Eels Salary Cap MK III

[Djay]

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.

Totally agree, too much lying down and letting some walk all over us.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

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.

The fact that the NRL have said that we can accrue points once cap compliant does not oblige them to give us points back if Watmough retires. They have made the decision to allow us accrue future points after deciding on the initial penalty. There is zero chance that a court will run with this particular argument of yours.

The only relief will come from a) successfully challenging particular breaches and/or b) procedural fairness issues (which will only result in the NRL being forced to re-consider the findings / penalties).

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Interestingly reports indicate Watmough is on $750k and his injury was in February. So let's say his retirement is backdated, so we only pay him 3 months ( nov / dec / Jan), the pro rata amount we wouldn't pay is $562k.

I've seen reports talking about his injury being from December.

I'm not sure, though. The proviso on getting our points back is that the payout is greater than $570k.

Morgan cannot help us get our points back because that happened after the start of the season.

The key to Watmough is, legally, our cap compliance becomes retrospective. This option isn't available with any other avenue for cap reduction.

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.

Intent is irrelevant.

We tried and failed.

All it means is we add another entry to our list of failures over the last decade. Legally, it means nothing.

 

[El Diablo]

Sterlo wants this guy to run Parra http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...roosters-ceo-bernie-gurr-20150729-gin8v1.html

https://www.linkedin.com/in/berniegurr

 

[IFR33K]

Full marks for enthusiasm and optimism

Tbh I agree with him. It's our only chance. Getting the deal over the line would be the five walk.

 

[Jake the snake]

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????

No, cause the simple answer is that we signed those players and promised / guaranteed TPA at the time of the signing hence Preventing other clubs or beating other clubs from signing those players. Thats what the penalty is for .... The illegal TPA deal that we negotiated and because they are illegal it is now counted as part of the cap. Yes, Watmough retiring will help, to get us under the cap now. But it doesn't reverse the what's illegally been negotiated in the NRLs eyes

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

The fact that the NRL have said that we can accrue points once cap compliant does not oblige them to give us points back if Watmough retires. They have made the decision to allow us accrue future points after deciding on the initial penalty. There is zero chance that a court will run with this particular argument of yours.

The only relief will come from a) successfully challenging particular breaches and/or b) procedural fairness issues (which will only result in the NRL being forced to re-consider the findings / penalties).

Cap compliance can be proven to be legally retrospective once the insurance company gives us payment for what we covered back to the date of injury.

So you're wrong.

The court will 100% side with us because the second we get the money back then it is as if we never paid it in the first place. The insurance company takes legal responsibility for all remuneration back to the date of injury the second the payout is made.

I don't mean to be rude. Honestly, I don't. But you people seem as stupid as you are weak.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Cap compliance can be proven to be legally retrospective once the insurance company gives us payment for what we covered back to the date of injury.

So you're wrong.

The court will 100% side with us because the second we get the money back then it is as if we never paid it in the first place. The insurance company takes legal responsibility for all remuneration back to the date of injury the second the payout is made.

I don't mean to be rude. Honestly, I don't. But you people seem as stupid as you are weak..

I bow to your superior legal knowledge.

Seriously, why do I bother?

Over and out.

 

[Jake the snake]

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.

We illegally negotiated and promised TPA's. Their has to be a penalty for that. Technically we beat other clubs to the player by illegally negotiating TPA's. That's what the penalty is for. You can't reverse that.

 

[hineyrulz]

I can't believe anyone thinks we are chance of getting our points back, pure delusion.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Can you redo your quote, Barry?

I went back and edited my post for errors but they're still there in your post.

Seriously, I wasn't talking to you when I said weak and stupid. I meant everyone else. I truly did.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

We illegally negotiated and promised TPA's. Their has to be a penalty for that. Technically we beat other clubs to the player by illegally negotiating TPA's. That's what the penalty is for. You can't reverse that.

We can guarantee and organise as many TPAs as we want. They just get included in the cap.

So, if we end up under the cap with Watmough's retirement then those TPAs become absolutely, 100% legal.

Once again, you people are seeming stupider by the minute.

Does anyone know how to actually stop and use their brains? Apply logic? Apply the law?

 

[Noise]

Cap compliance can be proven to be legally retrospective once the insurance company gives us payment for what we covered back to the date of injury.

So you're wrong.

The court will 100% side with us because the second we get the money back then it is as if we never paid it in the first place. The insurance company takes legal responsibility for all remuneration back to the date of injury the second the payout is made.

I don't mean to be rude. Honestly, I don't. But you people seem as stupid as you are weak.

HJ do you have any legal background? (Serious question)

 

[IFR33K]

We illegally negotiated and promised TPA's. Their has to be a penalty for that. Technically we beat other clubs to the player by illegally negotiating TPA's. That's what the penalty is for. You can't reverse that.

They've added the tpa's to the cap. If choc retires and are deemed under, I can see where it will potentially head.

Btw, aren't we allowed to organise tpa's for marquee signings????

 

[hineyrulz]

I give up.

Hollywood, please add a 20 in the end of your user name.

Truth Teller.

 

[eels_fan]

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.

Have you provided this 'thought' to the club???

I believe it has a lot of merit, but the guys steering our ship are probably far too stupid to even think of it

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Can you redo your quote, Barry?

I went back and edited my post for errors but they're still there in your post.

Seriously, I wasn't talking to you when I said weak and stupid. I meant everyone else. I truly did.

I can't quite see what you changed, but I pasted the current version of the section quoted again and re-posted the post.

I don't care about the weak and stupid bit...I didn't assume you were calling out anyone in particular. I took issue with your interpretation of how the Watmough stuff could play out.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Does anyone know how to actually stop and use their brains? Apply logic? Apply the law?

The 'vibe of the thing'?:lol:

 

[Sphagnum]

I can't believe anyone thinks we are chance of getting our points back, pure delusion.

And were unlikely to come out the other side with our halves and our coach so it's all been for naught.

 

[Jake the snake]

They've added the tpa's to the cap. If choc retires and are deemed under, I can see where it will potentially head.

Btw, aren't we allowed to organise tpa's for marquee signings????

Yes they've added the TPA's to cap as part of the penalty.