Eels Salary Cap MK III

[hineyrulz]

BTW I heard Jimmy Smith on the radio last night. Some merkin called up and complained that Storm were unable to play for points yet the Eels can. JS pointed out that Storm were $1M over the cap with its current roster when the cap was only $4M. The Eels he said, are $570k over in a $7M cap and it appears that the $570k is an accumulation of past years TPAs which, he hears, some may have been double dipped.

Thanks for keeping it real Jimmy.

Don't mind Jimmy Smith, one of the few in the media with half a brain. Another reason to like him.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Why are the 2013-2015 TPAs being lumped into our salary cap at all? Just an absolute and stupid ruling by the NRL to somehow justify hem for taking a mass amount of points off a salary cap compliant side

Because that is one means effectively punish the team for (apparent) previous offenses. It's not really that different to what they did to the Warriors (they reduced their 2006? salary cap as part of the punishment for 2005 breaches). The effect is the same. If we are guilty it is fair enough. You can't have a system where, as long as you get away dodgy business in the year you do it, there can be no penalty applied in future years. That creates all sorts of bad incentives, particularly for a club starting a 'rebuilding' phase.

The issue is what illegal behaviour we actually engaged in, and the extent to which this was deliberate deception.

 

[Mr Pmatta]

Listen all and listen good, clearly things are not as cut and dry as the Nrl had us believe, in saying that a few people are getting far too cocky and carried away regarding the above point, regardless guys if we only lose watmough which I don't think will b the case, tho if it is and we can play for points next Friday still being 12 points down I think we should b very happy with this scenario and look at it as somewhat of fresh start, we need to start working with Nrl and not "bump heads" for next 12 months.

 

[Chipmunk]

So my neighbour, who is a lawyer can just request for a copy?

He's interested in how incompetent the report is. He is saints fan though

No, if the breach notice has been made confidential by the courts, I'm not sure if it has, but the NRL and the club would have to engage him to represent them in court for them to have a look at it.

 

[Chipmunk]

I though this was interesting and deserves a better response.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...p-findings-20160503-gol82i.html#ixzz47uT5atYL
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

I thought it was actually a good idea, after all, what is the NRL intending on doing with the money? They're not going to distribute it amongst the clubs. You'd think the NRL, who want's to protect the integrity of the sport, would be all over that offer like a fat kid on a piece of cake.

 

[IFR33K]

Why are the 2013-2015 TPAs being lumped into our salary cap at all? Just an absolute and stupid ruling by the NRL to somehow justify hem for taking a mass amount of points off a salary cap compliant side

They are being added to our 2016 cap, because NRL couldn't get us for any cap breaches this year. Or not enough to warrant penalty. Let's just see what the legal system thinks about all this.

 

[Parra]

Listen all and listen good, clearly things are not as cut and dry as the Nrl had us believe, in saying that a few people are getting far too cocky and carried away regarding the above point, regardless guys if we only lose watmough which I don't think will b the case, tho if it is and we can play for points next Friday still being 12 points down I think we should b very happy with this scenario and look at it as somewhat of fresh start, we need to start working with Nrl and not "bump heads" for next 12 months.

No way. Let a real court decide. This faux-legal crap from Greenberg and the NRL does not have to be tolerated.

 

[Chipmunk]

Don't you always look froward to the AFL's perspective of the current dramas in the NRL ?


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/essend...y-business-20160506-goo80v.html#ixzz47uagI8o3
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

To be honest, from an outsiders view looking in, that is a pretty good article. The people who provided quotes who will attend the conference are probably spot on with most of what they say.

 

[strider]

It still doesnt make sense.

TPAs being rolled into this years cap? ... i think that is just media speculation.

We were said to have been over $3M over 4 years ... how is the $2.43m prior to this year made up?

 

[Kornstar]

Don't mind Jimmy Smith, one of the few in the media with half a brain. Another reason to like him.

Yep, he was brilliant on Talkin sport all those years ago, was very disappointed when he left. I'm glad to see him on Fox and the BSB every now and then.

He always talks a lot of sense imo.

 

[Mickyd39]

So with Watmough's retirement, regardless if it gets us under the cap for this year, will it free up a heap of cash for next year or will we be still struggling due to the cap issue for this year?

 

[Bigfella]

I've just read Kent's article.

It is embarrassing to read.

His analysis of why hoppa's claim should be included in parra's cap puts even the bush lawyers on here to shame.

He says "sub-section 65(j) states it's included if they 'chose in action, being a right to sue someone'".

He is using "chose" as a verb. He's twisted the concept to imply that if Hopoate elects to sue then that becomes applicable to the cap. The problem is that a "chose in action" is a noun. It's a legal term referring to a right to sue someone.

His overall may still have some merit in that a right to sue may be treated as consideration under the cap definitions. But he has demonstrated such appalling ignorance when purporting to talk with authority on the topic that he loses all credibility.

Not only that, but he is clearly starting out with an outcome in mind and twisting the facts to fit with that.

What a f**king tool.

 

[eels81236]

Who cares what Peter FitzSimons has to say? He is a left wing ideologue who has lived in a fairfax and abc echo chamber so long that he honestly believes there are no different opinions than his own. Case and point he could only last one episode on Paul Murray Live before crumbling up in the fetal position.

I know him quite well. We agree on many things and we disagree on many more. He is very much his own man but he is a good man. You'd be hard fought finding a more honest and loyal friend than he.
Like all who's opinions are in the public domain, he is often hated personally for having a differing opinion on any particular subject (and there are numerous subjects he has an opinion on). I can assure you that attitude doesn't come in return. He is better than most, including you evidently.

 

[phantom eel]

Not only that, but he is clearly starting out with an outcome in mind and twisting the facts to fit with that.

What a f**king tool.

Well he is a journalist... sadly that seems to be what 98% of journos do these days.

 

[IFR33K]

I've just read Kent's article.

It is embarrassing to read.

His analysis of why hoppa's claim should be included in parra's cap puts even the bush lawyers on here to shame.

He says "sub-section 65(j) states it's included if they 'chose in action, being a right to sue someone'".

He is using "chose" as a verb. He's twisted the concept to imply that if Hopoate elects to sue then that becomes applicable to the cap. The problem is that a "chose in action" is a noun. It's a legal term referring to a right to sue someone.

His overall may still have some merit in that a right to sue may be treated as consideration under the cap definitions. But he has demonstrated such appalling ignorance when purporting to talk with authority on the topic that he loses all credibility.

Not only that, but he is clearly starting out with an outcome in mind and twisting the facts to fit with that.

What a f**king tool.

His agenda is obvious. Wants the eels out no matter what.

 

[phantom eel]

No, if the breach notice has been made confidential by the courts, I'm not sure if it has, but the NRL and the club would have to engage him to represent them in court for them to have a look at it.

I have read that the NRL are seeking a court to rule that the breach notice remain confidential, and that Seward has provided 37 pages of evidence of specific involvements by the named 5 (which are apparently summarised in the 60+ page breach notice).

 

[phantom eel]

Who cares what Peter FitzSimons has to say? He is a left wing ideologue who has lived in a fairfax and abc echo chamber so long that he honestly believes there are no different opinions than his own. Case and point he could only last one episode on Paul Murray Live before crumbling up in the fetal position.

WTF is Paul Murray Live? Never heard of him, is he one of those hypnotists?

FitzSimmons is ok imo, for a passionate rugby union man.

 

[yy_cheng]

Was listening to talkin sports yesterday and they have changed their tone. Not as critical to the eels as they were on Tuesday

 

[phantom eel]

I think it's as much the case that they were prepared to try to steamroll the process, hoping that nobody would go to court so early in the process. It was incredibly foolish of them to require that directors re-sign before there was a finding against them. Firstly, because it is fundamentally unjust, and secondly because that was the trigger that allowed any of this to get to court so early.

Yes, given the presser was to announce the proposed penalties ahead of our chance to respond, the NRL now seem incredibly lazy not to state clearly that penalties would apply upon their final determination.

While the directors will have little trouble accessing the court in terms of protecting their own jobs and interets, the NRL's code of conduct prohibits clubs from challenging the NRL's decisions in the courts (it allows challenges on the basis of process only). The only way to challenge the NRL's decision as to whether or not a particular breach occurred is to challenge the validity of the code of conduct....which may be possible but would be more complicated.

I agree, it seems the best place to challenge whether the breach (or particular elements of the breach) occurred or are accurate would be our response to the notice, for which we now have 28 days to respond instead of the original 5 days.

I don't see court action as being a useful avenue to pursue if we are not satisfied with the decision... but now apparently the club has the full brief of evidence, so can examine whether they wish to appeal the process taken by the NRL to get to this point. You'd have to assume though that a two month investigation process would have been fairly thorough?

 

[Gronk]

Yes, given the presser was to announce the proposed penalties ahead of our chance to respond, the NRL now seem incredibly lazy not to state clearly that penalties would apply upon their final determination.

As much as I think we are certainly guilty of some breaches, much what has been said and published since Tuesday is starting to mirror the farce that was Gillard/ASADA's "Blackest Day in Sport" presser.