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

[BunniesMan]

So your really dumb enough to believe that all his sponsors are going to follow him no matter where he goes after he unilaterally failed to uphold a deal with no reasonable explanation provided in legible english?

Take FOGS as your first example. The f**k would they sponsor him if he's playing for South Sydney. They made it clear it was a sponsorship offer open if he was playing for the Bronco's or Titan's.

The only thing it proves is that your an idiot.

So those sponsors are allowed to link his deals to the Broncos but ours cant? Why the hypocrisy. I'm accusing the Broncos of exactly what we are being accused of, if it's ok in their case why isn't it in ours?

How do you know that souffs will take the NRL to court if the deal gets knocked back?

If souffs do take the NRL to court maybe more shady souffs( cough, Burgess, cough) deals will be revealed.

They've already threatened to do so if the deal is blocked. Clearly they have nothing to hide regarding "cough,burgess,cough" or they wouldn't drag this to court where everything on both sides will be examined.

you lost last time you went to court http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588433703.html

I beg to differ. When we won the case something actually changed in reality. When they won absolutely nothing changed. Therefore, we won in every way that counts. Their case is meaningless.

 

[badav]

So those sponsors are allowed to link his deals to the Broncos but ours cant? Why the hypocrisy. I'm accusing the Broncos of exactly what we are being accused of, if it's ok in their case why isn't it in ours?

FOGS are based in QLD. They didn't link his deal to the Bronco's. THEY OFFERED SPONSORSHIP IF HE WAS BASED IN QLD.

HE IS NO LONGER BASED IN QLD. Therefore no sponsorship.

understandy?

 

[BunniesMan]

FOGS are based in QLD. They didn't link his deal to the Bronco's. THEY OFFERED SPONSORSHIP IF HE WAS BASED IN QLD.

HE IS NO LONGER BASED IN QLD. Therefore no sponsorship.

understandy?

One of his sponsors with us are ANZ stadium, an obviously Sydney centric organisation, and the deal with them was mentioned as possibly being dodgy. If they can't demand he plays for a Sydney team considering they are based in Sydney, why can the Broncos third party deals do that same thing for Broncos?

Look I agree with you, I think 3rd party sponsors should be allowed to link their sponsorship to specific clubs, but the NRL is arguing they can't. And the NRL seems to have different standards for different teams which is where my problem is.

 

[cleary89]

I beg to differ. When we won the case something actually changed in reality. When they won absolutely nothing changed. Therefore, we won in every way that counts. Their case is meaningless.

hahahahahahaahhaa

 

[RedVee]

Look, just let him play. I am all for these guys making as much coin out of sponsors and ads as they can. Play on!

It'd be a terrible day for RL to have NRL players, or the Assie team, on TV, billboards, newspaper ads....... sell the game and players guys, let the players and game get some coin.

Gee what a credible source Roy Masters is basing his article on. A random fan... that's stooping to new lows.

See below - it's the 'random fan's email that has opened this up again. From a Souths supporter supposedly.

Its Schubert's probe that is based on the email from the fan not Masters article.

For a wanker like you that tries to prove a point by saying 'look at the stats' then cant provide the stats, its a bit rich having a dig at a respected journalist dont you think?

 

[Lossy]

I beg to differ. When we won the case something actually changed in reality. When they won absolutely nothing changed. Therefore, we won in every way that counts. Their case is meaningless.

Not quite meaningless. There were a few wins all around. Rabbitohs got back in; the competition had a 'feel good' factor for a while, which would have helped the bottom line; the NRL and NEWS learned a lot from the case; and they also retained the right to boot a team out.

That might come in handy.

We would take them to court, Inglis would be a temporary Rabbitohs player while the case happened

He's still contracted to the NEWS-owned Storm. Why would NEWS release him to Souths under your scenario? And why would a court break an existing contract when the holder has committed no breach?

 

[adamkungl]

See below - it's the 'random fan's email that has opened this up again. From a Souths supporter supposedly.

I hope this person is a Roosters fan :lol:

 

[El Diablo]

I beg to differ. When we won the case something actually changed in reality. When they won absolutely nothing changed. Therefore, we won in every way that counts. Their case is meaningless.

rubbish

it proved they had every right to kick your mob out an could have done so again if they wanted http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULRev/2003/6.html

Finally, an unusual aspect of the High Court appeal was that News Ltd made it clear before the proceedings began that it would not seek to remove Souths from the competition should the decision be made in its favour. Thus the proceedings before the High Court could be viewed as nothing more than an academic exercise. However, News Ltd’s wish to take the matter to the High Court might indicate that News Ltd may, at some time in the future, seek to reduce the number of teams in the NRL. If so, a clarification on the legality of the 14-team term was far from a mere academic exercise as the decision would allow it to use a similar provision in order to reduce the number of teams. This author has reservations as to whether the NRL is sustainable in its present 15-team format, given the competition from both the Australian Football League (AFL) and rugby union for players, spectators and the sponsorship dollar. For that reason the High Court decision may well prove to be an important one for News Ltd in its role as a partner in the NRL.

 

[BunniesMan]

Not quite meaningless. There were a few wins all around. Rabbitohs got back in; the competition had a 'feel good' factor for a while, which would have helped the bottom line; the NRL and NEWS learned a lot from the case; and they also retained the right to boot a team out.

That might come in handy.



He's still contracted to the NEWS-owned Storm. Why would NEWS release him to Souths under your scenario? And why would a court break an existing contract when the holder has committed no breach?

Storm situation is completely irrelevant. They won't keep him out of spite and be unable to compete for points for another year. Whatever happens with us they have to drop him or they will be in far worse crap than we'll ever be.

rubbish

it proved they had every right to kick your mob out an could have done so again if they wanted http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULRev/2003/6.html

How about you read the quotes you post yourself. The NRL promised to not kick us out if they won, they wouldn't have bothered to make that promise if they didn't think it was necessary to win. They didn't get a unanimous decision as it was, if they didn't make that promise it's very likely they'd have lost another couple votes from the bench.

Besides all this debate is pointless. Even if the worst case scenario happened and they blocked the contract (which I strongly doubt they will do) and we lost any court case after that we'd still get him.

According to the media we're giving him 220k in the first year but they may want him to make close to 300k. Say 275k (even thought that would be more than even Lockyer is reportedly on under the cap). All we'd have to do is drop some bloke making a little over 100k to be able to give Inglis another 50 odd k and to bring in some minimum player. Of course we'd that rather than lose Inglis.

 

[Big Pete]

I didn't know Inglis could tap into the long service allowance like Lockyer can?

 

[Lossy]

Storm situation is completely irrelevant. They won't keep him out of spite and be unable to compete for points for another year. Whatever happens with us they have to drop him or they will be in far worse crap than we'll ever be.

Storm have a valid contract with Inglis. Souths do not. Both have options, not all palatable, but 'irrelevant' it's not.

 

[cleary89]

Yeh, hes going to be there for the next 10 years, just ask bummyman.

 

[BunniesMan]

Storm have a valid contract with Inglis. Souths do not. Both have options, not all palatable, but 'irrelevant' it's not.

I'm not saying they can't in the sense that they are physically unable to do that. But imagine how Cam Smith and Slater and Cronk would take it to waste another year of their prime because of their team's stubborness. I can't imagine the Storm fans being happy to play another meaningless season for no good reason.

I can't imagine the team dynamic as a whole would be solid when the Storm squad has to release multiple solid role players on decent money who want to be there and replace them with minimum guys just to keep one player who clearly doesn't want to be there and who they are currently in a bitter legal issue with.

So is it possible? Yes, but it's possible for a plane to crash into my house and kill me before I finish typing this sentence, but I'm also very very very confident that won't happen.

There are just too many negatives for the Storm in following this path for it to be a possibility worth talking about. Regardless of what happens with Souths and Inglis, best or worst case scenario, every reasonable sign points to Inglis not being with the Storm in 2011.

 

[BunniesMan]

Yeh, hes going to be there for the next 10 years, just ask bummyman.

Whoa, 10 out of 10 for creativity.

 

[thorson1987]

Whoa, 10 out of 10 for creativity.

Could say the same for some of the sh*t you say. Although its not worth 10, maybe more along the lines of 2 or 3.

 

[Lossy]

I'm not saying they can't...

So is it possible? Yes...

Thank you for conceding the absolutes you were talking about. Appreciated.

Regard of what happens with Souths and Inglis, best or worst case scenario, every reasonable sign points to Inglis not being with the Storm in 2011.

I agree with that, BunniesMan. He may indeed end up at Souths - and I think he will in the end - but there are many options and a court case will bring more still. I can't see grounds for said case while the Storm hold a valid contract, and the Storm don't have a ratified contract to release him to.

Now include the pressure on Inglis. What would he do if Parra or the Roosters came along with the right money and the Storm were kept happy? Or he decided that the Aussie media were too much after all this, and the Warriors came a knocking? Or jacked it in for French rugby and took an extra-long honeymoon until he could sign with a club?

Would he stay true to the cardinal red and myrtle green?

Circumstances change. Ask Melbourne... or Brisbane.

 

[cleary89]

People are saying parra have 1m under the cap.

Would he go to parra for 1m, or souths for 300k guaranteed, and 300k probably?

 

[Willow]

People are saying parra have 1m under the cap.

Would he go to parra for 1m, or souths for 300k guaranteed, and 300k probably?

Sharks are under the cap as well.
lol

 

[BunniesMan]

People are saying parra have 1m under the cap.

Would he go to parra for 1m, or souths for 300k guaranteed, and 300k probably?

If they give him 1m a year, plus any 3rd party deals he gets on top of that, they'd be incredibly dumb. He'd be making towards double the next highest paid player in the entire NRL, no player is worth that much, even GI. If they give him that much they won't be winning anything when they could wait a year and get at least 2 off contract stars for that money.

If he could get that much from a rival I'd say good luck to him and have no problem with him leaving.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

All we'd have to do is drop some bloke making a little over 100k to be able to give Inglis another 50 odd k and to bring in some minimum player. Of course we'd that rather than lose Inglis.

So then we'd have to rename this thread: "Greg Inglis headed to South Sydney - players to be shed."

Or perhaps - "South Sydney have already sold out there soul to an NZ actor's consortium and will do anything to win a premiership so as to appease their glorious leader's ego".