Eels Salary Cap MK IV

[phantom eel]

The "Systematic" breaches of secret payments doesn't ring true from the Transcripts leaked.

Agree with CEO going rogue etc... but I think our focus (hope) that specific figure adjustments should result in a diminished points penalty are misplaced.

The NRL statement is all about us operating a system designed to enable us to exceed the salary cap without detention (transcripts show tick), with payments either hidden from the NRL or misrepresented as suitable for exclusion from the salary cap (again transcripts show tick).

The NRL would know if the (misrepresented) deals were registered or not in our lodgement of contracts. Whether they are concluded/paid or not is immaterial to our breach imo (again, the statement has no focus on the actual figures - it was the systems and behaviour that are described as resulting in our penalties).

Prior to last weekend we were were in breach due to systems and conduct, and shedding Peats and having Watmough's retirement come out of insurance rather than the cap simply allowed the NRL have deemed us cap compliant to compete for points in 2016. I don't think the points penalties are in any way linked to measurements that we were over the cap, nor to specific amounts of how much over the cap we were that might be up for negotiation.

The statement indicates the penalties are for the systems and conduct we engaged in during the dicovered/allegedly intentional misrepresentation of our salary cap and player payments, and as such the 12 points imo will stand regardless. Why would we/the club waste any more time or money living in the past, instead of moving to the future?

 

[phantom eel]

As I stated yesterday our legal team are confident.

No offence, but any legal team that doesn't tell its client that it is "confident" is not worth having on your side.... Trouble is, of two confident legal teams, only one will actually win.

And in the end everyone loses, because of the (club member) money spent on a folly, the disruption to the team/squad, and the damage to our club's reputation among the NRL and the wider league community.

We f**ked up, by "how much" is pretty irrelevant when you consider the systems employed and conduct undertaken. We need to respond to the breach notice, take our medicine and look to better governance (as per previous NRL recommendations) and to planning for 2017.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I dunno about the past but in the present we have 12 points and are a good shot at the finals. I'd be taking all reasonable steps to see if we can maintain that position.

As for the future, that's looking like it might involve NRL appointed board members, if we simply go along with whatever the NRL wants. How many teams have had success with NRL board members?

 

[Twizzle]

Yes I have read the transcripts, to me they read like we had a CEO go rogue and try to organise some very dodgy TPA's. However those transcripts fail to show any details about if the deals were concluded and if they were paid.

However we have "Broken" the salary cap because all our TPA's were added into the cap.

Ian has stated he believes the NRL's numbers are wrong and the actual amount over the cap is under $250K if those TPA's are included.

Now with Choc retiring, we have to wonder when his salary will be back-dated to. If back-dated to the date of the injury (12th Feb) then we can think that maybe we were under the cap all year even with the Technical Breaches mentioned.

The "Systematic" breaches of secret payments doesn't ring true from the Transcripts leaked.

If that's true MITS, and that's a big if, then we may not have had to get rid of Peats

Too late to do anything about it though

 

[Chipmunk]

As I stated yesterday our legal team are confident.

Confident if we challenged it legally or confident we will get a positive response from the NRL?

 

[^b0ss^]

As I stated yesterday our legal team are confident.

Avenger are these the same people that told you we would be happy with the outcome of the breach notice..lol

 

[Avenger]

Confident if we challenged it legally or confident we will get a positive response from the NRL?

Confident in reducing the points penalty. That's what I was told.

 

[MarkInTheStands]

Agree with CEO going rogue etc... but I think our focus (hope) that specific figure adjustments should result in a diminished points penalty are misplaced.

That's you opinion you are entitled to it.

The NRL statement is all about us operating a system designed to enable us to exceed the salary cap without detention (transcripts show tick), with payments either hidden from the NRL or misrepresented as suitable for exclusion from the salary cap (again transcripts show tick).

What transcripts are you talking about ? The one that discusses the CEO going rogue or the ones about the Premiership club?

The NRL would know if the (misrepresented) deals were registered or not in our lodgement of contracts. Whether they are concluded/paid or not is immaterial to our breach imo (again, the statement has no focus on the actual figures - it was the systems and behaviour that are described as resulting in our penalties).

See the above question. What do you think they are alluding to here. What system?

Prior to last weekend we were were in breach due to systems and conduct, and shedding Peats and having Watmough's retirement come out of insurance rather than the cap simply allowed the NRL have deemed us cap compliant to compete for points in 2016. I don't think the points penalties are in any way linked to measurements that we were over the cap, nor to specific amounts of how much over the cap we were that might be up for negotiation.

Again need to prove we were using these systems you speak off. Also the cap compliance as listed in your post is

- The Parramatta Eels will be docked all competition points accumulated so far this season while their team was in breach of the salary cap. The club will be able to begin accruing points as soon as it makes the necessary changes to comply with the 2016 cap.

The necessary changes seem to be losing players to a certain value, to be under the cap due to us being over due to TPA's being added to our cap to a value.

The statement indicates the penalties are for the systems and conduct we engaged in during the dicovered/allegedly intentional misrepresentation of our salary cap and player payments, and as such the 12 points imo will stand regardless. Why would we/the club waste any more time or money living in the past, instead of moving to the future?

The statement listed above seems to indicate our compliance is not based on system and conduct, but a value. The $1 million, the deregistration of officials, yep they are for the systems and conduct, the points are about being over the cap to a value. As such the 12 points are surely fair game if we can prove the value they calculated was wrong, or if we can prove these system or conduct had no affect on the 2016 roster and the TPA's being paid and hence having them not added to the value of our cap.

 

[MarkInTheStands]

If that's true MITS, and that's a big if, then we may not have had to get rid of Peats

Too late to do anything about it though

Sure from a football side of things yes it is too late. But if I was his manager, I would be keeping a very close eye on our response and if what I say comes to be. . . I would be hiring a lawyer toot sweet to see what sort of compensation the NRL might have to give to Nathan, moving costs, distress, having to leave his coaching of the U/13's . . .

 

[Chipmunk]

Confident in reducing the points penalty. That's what I was told.

Perhaps because they're thinking in a legal world, but the NRL is no court of law.

If we breached the salary cap by $1 there is nothing in the NRL rules to say they couldn't give us the same penalty.

 

[phantom eel]

What transcripts are you talking about ? The one that discusses the CEO going rogue or the ones about the Premiership club?

For hidden systems, the transcripts re the Premiership Club and planning to fiddle the PR employee's TPA etc. For misrepresented payments, the transcripts re CEO gone rogue and board discussions about ways forward etc.

See the above question. What do you think they are alluding to here. What system?

It's pretty clear we've been telling the NRL one thing in contracts, while something else happens on the ground re payments to players. Almost a two sets of books system - though not as excessive as the Storms. Using TPA providers that are linked to the club, inflated invoices to mask player payments, etc etc

Again need to prove we were using these systems you speak off. Also the cap compliance as listed in your post is

Leaked evidence suggest this has been proven. For example, the $500K beynd cap amounts reportedly found to have been directed to Hayne etc etc.

The necessary changes seem to be losing players to a certain value, to be under the cap due to us being over due to TPA's being added to our cap to a value.

Agree that's the technical way the NRL justified allowing us to play for points again in 2016, so they could argue (satisfy other clubs) that the impact of our systems and conduct had been mitigated with no unfair advantage at play from Round 10 onwards.

I don't think there is any link between this technical calculated cap/tpa value (and any reducations or potential inaccuracies we might try and argue) and the provisional penalties rendered due to us a) operating a system designed to enable us to exceed the salary cap without detection, and b) having a series of payments that were either hidden from the NRL or misrepresented as suitable for exclusion from the salary cap.

The statement listed above seems to indicate our compliance is not based on system and conduct, but a value. The $1 million, the deregistration of officials, yep they are for the systems and conduct, the points are about being over the cap to a value. As such the 12 points are surely fair game if we can prove the value they calculated was wrong, or if we can prove these system or conduct had no affect on the 2016 roster and the TPA's being paid and hence having them not added to the value of our cap.

I don't believe that statement listed about the points penalty indicates that it is linked to a value. Being "in breach of the salary cap" can mean in breach of the processes, as much as in breach of the cap value - see Emjaycee's thread re Salary Cap Breach v Salary Cap Amount (or similar title).
The value was the NRL's calculated/technical way to measure a benchmark from which we can play for points again (see above). I don't think attempting to challenge that value in any way will absolve us from our systems and payments (process) breaches, or the three elements of our penalty, and I'd be hesitant to see members' money used by what's left of the Board in that way (along with the disruptions etc it would cause).

But respect your differing opinion and your entitlement to it.

 

[Avenger]

Perhaps because they're thinking in a legal world, but the NRL is no court of law.

If we breached the salary cap by $1 there is nothing in the NRL rules to say they couldn't give us the same penalty.

They must be confused and not know the difference between the standards of law and strict liability offences like this one. Seriously bud, natural justice is a minimum in every matter that is why you can contest that traffic infringement notice that you think is unfair as you can with this breach.

 

[phantom eel]

Natural justice is just the right to respond/contest, before a penalty is considered final. I contested a trafic offence once, thought I was in the right and wrote away to request the photo my red light camera fine was based on.

Silly me, photo arrived and clearly showed me proceeding through the intersection on red. I'd forgotten that BEFORE issuing the fine notice, they obviously would have based the (provisional) PENALTY on their leaglly solid EVIDENCE.

I hope our club isn't as stupid - although contesting this will cost them a lot more than a $10 photo.

 

[MarkInTheStands]

But respect your differing opinion and your entitlement to it.

Yours too, but in reality we are punters who haven't seen the entirety of all the documents.

Also as far as we have been told, a former CFO and former Rogue CEO's are the NRL's star witnesses and source of evidence. I hope the clubs submission brings some context to the transcripts and allegations.

 

[Avenger]

Natural justice is just the right to respond/contest, before a penalty is considered final. I contested a trafic offence once, thought I was in the right and wrote away to request the photo my red light camera fine was based on.

Silly me, photo arrived and clearly showed me proceeding through the intersection on red. I'd forgotten that BEFORE issuing the fine notice, they obviously would have based the (provisional) PENALTY on their leaglly solid EVIDENCE.

I hope our club isn't as stupid - although contesting this will cost them a lot more than a $10 photo.

You don't pay for the photo anymore. It's free on the OSR website. I've got off a red light camera. Actually it was a speed camera in a school zone. There is always recourse if one has solid grounds. And there may be here. You never know.

 

[phantom eel]

Yours too, but in reality we are punters who haven't seen the entirety of all the documents.

Very true.

Also as far as we have been told, a former CFO and former Rogue CEO's are the NRL's star witnesses and source of evidence. I hope the clubs submission brings some context to the transcripts and allegations.

I hope so too.

But the fact the former CFO and CEO are being utilised without apparent sanction in this matter leads me to believe the NRL's long game here isn't actually about Parramatta, but is about eventually sorting out the "mess" that is player managers' interactions with the salary cap? The NRL has already hinted this as a second phase of investigations, hopefully with a long term aim of establishing some sort of regulaton/compliance regime for player manager activities that would greatly assist the operation and monitoring of the salary cap into the future.

 

[phantom eel]

You don't pay for the photo anymore. It's free on the OSR website.

I'm talking a long time ago... 23 years? :lol:

I've got off a red light camera. Actually it was a speed camera in a school zone. There is always recourse if one has solid grounds. And there may be here. You never know.

Indeed, we never know. But is this situation with the evidence at the NRL's fingers worth the members' funds and disruption to go beyond the written response, and push things to a court case?

I say no, let's move on. Two more losses in the next two games and I reckon you'll be with me...

 

[MarkInTheStands]

From the transcripts I have read, I don't think the Premiership club is in any way illegal. The invoices and payments to contractors seem to be done under the rogue CEO without the board, CEO or FOM's knowledge based on the transcripts.

I would also like to state, I don't think this will hit the courts, firstly there is the NRL appeals committee if after our submission is made if we think we are being treated harshly.

However in our response, I hope we are going all out to clear our name, have the fine reduced and have all our points given back because only our club will have the full evidence of what players have been paid or guaranteed and what our board members knew about them.

 

[phantom eel]

From the transcripts I have read, I don't think the Premiership club is in any way illegal. The invoices and payments to contractors seem to be done under the rogue CEO without the board, CEO or FOM's knowledge based on the transcripts.

The idea is certainly not illegal. But the idea seems not to have been implemented not as originally intended (when spruiked by Bill Moss, just prior to him curtailing his involvement).

The way it appears to have been done might have resulted in any resultant TPAs or payments being in breach of cap processes (and hence added to our cap amount). Also, the Board directors appear to have openly discussed and minuted involvement in excess of arms length expectations, about facilitating of contracts and payments rather than simply introductions between parties.

I hope it turns out better, but from the evidence (no doubt strategically) leaked, I just can't see us with any leg to stand on, no matter how confident Schubert is with his calculations, and how confident our legal team is with their... legalities *shrugs*.

 

[Chipmunk]

They must be confused and not know the difference between the standards of law and strict liability offences like this one. Seriously bud, natural justice is a minimum in every matter that is why you can contest that traffic infringement notice that you think is unfair as you can with this breach.

Natural justice (well its actually procedural fairness) seems to be taking place at the present time.

I'd suggest breaching the salary cap would be considered a strict liability offence and there is still no reason under the NRL rules couldn't have given us the same punishment if we had breached the salary cap by $1.

It's also apparently written in the NRL rules as part of all Clubs participation agreements that clubs cannot challenge any penalties.

I'd be interested to see what grounds they have to challenge the breach notice, but I guess time will tell.