O'Meley and O'Donnell

[Willow]

so what's happening with o'meley & o'donnell?

Who are they?
lol

 

[gregstar]

Lol!

 

[Wicks]

I'm getting teams thrown at me for a reason I don't understand, and I can't get an answer to the question I asked at the start somewhere, " Are you a "stoolie" for the administration, or are you wearing the new style winkers to block out any alternatives???"
It seems to be a situation where you believe that the board can do no wrong.

Where did I say they do no wrong It is an assumption you made The membership program and website is poor Distribution channels for merchandise are inadequate We didnt get the most out of our senior players Waited too long to get a proper hooker

I answered your question months ago

My overall view is trying to say making this a simple process of right and wrong belies how difficult it is I would say the same for any club as long as they were keeping a good team on the field

Roosters lost forwards to get halves but it meant they had no go forward to help the halves This is why they fell after their grand finals

Melbourne who are similar to us let go of experienced players in 2005 and 2006 because they have good recruitment in Queensland and have to let players go in order to keep their players coming through They presented a strong team last year and again this year

If there is to be a discussion forum dont you think there has to be more than

Our recruitment/retention policy of recent years has been nothing short of woefull

I named something near the best teams we have now so you can more easily say who you would have kept who would you have let go

If you refuse to thats no problem the discussion ends but I have given you the chance to prove what you want to say

 

[The Preacher]

Well Wicksy, how about the Lance affair ??? Do you think that was handled properly ??
Let's start with that and then go through the rest.

 

[Wicks]

Well Wicksy, how about the Lance affair ??? Do you think that was handled properly ??
Let's start with that and then go through the rest.

Publicly looked bad for the club Lance his manager Danny Weidler Everyone involved

The detail would be in the agreement signed between the club and Lance There would be fault on both sides for what happened outside the contract talks and then the agreement not to discuss details

It is an indication of what could have happened with Bailey Lance would forego money in order to get a longer contract like Bailey The contention I can see is Lance is two years older so finding the right value for a contract is harder even than Bailey

 

[The Preacher]

What about the fact that monies payed to him, while he was playing for another team, was counted in OUR salary cap. This happened , even though our CEO replied with "no comment" at an AGM, something that was a breach of a members constitutional rights.

 

[Wicks]

What about the fact that monies payed to him, while he was playing for another team, was counted in OUR salary cap. This happened , even though our CEO replied with "no comment" at an AGM, something that was a breach of a members constitutional rights.

He would have been paid either way but he was likely paid less You cant say without knowing the details whether it was the right amount The club has to look at what the players wants If he didnt want to be at the club on less money and without an extended contract you have to do what you can to resolve the agreement and move one

It was bitter because he was loved but that is where sentimentality is a problem

I dont know whether that is right legally Does the members constitutional rights hold preference over the privacy of an agreement They dont have to tell you normal contract details due to privacy I think it would be the same here but I dont know the law in that case

 

[The Preacher]

The $ amount he was paid was never asked. What was asked was "does this count in next seasons, 06, salary cap?" No figure was sought, only an answer, and the CEO went running for cover. Surely you were there and heard the exchange Wicks ???

 

[Wicks]

The $ amount he was paid was never asked. What was asked was "does this count in next seasons, 06, salary cap?" No figure was sought, only an answer, and the CEO went running for cover. Surely you were there and heard the exchange Wicks ???

Still would be a legal issue that I dont know the answer to

The NRL would have received the information through the salary cap

I dont see a concern in paying him if the two sides couldnt come to terms

 

[Father Ted]

I'm buggered if I can work out what I'm answering and what you're supposed to be answering Willow.
I'm getting teams thrown at me for a reason I don't understand, and I can't get an answer to the question I asked at the start somewhere, " Are you a "stoolie" for the administration, or are you wearing the new style winkers to block out any alternatives???"
It seems to be a situation where you believe that the board can do no wrong.

Reminds me of quite a few of modern day fans on the net . The need to win the arguement is almost manic obsessive . Trouble is most of them have mastred double-speak so you end up unsure what your surposed to be discussing . Wicks you can plan all the fictional teams you like ,the truth is sometimes the board miscalculates and thats all Willow and Preacher are saying . What you are saying however would do credit to question time in federal politics .

 

[The Preacher]

Still would be a legal issue that I dont know the answer to

The NRL would have received the information through the salary cap

I dont see a concern in paying him if the two sides couldnt come to terms

It's not a legal issue, it's constitutional and if your a member of ANY club you should be aware of the constitution and articles of association.
I have no concern with paying anyone, as long as they're playing for US.
I believe it is mismanagement to the extreme paying someone to play for another club and having that money factored into OUR salary cap.

Are you a member of the Football Club ?????

 

[Wicks]

the truth is sometimes the board miscalculates and thats all Willow and Preacher are saying

I didnt disagree with that I added other possibilities to the discussion

One of Willows interpretations didnt follow the quote he used and denied the other possibilties I added when he didnt have the knowledge to do so

If you werent taking sides you would have done the same

Preacher and I are having a fine conversation

The burden of acceptance and understanding doesnt just fall on me Understanding what else is out there is what what my questions were about

It's not a legal issue, it's constitutional and if your a member of ANY club you should be aware of the constitution and articles of association.
I have no concern with paying anyone, as long as they're playing for US.
I believe it is mismanagement to the extreme paying someone to play for another club and having that money factored into OUR salary cap.

Are you a member of the Football Club ?????

Yes I am a member If you know that for sure then there is an issue with witholding the answer

I would have thought a clubs constitution would be overruled by contract and privacy laws Do you agree that they dont have to tell you normal contract details

The payment rules are there mainly because collusion could happen between clubs

Clubs do it despite the salary cap penalty You have to be flexible when a player is involved What do you want with a dissatisfied player taking up valuable salary cap space Halve it and move on

Clubs also pay when they buy local juniors from other clubs Otherwise it is a capitalist system held back by communist laws

 

[The Preacher]

I didnt disagree with that I added other possibilities to the discussion

One of Willows interpretations didnt follow the quote he used and denied the other possibilties I added when he didnt have the knowledge to do so

If you werent taking sides you would have done the same

Preacher and I are having a fine conversation

The burden of acceptance and understanding doesnt just fall on me Understanding what else is out there is what what my questions were about



Yes I am a member If you know that for sure then there is an issue with witholding the answer

I would have thought a clubs constitution would be overruled by contract and privacy laws Do you agree that they dont have to tell you normal contract details

The payment rules are there mainly because collusion could happen between clubs

Clubs do it despite the salary cap penalty You have to be flexible when a player is involved What do you want with a dissatisfied player taking up valuable salary cap space Halve it and move on

Clubs also pay when they buy local juniors from other clubs Otherwise it is a capitalist system held back by communist laws

If you were at the meeting you would have heard Doust say "NO COMMENT" !

I never wanted to know the $$$'s, just if it was being counted against our '06 cap.

I never wanted contract details, just if it was being counted against our '06 cap.

When clubs buy juniors from other clubs they pay a development fee to that club and this does not count against the cap.

I've also never noticed any "Reds under the beds", except when Gaz has a night out with Mini !!

 

[Wicks]

A question that could be added

How much did the Titans pay us for direct access to Bailey before his 2005 contract was up

 

[The Preacher]

A question that could be added

How much did the Titans pay us for direct access to Bailey before his 2005 contract was up

Was it not a case of them, as a new entry to the competition, having a clear passage as far as recruitment went.

Not that this has anything to do with my previous post.

 

[Father Ted]

I didnt disagree with that I added other possibilities to the discussion

[QUOTE]
One of Willows interpretations didnt follow the quote he used and denied the other possibilties I added when he didnt have the knowledge to do so

To me Willow was just lamenting the loss of a fine footballer and expressing the opinion that his loss will cost us at some point in the year and I happen to think he's right . I would also add there isn't much about Saints that Willow doesn't know IMO .

If you werent taking sides you would have done the same

It's always a mistake to make big Judgements about other people's motives . You don't know I'm taking sides , to me it's more about supporting a point of view I agree with .

Preacher and I are having a fine conversation

Again to me it seemed more an unhealthy Master Servant relationship where you make a series of demand's and Preacher is expected to jump through your hoops than a discussion , but that is a judgement by me and therefore may be wrong .

The burden of acceptance and understanding doesnt just fall on me Understanding what else is out there is what what my questions were about



Yes I am a member If you know that for sure then there is an issue with witholding the answer

I would have thought a clubs constitution would be overruled by contract and privacy laws Do you agree that they dont have to tell you normal contract details

The payment rules are there mainly because collusion could happen between clubs

Clubs do it despite the salary cap penalty You have to be flexible when a player is involved What do you want with a dissatisfied player taking up valuable salary cap space Halve it and move on

Clubs also pay when they buy local juniors from other clubs Otherwise it is a capitalist system held back by communist laws[/quote]

 

[Wicks]

I never wanted to know the $$$'s, just if it was being counted against our '06 cap.

I never wanted contract details, just if it was being counted against our '06 cap.

When clubs buy juniors from other clubs they pay a development fee to that club and this does not count against the cap.

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

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

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

You say the consitution takes precedence I really dont know

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

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

 

[Wicks]

Was it not a case of them, as a new entry to the competition, having a clear passage as far as recruitment went.

Not that this has anything to do with my previous post.

Bailey was under contract when we allowed them to talk

No it was getting back to other issues

 

[Father Ted]

Bailey was under contract when we allowed them to talk

It might have been an attempt to establish a culture of good will between the clubs .


No it was getting back to other issues

 

[Wicks]

To me Willow was just lamenting the loss of a fine footballer and expressing the opinion that his loss will cost us at some point in the year and I happen to think he's right . I would also add there isn't much about Saints that Willow doesn't know IMO .

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

It's always a mistake to make big Judgements about other people's motives . You don't know I'm taking sides , to me it's more about supporting a point of veiw I agree with.

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

Again to me it seemed more an unhealthy Master Servant relationship where you make a series of demand's and Preacher is expected to jump through your hoops than a discussion , but that is a judgement by me and therefore may be wrong.

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

It might have been an attempt to establish a culture of good will between the clubs .

And that means no money was exchanged