Greg Inglis headed to South Sydney - no players to be shed

[BunniesMan]

STFU BM. No one cares.

You clearly do.

 

[cleary89]

 

[Eels Dude]

Another one of the 3rd party sponsors talking about the deal:



http://www.sportal.com.au/league-ne...815?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

There you have it. He claims to have dealt with Inglis and his manager. While the NRL said otherwise. That's 3 of the 4 sponsors going on public record saying they've done things by the book. They all signed stat decs. What more does the NRL want? They accused Souths of basically trying to cheat, with what seems to be no proof whatsoever. I'd be happy if Souths sued the NRL, not for the salary cap, but for defamation.

Well of course he has to have dealt with Inglis and his manager. He would have had to had some point. The question the NRL have raised as to whether it was Souths who spoke to the third parties first and then offered them to Inglis and his manager as part of their contract offer.

 

[BunniesMan]

Well of course he has to have dealt with Inglis and his manager. He would have had to had some point. The question the NRL have raised as to whether it was Souths who spoke to the third parties first and then offered them to Inglis and his manager as part of their contract offer.

When the 3rd party sponsors sign the 3rd party deals, I'm sure at some point they're informed of the rules relating to them. I can't see all 3 going on record if they didn't know everything was above board.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Good point. With so much speculation out there, odds so low are really surprising. They clearly know something the rest of us don't because $1.06 is basically a certainty. They just want to make a few bucks from the Essendon headlines.

Richo is at $1.01 to never go on a diet and at $10000,00000000,00000.00 to never goose himself and his club again.

Thats too short for mine.

Your clubs handling of the saga is the issue BM, not jealously over Inglis going to Souths. Richo is a douche.

 

[BunniesMan]

Richo is at $1.01 to never go on a diet and at $10000,00000000,00000.00 to never goose himself and his club again.

Thats too short for mine.

Your clubs handling of the saga is the issue BM, not jealously over Inglis going to Souths. Richo is a douche.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...reg-inglis-offer/story-e6frexnr-1225974637179

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...oins-fight-to-keep-inglis-20101221-194hh.html

There's 2 sources, with 2 of the sponsors saying they dealt with the manager and not Souths:

"If it is this hard, I wouldn't go down that path again," Saap admitted as the current 3 Series BMW earmarked for Inglis still sits in his caryard.

Saap claims he explained to NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert that his involvement with Inglis was independent of Souths but that Schubert chose to ignore him.

Byrne said the Inglis deal was ''purely through Greg and Allan Gainey''

You know, just because the NRL said Souths did the wrong thing, doesn't make it true. There's 2 different sponsors going on public record saying they did the right thing the right way. So explain to me again what we did wrong?

And also the 2nd link has news about the players union possibility appealing the NRL's decision. And also that Inglis is living in Richo's (or "the douche" as you call him) house and having to borrow money just to get buy. AFL superstar's borrows money to pay off his gambling debts, our superstar's borrow money to get by day to day because they're not getting paid thanks to pathetic NRL incompetence.

The fact that he's living on someone's couch and borrowing money to pay his bills and he still hasn't gone to AFL says a lot. Anyone calling him "greedy" now should really f**k off.

 

[Eels Dude]

When the 3rd party sponsors sign the 3rd party deals, I'm sure at some point they're informed of the rules relating to them. I can't see all 3 going on record if they didn't know everything was above board.

Missing the point again Bunniesman, obviously they weren't explained the rules otherwise Souths wouldn't be in this predicament.

Do you really think Inglis agreed to sign with Souths for just 190k with in a day or two of contract negotiations... without being promised more from elsewhere? The third parties clearly state they offered Inglis third party deals only AFTER they heard he'd be playing in Sydney. Something doesn't add up Bunniesman.

 

[Ziggy the God]

We now have 3 of the third party sponsors saying that they dealt through Inglis' manager. They went to the club and were then directed to Gainey. That is what other clubs have done, and is what Cullen said the Broncos have done.

Thus, the 3PA's must all be bullsh*tting or there is some technicality or Schubert has been shown to be a biased fool. Well, it is really 3 different organisations against what he has ruled, you work it out:



Aboriginal Medical Service
Bellear said the medical service would have sponsored Inglis had he been at any other NSW club - or even in rugby union - a point he maintained when interviewed by the NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert and lawyer Tony O'Reilly.


Bellear said he first approached Inglis about an ambassadorial role with the AMS, based in Redfern, in February during the camp for the All Stars match on the Gold Coast - well before Melbourne had to shed the centre following the investigation into the club's salary cap rorting, and well before Souths began negotiating with the Test representative.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...r-savages-nrl-over-ruling-20101219-191zp.html


BMW Car Dealership
'His mate rang Souths with the club directing him to Inglis's manager Alan Gainey. Saap said that was the only contact he had with the Rabbitohs throughout the negotiations. "We spoke to him [Gainey], he gave us a guideline of what they would want and it flowed from there," Saap said.'

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1225974637179


Food 2U Group
He added he was ''astounded'' that his company's commitment to Inglis's deal was ordered by the NRL to be included in Souths' cap. ''We saw Greg as an opportunity to get involved in rugby league in Sydney, but with this other club [GWS] coming to town, Israel [Folau] definitely strikes a chord,'' Byrne said.

''Greg is our number one preference, but the other one is definitely an alternative.'' Byrne said the Inglis deal was ''purely through Greg and Allan Gainey'', and that ''Souths weren't really involved''. ''Whether he played for Souths wasn't of any great concern to us,'' he said. ''I rang Souths to get Allan's number, so I could discuss with him whether he was coming to Sydney. I thought it was pretty straightforward. I've got a business, and we sponsor Danny Green, we've got an involvement with the Perth Wildcats and the World Sailing Championships. I thought this was a great opportunity to add to them. But with none of those organisations have we had to go through the scrutiny that we have in this instance.''

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...r-savages-nrl-over-ruling-20101219-191zp.html



So if 3PA's are done directly with the Manager, how come this one didn't come with him:


FOGS sponsorship:
The Queensland Former Origin Greats [FOGs] deal, an indigenous ambassador's role worth between $20,000 and $30,000, was available to any NRL club that signed Inglis but until the Herald made inquiries three weeks ago there was a widespread belief that it was exclusive to the Broncos.
http://albany.yourguide.com.au/news...e-afford-greg-inglis/1909372.aspx?storypage=0


Yeah, call me paranoid, but when the Broncos have $1m in third party sponsors, why is it that our club has been knocked back when they have done exactly the same?

Schubert needs to release his reasoning or he should fall on his sword.

Simple.

 

[BunniesMan]

Missing the point again Bunniesman, obviously they weren't explained the rules otherwise Souths wouldn't be in this predicament.

Do you really think Inglis agreed to sign with Souths for just 190k with in a day or two of contract negotiations... without being promised more from elsewhere? The third parties clearly state they offered Inglis third party deals only AFTER they heard he'd be playing in Sydney. Something doesn't add up Bunniesman.

And you have two of the sponsors saying the deal was independent of Souths.

And a third (the health service) that has gone on record saying they talked to him months before Souths ever came into the picture.

Just because the NRL says something doesn't make it fact. It's easy to make decisions when you have no oversight, when you don't talk to the media and when you never have to explain yourself to anyone. Like the "independent" salary cap auditor.

Now that 3 of the 4 sponsors have disputed what the NRL has said, I would love nothing more than for the NRL explain their decision and point to what evidence made them decide that. If they had a logical explanation with real evidence I would shut my mouth, not say another word on the 3rd party issue and wait for us to sack someone because that would be fair.

 

[BunniesMan]

Great summary of the sponsors situation Ziggy, if the NRL has seriously blocked the deal just because the sponsors asked Souths for Inglis's (or his manger's) number, that's pathetic. Multiple sponsors going public saying the same thing tells me it isn't BS. The NRL, either delibretley or by accident, f**ked up here. And I hope the Union looks at appealing it.

We can point to 3 sponsors saying they did things the right way. What can the NRL point to? I'd love to know.

 

[cleary89]

Just because they say something, doesn't make it fact.

Before you say "what do they have to gain by lying", what does the NRL have to gain? Losing a player, where as these companies are loving the free press.

 

[BunniesMan]

Just because they say something, doesn't make it fact.

Before you say "what do they have to gain by lying", what does the NRL have to gain? Losing a player, where as these companies are loving the free press.

So it's easier to believe 3 different companies have gone on public record, all telling the same lie, and signed stat decs (which can carry a jail term if they are misleading) saying the same thing. That's easier to believe than believing the NRL auditor has made a deliberate or honest mistake in one decision? The same auditor who was clueless for years over the Storm scandal brewing under his nose?

 

[cleary89]

Yes.

As everyone knows, they want to keep "star" players in the game. Take off your tin foil hat, and give me a proper reason why they would not let GI play if everything added up?

 

[BunniesMan]

Yes.

As everyone knows, they want to keep "star" players in the game. Take off your tin foil hat, and give me a proper reason why they would not let GI play if everything added up?

That's why i said deliberate or honest mistake. I can't see any motive, that's what makes me think they made an honest mistake in their decisions. But on the other hand it is such a stupid mistake to make it brings up the possibility that for whatever reason they have done it on purpose.

But to be honest I don't care if it's an accidental mistake or deliberate mistake, the point is it seems pretty clear that they have made the wrong decision and it needs to be rectified. And it would be a huge pity if we sack a player to afford Inglis and then a few days later we hear the Union has appealed this and overturned the decision, and we sacked someone for no reason.

 

[RWB]

So Bunniesman you believe what Souths are telling you that;

Inglis turned his back on a guaranteed ~500k deal at Brisbane for only a guaranteed 190k (plus 1 third party sponsor I believe?) deal at Souths leaving the rest up to chance not knowing what he could get out of 3rd party sponsors until after he arrived in Sydney?

I have no doubts and I'm sure it's the same line of thinking with the NRL (Schubert) that these deals were set up for Inglis and his manager before he got down here. I know the Broncos basically did the same thing and have been doing the same thing for years i.e systematically rorting the cap but when their owners run the game what do you expect. You're just playing under the same rules that the other 14 clubs have been for the past few years...

 

[BunniesMan]

So Bunniesman you believe what Souths are telling you that;

Inglis turned his back on a guaranteed ~500k deal at Brisbane for only a guaranteed 190k (plus 1 third party sponsor I believe?) deal at Souths leaving the rest up to chance not knowing what he could get out of 3rd party sponsors until after he arrived in Sydney?

I have no doubts and I'm sure it's the same line of thinking with the NRL (Schubert) that these deals were set up for Inglis and his manager before he got down here. I know the Broncos basically did the same thing and have been doing the same thing for years i.e systematically rorting the cap but when their owners run the game what do you expect. You're just playing under the same rules that the other 14 clubs have been for the past few years...

I just find it hard to believe every sponsor signed a stat dec to the contrary of pretty much everything you said. And if they were up to no good, why then make it worse by going public, all bringing up the same issue.

2 of the business's are large and have a reputation to protect, why would they get involved in dodgy deals and blatantly lie to the media just for us? One of them is a bloody government department, I simply cannot see them going to that much trouble for us.

You have to believe multiple businesses did multiple things wrong, including signed false stat decs and outright lied in the media. Or you can believe a salary cap auditor with a history of f**king up at his job (storm scandal) just f**ked up again. I know which one is easier for me to believe.

 

[cleary89]

That's why i said deliberate or honest mistake. I can't see any motive, that's what makes me think they made an honest mistake in their decisions. But on the other hand it is such a stupid mistake to make it brings up the possibility that for whatever reason they have done it on purpose.

But to be honest I don't care if it's an accidental mistake or deliberate mistake, the point is it seems pretty clear that they have made the wrong decision and it needs to be rectified. And it would be a huge pity if we sack a player to afford Inglis and then a few days later we hear the Union has appealed this and overturned the decision, and we sacked someone for no reason.

So with the weeks it took to come to a decision, they must have made a mistake.

 

[BunniesMan]

So with the weeks it took to come to a decision, they must have made a mistake.

Schubert had 4 years to find the biggest salary cap rort in history. Found nothing. A whistle blower had to hit him over the head with the evidence.

I think I'm justified in believing that he took a lot of time to be very careful with this, and then still managed to f**k it up.

 

[RWB]

I just find it hard to believe every sponsor signed a stat dec to the contrary of pretty much everything you said. And if they were up to no good, why then make it worse by going public, all bringing up the same issue.

2 of the business's are large and have a reputation to protect, why would they get involved in dodgy deals and blatantly lie to the media just for us? One of them is a bloody government department, I simply cannot see them going to that much trouble for us.

You have to believe multiple businesses did multiple things wrong, including signed false stat decs and outright lied in the media. Or you can believe a salary cap auditor with a history of f**king up at his job (storm scandal) just f**ked up again. I know which one is easier for me to believe.

I'm not exactly sure what the stat dec signed for as I haven't seen it, I doubt you or any media outlet has either tbh. I've got a stat dec in my hand right now that says I was sick last Friday signed by a large government business :lol:

If Souths wanted to they could of held all their talks in person with no record of it, try and prove any stat dec wrong without large amounts of proof. You want conspiracy theories well there's a realistic one for you, one that probably goes on at a lot of clubs.

190k per year was dodgy from the start, I'm not surprised it has taken this route.

 

[BunniesMan]

I'm not exactly sure what the stat dec signed for as I haven't seen it, I doubt you or any media outlet has either tbh. I've got a stat dec in my hand right now that says I was sick last Friday signed by a large government business :lol:

If Souths wanted to they could of held all their talks in person with no record of it, try and prove any stat dec wrong without large amounts of proof. You want conspiracy theories well there's a realistic one for you, one that probably goes on at a lot of clubs.

190k per year was dodgy from the start, I'm not surprised it has taken this route.

It's backended, he gets 500k a year the next 2 years I think. And surely the burden of proof lies with the NRL, they should have to have some solid evidence to decline a contract. And from the waffle Gallop has given us the last couple days, I don't think they have much of that.

And about holding talks in person with no record, well every single club could do that with every single player they buy. We'll never know.

As for the stat decs, if I recall correctly, at the time they were being talked about in the media, the NRL asked for stat decs saying the deals were legit and within the rules. And I know in an article just after they were submitted Richo talking about how he was now very confident that it would all go through well. So I'd say they were solid.