Inglis to fork out $113 000 to be released

[_snafu_]

The Storm and Inglis deserve each other.

 

[pantherz9103]

Storm may have dodgy practices and be cheats but I support anything that tries to disrupt the Broncos.

 

[Willow]

Did the $113,000 count under the salary cap?

I would think not. Makes you wonder why Melbourne are putting their foot in it by suggesting Inglis owes them the money. Surely the club chose to cover his defence costs and it's entirely separate to his playing contract. Or is it?

 

[The 18th Man]

I would think not. Makes you wonder why Melbourne are putting their foot in it by suggesting Inglis owes them the money. Surely the club chose to cover his defence costs and it's entirely separate to his playing contract. Or is it?

It can't be can it? The legal costs that they helped Greg Inglis with had nothing to do with rugby league and thus shouldn't the funds come from the pocket of Inglis?

An interesting slant on this. Surprised not much has been made of it.

 

[dragon_around]

It can't be can it? The legal costs that they helped Greg Inglis with had nothing to do with rugby league and thus shouldn't the funds come from the pocket of Inglis?

An interesting slant on this. Surprised not much has been made of it.

A boat and plasma tv had nothing to do with rugby league either, you goose.

 

[Willow]

It can't be can it?

That's my view as well. Unless there's something in the player contract that we don't know know about - can't imagine any shennighans going on there. ;-)

The legal costs that they helped Greg Inglis with had nothing to do with rugby league and thus shouldn't the funds come from the pocket of Inglis?

I take your point, but the club chose to fund his legal costs. If the article is to believed, the Storm administration took charge of the situation.

An interesting slant on this. Surprised not much has been made of it.

The key issue is the Storm claiming they can now fit him under the cap, when before they couldn't.

Excuse my lack of trust for the Storm.

Are they presenting a new contract for Inglis which falls below the current agreement? If so, he doesn't have to sign it and he should be allowed to work elsewhere. Might be a restriction of trade issue looming here.

 

[Danish]

Perhaps the $113k us already included in inglis's salary, and the storm want to get it back to reduce the amount outbid next years cap inglis will be taking up?


Either way, Inglis should be paying his own f**king legal fees. Any genuine man would pay the storm back

 

[AlwaysGreen]

I would think not. Makes you wonder why Melbourne are putting their foot in it by suggesting Inglis owes them the money. Surely the club chose to cover his defence costs and it's entirely separate to his playing contract. Or is it?

Yeah, something's not right here. Either the storm pay his legal costs out of their own good will or they're part of his salary and so subject to salary cap scrutiny.
I may be incorrect but didn't Brett Stewart pay his own legal fees?

 

[El Diablo]

I would think not. Makes you wonder why Melbourne are putting their foot in it by suggesting Inglis owes them the money. Surely the club chose to cover his defence costs and it's entirely separate to his playing contract. Or is it?

this is from April this year http://www.smh.com.au/sport/gardner-blows-gasket-over-harassment-allegations-20100417-slee.html

DRAMAS NOW BEHIND INGLIS

GREG INGLIS stayed with mates on Sunday night - fearful the media might jump him after his address was exposed in the newspapers during the initial frenzy that followed his assault charge. Now that Inglis has put his court drama behind him, expect the corporates to get back behind him. Inglis was close to signing a very lucrative deal with Gatorade - believed to be worth $50,000 - just before he landed in trouble. Inglis was advised by the Storm to use the best lawyer he could afford. His legal bill is said to be in the tens of thousands. It would be unlikely that the Storm could help pay that bill given the salary cap crackdown.

 

[Timmah]

First thing I thought when I saw the headline was possibly that he owes them years of backpay for all the boat fuel...

 

[Willow]

El D, that contradicts the today's Sunday Telegraph report where the Storm say they paid $113K worth of legal funding. If they did pay for a player's legal costs, then it should fall under the salary cap.

The Storm said in April it wasn't possible, but they did it anyway?

Conflicting stories so we're obviously not getting the full story. Perhaps no surprise given the track records of the three parties involved.

 

[El Diablo]

maybe they paid it always thinking it would be paid back by Inglis as they had an agreement

i would never trust Inglis

the dopey merkin doesn't even know what state he's from

 

[Willow]

Even so, if he owes them the money, let the courts sort it out. Why are they suddenly refusing to release him and using the 13K as leverage?

 

[Loudstrat]

I would think not. Makes you wonder why Melbourne are putting their foot in it by suggesting Inglis owes them the money. Surely the club chose to cover his defence costs and it's entirely separate to his playing contract. Or is it?

You have to be correct - if the club paid for it - it's under the cap. Of course, how the salary cap follow the money trail of a club as well connected to the legal profession as Melbourne? If club contracted a QC to represent a player on a non league matter?

To me, one of two things are happening.
1) This amount was part of his salary cap assessment and Ian Schubert knew about it (in which case Melbourne can hardly demand it back), or
2) This amount was NOT part of his salary cap assessment. If that was the case, then one would assume that the bill would have gone from the QC directly to Inglis. Clearly it did not. Melbourne have got caught - again - because now there is a legal bill to pay that they cannot afford now that Hartigan has turned the tap off.

To me this points to one thing only. We add $113k to the salary cap breach, and therefore $113k to their salary bill for this year. And as a result either the NRL fine the pricks more, or let them carry it over to 2011 and assess them on that. But if they refuse to release Inglis, and keep him on his over inflated salary and therefore knowingly breach the cap, there is only one choice. Punt them.

This looks like a tactic they were always going to pull. This will put them way over the cap, and therefore they are thumbing theior nose at the codes admin. If stripping points and premierships wasn't enough, the only thing left to do is to punt them. The code cannot afford to have another club flout the laws of the game. If this is allowed to pass, the salary cap is as good as dead and buried.

Ironic this is happening when the control of the code is changing hands.

 

[El Diablo]

dunno and don't care lol

hate them both

Inglis more though

 

[simostorm]

Alot of conspiracy theorys here based on an article in a news paper..

 

[El Diablo]

theories

 

[Willow]

Alot of conspiracy theorys here based on an article in a news paper..

It's a discussion about the article. Work it out simostorm.

I thought the general consensus was that we are not getting the full story.

Or are you just shooting the messengers?

 

[simostorm]

haha.. is that nessasscaryyslylejskjjdljf kjlc,xcv

 

[The 18th Man]

A boat and plasma tv had nothing to do with rugby league either, you goose.

Someone missed my point. Good for you. I hope your consistent ;-)