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

[Liddell]

In the same game soward dumped inglis over the sideline and the following week, preston campbell dumped inglis over the sideline.


Inglis was owned by 2 smaller men 2 weeks in a row, its shame for a man the size of inglis to be owned by smaller men in the league.


for inglis reputation it would be better if he left instead of being known as owned by soward and campbell

And suddenly BunniesMan doesn't look so bad.

 

[Galeforce]

lot of selective folks who either do not know how to find information or just want to mislead or just plain thick. focus on the Cullen $400k pa without third party.

August 10 - yesterday - will go down as one of the great days in Broncos history, with the club attracting a new multimillion-dollar sponsorship deal followed by the Inglis news.
Inaugural Broncos skipper Wally Lewis last night rated Inglis as one of the top two or three players and predicted his best was yet to come.
"That will happen when he pulls on a Broncos jersey," Lewis said.
Broncos chief executive Bruno Cullen was adamant the club had not increased its initial $400,000-a-season offer to Inglis, but conceded he stood to make a lot more money as arguably the club's No.1 marquee player.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.





End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.


It is thought with third-party arrangements and increases in marquee player allowances, he will earn more than $600,000 a season.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Still dont see where Bruno has said he had actually signed, only confirming what they had offered him.

I think it is you who is missing the point mate.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

lot of selective folks who either do not know how to find information or just want to mislead or just plain thick. focus on the Cullen $400k pa without third party.

August 10 - yesterday - will go down as one of the great days in Broncos history, with the club attracting a new multimillion-dollar sponsorship deal followed by the Inglis news.
Inaugural Broncos skipper Wally Lewis last night rated Inglis as one of the top two or three players and predicted his best was yet to come.
"That will happen when he pulls on a Broncos jersey," Lewis said.
Broncos chief executive Bruno Cullen was adamant the club had not increased its initial $400,000-a-season offer to Inglis, but conceded he stood to make a lot more money as arguably the club's No.1 marquee player.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.





End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.


It is thought with third-party arrangements and increases in marquee player allowances, he will earn more than $600,000 a season.

BIG difference between speculation in a news paper and confrimation from a club owner. There's no getting around that.

 

[SoftSydney]

Ah, the deflection continues.

16. Yes, I am aware that it is the highbar that upsets oppo fans. But alas, that's not my intention, so don't rate yourself too much. I also sense that chuckling at your expense must be unsettling for you as well.I don't support Melbourne or Canterbury.

Oh... you are making an unfounded rorting allegation? Tsk tsk... poor form. Well princess, if you're looking for Saints threads, there were dozens of them posted by the loser supporters. Go for your life, add one more to the mix. Poor buggas... been a terrible season for some.

Hmm I could be a princess if u bought me a pretty dress LOL, hmm OK will start a merg hate thread just for you lol

xox

 

[boxhead]

Lol? So Souths can't exercise it's legal rights now? You know if at your place of work you feel you've been treated unfairly you have every right to take the people you think are at fault to court. So why can't Souths? If they believe the contract is legit, and the NRL blocks it, we have every right to explore our legal options.

Really? You do? But why would you if Ian Schubert says it isn't valid on the salary cap? Didn't think of that did you? If Souths go to court because the salary cap auditor says they can't legally sign Inglis the judge will laugh at the Rabbitohs case.

And again, this point really frustrates me. So exercising your legal rights is unprofessional? How would you like it if you were mistreated at work and took them to court and people called you unproffesional? I'll say it again, if Souths submit what they believe is a perfectly legal contract and it is knocked back, they have every right to dispute that in a court of law.

And what you do not understand is that they have absolutely no bloody right to if Schubert says no! Get a grip! It is the salary cap auditor's job to make sure each team is salary-cap compliant, if the Inglis deal invalidates South Sydney's cap then Souths have no right at all to dispute it! What are they going to say, "Oh he did his accounts wrong" or "He mistreated us because we couldn't sign Inglis" well how is that fair on the NRL and every other club if you can't legally afford him in the first place!

The coin is not in the air you fool. They know exactly what they're going to submit to the NRL. They obviously believe it is legit, so if it is knocked back they know they'll fight it.

Well how does that mean they are justified in doing so if the bloody SALARY CAP AUDITOR says "No"? Obviously it would mean your club is, unintentionally, trying to cheat the cap if Ian Schubert says it won't work. Therefore, Souths can try to go to court all they want over it but it won't make a lick of difference; again, the judge will simply laugh at them.


Wasn't premature. He knows the contract that was agreed to. And Inglis's agent had signed a short form contract. We had more at the time of Crowe's announcement than the Broncos ever had and it didn't stop them announcing it.

What? You have to be joking, right? You are without doubt the most moronic person on these forums, and I thought I was stupid.....


It's like if you're wealthy enough with no debt and you apply for a $1000 a month credit card. You know there is no reason for them to knock you back, so you can say beforehand you know its legit. It involves using some common sense, which might be a stretch for some people on here.

Why don't you use common sense and realize that obviously Souths would be wrong if Ian Schubert says no? Just because Souths believe it's legit doesn't mean it is, the only one who can definitively say that is Schubert, or what are you going to say now, he has an agenda against Souths?

.......The sooner this whole situation closes the better, so that fools like yourself can disappear.

 

[Galeforce]

boxhead,
name says it all boofhead. read youre first looney logic .
i will state something once and will leave this forum thread to the loonies posting, not worth my time.
If party A makes a decision and Party B does not like it they have the right to take it to another level . Clearly only makes sense to do when Party B believes that party A has not made the appropriate decision, for whatever reason ( be it common law or precedent for starters).
So just because Ian Schubert makes a decision , if a club believes that decision is NOT fair , of course they can challenge that decision , this allows for "checks and balances" and is healthy .
I do not what Ian Schubert final decision is do any discussion is academic .

All that is clear , is inglis wants to play for Souths and Souths want Inglis, so it will happen.

 

[Galeforce]

Dragondave , not surprised you gave up , your position was feeble.

 

[BunniesMan]

.......The sooner this whole situation closes the better, so that fools like yourself can disappear.

You're treating Schubert like some kind of all knowing messiah, like he's incapable of making a mistake. I'm not saying he has an agenda against us, I don't know the man, so I won't judge him. But he could knock back a legit contract without having an agenda, he is human and he is capable of making mistakes.

And just because he is the auditor, it does not mean he never has and never will make a mistake. And the judge would not "laugh" at us, the judge would look at the facts of the case, examine whether the contract is legit, whether Schubert made the right decision, and then announce his own verdict.

 

[Spot On]

You're treating Schubert like some kind of all knowing messiah, like he's incapable of making a mistake. I'm not saying he has an agenda against us, I don't know the man, so I won't judge him. But he could knock back a legit contract without having an agenda, he is human and he is capable of making mistakes.

And just because he is the auditor, it does not mean he never has and never will make a mistake. And the judge would not "laugh" at us, the judge would look at the facts of the case, examine whether the contract is legit, whether Schubert made the right decision, and then announce his own verdict.

Very amusing. The same bloke who was unaware of the millions of dollars worth of rorting going on at Melbourne. He will be all over this to avoid another Melbourne style f**k up.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

Very amusing. The same bloke who was unaware of the millions of dollars worth of rorting going on at Melbourne. He will be all over this to avoid another Melbourne style f**k up.

"You took the words right out of my mouth..."
He did miss Storms situation year after year, after year, after year...so the question on my mind is, how much credence do you give to someone like Schubert who (in my mind) picks & chooses what they want to 'find' or 'not find'

 

[mrpwnd]

Souths should just be kicked out of the comp and Inglis flown off to the ESL.
That way most of the trolls here would be happy.

 

[cleary89]

Be interesting to see what happens if he doesnt get his 200k in 3rd party stuff. Do a gaz?

 

[BranVan3000]

Damn this thread is absolutely MASSIF

 

[Willow]

Damn this thread is absolutely MASSIF

Careful, someone will correct your spelling.

 

[boxhead]

boxhead,
name says it all boofhead. read youre first looney logic .
i will state something once and will leave this forum thread to the loonies posting, not worth my time.
If party A makes a decision and Party B does not like it they have the right to take it to another level . Clearly only makes sense to do when Party B believes that party A has not made the appropriate decision, for whatever reason ( be it common law or precedent for starters).
So just because Ian Schubert makes a decision , if a club believes that decision is NOT fair , of course they can challenge that decision , this allows for "checks and balances" and is healthy .
I do not what Ian Schubert final decision is do any discussion is academic .

All that is clear , is inglis wants to play for Souths and Souths want Inglis, so it will happen.

Yes judging by your inane comments and useless drivel your intellect really frightens me :lol: I love the "I am always right, me against the world" attitude...ironically, that was the Storm's attitude in 2010.....

 

[Eels Dude]

"You took the words right out of my mouth..."
He did miss Storms situation year after year, after year, after year...so the question on my mind is, how much credence do you give to someone like Schubert who (in my mind) picks & chooses what they want to 'find' or 'not find'

Completely different circumstances. Melbourne deliberately kept their payments HIDDEN so Schubert wouldn't be able to find them. Whereas all details of Inglis' contract with Souths will be made known to him. It's up to him and the NRL to determine if what they present to him as legal under the salary cap. If it were to go to court a judge would be provided a contract as well as detailed salary cap laws and make the decision exactly the same way.

 

[Eels Dude]

boxhead,
name says it all boofhead. read youre first looney logic .
i will state something once and will leave this forum thread to the loonies posting, not worth my time.
If party A makes a decision and Party B does not like it they have the right to take it to another level . Clearly only makes sense to do when Party B believes that party A has not made the appropriate decision, for whatever reason ( be it common law or precedent for starters).
So just because Ian Schubert makes a decision , if a club believes that decision is NOT fair , of course they can challenge that decision , this allows for "checks and balances" and is healthy .
I do not what Ian Schubert final decision is do any discussion is academic .

All that is clear , is inglis wants to play for Souths and Souths want Inglis, so it will happen.

So what you're saying is if clubs don't like the fact they're restricted to a salary cap, ie. they disagree and they should be allowed to spend 5 million dollars on players even if the salary cap is 4.1m they can take the NRL to court over it? I guess they can because Party A doesn't agree with Party B. Not bloody likely. The NRL rules don't rely on common law you know.

 

[RWB]

So what you're saying is if clubs don't like the fact they're restricted to a salary cap, ie. they disagree and they should be allowed to spend 5 million dollars on players even if the salary cap is 4.1m they can take the NRL to court over it? I guess they can because Party A doesn't agree with Party B. Not bloody likely. The NRL rules don't rely on common law you know.

It's a subject that has been brought up plenty of times and nearly went to court in the early noughties under 'restriction of trade'.

Would make for an interesting case and unless you have a law degree then I doubt you or I would know what chance it has of holding up in court...

 

[Galeforce]

folks i am not saying that souths should go to court to challenge the salary cap restriction. that is another matter. what i am saying is that if Souths feel they are being treated unfairly versus other NRL decision on the matter , then yes that is worth a challenge . in Inglis case specifically , if Souths believe the deal now on the table has been structured same as Broncos structure , which was approved by NRL, then on the point of precedence , it would make sense to take a blocking NRL decision to a higher arbitration. As i do not know all the facts , and certainly most of the folks here have no idea on the facts , i take exception to folks here who make comments that Souths should abe kicked out of the NRL if they do not accept all rulings. that is hogwash.