Eels Salary Cap MK III

[Eelogical]

I have no clue either!

It was Joe the cameraman.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Must a team be "under the cap" at all times ( IE all contracts registered with the NRL add up to more than the cap)? Even if they still have the ability to alter those contracts?

I think the principle is that you are not supposed to enter into a set of contracts that, if they ran their due course, would result in you breaching the cap. If everything was above board and the contracts presented to the NRL contained all of the relevant $$, then when you went to register a contract that would put you over the cap if all contracts ran out, the NRL would refuse to register the deal until you got rid of enough players to create room. In the present situation, the NRL registered deals on the understanding that many of the TPAs associated were at arms length, and thus our on-cap expenditure was lower than it should have been. If they'd known the full details of the TPAs they would have been included in the cap, and when we went, say, to sign Jennings, the NRL would have said 'no, you'll go over the cap'.

 

[akers]

OK, so we probably won't know for months whether the NRL has the right to keep us from earning points if the 5 are still involved? So we don't have much choice but to piss them off?

If that's true then they have to go, but I suppose we could still pursue legal action that they had no right to do so. All while hoping Fitzy or whoever hasn't merged us with the Panthers.

That is exactly what I think the NRL want.They have stated that we need to pi** off the 5 and become cap compliant by next Friday and we can "play for points again".THis has given parra fans the off chance we can make the top 8 therefor turning fans against the 5.The NRL know that the words "play for points "get everyone excited.Social media is full of parra fans saying to the board "f off now so we can play for points".This has taken the focus away from the NRL verdict which lets be honest is not very clear in stating exactly how we rorted the cap.

Is it not at all possible that sharp and co. maybe be innocent and the NRL do not want them to reply to the "preliminary"findings considering the same organisation(NRL) stated 10 weeks ago we are under the cap for 2016.

I am not a sharp or any board member fan..I am a Parra fan first and last.

 

[IFR33K]

Am I the only metkin here who doesn't know who the leaker was ?

Is he part of the GO5 from Mexico or am i way off ?

I told u who the leaker was!!!

 

[akers]

I also believe that if the 5 f off by next week we will coincidently be cap compliant.

 

[The EELiminator]

Is it not at all possible that sharp and co. maybe be innocent and the NRL do not want them to reply to the "preliminary"findings considering the same organisation(NRL) stated 10 weeks ago we are under the cap for 2016.

I am not a sharp or any board member fan..I am a Parra fan first and last.

the nrl ruled our dodgy third party deals illegal and added them to our salary cap that's where the extra 570 thousand came from

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I think the principle is that you are not supposed to enter into a set of contracts that, if they ran their due course, would result in you breaching the cap. If everything was above board and the contracts presented to the NRL contained all of the relevant $$, then when you went to register a contract that would put you over the cap if all contracts ran out, the NRL would refuse to register the deal until you got rid of enough players to create room. In the present situation, the NRL registered deals on the understanding that many of the TPAs associated were at arms length, and thus our on-cap expenditure was lower than it should have been. If they'd known the full details of the TPAs they would have been included in the cap, and when we went, say, to sign Jennings, the NRL would have said 'no, you'll go over the cap'.

Mmm. Seems a very complex situation. The fact is they did accept all those contracts. Then decided we'd deceived them. But is there a specific rule that we broke by being over the cap now? Isn't the cap measured after there's no more room to alter it, June 30?

 

[Suitman]

I told u who the leaker was!!!

You never told me!
Granted, I never asked either.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Mmm. Seems a very complex situation. The fact is they did accept all those contracts. Then decided we'd deceived them. But is there a specific rule that we broke by being over the cap now? Isn't the cap measured after there's no more room to alter it, June 30?

There are 2 issues. 1) Whether you end out spending too much in a salary cap year, and 2) whether you deliberately engage in deceptive behaviour designed to allow you to 'beat the cap'.

 

[IFR33K]

You never told me!
Granted, I never asked either.

Shoot me a pm

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

That is exactly what I think the NRL want.They have stated that we need to pi** off the 5 and become cap compliant by next Friday and we can "play for points again".THis has given parra fans the off chance we can make the top 8 therefor turning fans against the 5.The NRL know that the words "play for points "get everyone excited.Social media is full of parra fans saying to the board "f off now so we can play for points".This has taken the focus away from the NRL verdict which lets be honest is not very clear in stating exactly how we rorted the cap.

Is it not at all possible that sharp and co. maybe be innocent and the NRL do not want them to reply to the "preliminary"findings considering the same organisation(NRL) stated 10 weeks ago we are under the cap for 2016.

I am not a sharp or any board member fan..I am a Parra fan first and last.

Yes, I have similar fears. But if we remove the 5 temporarily at least, and continue legal action, then we might not lose much.

Assuming we still have a club at the end of it.

 

[Eelementary]

Am I the only metkin here who doesn't know who the leaker was ?

Is he part of the GO5 from Mexico or am i way off ?

I have no idea, either.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

There are 2 issues. 1) Whether you end out spending too much in a salary cap year, and 2) whether you deliberately engage in deceptive behaviour designed to allow you to 'beat the cap'.

Yep. But assuming we can satisfy 1, does failing 2 justify taking the points off us for winning games with a team that's 'over the cap'?

I understand if we've broken the rules we need to be punished, and many would call it semantics, but still....

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Punish us for attempting to cheat, not for being over the cap.

 

[amitropo]

If Watmough is supposedly on $750k and hasn't played a game, haven't we been playing everyone with a cap compliant team?
Actually bellow the cap so no team can complain about losses so far.

 

[Eelementary]

Can't believe I'm asking this question, as it seems counterintuitive, but - do you guys reckon we are better off, long-term, by not putting someone's head on the chopping block to save this season?

It seems Choc will retire, but we still need to make up the rest (and get those 5 fools out).

But by letting players go, we could upset the harmony in the squad...

But then, Arthur and the lads deserve to play Finals...

:crazy:

 

[Gronk]

I told u who the leaker was!!!

Yeah I know. Now I have been reminded.

 

[Johnny88]

Brent Read said tonight Choc should be enough the nrl will backdated it. The issue is we get no point if the board continue to fight.

 

[Sphagnum]

Watching their team mates moved on isn't a strong motivator when trying to win 80% of your games.

 

[Sphagnum]

Brent Read said tonight Choc should be enough the nrl will backdated it. The issue is we get no point if the board continue to fight.

I doubt the NRL can impose that sanction legally tbh