals, future board composition etc later on - we've got the whoel season for that.

wow I actually agree with you. Can we resume hating each other?? as agreeing with you feels awkward;-)
 

Avenger

Immortal
Messages
33,174
We will be compliant for the Souths game. I can almost guarantee that. Watmough's injury is genuine. The man hasn't played since July 2015. The injury he sustained in February just makes his case as far as cap compliance more formidable. After the Souths game we then can begin to fight for a reinstatement of points. Firstly internally with the NRL process and then if we are not satisfied externally with the Supreme/Civil Courts. There is a reason why we have not had our points stripped yet. It's because we must be given an opportunity to answer or contest the breaches. There is a very real chance that we will contest it if we find anomalies. If the NRL do not concede and we do not have common ground we will seek an injunction to keep our points subject to a court hearing. There is no way the NRL would want that, assuming we gain leave to have a hearing in the first place. The key is we must be compliant with the cap ASAP so that any body judging our application can see that we have tried to mitigate our supposed advantage compared to other teams.
 
Messages
17,534
Has the NRL given our board the evidence they found yet? ie the allegations of fake or over inflated invoices ? If true that's a criminal act, I can't see is getting a reduction in points just based on these serious allegations.
 

Avenger

Immortal
Messages
33,174
Has the NRL given our board the evidence they found yet? ie the allegations of fake or over inflated invoices ? If true that's a criminal act, I can't see is getting a reduction in points just based on these serious allegations.

They can allege anything they want. Evidence is the important factor.
 

eel01s

Bench
Messages
3,359
Wow. If the Australian got it correct, there could be a massive hole in the NRL case against us. We may not get all our points back, but there should be little problem in getting cap compliant by next Friday.

I would love to know how we cheated by $3m if all our TPAs over 3 seasons only totaled $760k. Was the rest the direct payments?

Ironically the Broncos and Roosters probably have moe than $1m in TPAs annually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top