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

[S.S.T.I.D]

Now you are finally getting it.

Now you know how Roosters, Dragons and Tigers fans feel when dribbling Souths fans carry on about merges and supposed rorts.

We truly don'y give a sh*t.

As I have said Souths fans ability to play the high moral ground and then not give a sh*t in the next instant is extraordinary.

Another non junior to fill the ranks and cost a local junior or 5 a spot in the self proclaimed "champion of Local Juniors" club.

Hypocritical.

Nope. We haven't rorted or done anything wrong thus far. I was merely suggesting what should/could happen. The fact of the matter is that not one person here, myself included, knows what has actually gone on.

We tried to get Greg to the club when he was given permission to leave the Storm. It appears that Greg got cold feet on going to the Broncos when it became apparent that they didn't care about the legal situation Greg found himself in, which is fair enough. But it is also fair enough that if someone offers to help that Greg looks after himself. Perhaps Gainey contacted Souths with the knowledge that Crowe might be able to pull some strings and knowing full well that we could fit him in under the cap due to our previous interest. At the end of the day no one has a clue.

And since we won't have to lose a player to get him not one single junior will lose their spot at the club. Of which we will have 20 of 32 players who have come through our system.

What is hypocritical is that we are told that we shouldn't be allowed to recruit players by fans of other teams who recruit just as many, if not more, players than we do.

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

Where do I start?

Approaching a player without permission, enticing a player to break an agreement, having anything at all to do with that waste of skin Mundine, need I go on?

I've always had a bit of time for Souths, but no longer. They are an absolutely vile club and I hope they fail in everything they attempt.

I really don't know how I will be able to live with myself with the knowledge that a whinging, low-life simpleton from some backwater town such as yourself doesn't like Souths. I truly don't know how I will be able to move forward.

But I'll tell you what is reprehensible, since you clearly have no idea what that word means or the context in which to use it. Reprehensible is the act of a man who gets his c**k sucked by dog and has his friends standing around to take photos and record it.

I'm happy to be known as the club that signed Greg Inglis. You can be happy supporting the club whose players enjoy getting blown by canines and we'll move on, shall we?

 

[BunniesMan]

http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=20167

Now your making me repeat myself. I acknowledged that ffs:

While we have approached a player that is technically still with another team, and technically we need to ask the Storm first, this isn't a breach of the spirit of the rules. There is no realistic possibility of Inglis playing with the Storm in 2011, we're not stealing him from them, he's already going.

It may or may not have breached the rules technically, but this isn't the spirit of the rule. You realise why the Storm is being pedantic about this? Not because they want him or have any intention of keeping for 2011. But because of a dispute over bills. In every meaningful sense he is no longer a Storm player and there is no realistic chance of him being a Storm player in 2011, we are not stealing him from the Storm.

 

[BranVan3000]

http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=20167

Won't they be over the cap if they try to tow that argument?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

2.Inglis's agent has denied there ever was an agreement with the Broncos, I presume that's what he told Souths aswell.

Can you provide a quote for that? Brisbane can certainly prove there was an agreement.

 

[skeepe]

1. Everyone approaches players without permission. If you think we're the only ones your an idiot. While we have approached a player that is technically still with another team, and technically we need to ask the Storm first, this isn't a breach of the spirit of the rules. There is no realistic possibility of Inglis playing with the Storm in 2011, we're not stealing him from them, he's already going.

Got any proof whatsoever to back that up? That other clubs are doing it? Inglis himself has said that Souths have "come to the table", so there is clear evidence that Souths are scum. No mention of any other clubs though.

This isn't like when clubs talk to a player of another team when he's still clearly a part of their team and could be next year. We're not stealing Inglis from the Storm.

Inglis is a Storm-contracted player until they say otherwise. So yes, you are stealing him from the Storm. Or the Broncos, take your pick.

2.We haven't enticed a player to break an agreement. Inglis's agent has denied there ever was an agreement with the Broncos, I presume that's what he told Souths aswell.

I know handshake agreements are hard to enforce, but by all reports that's what Inglis had with Brisbane. So yes, Souths did entice Inglis to break an agreement. A man is only as good as his word, and Inglis's word is clearly worth sh*t.

3. There are no formal links between Souths and Mundine.

LOL at the word "formal". Weasel words if ever there were any. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Mundine has his paw prints all over this deal.

4. If you think we are a vile club, then you should hate just about every club in the NRL, including your own, because we've done nothing that isn't commonplace in the NRL.

So it's commonplace to entice players to break agreements (see here if you want to continue with the sham argument that there was no agreement: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...e-in-the-game-says-inglis-20101108-17kjl.html), negotiate with them without their club's permission despite them still being contracted for 2 further years, and getting Anthony Mundine to "informally" broker deals with turncoat scum?

Somehow I doubt that.

 

[rnb11]

I don't have a problem with Souths getting him, good on them for keeping him in Rugby League (so Inglis says) but it's the fact that your CEO is saying no players will be shed to make room, this is what's not making sense. You look at Dragons signing Gasnier, they've had to let go of 6 mid-high paying players to fit him in and Souths have to lose none!? I will guarantee you this won't be the case next month and at least one player on decent pay will have to be dropped, there's no other way around it. You Rabbitoh fans told me not to believe Richardson when he said he couldn't afford Capewell, you should take your own advice and not believe him when he said he can keep everyone, it will prevent your embarrassment when players start joining other clubs.

 

[BunniesMan]

Can you provide a quote for that? Brisbane can certainly prove there was an agreement.

"We didn't have any written agreements or letters of intent in place"
http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...om-brisbane-deal/story-fn2mcuj6-1225949633870
And not just a quote, the manager's voice. It's the first clip, about halfway into it.

 

[Bluebag]

Dont forget that Burgesses contract increases next year and the year after and it is amazing they had no money for Capewell even after resigning Wesser who had options that were taken up.

 

[BunniesMan]

Got any proof whatsoever to back that up? That other clubs are doing it? Inglis himself has said that Souths have "come to the table", so there is clear evidence that Souths are scum. No mention of any other clubs though.



Inglis is a Storm-contracted player until they say otherwise. So yes, you are stealing him from the Storm. Or the Broncos, take your pick.



I know handshake agreements are hard to enforce, but by all reports that's what Inglis had with Brisbane. So yes, Souths did entice Inglis to break an agreement. A man is only as good as his word, and Inglis's word is clearly worth sh*t.



LOL at the word "formal". Weasel words if ever there were any. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Mundine has his paw prints all over this deal.



So it's commonplace to entice players to break agreements (see here if you want to continue with the sham argument that there was no agreement: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...e-in-the-game-says-inglis-20101108-17kjl.html), negotiate with them without their club's permission despite them still being contracted for 2 further years, and getting Anthony Mundine to "informally" broker deals with turncoat scum?

Somehow I doubt that.

If you truly believe other clubs don't do this sort of thing (and much worse than we are doing) and that it isn't common, you're an idiot.
And again, while technically he may be a storm contracted player they don't want him for 2011 so we aren't stealing him from them. It's like if I put my tv on my front lawn because I plan on getting rid of it, and someone comes and takes it, I'm not going to be mad because I had no intention of keeping the bloody thing, and I won't call it stealing either.

As for stealing him from Brisbane? Lol.

 

[BunniesMan]

I don't have a problem with Souths getting him, good on them for keeping him in Rugby League (so Inglis says) but it's the fact that your CEO is saying no players will be shed to make room, this is what's not making sense. You look at Dragons signing Gasnier, they've had to let go of 6 mid-high paying players to fit him in and Souths have to lose none!? I will guarantee you this won't be the case next month and at least one player on decent pay will have to be dropped, there's no other way around it. You Rabbitoh fans told me not to believe Richardson when he said he couldn't afford Capewell, you should take your own advice and not believe him when he said he can keep everyone, it will prevent your embarrassment when players start joining other clubs.

It just means noone is going in 2011. But in all likelyhood some players won't be retained in 2012. And retirement's (Crocker/Wesser) will help pay for Inglis.

 

[skeepe]

If you truly believe other clubs don't do this sort of thing (and much worse than we are doing) and that it isn't common, you're an idiot.

The evidence that Souths are doing it is there for all to see, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Please provide evidence to back up your claims that other clubs do this sort of thing?

And again, while technically he may be a storm contracted player they don't want him for 2011 so we aren't stealing him from them. It's like if I put my tv on my front lawn because I plan on getting rid of it, and someone comes and takes it, I'm not going to be mad because I had no intention of keeping the bloody thing, and I won't call it stealing either.

Nice analogy. Except they are mad about it. Did you not see their statement? Here it is in case you missed it: http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=20167

They did not simply leave Inglis on the lawn hoping somebody would come and pick him up. They wanted to negotiate the terms of his release. A more fitting analogy would be you placing your TV for sale, then negotiating and agreeing a sale price with a prospective buyer, all the while some degenerate scumbag comes in and steals it from under your nose.

While they have no intention of having Inglis play for them next year, they have every intention of determining the terms of his release from his contract.

As for stealing him from Brisbane? Lol.

Nice to see that's the depth of your argument. How else do you describe enticing him to break a handshake and verbal agreement to sign with the club? It's the very definition of stealing.

 

[BranVan3000]

Dont forget that Burgesses contract increases next year and the year after and it is amazing they had no money for Capewell even after resigning Wesser who had options that were taken up.

They had no money for Capewell isn't necessarily the same as they had no money

 

[Packy]

So has teh real reason why Inglis ditched teh Broncos come out yet?

 

[BunniesMan]

The evidence that Souths are doing it is there for all to see, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Please provide evidence to back up your claims that other clubs do this sort of thing?



Nice analogy. Except they are mad about it. Did you not see their statement? Here it is in case you missed it: http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=20167

They did not simply leave Inglis on the lawn hoping somebody would come and pick him up. They wanted to negotiate the terms of his release. A more fitting analogy would be you placing your TV for sale, then negotiating and agreeing a sale price with a prospective buyer, all the while some degenerate scumbag comes in and steals it from under your nose.

While they have no intention of having Inglis play for them next year, they have every intention of determining the terms of his release from his contract.



Nice to see that's the depth of your argument. How else do you describe enticing him to break a handshake and verbal agreement to sign with the club? It's the very definition of stealing.

And that's where your analogy breaks down. The Storm aren't selling him to the Broncos, the Storm have even said it doesn't make a difference to them where he goes as long as the bills get paid, and they wouldn't be getting paid with the Broncos. They will be getting paid with Souths.

As for the Broncos, they have no argument here. This situation now has nothing to do with them. They withdrew their offer, and have openly moved on. As of now the Broncos have 0 to do with the Inglis situation.

 

[BunniesMan]

So has teh real reason why Inglis ditched teh Broncos come out yet?

As far as I understand, nothing specific against the Broncos, he just decided he'd rather be at Souths.

 

[skeepe]

And that's where your analogy breaks down. The Storm aren't selling him to the Broncos, the Storm have even said it doesn't make a difference to them where he goes as long as the bills get paid, and they wouldn't be getting paid with the Broncos. They will be getting paid with Souths.

Care to provide a quote from the Storm where they said they don't care where he goes? I can provide this quote for you:

Greg Inglis remains a contracted player with Melbourne Storm and, in accordance with NRL rules, Melbourne Storm retains the right to determine who may be granted permission to negotiate with Greg Inglis

http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=20167

Sounds like they do care very much where he goes.

As for the Broncos, they have no argument here. This situation now has nothing to do with them. They withdrew their offer, and have openly moved on. As of now the Broncos have 0 to do with the Inglis situation.

:lol:

The Broncos withdrew their offer because Souths had enticed Inglis to break the agreement that he had made with them you deluded idiot.

 

[The Engineers Room]

This is another example of why the salary cap does not work in one way and how third party deals do in another.

A points cap is desperately needed to keep the competition fair and not allow clubs to hoard all the best players but removing the salary cap will allow clubs and their sponsors or third party deals to keep the best players playing here. Effectively the salary reduces the total money pool for players, we want businesses to invest in rugby league and allowing them to sponsor a team and pay a players salary will do that. Bigger name sponsors will give their cash to clubs and allow them to sign players but the points cap will prevent poorer clubs from not being able to field a competitive team. At the moment and in recent past teams have been able to field teams with numerous internationals and origin stars when others have none. This would not continue with a points cap. More money in the pool would allow clubs to keep more player in the NRL and raise the quality of the competition.

 

[BunniesMan]

Sounds like they do care very much where he goes.

How do I put it politely, it doesn't f**king matter even if they do care (which they don't). They have the right to release or not release him (which they have to thanks to their cheating, or otherwise release multiple other players) but they don't have the right to pick and choose where he goes to.

And they have said they don't care as long as the bill gets paid, do i have the quote? No, but it was from a few days ago from one of the first articles about him possibly not going to the Broncos.

 

[skeepe]

How do I put it politely, it doesn't f**king matter even if they do care (which they don't). They have the right to release or not release him (which they have to thanks to their cheating, or otherwise release multiple other players) but they don't have the right to pick and choose where he goes to.

Prove that they don't care. I can prove that they do, and I did so in the last post.

And they have said they don't care as long as the bill gets paid, do i have the quote? No, but it was from a few days ago from one of the first articles about him possibly not going to the Broncos.

:lol:

Idiot. If they said that, prove it and I will happily acknowledge that you were right.