Eels Salary Cap MK III

[hineyrulz]

Nah we cheated hineyrulz, and we need to take our f**ken medicine. This is an illegally assembled team and we deserve to lose some of your favourite players.

Isn't that right smartarse?

Well when you do something wrong there is normally a punishment, that's right you think the board did nothing wrong at all and condone cheating.

One thing I could always say when I copped shit for following the Eels and the fact we are so shit was that at least my team aren't a bunch of scummy cheats. Well that now is gone thanks to Sharp and his team.

 

[emjaycee]

So would an extraordinary meeting be a good idea? Is anyone going to organize one? How would one organize one?

To what ends?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yep and we have been given a preliminary breach notice that outlines that and the time to respond to that (9 days).

But that is 9 days to respond. The NRL don't have to make a decision on issues raised in our response within 9 days. In which case, we won't know how much we are actually over the cap by.

 

[Chipmunk]

Gerrard is great mates with Grant, make that of you will......

Is there any actual evidence of this or is it just hearsay.

 

[strider]

The way I see it, TPA have two potential advantages for a company.

1) It's a marketing expense, Which helps you come tax time, the more you spend building your business the less tax you pay.

2) If you have a service model business with clients for example, you could have a client day at your company where they can come by, have a drink & a feed, and meet a fair dinkum NRL player. Clients lap that stuff up, it makes them really happy and goes a long way towards keeping that client, and possibly expanding what they buy from you. Depending on what business you're in, that could be worth a lot of money. Think of it this way, lets say you charge $10K for X service, You have a client that happens to be a mad parra fan, he already takes X service, but you see an opportunity to sell him Y service as well, for $50K. You have a TPA agreement with Normy for $25K, you get him to come out to your office or wherever to meet your client (and some others as well), of course the client is gonna show, he wants to meet Normy. While you have him there, you sell him on Y service, and he's so chuffed to meet Normy that it helps get the sale over the line. You've now increased your revenue from that client by $50K.

That's the advantage that TPAs have for businesses. There's also a philanthropic element as well, as MJC mentioned, they're more than likely fans of the team that want to help out.

your revenue increased by $50k - but then you give $25k of that to Normy

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

It may not have been in the press release, but could well have been in the 60 page breach notice. The NRL was quoted in the media about in subsequent to their presser .

Yeah, this could be right. I haven't seen all the media about this and haven't seen the 60 page notice (obviously).

All I'm saying in relation to this particular point (GO5 standing down) is that I only heard about it after the injunction was granted.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

The NRL has subsequently said that the club needs to accept the terms of the breach notice, which is docked 12 points, pay the fine and 5 board go, before the club will be permitted to play for points. They also have to be under the cap, but the NRL will make that happen if we admit guilt and accept the breach notice.

What grounds would the club have challenge anything if we agree to the terms of the breach notice. They would be saying that we accept everything is true and correct.

Subsequently - that's my point (if it is correct). The timeline could be a bit tricky, here, considering we had the injunction by the end of the day.

If it's in the breach notice then there's no argument. If it's not, then it's time to fight. Also, there's the possibility of fighting if it is illegal (or if the NRL don't have any agreement from clubs saying they have the right to do this).

 

[Kornstar]

I'm not a hippy, though the idea does appeal to me sometimes (one of my mates packed everything in and moved to Byron about 8 years ago and loves it). I'm an accountant/ financial services guy by trade with a fair bit of legal involved, but I don't work much in that area any more. I simply believe in natural justice. And I think a lot of you blokes would too, if you found yourself on the wrong end of other peoples 'convenient' decisions.


The point here is that we don't know that someone is a 'severe criminal' until they've had the chance to respond to allegations against them. After that, we can pull their arms off for all I care

Stop being so nice and balanced, we want blood and we want it now no matter what the truth may be!!

Just kidding, you are clearly a much nicer person than me that's for sure.

 

[hineyrulz]

I will be honest, you are one of the people i dont understand. You will throw shit at the broncos, roosters etc for being cheating merkins ... but then next post you will say stuff about how they are doing it properly ..... ummm nah, they are doing it too.

Im not saying there is no legit TPA but i dont think they are as plentiful and as lucritive as people like yourself believe

Well have they ever been caught??? Where they stupid enough to put in their mins that they plan to cheat??? They do have massive advantages over us because of the people who run their clubs and the reach they have in business. I know everyone got shitty with Jake over his plumber jibe but that's what he was. Compare him to Politis, Dib, Lafranchi and the guys who run the backroom of the Broncos.

 

[Chipmunk]

Yep and we have been given a preliminary breach notice that outlines that and the time to respond to that (9 days).

I think it's 5 days isn't it? Which if it is work days will be Monday.

You would then assume that if we admit guilt and accept all the terms of the breach notice that the NRL will rubber stamp it and it's just the salary cap issue to resolve and we can continue to play for points.

If we question or challenge anything in the breach notice then the NRL will take as long as they want to look into it further (perhaps another two months...who knows), I'm guessing with us not playing for any points until the final penalty can be determined.

 

[ash411]

your revenue increased by $50k - but then you give $25k of that to Normy

Yeah, true, so you still get an extra $25K that you didn't have before. and that was just one client, you might have been able to pull off that sale to more than just that one client, but you only have to pay Normy once.

And you get to put $25K in your expenses column, which is equally beneficial.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Stop being so nice and balanced, we want blood and we want it now no matter what the truth may be!!

Just kidding, you are clearly a much nicer person than me that's for sure.

Why, thank you. But it's not really to do with being nice....just fair....and I think we get better outcomes if we stop and think about the consequences of our actions before committing to things we can't undo.

Actually, I'm the most irrational person while watching the Eels play. On a lot of occasions I have to switch the TV off so that I don't make a complete arsehole of myself.

 

[strider]

Yeah, true, so you still get an extra $25K that you didn't have before. and that was just one client, you might have been able to pull off that sale to more than just that one client, but you only have to pay Normy once.

And you get to put $25K in your expenses column, which is equally beneficial.

cool ... can you go and tell this company to have a chat to parra ....

 

[emjaycee]

But that is 9 days to respond. The NRL don't have to make a decision on issues raised in our response within 9 days. In which case, we won't know how much we are actually over the cap by.

Whilst true in principal, Greenburg did make it clear publicily that he (the NRL) would help us get under the cap by next weeks game as much as they are able. Surely that would mean an open dialogue about how much we needed to find and what they will accept as a solution.

The only challenge is making sure they open the door to such a meeting and it seems that the legal case is a blocker to that occurring.

 

[ash411]

cool ... can you go and tell this company to have a chat to parra ....

I wish I knew a company like this that could do it, I would suggest it. But I don't. dammit.

And my boss would never go for it, he's a doggies supporter..

 

[Chipmunk]

Initially when the Fab Five went to the Supreme court, I was furious and thought they were being selfish arseholes.

But - there is something that keeps bugging me. How could the NRL present the board with a complex and detailed 60 page (apparently) breach notice - along with a difficult task of complying with the cap within 10 days - but then disqualify 5 of our most senior officials at the same time. Who is left to analyse, digest, investigate and respond to all the allegations?

The NRL should have informed them that they have 28 days or so at which time they will be forced to stand down. Just my thoughts.

They could have done that, but we will play for no points until we admit guilt and accept all the terms of the breach notice (and become salary cap compliant)...

It's about strategy to get it all over and done with and move on...

 

[ash411]

Whilst true in principal, Greenburg did make it clear publicily that he (the NRL) would help us get under the cap by next weeks game as much as they are able. Surely that would mean an open dialogue about how much we needed to find and what they will accept as a solution.

The only challenge is making sure they open the door to such a meeting and it seems that the legal case is a blocker to that occurring.

Exactly, Greenberg and the NRL are dead set against dealing with the GO5, No amount of court actions will help us in the short term, and it's not like they are uniquely qualified to handle it, the remaining 4 board members (with whats-his-name that we brought in) will be more than capable to handle this in the short term, and if the GO5 want to fight their de-regs they can, on their own time, separate from the club, and if they win, they are more than welcome to run for the board at the next election.

If the NRL are offering to help fix our cap issues, and if there's a chance to do so without losing any key players, we should be jumping on any opportunity to do so.

The de-registration of the GO5 isn't irrevocable. They can be de-registered, then argue the validity of it and win, and have their registrations re-instated. If doing it that way means the NRL will help us play for points next Friday, why wouldn't we do it? What do we have to lose? If the GO5 can't reverse their de-registration in court or wherever, then that means they were rightly de-registered in the first place.

 

[emjaycee]

I wonder if the NRL did us a small favour by delaying the announcement until after the Dogs game.
Effectively it gave us an extra week to get our house in order and play for points.

If they had done it when there wasn't a week off between games we would have only had 4 days to resolve the salary cap overspend.

Not that the NRL are getting any kudos from me this week.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

If the NRL are offering to help fix our cap issues, and if there's a chance to do so without losing any key players, we should be jumping on any opportunity to do so.

There's a big 'if' in that statement. If we have to lose players to become compliant, and then later discover that we didn't actually need to lose those players, how excellent would that be?

 

[emjaycee]

Exactly, Greenberg and the NRL are dead set against dealing with the GO5, No amount of court actions will help us in the short term, and it's not like they are uniquely qualified to handle it, the remaining 4 board members (with whats-his-name that we brought in) will be more than capable to handle this in the short term, and if the GO5 want to fight their de-regs they can, on their own time, separate from the club, and if they win, they are more than welcome to run for the board at the next election.

If the NRL are offering to help fix our cap issues, and if there's a chance to do so without losing any key players, we should be jumping on any opportunity to do so.

The de-registration of the GO5 isn't irrevocable. They can be de-registered, then argue the validity of it and win, and have their registrations re-instated. If doing it that way means the NRL will help us play for points next Friday, why wouldn't we do it? What do we have to lose? If the GO5 can't reverse their de-registration in court or wherever, then that means they were rightly de-registered in the first place.

And let's not forget that the de-regulation would be for a particular timeframe. Compliance with the NRL's request may just see that timeframe reduced. And people like DA, Sharp and Serrao who are lifelong football people would probably rather have a lesser suspension than a longer one because they argued the toss with the umpire.

 

[ash411]

There's a big 'if' in that statement. If we have to lose players to become compliant, and then later discover that we didn't actually need to lose those players, how excellent would that be?

I did say that working with the NRL is a good idea if we can keep our core, key players did I not?

If they came to the meeting and said "right, you have to lose Foran and Semi". I would say, "No Thanks". and leave the meeting right there.

The possible chance at a finals birth in 2016 is not worth the genuine chance we have at the premiership in 2017.