Eels Salary Cap MK IV

[El Diablo]

Hold on Mate.

I had no problem with a 5 year plan, The problem for me was when it was implemented we went form a half decent 60 minute side to a shit swizzling side to a side that no one had confidence in, all under a coach whose main expression was a vacant stare.

If you think that BA doesn't have a 5 year plan and that we are in year 3 of it, you are kidding yourself.

whatever his plan was has just been screwed up for a few years

I understand that he and Schoey are managing our cap now so it appears he is taking on a more significant role as well as being head coach and even

it's Ian

 

[Gary Gutful]

I dont get the Gus love

111 will explain it.

 

[Djay]

I actually don't think many appreciate the sort of shit he's going through behind the scenes right now, he's been the 1 and only shining light through this mess and we need to base our future around him.

if BA breaks, and lets face it...he is only human, than we are well and truely rooted!

I think most who have their head screwed on right know that BA is the only shining light through all this mess and if there was anyone you would want leading us through this, it's him.

Thank god for him and all he has done, I just hope he sticks around for a few more years because I am confident he is the man that can lead us to a premiership and if he does then EVERYONE will realise just how great of a coach and man he is.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Yeah, I agree. BA is OK but we don't need to jizz our pants.

Every coach or player is either a f**ken superstar or a major nuffy, apparently :crazy:

Exactly.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Do you reckon that the insiders have behaved as if they give a shit what happens after they're gone?

I get your point, and whatever we do needs to be carefully thought through.

To be honest, I'd consider taking control of the NRL license away from the PRLC (and from the footy club if necessary) for a period of say 24 to 36 months. Maybe allow 2 directors to be appointed by the PRLC. The license to be handed back contingent on the club(s) getting its shit together (this way the on-field action doesn't directly affect elections etc). For the interim period, pay the executive directors a competitive salary and significant bonuses based on ladder position and on the absence of f**kwit behaviour.

Yeah, well according to law.com, you're a f**kwit!

 

[Gary Gutful]

I don't really think that. It was just a pathetic attempt to be added to his sig.

 

[Dibs]

Yeah, I agree. BA is OK but we don't need to jizz our pants.

Every coach or player is either a f**ken superstar or a major nuffy, apparently :crazy:

Are you suggesting things aren't always salt or pepper? Sorry I mean black or white?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yeah, well according to law.com, you're a f**kwit!

They took that post down.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

What you describe has nothing to do with 'fair process', 'due process', or 'natural justice'. You've described a discretionary decision, and (according to the code of conduct at least) we can't appeal that. 'Fair process' is about the right have your argument/defense heard and be duly considered before a final decision is made. It is not about whether general society thinks the decision is fair.

I don't agree, Baz.

Fair/due process is not just ensuring you go through each step correctly. If this was the case, the NRL could simply go:

1) Here's our preliminary finding. You have 28 days to respond;
2) *chucks response in trash*
3) We gave you the right to respond. Here is our final verdict, which is the same as original after we "took into consideration" your response.

It's also about ensuring each step is done fairly and that includes the way that "evidence" is considered. It's not a "discretionary decision" to expect insurance payments to be treated the same way by the NRL as they are in general society - that's due process.

All we need to do is get a court to even consider our position and the NRL will shit itself.

 

[Gronk]

The 28 days is up on 31 May, 2016 or next Tuesday.

I wonder how long the NRL will take to assess our rebuttal ?

I say that they only have 5 days to respond. As it has already been deemed to be "reasonable" by the NRL.

 

[84 Baby]

It's not a "discretionary decision" to expect insurance payments to be treated the same way by the NRL as they are in general society - that's due process.

That's not an example of due process. That's an example of if a non-judicial authority has the right to determine one of it's own rules against general societal principles (or even legislation). It's an extensive issue but basically, as the NRL aren't legislative, we have to argue that it's so grossly against society that it cannot stand. We don't know NRL's guidelines or precedents on the matter, but I expect from a salary cap rule POV they can determine what date he comes off cap and not have any other impact on any other legislation.

I say that they only have 5 days to respond. As it has already been deemed to be "reasonable" by the NRL.

Except the appeals team isn't even the same guys that determined penalty so you'd just be screwing with someone else

 

[84 Baby]

You could argue (if you could prove it) that the NRL leaking information to the media was a failure to provide due process and akin (not specifically though, so negligible relevance and it's against the publishers anyway) to the sub judice rule. And again it's only swaying the court of public opinion, not the actual prosecuting body, the NRL.

Sometimes the problem with courts is (although judges do have powers to make own determination on matter) you could have 100 things that are unfairly targetted at you, but the courts break each one down to see if and how they legally impact you and you have to prove illegality/inequity of each individual thing, not as whole

 

[Gronk]

Except the appeals team isn't even the same guys that determined penalty so you'd just be screwing with someone else

I don't think we're appealing as yet. We are responding to the preliminary findings ?

EDIT: I assume we can take the below as the accepted process ?

Recipients of such notices are then afforded time in which to respond. For breach notices thicker than the Yellow Pages, this process takes time.

After any response is submitted, the NRL CEO must consider it and decide whether to impose the penalty originally specified or a different penalty. Other options include deciding the alleged breach never happened, or deciding that a different breach might have occurred (in which case the process starts afresh).

Now, assume the penalty specified in a breach notice constitutes the sun rising on Whacking Day for the Eels, and that Todd Greenberg remains resolute in imposing the proposed sanctions even after receiving Parramatta's response. What the club can do is request that any determination as to guilt or penalty be reviewed by the NRL Appeals Committee, chaired by former High Court Justice Ian Callinan, QC. The caveat is that, if four or less competition points are deducted, there is no right of appeal.

Such a review may proceed if Callinan decides that Parramatta's case is made on "plausible" grounds, or if there's any other good reason why the Appeals Committee should hear it. If the appeal proceeds, the club could appeal on the basis that Greenberg's decision was unreasonable; unsupported by the evidence; or because the punishment is manifestly excessive.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...over-salary-cap-breaches-20160421-gocb2q.html

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yes, that is the point we are at Gronk.

 

[84 Baby]

I don't think we're appealing as yet. We are responding to the preliminary findings ?

Ah misread. I reckon the NRL have already drafted their response. Without significant evidence to dispute their findings, they'll probably just hit play on their recording of the "it stops now" speech

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

It's not a "discretionary decision" to expect insurance payments to be treated the same way by the NRL as they are in general society - that's due process.

There are two related, but separate, issues here.

In terms of the Salary Cap treatment, the NRL is not making any decision that affects the insurance payments themselves. Watmough will receive payments backdated to the date at which the insurance company accepts was his 'retirement', just like every other member of society.

The NRL's decision regarding how the Watmough's retirement affects the club's salary cap position is a separate issue, and has no necessary ramifications for his payout. Nor is there an obvious parallel in general society. The vast majority of us do not work for an employer subject to a salary cap that the employer has voluntarily agreed to abide by.

 

[emjaycee]

We need to keep in mind that in the case of Watmough, the insurance companies assessment of his injury (and subsequent payout) and the NRL's decision on his retirement are 2 distinctly different things.

The club has submitted paperwork to the NRL requesting a determination that the injury suffered by Watmough in February 2016 was career-ending and has necessitated his retirement from the game. The NRL seems to have effectively said, "yes, the injury is career-ending so he can retire however the date of the retirement is not February 2016 but May 2016 because despite the injury he kept working/training with the intent of returning to the field." In the real world, you can't take sick leave, be paid for it and then ask for your retirement to be back-dated to the date you went off sick - same concept applies here.

The Club pays Watmough his retirement payout (and the NRL determine that effective the retirement date (i.e. May 2016) the value of this payout is exempt from the Salary Cap).

With regard to the insurance payout, the club and not the NRL claim the insurance payment to recover costs incurred since the injury. The insurance company will decide if:
1) the claim is valid;
2) the back dating to the date of the injury can be substantiated;

If they agree to both the club would be reimbursed the money it has spent in paying Watmough (from date of injury to retirement payout).

2 separate things so IMHO the insurance companies decision has no bearing on the value taken off our cap spend for the year.

 

[84 Baby]

We need to keep in mind that in the case of Watmough, the insurance companies assessment of his injury (and subsequent payout) and the NRL's decision on his retirement are 2 distinctly different things.

The club has submitted paperwork to the NRL requesting a determination that the injury suffered by Watmough in February 2016 was career-ending and has necessitated his retirement from the game. The NRL seems to have effectively said, "yes, the injury is career-ending so he can retire however the date of the retirement is not February 2016 but May 2016 because despite the injury he kept working/training with the intent of returning to the field." In the real world, you can't take sick leave, be paid for it and then ask for your retirement to be back-dated to the date you went off sick - same concept applies here.

The Club pays Watmough his retirement payout (and the NRL determine that effective the retirement date (i.e. May 2016) the value of this payout is exempt from the Salary Cap).

With regard to the insurance payout, the club and not the NRL claim the insurance payment to recover costs incurred since the injury. The insurance company will decide if:
1) the claim is valid;
2) the back dating to the date of the injury can be substantiated;

If they agree to both the club would be reimbursed the money it has spent in paying Watmough (from date of injury to retirement payout).

2 separate things so IMHO the insurance companies decision has no bearing on the value taken off our cap spend for the year.

Yes you can, you just then reimburse company or they take it off payout

 

[emjaycee]

Yes you can, you just then reimburse company or they take it off payout

Yeah my bad - I knew after I typed it that it was probably wrong.

Should have said you can't go on light duties, be paid and then ask for a back-dated retirement.
;-)

 

[Twizzle]

well Watmong was on pretty light duties