Willow
Assistant Moderator
- Messages
- 109,739
Who are they?gregstar said:so what's happening with o'meley & o'donnell?
lol
Who are they?gregstar said:so what's happening with o'meley & o'donnell?
The Preacher said: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.
The Preacher said:Our recruitment/retention policy of recent years has been nothing short of woefull
The Preacher said: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.
The Preacher said: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.
The Preacher said: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 ???
The Preacher said: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.
Wicks said: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 said:the truth is sometimes the board miscalculates and thats all Willow and Preacher are saying
The Preacher said: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 said: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
Wicks said:A question that could be added
How much did the Titans pay us for direct access to Bailey before his 2005 contract was up
If you werent taking sides you would have done the sameWicks said: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 .
Preacher and I are having a fine conversation
The Preacher said: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.
The Preacher said: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.
Wicks said: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
Father Ted said: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 .
Father Ted said: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.
Father Ted said: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.
Father Ted said:It might have been an attempt to establish a culture of good will between the clubs .