Eels Salary Cap MK III

[emjaycee]

So we need to get the board to step down in the next 8 days?
Easy peasy.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

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....

They can simply take points off us for past misdemeanors. They have to be able to provide any sort of deterrent. You can't have a set of rules that say 'cheat til you get caught, then fix things thereafter and everything's hunky dory'.

Basically, we need to carefully read the provisional findings against us. If any of those are wrong / overstated and we can prove that, by all means challenge those parts of the findings....the fact that one might be guilty of some offences doesn't mean that one is guilty of every charge thrown at you. Then the people implicated can f**k off.

 

[Djay]

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.

This is exactly what I have been thinking.

I am by no means supporting Sharp and co. but have the NRL clearly stated to Sharp etc how the cap was rorted? Were they notified about it? Was what they did explained?

They have been painted as public enemy number 1 because they have taken the matter to court, whilst it's in court we will not be competing for competition points and that leads it into everyone calling for their heads and to "leave the club alone".

Again yesterday the thing that baffled me more then anything during the whole shitstorm, was the fact we are 570k over the cap now?

Doesn't the NRL do an audit before the start of every season and checks every teams books? We haven't bought anyone between round 1 and present day.

If we have blatantly cheated then obviously we deserve punishment, but I have 0 faith in the NRL, one of the worst run governing bodies around and I will not be passing judgement or crucifying individuals until the facts and truths come to light if ever.

Sharpy tried, he isn't the bright crayon in the box but as far as I am concerned this entire club and organisation is doomed until DF decides to leave us the f**k alone.

Yesterday was his perfect day to advocate himself, and you could tell by that smug look on his face how much he loved it.

 

[Gronk]

Danny Weidler ‏@Danny_Weidler 2h2 hours ago
Tonight we speak to @TheParraEels board member who says the club will be playing for points next week @9NewsSyd

So what did he say ?

 

[Bigfella]

Danny Weidler ‏@Danny_Weidler 2h2 hours ago
Tonight we speak to @TheParraEels board member who says the club will be playing for points next week @9NewsSyd

So what did he say ?

No they spoke to him.

He didn't say anything back.

 

[Delboy]

Isn't the reason we are over the cap due to the NRL disallowing the TPAs and adding them to the 2016 cap. Obviously the registered contracts did not, and then we are to believe that all other clubs are squeaky clean

Thats how naive Greenberg appears, but he can say little else , particularly given his background at the Dogs

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

They can simply take points off us for past misdemeanors. They have to be able to provide any sort of deterrent. You can't have a set of rules that say 'cheat til you get caught, then fix things thereafter and everything's hunky dory'.

Basically, we need to carefully read the provisional findings against us. If any of those are wrong / overstated and we can prove that, by all means challenge those parts of the findings....the fact that one might be guilty of some offences doesn't mean that one is guilty of every charge thrown at you. Then the people implicated can f**k off.

I agree with all of that. To my mind attempting to cheat the cap (and failing) is worse than going over the cap for the year. The problem I have is that I think they've chosen our offense as they think it suits them better. Or so they believe. I've never suggested cheat til you get caught, pay it back, everything is sweet.

 

[Eelogical]

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:

My opinion only. If we are allowed to play for points but to do so we have to move on players that we want to keep, then it's better in the long run to scratch 2016 and plan now for 2017. Realistically speaking, we have already lost 3 from 9 and are currently without Foran. We are now magically expected to win 12 from 15 to scrape into the finals. From there it becomes even more daunting to come away with a premiership especially if injuries come into play. I don't like this current situation any more than you guys but I'm thinking long term here.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

My opinion only. If we are allowed to play for points but to do so we have to move on players that we want to keep, then it's better in the long run to scratch 2016 and plan now for 2017. Realistically speaking, we have already lost 3 from 9 and are currently without Foran. We are now magically expected to win 12 from 15 to scrape into the finals. From there it becomes even more daunting to come away with a premiership especially if injuries come into play. I don't like this current situation any more than you guys but I'm thinking long term here.

I say we give it a few days at least. Hopefully Justice Darke is a closet Eels fan and pulls his finger out.

 

[IFR33K]

Ok. Assume watmough retires, and the NRL back date his retirement, meaning we are under the cap, and capable of playing for points. Wouldn't that then open up a can of worms for them??? Couldn't we then say well we are cap compliant bc watmough retires?????

Barry?? 84??? Anyone????

 

[Sphagnum]

My opinion only. If we are allowed to play for points but to do so we have to move on players that we want to keep, then it's better in the long run to scratch 2016 and plan now for 2017. Realistically speaking, we have already lost 3 from 9 and are currently without Foran. We are now magically expected to win 12 from 15 to scrape into the finals. From there it becomes even more daunting to come away with a premiership especially if injuries come into play. I don't like this current situation any more than you guys but I'm thinking long term here.

If players get injured, give then peptides. You only get 4 points for that

 

[Noise]

If players get injured, give then peptides. You only get 4 points for that

Huh?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Ok. Assume watmough retires, and the NRL back date his retirement, meaning we are under the cap, and capable of playing for points. Wouldn't that then open up a can of worms for them??? Couldn't we then say well we are cap compliant bc watmough retires?????

Barry?? 84??? Anyone????

I don't think it gets us out of the penalties already imposed. Assuming we do not successfully challenge any of the breaches, Watters retiring only serves to 'get us under that cap after being found guilty'. It doesn't change the reality of the decisions we took when we signed him and others.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If the team is successful on the field but more importantly the front office has its I's dotted and T's crossed then the snipers dont have ammunition to fire.

If we're not rorting TPAs we won't be competitive. It's as simple as that. Didn't you see Gould's article?

 

[Twizzle]

true Baz but that is their conditioning they put on the breach notice in order to let us play for points

 

[Swiftstylez]

Already posted

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

true Baz but that is their conditioning they put on the breach notice

I was answering the 'open a can of worms' bit of the question. Getting under the cap this year obviously helps in the sense of earning points from now on. That's fine. But whether Watmough's retiring affects any part of the penalty already imposed (i.e loss of 12 points already accrued) seems unlikely.

 

[Twizzle]

Also about getting our points back, the fact that Watmong is/was injured is purely coincidental. If he were fit we would have played him and that shows intent to breach the cap.

I cant see how we can possibly get those points back on that basis, as has been argued.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I don't think we get our points back HJ. You can stop posting it imo.

The points penalty is not just for our cap compliance, it's also for our non-reporting (which can't be backdated or vanished just because Watmough gets a payout) and for a range of other alleged things to do with our contracting system over the past three years.

The breach notice is 60 pages long, it can't be waived just because Watmough's retirement is deemed cap exempt in May.

Yes, it can.

The NRL have stated we can accrue points once cap compliant.

When the insurance goes through we become retrospectively compliant to the date of injury (on the provision that the payout is larger than the cap breach).

Once the insurance company back pays what we have given Watmough since then, they take legal liability for his salary and exhonerate us of any payments. So, we become cap compliant back to the date of injury.

The NRL, having said we can accrue points under cap compliance, will have no leg to stand on.

None. Legally, they will be dead in the water.

And what are you all talking about? Shedding players or giving up!

For f**k's sake, you wanna go tell Peats he has to leave or play for nothing? Tell Paulo he doesn't get a chance to actually win with his junior club before he moves?

Seriously?

You are all weak.

I will say it again (and again, and again) - legally, the moment we receive a back payment then we win any court case. That's it. End of story.

Yes, the de-registrations stand. The fine stands. These are the aspects relating to past cap non-compliance. The points are for this year. We can get them back. Don't be so weak.

 

[Noise]

Yes, it can.

The NRL have stated we can accrue points once cap compliant.

When the insurance goes through we become retrospectively compliant to the date of injury (on the provision that the payout is larger than the cap breach).

Once the insurance company back pays what we have given Watmough since then, they take legal liability for his salary and exhonerate us of any payments. So, we become cap compliant back to the date of injury.

The NRL, having said we can accrue points under cap compliance, will have no leg to stand on.

None. Legally, they will be dead in the water.

And what are you all talking about? Shedding players or giving up!

For f**k's sake, you wanna go tell Peats he has to leave or play for nothing? Tell Paulo he doesn't get a chance to actually win with his junior club before he moves?

Seriously?

You are all weak.

I will say it again (and again, and again) - legally, the moment we receive a back payment then we win any court case. That's it. End of story.

Yes, the de-registrations stand. The fine stands. These are the aspects relating to past cap non-compliance. The points are for this year. We can get them back. Don't be so weak.

Full marks for enthusiasm and optimism