Hmmmm interesting
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...t/news-story/85851921e2a878a7ef4ba23e1e2a0f46
Manly Sea Eagles owner Scott Penn fires back at salary cap rorting punishment
DEFIANT Manly owner Scott Penn fired back at the NRL, declaring: “We’re not salary cap cheats.”
The Sea Eagles chairman told The Daily Telegraph his club had been
“seriously hung out to dry” through “
circumstantial evidence” despite the NRL revealing it had uncovered “deliberate breaches of the cap.”
“This is not a rort,” Penn insisted.
Asked had his club cheated, Penn said: “No. We have abided by the principles of the salary cap.
The club has not paid one player any more than we have declared.
“And the NRL has not provided a smoking gun through this whole process. It’s disappointing to be tarnished with a big brush.
“
We have not paid a player one cent more than our annual salary cap declaration. We have abided by the principles and rules of the salary cap. They are suggesting we have somehow rorted the system and gained an unfair advantage — we disagree.
“They have said we effectively made promissory notes to players and not disclosed them. They were in relation to making introductions and helping find them third parties. It was only around the negotiating process.
“The NRL is maintaining a hard line on it and are saying it is breach of the rules. We never guaranteed any third parties. That is what we are disputing. They are saying we had to disclose them, it was an obligation.
“But there are no guarantees in writing — this is all circumstantial. When you’re negotiating with a player, sure you try and find them additional money. That’s common practice. This isn’t isolated to the Sea Eagles.
“This is not a rort. It’s a protocol issue.
The club has not guaranteed third parties. And no-one is claiming that we have, this is where it gets tricky. We are seriously getting hung out to dry on this, to be honest.
“What we have done is introduce people to player agents, and the like, as part of the negotiations. All at an arm’s length and said there is potentially an opportunity here. Some have come to pass, some haven’t.
“They are claiming that every single one of those for the past five years — any introduction or otherwise — should have been in the cap, which we totally disagree with.”
“We feel at this stage there are certainly
strong grounds to appeal,” Penn said. “We just need to review that based on our legal opinion.”