O'Meley and O'Donnell

[The Preacher]

There is an agreement in place and we dont know what is in it You cant say whether the information you wanted was contained in that agreement

If it wasn't why didn'y Doust say so ! To hide behind confidentiality clause bullsiht and then say no comment shows a man with no spine.

Would Thompson like you to know his failings in the issue and while there have been assumptions about what the failings of the club have been they could be entirely different

How would it show Thommo's failings ? It just say's whose cap mwears the $$$'s.
Thommo wouldn't give a rat's freckle.

If football clubs have saved money that goes towards the salary cap and avoided further problems with a player then that is what they wanted

How did they save money when it was counted in our cap. Well it was as far as I'm concerned, and the CEO wont deny it.

You say the consitution takes precedence I really dont know

If it didn't, it would be unconstitutional. Ever seen The Castle ??

You dont think the development fee would be a concern to someone else Turning your back on your own juniors and having to pay an opposition club on top of the player payment

What about the reverse, where the club gets a development fee for a player they weren't willing to keep.

It is the same scenario as what you have portrayed with one difference

In your issue the club is making room in the salary cap They would be paying the whole amount if there wasnt an agreement reached

I fail to see how they're making room in the cap, when the payment was factored into it.

 

[Father Ted]

There is no point to that because the first part isnt under question no one knows the answer to the second but we have replaced props and he is relying on a quote he hasnt understood or at least has distorted the meaning to fit what he wanted



You agree that the Dragons offered him nothing and virtually showed him the door and that

Bailey started to think its hard to get a three year deal now how hard will it be when that time runs out

refers to the time left to negotiate a new deal before the then current contract expired rather than his next deal which the Titans covered with money in 2009 and 2010



Well it would work both ways if you think that is the nature of the relationship because Preacher has made demands


Originally Posted by Father Ted
It might have been an attempt to establish a culture of good will between the clubs

And that means no money was exchanged

Actually It was an attempt to offer an alternative possibility . With the money issue that you seem stuck on there is no way of knowing yea or ney unless you are connected to the inner workings of the club in some way . Seems to me you might be able to supply that answer to us ?

 

[Wicks]

If it wasn't why didn'y Doust say so ! To hide behind confidentiality clause bullsiht and then say no comment shows a man with no spine.

To say no comment may be someone that knows the law

How would it show Thommo's failings ? It just say's whose cap mwears the $$$'s.Thommo wouldn't give a rat's freckle.

Taking a payout and getting a new contract rather than stay on a reduced salary

If it didn't, it would be unconstitutional. Ever seen The Castle ??

I still fail to see how a clubs consitution is higher than Australian law Is there a link between the Australian constitution and club consitutions

One of us can find the evidence This isnt going anywhere

What about the reverse, where the club gets a development fee for a player they weren't willing to keep.

I was trying to match your example the reverse doesnt do so

In our case we keep who we want and since we have oversupply and get money for the others who dont fit under the salary cap

I fail to see how they're making room in the cap, when the payment was factored into it.

Say Thompson was on 150000 and they agreed to pay Thompson the Sharks or both a reduced amount say 80000 only the reduced amount would be in the salary cap because that is the agreement I assume it would be like negotiating a current contract down for cap relief

On Thompsons side he would get that reduced money plus a contract from Cronulla whether that has our money or not

I dont believe we gave them money to take him Only Thompson

On our side the difference between the payment would be ours to use

 

[Wicks]

[/color]Actually It was an attempt to offer an alternative possibility . With the money issue that you seem stuck on there is no way of knowing yea or ney unless you are connected to the inner workings of the club in some way . Seems to me you might be able to supply that answer to us ?

I offered that possibility earlier

 

[The Preacher]

1. We had a player at another club geniusing our spending under the cap.

2. We have a CEO that was laughed at and ridiculed for not answering a question that the MEMBERS that employ him were entitled to know the answer to.

3. Do you think the board has ever made a mistake, and would you admit it ???

 

[Father Ted]

I offered that possibility earlier

Let me be blunt . Do you work directly or indirectly for the club or have a relationship with someone employed with the club and or do you have access to information not available to the average supporter of the club ?

 

[The Preacher]

I'd rather take the $1.70 to make the eight than the chances of you getting a straight and truthfull answer to that one Rev.Ted. :lol:

 

[The Preacher]

Look what you've done now Rev.Ted.

Here I was having the time of my life with Wicks and you go and ask a simple question !!

Thanks a lot mate !!!

 

[Father Ted]

Look what you've done now Rev.Ted.

Here I was having the time of my life with Wicks and you go and ask a simple question !!

Thanks a lot mate !!!

Sorry Preacher , But The truth will come out ! it always does .

 

[Wicks]

1. We had a player at another club geniusing our spending under the cap.

2. We have a CEO that was laughed at and ridiculed for not answering a question that the MEMBERS that employ him were entitled to know the answer to.

3. Do you think the board has ever made a mistake, and would you admit it ???

My previous post shows why there is the opposite effect and there is more to spend

Why would that bother anyone confident in their legal standing You have provided no proof about the entitlement

I have listed some mistakes in this topic even though it was not part of the subject

Let me be blunt . Do you work directly or indirectly for the club or have a relationship with someone employed with the club and or do you have access to information not available to the average supporter of the club ?

No

I have answered this question before Even indirectly in this topic

Why the closed shop attitude

 

[Father Ted]

My previous post shows why there is the opposite effect and there is more to spend

Why would that bother anyone confident in their legal standing You have provided no proof about the entitlement

I have listed some mistakes in this topic even though it was not part of the subject



No

I have answered this question before Even indirectly in this topic

Why the closed shop attitude

When you talked about the Bailey transfer as an example you seemed most definate on his new club paying money to his old , so much so that one has to wonder .