Eels Salary Cap MK IV

[yy_cheng]

Then, if caught they face the same sanctions as is now the case. The thing is that there will always be merkins who will attempt to rort the system, that doesn't mean the system can't be improved.

As with a points based system, it'll never be perfect, however I'm with Barry on his assertion that a points based system would likely create as many issues as it solves.

Or we scrap the salary cap altogether and let teams pay as much as they like to players.

Then the poorer club dies and we end up with 8 strong teams both on the paddock and financially.

Then we will have an awesome competition. Semi-finals every week.

Further to that, we can have 2 tiered comp. Like EPL. Every year, the bottom x (say 2 teams) gets relegated from tier 1 and the top 2 from tier 2 goes to tier 1 comp.

 

[Chipmunk]

Yeh. While ever the cap is set at a level significantly below what a number of clubs are prepared to pay there's going to be trouble. And while ever one team gets a monopoly on a rugby league loving capital city, they'll be in the box seat to exploit whatever system is in place, but particularly so with payments outside the cap.

One thing that would probably help, and would probably get the ok from the PA would be to publish the total TPAs registered by a club (with no details of the players/individual amounts).

I don't see why the PA would get a say in the publishing of total TPAs? The PA don't get a say in what the salary cap is or what constitutes a TPA.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I don't see why the PA would get a say in the publishing of total TPAs? The PA don't get a say in what the salary cap is or what constitutes a TPA.

The difference is that in certain circumstances, publishing the total TPAs might be tantamount to telling the world what one bloke gets. It would take peculiar circumstances though, and I'd think the PA would be ok with it.

I'm not so sure that the PA have no say in what the salary cap is. When the CBA is being negotiated, I'd think there be some 'to and fro' over future cap increases.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...h-set-for-the-scrap-heap-20160618-gpm98g.html

PENALTY LOOMS

Parramatta's "gang of five" officials may feel they have been treated harshly by the NRL, but the fact is they could have copped a massive hit to their hip pockets. Under its rules, the NRL could have imposed a $50,000 fine on each of the officials it has provisionally suspended. However, they may not escape without paying a hefty financial penalty. They could be personally liable for legal costs if they aren't covered by directors' insurance.

 

[ash411]

I can't imagine they are covered by directors insurance. They acted improperly, or at the very least were grossly negligent in their duties IF they weren't directly responsible, which they were.

I'd be quite happy slugging them with the legal bill, hell if it was up to me, they'd be personally liable for the fine too.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I can't imagine they are covered by directors insurance. They acted improperly, or at the very least were grossly negligent in their duties IF they weren't directly responsible, which they were.

I'd be quite happy slugging them with the legal bill, hell if it was up to me, they'd be personally liable for the fine too.

That's all been tested in court, has it? I'd wait til the dust settles.

 

[Bigfella]

I can't imagine they are covered by directors insurance. They acted improperly, or at the very least were grossly negligent in their duties IF they weren't directly responsible, which they were.

I'd be quite happy slugging them with the legal bill, hell if it was up to me, they'd be personally liable for the fine too.

When will you be handing down your judgment?

I look forward to hearing the reasons and all the evidence you've considered.

 

[Gary Gutful]

It will all be posted on law.com

 

[Bigfella]

Excellent.

I might try to get a degree from those guys.

Half time in the next game maybe.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Excellent.

I might try to get a degree from those guys.

Half time in the next game maybe.

Should still have time to have a piss and get another beer as well.

 

[ash411]

I agree that leaving the status who would be a disaster.

But can you explain why we should completely discount the other group at a time when we know very little about them?

Otherwise it smacks of more whiteanting a group because you (not you personally mic) don't like them / hold a grudge / or simply aren't preferred

I personally will be looking at all of the candidates very carefully

Probably the most attractive thing I would like to see is removal of some of the restrictions on eligibility so that we can start getting better standard of candidates

Realistically you would like to see better qualified people missing out than have been getting on

one more thing, I wanted to answer this separately.

I think the fact that we don't know anything about them or their plan should alarm everyone. They've been on the scene for around what, 3 weeks now? and we still don't know who is running with him, or what their plans are.

Doesn't that worry you at all? don't you think they should have all showed who they are BEFORE trying to gain signatures? What are they trying to hide? If they had nothing to hide, then they would have come forward to reveal who they are already.

It worries me that they haven't. It should worry you too.

 

[phantom eel]

But can you explain why we should completely discount the other group at a time when we know very little about them?

Because there enough known facts to suspect they are 3P stooges, have been waiting in the wings, and as such represent a return to the factionalism (from whatever "side") that the (football) club now needs to turn away from in order to have any hopes for the future.

You've been critical of anyone giving reasosn why the other mob shouldn't be supported bigfella... how about you give some reasons (based on known facts) of why you are supporting them? Or perhaps are involved with them :sarcasm:?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

The fact that we don't know who they are is the very reason that we should be suspicious of them.

 

[Bigfella]

Because there enough known facts to suspect they are 3P stooges, have been waiting in the wings, and as such represent a return to the factionalism (from whatever "side") that the (football) club now needs to turn away from in order to have any hopes for the future.

You've been critical of anyone giving reasosn why the other mob shouldn't be supported bigfella... how about you give some reasons (based on known facts) of why you are supporting them? Or perhaps are involved with them :sarcasm:?

Firstly, stick your stupid f**king eye rolling icon up your f**king arse

Secondly, don't assert that I am supporting them. I want to know who they are and what they are proposing. I am not ruling them or anyone else out. I am certainly not "supporting" them and it is completelyt disingenuous of you to suggest I am.

The fact that agitators like you and hj are already whiteanting them makes me incredibly suspicious.

The usual grubby little knives are out.

As for the merit based proposal these are my concerns:

1. Can we trust the third party consultants - how do we know they aren't a favoured group capable of being influenced behind the scenes?

2. Sounds like too much discretion being left in the hands of Gerard to me.

3. It's not clear to me what this means for future elections etc.

4. I still think constitutional reform needs to be a priority. I don;t even think financial membership should be a requirement to be on the board. Do you have to have shares in BHP to be on theior board or do they simply appoint the best candidates they can take from the market? if three year membership to a pokie lounge is the one requirement we will keep getting what we deserve

 

[emjaycee]

Hi BF,
I will try and break up your questions and answer them as best I can.

As for the merit based proposal these are my concerns:

1. Can we trust the third party consultants - how do we know they aren't a favoured group capable of being influenced behind the scenes?

From what I have been told the current plan is to form a selection committee with people from 3 different groups:
1) an experienced executive recruitment firm
2) the NRL
3) Office of Liquor and Gaming

Whilst not all of these groups have been approached as yet, this is the clear intention and should remove any chance of behind the scenes influence.

2. Sounds like too much discretion being left in the hands of Gerard to me.

Unfortunately there needs to be someone left in the role of Director however their powers are limited by both the constitution and the Registered Clubs Act during circumstances such as this. The person directing the selection committee and providing them with their instructions and brief will be the CEO who under the Registered Clubs Act is empowered more in the absence of a quorum of the Board.

3. It's not clear to me what this means for future elections etc.

Future elections of the PLC are not impacted. We go back to the free for all that we have seen but hopefully, the candidates that come forward are less likely to be factionalised (I wish). What we do hope is that the performance of the replacement/short-term Board is such that they are seen by the PLC members to be worth re-electing and therefore the election result is less messy.

4. I still think constitutional reform needs to be a priority. I don;t even think financial membership should be a requirement to be on the board. Do you have to have shares in BHP to be on theior board or do they simply appoint the best candidates they can take from the market? if three year membership to a pokie lounge is the one requirement we will keep getting what we deserve

This is the kicker but realistically it isnt Constitutional Reform at the PLC level that is needed but rather at the PNRL P/L level and most of this in relation to appointment of PNRL Directors has been done. For example there is already in place in the PNRL constitution allowance for independent directors, including the process for selecting them. The structure of triennial elections is also already in the PNRL constitution. And there is also an upper and lower limit on the number of PLC directors that can/will be put onto the PNRL Board so the process of change has definitely commenced.

 

[Bigfella]

Thanks MJC very interesting and helpful

Again, I'm not sure it answers all my queries but there is a lot to be commended in people doing this work and the theory that they are operating from

It may become a choice between two imperfect methods and a matter of choosing the least harmful

 

[Gary Gutful]

Firstly, stick your stupid f**king eye rolling icon up your f**king arse

I actually quite like Phantom but this comment made me laugh.

 

[emjaycee]

Thanks MJC very interesting and helpful

Again, I'm not sure it answers all my queries but there is a lot to be commended in people doing this work and the theory that they are operating from

It may become a choice between two imperfect methods and a matter of choosing the least harmful

Mate, all I know is that the current PLC Board is split 3/4 and if the 4 get their way then neither option will get the go-ahead without possible OLGA intervention. That says a lot to me about why we need to do this.

 

[eel01s]

I think the proposal for the directors to be appointed based on merit (especially if the NRL have some input) is a reasonable and logical way to go. My only question is do the candidates have to be current voting members?

 

[emjaycee]

I think the proposal for the directors to be appointed based on merit (especially if the NRL have some input) is a reasonable and logical way to go. My only question is do the candidates have to be current voting members?

Yes - it is a condition of the constitution of the PLC.