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

[BunniesMan]

All those idiots out there saying Inglis is selfish should take a look at the facts before they go running their mouth off.

1. Inglis has had bigger offers from AFL and Union that he has declined to stay in league.

2. Inglis has no problem with paying his lawyers, he just has an issue with the precise amount.

And also, the bid is all above board, Souths have been given permission to negotiate, there is room in the cap, there are concessions and allowances that souths are taking advantage of, as well as the backending factor. So no players will be sacked to make room for him.

Noone is trying to do a Storm here. Unlike them, Souths are keeping it all legit.

"The most sensible thing I've heard said through all of this is Anthony Mundine's comment that we should just be thankful Greg Inglis isn't going to quit league," Richardson said. "Everyone in league should be proud that he doesn't want to go, instead of smacking him around the ears because he's taking a bit of time to sort out his future."I know he's had big offers from the AFL – I know who they're from. I know he's had big offers from rugby union in France.

Melbourne, the club where Inglis made his name, yesterday gave Souths permission to officially negotiate with Inglis after the player's deal to join Brisbane fell through.

Richardson said Souths could fit in Inglis because of the combination of a $100,000 general increase in the cap for next year, a $150,000 increase in marquee player allowances, the fact $300,000 was saved when several players were not retained and the establishment of cap-exempt allowances for up to three cars for players.

Richardson assured Souths fans that no player – least of all captain Roy Asotasi, as had been speculated – would have to be cut to make room for Inglis under the cap, saying: "Roy isn't going anywhere. He'll be the captain at Souths again next year."

Greg Inglis seems to be getting portrayed in the negative by some people at the moment but all he is trying to do is make the right decision for his future. He isn't selfish, he isn't a mercenary, and he's not saying he doesn't owe some money in legal bills – he's simply querying the figure."

"Greg accepts he owes some money but it's a matter of how much. He received a bill, and he's querying it, which he's entitled to do – the same as if you got a plumber and you thought the bill was extreme. That will be worked out but in the meantime our legal advice is that it can't stop Greg from signing a deal with Souths.

"Our deal, should Greg sign it, will be all above board and we will have no problem with the NRL examining it.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...i-above-board-souths-boss-20101109-17m4b.html

 

[Dingus]

Bunnies man there is a difference between selfishness and greed. Yes he might not have taken the biggest contract possible, he's not excessively greedy.

But was he selfish? definately.

He turned against his word, unnecessarily lied numerous times and confirmed he would sign a day before he bailed.

Circumstances do change - he hadn't signed, its understandable to opt out of the broncos agreement for the right reasons. BUT - there is the right way to do it - be honest with the Broncos from the outset - communicate.

His actions - and his approach to the situation in general, has clearly messed around and negatively impacted the Broncos and all involved at the club. With all his lying and backflips, he has not once apologised and doesn't believe he has done anything wrong - and that is being selfish.

 

[Eels Dude]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...i-above-board-souths-boss-20101109-17m4b.html

Bid for GI above board: Souths boss

Greg Prichard

November 10, 2010


'He isn't selfish . . . he's simply querying the figure' - Shane Richardson.

SOUTH SYDNEY boss Shane Richardson has broken his silence on the club's bid for Greg Inglis, declaring they won't have to pay the superstar's legal bills to sign him and that the Test centre would have been lost to AFL or rugby union already were he only interested in money.
Richardson, who had remained quiet on the negotiations until last night, defended Inglis against what he regarded as grossly unfair criticisms, and refuted suggestions Souths must be rorting to fit him under the salary cap.
"The most sensible thing I've heard said through all of this is Anthony Mundine's comment that we should just be thankful Greg Inglis isn't going to quit league," Richardson said. "Everyone in league should be proud that he doesn't want to go, instead of smacking him around the ears because he's taking a bit of time to sort out his future.
Advertisement: Story continues below
"I know he's had big offers from the AFL – I know who they're from. I know he's had big offers from rugby union in France.
"We haven't signed Greg yet but we're optimistic it will happen. We'll be sitting down with his manager, Allan Gainey, starting tomorrow, and hopefully we'll get it done by the end of the week."
Melbourne, the club where Inglis made his name, yesterday gave Souths permission to officially negotiate with Inglis after the player's deal to join Brisbane fell through.
Richardson said Souths could fit in Inglis because of the combination of a $100,000 general increase in the cap for next year, a $150,000 increase in marquee player allowances, the fact $300,000 was saved when several players were not retained and the establishment of cap-exempt allowances for up to three cars for players.
He said if the Rabbitohs signed Inglis, the deal would hopefully be for three years, with the payment to be slightly restricted under the cap for next year, and increased when the club had more room under the cap for 2012 and '13.
Richardson assured Souths fans that no player – least of all captain Roy Asotasi, as had been speculated – would have to be cut to make room for Inglis under the cap, saying: "Roy isn't going anywhere. He'll be the captain at Souths again next year."
Inglis is known for his work with the indigenous community, and Richardson said the work the Rabbitohs do in the same field – through the club's Souths Cares program – were among the factors that most attracted Inglis to the club.
"Souths are really proud of what we do in that area," Richardson said. "And I know for a fact that if Greg joins our club, he wants to get involved in that. Anthony Mundine has helped us with that program and Greg is big on the importance of doing that work as well.
"Greg Inglis seems to be getting portrayed in the negative by some people at the moment but all he is trying to do is make the right decision for his future. He isn't selfish, he isn't a mercenary, and he's not saying he doesn't owe some money in legal bills – he's simply querying the figure."
The $113,000 bill in question is for the legal defence Inglis employed against charges of assaulting his fiancee, Sally Robinson. It has been reported that Inglis won't be cleared to play for any club in the NRL until that bill is paid but Richardson is adamant that is incorrect.
"We're working through that with Greg's solicitor, Keith Bagley, and in consultation with the NRL," Richardson said. "We're not going to pay the legal bill, and our understanding is that our contract negotiations with Greg are a separate issue to the legal bill.
"Greg accepts he owes some money but it's a matter of how much. He received a bill, and he's querying it, which he's entitled to do – the same as if you got a plumber and you thought the bill was extreme. That will be worked out but in the meantime our legal advice is that it can't stop Greg from signing a deal with Souths.
"Our deal, should Greg sign it, will be all above board and we will have no problem with the NRL examining it.

Oh dear, Souths just are in the wrong hands.

 

[BunniesMan]

Bunnies man there is a difference between selfishness and greed. Yes he might not have taken the biggest contract possible, he's not excessively greedy.

But was he selfish? definately.

He turned against his word, unnecessarily lied numerous times and confirmed he would sign a day before he bailed.

Circumstances do change - he hadn't signed, its understandable to opt out of the broncos agreement for the right reasons. BUT - there is the right way to do it - be honest with the Broncos from the outset - communicate.

His actions - and his approach to the situation in general, has clearly messed around and negatively impacted the Broncos and all involved at the club. With all his lying and backflips, he has not once apologised and doesn't believe he has done anything wrong - and that is being selfish.

I like how you make your point without random missing the point insults (unlike some people here).

As for Inglis, could he have gone about rejecting Brisbane in a better way? Yes, I'll admit that. He isn't perfect, let's not forget he is only 23 years old.

I don't have a problem with people being annoyed at how he let them know he changed his mind. That's a legitimate criticism. But I do disagree when people say he had no right to change his mind. And I do disagree when people make him out to be some kind of villainous monster, when he hasn't even done the worst thing in league this week, let alone in recent history.

There are far bigger crimes than being rude about rejecting a club. The way some people go on about it, you'd think he deserves to be lynched.

 

[BunniesMan]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...i-above-board-souths-boss-20101109-17m4b.html


Oh dear, Souths just are in the wrong hands.

Well amongst all the hysterics of the last few days, what he said was perfectly reasonable. Don't worry about the source of the statement for a second, just think about what he said. We bitch and moan everytime a star player leaves for bigger money in different codes. Well here we have a bigger star than any of those code traitors declining big money to stay within our sport, and we still find reasons to bitch and moan.

 

[Eels Dude]

Well amongst all the hysterics of the last few days, what he said was perfectly reasonable. Don't worry about the source of the statement for a second, just think about what he said. We bitch and moan everytime a star player leaves for bigger money in different codes. Well here we have a bigger star than any of those code traitors declining big money to stay within our sport, and we still find reasons to bitch and moan.

I shall. Any CEO who actually listens to what Mundine says let alone quotes him has rocks in their head.

 

[boxhead]

Looks like the Eels may make an offer to the Storm as well (an official one), but it does say Souths are the front-runners.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...itohs-remain-frontrunners-20101109-17m0y.html

Eels may try to slip in on Inglis but Rabbitohs remain frontrunners
Stathi Paxinos
November 10, 2010

THE Greg Inglis saga could have a late twist with Melbourne Storm expecting a formal request from Parramatta to approach the superstar despite Eels chief executive Paul Osborne publicly claiming he believed it would be a waste of time chasing him.

Inglis is expected to sign a deal with South Sydney but it is believed that the Eels, with former Storm assistant Steve Kearney at the helm, are also keen.

Inglis was officially put on the market by Melbourne on Monday on the proviso his outstanding $113,000 legal fee, over which he is in dispute with the club, is paid.

The Storm put out a statement on Monday declaring that any clubs interested in signing Inglis must formally request an approach to the player, who is still on Melbourne's books after the deal with Brisbane fell over last weekend.

Storm chief executive Ron Gauci said he had only received a formal request from South Sydney but had spoken to Osborne.

When asked if he expected to receive a request from the Eels, Gauci said: ''That's the impression I get, yes.'.

He also said ''there are rumours that others are going to make an approach, so we'll see what happens over the next few days''.

However, Osborne yesterday maintained the club had gone cold on Inglis after being told that his move to the Rabbitohs was a done deal.

''He [Gauci] called me … to say that South Sydney hadn't been given approval [at that stage] to negotiate with Inglis and that no club had been and I said 'thanks mate' and that was it,'' Osborne said.

''I was told by his [Inglis'] manager [Allan Gainey] that the deal was done with Souths … I'm not going to waste my time.''

 

[Canard]

2. Inglis has no problem with paying his lawyers, he just has an issue with the precise amount.

Thats an awesome piece of spin!!

I have no problem paying for an Aston Martin DB9 that I took from the showroom it just the precise amount that I have an issue with!!

 

[thorson1987]

Just heard on triple m that souffs won't be paying his legal bills.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

So not only do you not grasp the English language but you are clearly deluded as well. So no, I'm not upset about anything, but quite enjoying this. Perhaps it is a touch immature of myself, maybe even immoral, but I do get a kick out of getting simpletons like yourself in a twist from time to time.

Go on lad, get back to your demanding job. If you show as much 'indifference' to your demanding job as you have in this thread I'm sure you are very good at it...

:lol:

That's funny. You're clearly not upset. You made an assertion that was shown to look as foolish as it is and it obviously hurt you. And me in a twist? I'm not the one who got so pissy about a comment made to another poster about Souths fans in general that I had to interject and attempt to defend myself with insults.

I'll get back to my demanding job but I'll also enjoy your desperate attempts to prove you're not upset or worked up, while blowing your load over Inglis and trying to make out that I actually give a sh*t about any of this.

No you're definitely not upset.

:lol::lol:

 

[boxhead]

Just heard on triple m that souffs won't be paying his legal bills.

Wouldn't that mean the Storm won't accept their offer then? If Souths aren't prepared to pay for the legal bill, it would be taken out of the Storm's cap. Unless they mean something else, but if this is the case, then maybe the only way he will stay in Rugby League is if a club with more money actually can pay his legal bill?

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

The way I read the situation is that Inglis will pay the bill himself, eventually. He is just trying to negotiate the cost down.

If that is the case and Inglis pays the bill out of his own pocket then no club will have to include it under the cap.

The argument is that Inglis was just seeking legal representation but it was the Storm that upped the ante by shunning a regular solicitor and seeking the help of a (much more expensive) QC. Inglis is arguing that because of this, he should only have to pay the equivalent of what a regular solicitor would have cost.

 

[Evenflow]

The argument is that Inglis was just seeking legal representation but it was the Storm that upped the ante by shunning a regular solicitor and seeking the help of a (much more expensive) QC. Inglis is arguing that because of this, he should only have to pay the equivalent of what a regular solicitor would have cost.

That's all well and good and there may even be some truth in all that, but the very simple fact is that Inglis could have and had every right to step in and choose his own legal representation regardless of what the Storm or anyone else may have wanted.

He might have the mental capacity of an 8 year old but he's an adult who is responsible for his own decisions and if he chose not to have someone else defending him then it's stiff sh*t to put it bluntly. If he took the Storm to court over this and the judge asked him "Why didn't you choose you're own representation if you weren't comfortable in any way with the one chosen for you?" what is supposed to reply? "ummm duhhh because the Storm MADE me use these lawyers" Yep, that's a rock solid impenetrable defence if ever i've heard one :crazy:

 

[skeepe]

Richardson said Souths could fit in Inglis because of the combination of a $100,000 general increase in the cap for next year, a $150,000 increase in marquee player allowances, the fact $300,000 was saved when several players were not retained and the establishment of cap-exempt allowances for up to three cars for players.

Big issue with this one.

1. Are we to assume that Souths did not use up a single cent of ANY of the cap increase benefits before now? That's pretty poor management if so. Didn't Isaac Luke just sign a new, improved deal? I'm certain he would have taken up some of it.

2. $300,000 on 3 players leaving? No, only $190,000. If the figures publicly released are to be believed, they are saving $190,000 on Colin Best, $55,000 on Luke Capewell and $55,000 on someone else whose name escapes me. That does add up to $300,000, but is not a saving of $300,000. Just because Inglis may sign, it doesn't mean that Souths suddenly operate with a top 23 under the cap. The two minimum wagers are going to have to be replaced by 2 other minimum wagers, thereby negating the savings.

Sounds like there's some creative accounting going on at Souths.

 

[CMUX]

The way I read the situation is that Inglis will pay the bill himself, eventually. He is just trying to negotiate the cost down.

If that is the case and Inglis pays the bill out of his own pocket then no club will have to include it under the cap.

The argument is that Inglis was just seeking legal representation but it was the Storm that upped the ante by shunning a regular solicitor and seeking the help of a (much more expensive) QC. Inglis is arguing that because of this, he should only have to pay the equivalent of what a regular solicitor would have cost.

- Then why renege on the Brisbane deal?
- What a ridiculous statement that is. The whole reason he won the case and his name was not pulled through the mud is because of the expensive QC. You pay for what you get. Maybe Greg should sell his boat that he got outside the salary cap and pay for it that way

Anyways, souffs can have him. All it does is hype them up even more, which makes their fall in round 1 next year even sweeter for the rest of the competition.

 

[851]

If Souths havent broken any NRL laws,why did Inglis's manager tell Paul Osbourne that his client had agreed a deal("already a done deal")to Souths.
Souths as quoted by the Storm CEO "have not got permission to negotiate",tie this in with the rubbery figures Souths are spruking,and we have a very dodgy deal.
I hope Parra jump in and sign Inglis,after yet another Inglis back flip.

 

[TheDalek079]

This is ten times more interesting than the Willie Mason circus a couple of years back (and the one last season).

 

[BunniesMan]

- Then why renege on the Brisbane deal?
- What a ridiculous statement that is. The whole reason he won the case and his name was not pulled through the mud is because of the expensive QC. You pay for what you get. Maybe Greg should sell his boat that he got outside the salary cap and pay for it that way

Anyways, souffs can have him. All it does is hype them up even more, which makes their fall in round 1 next year even sweeter for the rest of the competition.

1. His name was pulled through the mud.
2. And it doesn't take a legal genius to get someone off when the victim says he was saving her life.

Maybe the allmighty media got it wrong when they said he reneged on the Brisbane deal because of the legal bill, maybe people's biases and arrogance won't let them even consider the fact that he actually preferred Souths over Brisbane and it had nothing to do with money (if he was about money he'd be an AFL or Union player by now).

If Souths havent broken any NRL laws,why did Inglis's manager tell Paul Osbourne that his client had agreed a deal("already a done deal")to Souths.
Souths as quoted by the Storm CEO "have not got permission to negotiate",tie this in with the rubbery figures Souths are spruking,and we have a very dodgy deal.
I hope Parra jump in and sign Inglis,after yet another Inglis back flip.

Get with the times dude.
1. The Storm CEO has been quoted more recently as saying we have asked for permission, and so far we're the only club that has, even Parra hasn't yet.
2. And the Parra CEO was told not to bother not because we broke any NRL laws but because Inglis had made his mind up about where he wants to go. That doesn't mean negotiations have taken place, it's just that he has decided on his first choice and now it's his agent's and Souths job to figure out a deal. If they can't then other teams might have a chance.

 

[Evenflow]

Maybe the allmighty media got it wrong when they said he reneged on the Brisbane deal because of the legal bill,

You've been quoting the media ad nauseum taking their word as gospel when it suits your argument but anything they print that goes against your bias agenda they're either lying or got it flat out wrong.

and you wonder why people insult you all the time and call you a f**kwit and the like. It's because you clearly are and that wasn't an insult either it was just stating a fact.

 

[BunniesMan]

You've been quoting the media ad nauseum taking their word as gospel when it suits your argument but anything they print that goes against your bias agenda they're either lying or got it flat out wrong.

and you wonder why people insult you all the time and call you a f**kwit and the like. It's because you clearly are and that wasn't an insult either it was just stating a fact.

How does that go against my "bias agenda". I'm just using common sense. Souths aren't paying his bills, but he's still going to Souths so that obviously wasn't a factor.

As for people insulting me, I couldn't care less. I'm here to talk footy, not to make friends.