Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by El Diablo, May 2, 2016.
What a great idea... I wish I'd come up with that a week ago... :sarcasm:
How is the penalty for a dodgy TPA worse than a team taking peptides???? Couldn't they have just made Watmough sit out for 4 weeks
The NRL must really hate their own f**ked system
He's not even a member anymore, after his appalling stunts during the last election .
I didn't know throwing your hat in the ring constitutes an 'appealing stunt' .....
The appalling stunt was not simply nominating... it was what went on on the website he registered, that resulting in his Club membership being suspended.
As referred to here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...k=2ee38935e118d0c8e58481df647ec39c-1462784918
And "Outlining what was wrong with the current board" is putting things rather nicely... Anyone who saw the original site before it was ordered to be cleaned up knows wat type of people were "throwing their hats in the ring".
As a result I would never support a push for 101 signatures by one of those characters.
Why would you restrict it to that? Or is that simply because it's the Eels in this situation and not the STorm? How much of a punishment would it be to take points off the Eels last few seasons?
I'll make a prediction & say that the NRL will accept our compliancy by Friday, let us go on a big emotional run to the finals - lots of crowd support, tv ratings, news paper articles "can they do it?", so on and so forth.
And then the ref's will smash us when it matters & we'll fall agonisingly short. But we'll all feel good because we had a red hot go, & everyone else will be happy that we didnt taint the finals series with our odour.
Theres no way I can se the NRL allowing us to play finals, the outrage would be off the scale.
So is it safe to say that the GO5 don't need to resign, however they have been suspended (rather than their accreditation cancelled) and can't work with the team other than routine admin ?
Least he had a go because he cares for the club. What have you done ?
This is so very exciting
My guess (from what has been presented in public so far - and today's supreme court decision to end the named 5's injunction against suspension) is yes to teh first part, and my thoughts on the second part are no.
Now that Schubert appears confident the cap compliance issue will be sorted out to allow us to play for points on Friday, the Club admin's focus can then go to our written response to the breach notice, for which were were granted an extension fo 28 days and which I know think is due on 2 June.
If the NRL counted some TPAs twice, if the NRL got some figures wrong etc - that's where the club needs to outline our case for a reduced points penalty/fine amount - not in some distracting pie in the sky court case later in the year.
If the NRL have wrongly included any one of the named 5 directors/officers - and the Supreme Court's decision to end their inunction today indicates that's potentially less likely than it seemed last week - then the written response is where the club needs to outline our case for who wasn't involved and hence doesn't deserve the deregistration penalty - not in some distracting pie in the sky court case later in the year.
Schubert's work in ensuring accurate cap calculations for our compliance in time for Friday aside, on the surface it doesn't seem to me to be in dispute that the club has erred in the three key factors named by the NRL in their media release accompanying their intitial breach findings:
* Paying players undisclosed remuneration from its own resources
* Procuring third party agreements for players in breach of the salary cap rules
* Conspiring with club suppliers to inflate or issue fictitious invoices to raise cash that was then relayed to players.
We can expect the NRL to take two weeks to consider our written repsonse to the breach notice and that they will hand down their final penalties in mid-June. Our written submission may result in reductions in the 9intended penalties - less points deducted, a smaller fine, or less than 5 directors/officials de-registered. Or it may not.
After we receive our medicine, the Club then has to get on with nominating its three independent directors by (end of?) August, to satisfy the actions that we have agreed with the NRL as a result of last year's investigation into and review of our governance. f**k wastng time and members money on a court case - and causing further distraction to our coach and our squad - when we've been afforded due process and 28 days to compose our breach response to try and gain a penalty reduction.
Fancy telling the truth huh?
Appalling stunt :lol:...
That's my understanding - the need for them to re-sign/be de-registered from their PNRL duties is a pending/proposed penalty, that will be decided/come into force when the NRL delivers its final findings.
The final findings/decision is now expected two weeks after our written response to breach notice is due (ie in mid-June, two weeks after the extended deadline for our response due 2 June).
That's correct, that's why he's not organizing the EGM..
Well if it was libellious/slanderous, and was forced to be removed from the website, and his membership suspended as a reslt - then yes that's an appalling stunt by any degree.
Characters/non-members like that who choose to "throw their hat" into the media at a time of club crisis to try and drum up 101 member signatures for their own ends have displayed their true colours for those capable of seeing them.
At least Fitzy is a member, with some right to front the media about his take on our situation... what was this discredited clown's excuse?
Yep Jodeci told the truth and got bagged for it. Phantom the moron backed the current mob to the hilt who have lost us all our points and a million dollar fine. Yet he still bags Jodeci. It's still everyone else's fault lol
He can't even get off his arse to go to ANZ and watch the team because he doesn't get his favourite seat
And he has the hide to bag someone willing to have a go :lol:
I'm sure one of Roy Spags' other back room buddies (that is still a valid member) will take up that torch when the time comes... :roll:
So do you know for certain he rang or contacted the media for a quote?
By the way was libelous/slanderous to a board who ultimately and single handily put our club in crises??... Please.
:lol: the cavalry...
"Having a go" versus having a go with no moral compass and getting suspended for the way you went about it are two different things.
You could easily say that at least the current admin/named 5 were "having a go" - is that any defence for what has come to light? No it's not. But don't let that stop members of the cavalry from being selective about applying their logic :lol:.
Separate names with a comma.