Eels Salary Cap MK IV

[Poupou Escobar]

Peter 'Ian' Sharp

 

[yy_cheng]

Peter 'Ian' Sharp

YOu mean

Peter 'Is' Sharp
Steve 'Isnt' Sharp

 

[strider]

i was wondering who the f**k Ian was

I thought it was Ian Baker-Finich

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

He was Austrian

So was Hitler. There was no Germany in 1798.

 

[Gronk]

Schubert is famous for his Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor

 

[IFR33K]

We still in it???

 

[El Diablo]

I thought it was Ian Baker-Finich

or this guy

 

[Bigfella]

Schubert is famous for his Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor

Which one FFS

 

[Bandwagon]

The miner, not the plumber

 

[Bigfella]

The thing that has been upsetting me during the entire run up to the breach notice being issued is the reports that no one currently serving at the Eels were interviewed. They weren't given a chance to respond or give their side of the story.

This is where the words "Natural Justice" have come to bare. Has the NRL before handing down its breach notice acted fairly and without bias, obviously if you haven't asked for the clubs side of the story before telling them their punishment and executing it (suspending directors) then you haven't afforded the club Natural Justice.

This isn't even close to being right.

The breach notice isn't a finding. It's an indication of the seriousness of the penalty that will attach if their preliminary conclusions following their investigation aren't discalced.

It's precisely the reason the legal proceedings stilled when they did. The findings and points decision can't be challenged yet because the final decision hadn't been made.

The act of issuing the breach notice is actually a fairly orthodox element of procedural fairness. There are cases which say that persons whose rights will be affected by certain decisions are entitled to know the charges made against them; see the evidence against them; and to be warned about the seriousness of the penalty which might be imposed.

The nrl have complied with all those things. There has been f**k all unfairness In the process so far except perhaps the leaks and there is every chance that was / is someone from our camp anyway.

If there was any prospect that we had been denied procedural fairness the court case would be going (or over and we would have won).

 

[strider]

The problem with the NRL process though, is that they make a massive issue of the breach notice and have you publicly tarred and feathered, especially via the media .... so if it turns out they are actually not quite right with their assumptions, its too f**kin late cos every merkin has branded you the worlds biggest cheats

 

[MarkInTheStands]

The act of issuing the breach notice is actually a fairly orthodox element of procedural fairness. There are cases which say that persons whose rights will be affected by certain decisions are entitled to know the charges made against them; see the evidence against them; and to be warned about the seriousness of the penalty which might be imposed.

Yeah but . . .

The problem with the NRL process though, is that they make a massive issue of the breach notice and have you publicly tarred and feathered, especially via the media .... so if it turns out they are actually not quite right with their assumptions, its too f**kin late cos every merkin has branded you the worlds biggest cheats

Exactly, let them find their findings and then in confidence come to us with a breach notice for us to respond to. But the way that have done this publicly can be construed as lacking in Natural Justice, however the standing down of the directors, before they can have their say in responding to the notice does reek to me.

 

[Chipmunk]

So was Hitler. There was no Germany in 1798.

He was still from Vienna, which last time I looked was still in Austria.

 

[Bigfella]

I would say that the most unfair aspect of it was that they we would have beaten Souths last week if we weren't thinking we needed to win 12/15.

Even allowing for our defence, and that the leaks haven't included the whole context of the material
- there was certainly enough evidence there for them to have conducted this investigation, and to issue the breach notice.

Whether there is enough to follow through is up to us. How well we argue the defence - but more particularly, what we actually did which might allow us that defense

 

[MarkInTheStands]

The other thing that would concern me, is that we have had to comply to the NRL's adjusted salary cap, based on their findings without our rebuttal, if things turn out that the NRL got their info wrong for some reason, and Choc was denied the chance to get himself right or go out on his terms, and the fans and the club and Nathan Peats were denied the right to see him fulfill his contract, then the NRL has put itself in a very difficult position.

 

[Bigfella]

There's something in the peats point.

I did wonder why more wasn't made of that in the injunction proceedings.

I'm not sure we will ever be able to complain that we were forced to pretend choc
had a career ending injury when he might have been able to play if
We needed him

 

[Oscarman]

The other thing that would concern me, is that we have had to comply to the NRL's adjusted salary cap, based on their findings without our rebuttal, if things turn out that the NRL got their info wrong for some reason, and Choc was denied the chance to get himself right or go out on his terms, and the fans and the club and Nathan Peats were denied the right to see him fulfill his contract, then the NRL has put itself in a very difficult position.

This really bothers me too. It implies there is no possibility of winning any argument even if we have evidence that proves the NRLs findings are wrong.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

The introduction of the concept that a team that is not cap compliant can't earn points will probably come back to haunt Greenberg and co. Sadly it will be too late for us.

 

[Chipmunk]

The introduction of the concept that a team that is not cap compliant can't earn points will probably come back to haunt Greenberg and co. Sadly it will be too late for us.

How do you think it will come back to haunt Greenberg?

 

[Noise]

The introduction of the concept that a team that is not cap compliant can't earn points will probably come back to haunt Greenberg and co. Sadly it will be too late for us.

Surely that concept is better than the concept that if you are not cap compliant you are free to earn as many points as you like?