Eels Salary Cap MK III

[The EELiminator]

Andrew Webster make a point on 2ky BSB comparing us to the storm and why we are getting the chance to pay for points. Storm were over $1million in 2010 on a $4million cap while we are alleged to be only $570k over on $6.7 million cap.

TK also made the point some players signed two contracts.

so even if the storm were offered the chance to get under the cap they would have had to shed a million dollars worth of players good luck with that

 

[ash411]

Now, before I get into another argument, I'm not calling you wrong, I'm not saying either opinion is accurate... ok, here goes.

I want to ask a question to those who believe the NRL (and Greenberg specifically) knew the breaches weren't as severe as they have claimed but went with it anyway and are pushing hard because they don't want us playing finals football this year, and will stop at nothing to make sure of it.

The question I have is, Why? What possible reason would they have to not want us playing in the finals this year? What is the motivation behind it is my question.

Now, again, I don't wanna hear about how I'm Denis and all that nonsense, I am trying to understand what the motivation is to stitch us up if the evidence does not suggest we deserve it?

You guys may be right, it definitely seems that we've been hit harder than we deserved to, at least it seems that way, but the picture changes from day to day, so it's hard to know what to believe at this point.

It's doing my head in.

 

[parra-matters]

I found out what's wrong

in their spreadsheet, instead of =sum(A1:A255000) they should've had
=sum(A1:A365)

The NRL's version of Excel is so old it's in roman numerals.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

It's becoming clear that this is a Machiavellian scheme of Sharpy's to get an ex bulldog out of the top job. And we all thought he was a bit of a dullard.

 

[IFR33K]

I'm starting to believe the NRL just want our board removed. Then they may soften their penalty a little.

 

[Parra]

Now, before I get into another argument, I'm not calling you wrong, I'm not saying either opinion is accurate... ok, here goes.

I want to ask a question to those who believe the NRL (and Greenberg specifically) knew the breaches weren't as severe as they have claimed but went with it anyway and are pushing hard because they don't want us playing finals football this year, and will stop at nothing to make sure of it.

The question I have is, Why? What possible reason would they have to not want us playing in the finals this year? What is the motivation behind it is my question.

Now, again, I don't wanna hear about how I'm Denis and all that nonsense, I am trying to understand what the motivation is to stitch us up if the evidence does not suggest we deserve it?

You guys may be right, it definitely seems that we've been hit harder than we deserved to, at least it seems that way, but the picture changes from day to day, so it's hard to know what to believe at this point.

It's doing my head in.

Incompetence

 

[Parra]

It's becoming clear that this is a Machiavellian scheme of Sharpy's to get an ex bulldog out of the top job. And we all thought he was a bit of a dullard.

Awesome

 

[IFR33K]

Now, before I get into another argument, I'm not calling you wrong, I'm not saying either opinion is accurate... ok, here goes.

I want to ask a question to those who believe the NRL (and Greenberg specifically) knew the breaches weren't as severe as they have claimed but went with it anyway and are pushing hard because they don't want us playing finals football this year, and will stop at nothing to make sure of it.

The question I have is, Why? What possible reason would they have to not want us playing in the finals this year? What is the motivation behind it is my question.

Now, again, I don't wanna hear about how I'm Denis and all that nonsense, I am trying to understand what the motivation is to stitch us up if the evidence does not suggest we deserve it?

You guys may be right, it definitely seems that we've been hit harder than we deserved to, at least it seems that way, but the picture changes from day to day, so it's hard to know what to believe at this point.

It's doing my head in.

Like I've stated. I think their motive is to remove the board. Maybe once they are gone, they take a slightly different stance.

 

[ash411]

Incompetence

Was kind of looking for a bit of a meatier answer there, one word won't help me understand you way of thinking, and I'm not about to start making assumptions on your meaning or your opinions.

 

[IFR33K]

So if the board stand down, and decide to fight the allegations against them and the cap, who now foots the bill??? Ur or the directors???

 

[ash411]

Like I've stated. I think their motive is to remove the board. Maybe once they are gone, they take a slightly different stance.

OK, but why? for what reason? they just don't believe they are right for the job? it is a personal vendetta?

It seems that is one of their chief objectives, yes, and they have been very up front about it too.

 

[parra-matters]

I'm starting to believe the NRL just want our board removed. Then they may soften their penalty a little.

Grant has been gunning to get our board out since he started as Chairman of ARLC

 

[Avenger]

https://twitter.com/louisechall/status/728369568586993664

I love the law. NRL are starting to look like amateurs.

 

[ash411]

So if the board stand down, and decide to fight the allegations against them and the cap, who now foots the bill??? Ur or the directors???

Good question, If they win, they can sue the NRL to recoup the legal expenses, which they would get.

I'm of the opinion that they should have to fund it themselves, but then they were officers of the company at the time, and the case is related to the business, usually the company foots the bill, no?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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.

No they wouldn't because it is entirely contingent on a player agreeing to retire. If Watmough chooses not to retire we are f**ked, as would be any club intentionally taking such a risk.

I'm certain we signed Jennings late in the pre-season, knowing we would have money to spend once Watmough's retirement went through.

 

[ash411]

Grant has been gunning to get our board out since he started as Chairman of ARLC

But why though? just doesn't like them? or what? I honestly want to know.

If they are using the NRL to exact some form of personal attack on them, then that's horrendous, and it should be exposed for what it is.

 

[Parra]

Was kind of looking for a bit of a meatier answer there, one word won't help me understand you way of thinking, and I'm not about to start making assumptions on your meaning or your opinions.

I dont believe there is a hidden or secret agenda at all. Just a series of fumbles by bumbling idiots that are out if their depth. The NRL is like any other bureaucracy with empire building, the peter principle in full effect, nepotism, cronyism, favouritism.

The rules are a joke from TPA's to obstruction on the field. So no wonder enforcement of the rules is haphazard and also a joke.

We also have the situation where the bloke who is responsible for the cap rules is also the bloke who oversees the investigation and announces the penalties. And also veiled threats for some reason.

To bow down and blindly accept any ruling in this situation would be naive and pissweak. I would anticipate copping this on the chin for financial reasons or for expediency, but not in the name of justice, fairness or equity.

 

[Parra]

No they wouldn't because it is entirely contingent on a player agreeing to retire. If Watmough chooses not to retire we are f**ked, as would be any club intentionally taking such a risk.

I'm certain we signed Jennings late in the pre-season, knowing we would have money to spend once Watmough's retirement went through.

It seems that Watmough's retirement is based on timing and decisions of an insurance company. Their timing and process is their own.

 

[ash411]

I dont believe there is a hidden or secret agenda at all. Just a series of fumbles by bumbling idiots that are out if their depth. The NRL is like any other bureaucracy with empire building, the peter principle in full effect, nepotism, cronyism, favouritism.

The rules are a joke from TPA's to obstruction on the field. So no wonder enforcement of the rules is haphazard and also a joke.

We also have the situation where the bloke who is responsible for the cap rules is also the bloke who oversees the investigation and announces the penalties. And also veiled threats for some reason.

To bow down and blindly accept any ruling in this situation would be naive and pissweak. I would anticipate copping this on the chin for financial reasons or for expediency, but not in the name of justice, fairness or equity.

OK, so you think basically they cocked up their findings and are pushing hard, not as a way to keep us out of the finals specifically, but because they know they cocked up and and are trying to get us to roll rather than expose said cocking. i.e. it has nothing to do with us, they would have done this if it were any other club.

sound about right?

 

[parra-matters]

But why though? just doesn't like them? or what? I honestly want to know.

If they are using the NRL to exact some form of personal attack on them, then that's horrendous, and it should be exposed for what it is.

They think the place has been run poorly for many many years and want to put their own people in there. They can see the potential of the club and know it can be massive, they want to have only 4-5 massive clubs in sydney and we sit in the heart of western sydney and should be a power house.