Eels Salary Cap MK III

[hindy111]

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 agree with what you are saying.
But the penalty is it only for this year? It was 3 million wasnt it over last 4 years?
Also part of the penalty for lying/cheating.
You would have to say what each penalty is for
Lies/cheating - FAIL
Previous years - FAIL
This years team - PASS (watmough)

Potentially the fine is for lying and cheating and sacking the board is for previous years. I am not sure.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

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

No, but the first thing I did when this thought popped into my head was bounce it off those I know who do. They say it's tight.

What I do have experience with is insurance payouts. Not that I have received any, but ones I have been a part of through work. I know about the insurance company taking legal responsibility for salaries and wages. It's legit.

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

Not yet. This only happened yesterday, don't forget. Long hours at work this week but if I don't hear this come from the club over the next couple of days then I will put some feelers out.

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.

I know. My post was a bit of a joke (apart from the editing, which was legit).

It's was the old "You're all f**king stupid!" until you want someone to do you a favour and then it's "Oh, um, I, like, wasn't talking about you. I was talking about everyone else..." gag.

 

[Eelementary]

K

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.

Tbh, mate, I tend to agree.

Although, after reading Hollywood's posts, I'm seeing his point and agreeing with what he says...

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I agree with what you are saying.
But the penalty is it only for this year? It was 3 million wasnt it over last 4 years?
Also part of the penalty for lying/cheating.
You would have to say what each penalty is for
Lies/cheating - FAIL
Previous years - FAIL
This years team - PASS (watmough)

Potentially the fine is for lying and cheating and sacking the board is for previous years. I am not sure.

The NRL has stated that we can play for points once we achieve cap compliance. That means it relates to this year.

The NRL has stated that we can play for points once the GO5 stand down. This means it relates to past, present and future (so these guys leave and don't keep doing it).

The fine is only partially relieved on the basis of the previous governance review. This means it is from the past (and just awaiting implementation).

The points we can get back. The GO5 must go (if this is legal from the NRL) and the fine stays.

 

[Twizzle]

The 'vibe of the thing'?:lol:

its Mabo

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

The 'vibe of the thing'?:lol:

The irony of your post is that that's what you and everyone else here is going on. Not me.

 

[Eelementary]

Could it be that the reason why they've taken out an injunction is because of the logic HJ is applying?

It's all very interesting.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Could it be that the reason why they've taken out an injunction is because of the logic HJ is applying?

It's all very interesting.

No. They've taken out an injunction against the NRL's attempt to make the GO5 stand down. That's all that is being considered in court at the moment, and none of the argument has anything to do with specifics of the case. It is about the NRL's 'right' to compel the directors to stand down (particularly given they haven't had time to defend the allegations against them).

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The irony of your post is that that's what you and everyone else here is going on. Not me.

Whatever. Or years of experience in similar matters. But it's all the same.

 

[Eelementary]

No. They've taken out an injunction against the NRL's attempt to make the GO5 stand down. That's all that is being considered in court at the moment, and none of the argument has anything to do with specifics of the case. It is about the NRL's 'right' to compel the directors to stand down (particularly given they haven't had time to defend the allegations against them).

I should have elaborated:

Is it plausible that they sought an injunction to remain at the helm, so they can sort out Choc's insurance payout and take the penalties imposed back to the court?

I understand your point about what the injunction was for, but I'm wondering whether it serves a longer term purpose...

Or maybe I'm just being fanciful.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I should have elaborated:

Is it plausible that they sought an injunction to remain at the helm, so they can sort out Choc's insurance payout and take the penalties imposed back to the court?

I understand your point about what the injunction was for, but I'm wondering whether it serves a longer term purpose...

Or maybe I'm just being fanciful.

Well, I couldn't 100% predict what these clowns are contemplating, but I'd think it more likely that they want to stay at the helm while they challenge the breach notice on substantive grounds (e.g. that some of the TPAs slated were actually ok) .....not backdating of a retirement/insurance payout. As well as protecting their own arses in general

 

[84 Baby]

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????

Would come down to nrl rules, precedent of when injury retired players come off cap and breach notice wording. I expect the nrl have already considered it, I don't like our chances but still if and when, we'd have to explore it for sure. Maybe at least throw ourselves on their glorious mercy for a reduction in penalty

 

[hindy111]

Could it be that the reason why they've taken out an injunction is because of the logic HJ is applying?

It's all very interesting.

The injunction is so the board can finish job and get us under the cap in 10 days. If they remove themself it would be impossible to do.

 

[Eelementary]

Well, I couldn't 100% predict what these clowns are contemplating, but I'd think it more likely that they want to stay at the helm while they challenge the breach notice on substantive grounds (e.g. that some of the TPAs slated were actually ok) .....not backdating of a retirement/insurance payout. As well as protecting their own arses in general

I have no faith in the clowns in charge, but who knows?

 

[Eelementary]

The injunction is so the board can finish job and get us under the cap in 10 days. If they remove themself it would be impossible to do.

I should have elaborated:

Is it plausible that they sought an injunction to remain at the helm, so they can sort out Choc's insurance payout and take the penalties imposed back to the court?

I understand your point about what the injunction was for, but I'm wondering whether it serves a longer term purpose...

Or maybe I'm just being fanciful.

 

[Miller was a legend]

The clowns are likely to have police, ATO and ASIC on their arse if they have rigged invoices to enable clubs funds to be disguised as TPA's to players.

The board members could find them selves deemed as unfit people to hold directorship anyway.

Seriously the nature of what they are alleged to have been doing is enough for the points to be taken anyway. They tried to cheat the CAP regardless if retrospectively you can fix the quantum.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The clowns are likely to have police, ATO and ASIC on their arse if they have rigged invoices to enable clubs funds to be disguised as TPA's to players.

The board members could find them selves deemed as unfit people to hold directorship anyway.

Seriously the nature of what they are alleged to have been doing is enough for the points to be taken anyway. They tried to cheat the CAP regardless if retrospectively you can fix the quantum.

Yes, but they do have a right of reply to the breach notice. Not one of the allegations in the breach notice has been the subject of a response yet. It may be that there is no credible response. But trying to force resignations before allowing reasonable time to respond is bad form (and from's the NRL's perspective runs an unnecessary risk).

 

[^b0ss^]

So there going to court because they think its abit unfair.After cheating the cap by millions which they thought was fine.I really dont think there going to court so that they can get under the cap then say goodbye.

ok were under the cap now,ok im ready to be sacked.

 

[84 Baby]

The other thing to consider in Hjs theory is what would have been had watmough got pay out before yesterday. I know... Candy and nuts, but courts can be swayed with candy and nuts

 

[yy_cheng]

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.

As I understand it, all TPA for our players have been put under the cap.

But if we prove that some were not guaranteed, does that lower the $570k?

Can HJ be our Chairman?