Osborne met with Beavis today.

[parra pete]

No Pete just your beloved Fitzy.:sarcasm:

Yes, I don't deny that Denis is a mate. Paul Osborne (old Canberra boy) is a good choice to replace him it seems. I have been impressed with him so far, by what I have seen.
This Club is here because of blokes like Jack Argent, Stan Simpson, Jack Boyle, Spencer O'Neill, Joe Joseph, Bazil Cohen, Alan Overton and Denis FITZGERALD.
Don't forget the blokes who dug the well the current crop are drinking at....

 

[mickdo]

Gee, I don't remember you giving praise for the club's success to too many on that list when Fitzy was still around. Must have slipped your mind eh pete?

 

[parra pete]

Gee, I don't remember you giving praise for the club's success to too many on that list when Fitzy was still around. Must have slipped your mind eh pete?

What a stupid response Mickey....

 

[mickdo]

What a stupid response Mickey....

What a lame response to my response pete...

 

[parra pete]

That is an even lamer ,response to my lame response to your first lame response.
Lame in four legs.

 

[mickdo]

Nah, your lame response to my response was by far the lamest response to a response ever in all lameness

 

[eels4lyf]

Due to having twins recently time isnt something i have the privelage of these days. Did anyone catch it? If so if you could fill me in it would be great.

 

[Craig Johnston]

Not bagging anyone but a "line up" is useless.

What I mean is that we can only have $150K through the Club, can't we?

Once beyond that any 3rd party deals need to be negotiated without any inclusion of the Club or anyone associated with the Club. In addition, none of these additional deals can reference the NRL or Parramatta Eels.

Now, if HaHa wants a 3rd party worth, say, $250k per year (wasn't that a figure bandied around?) then it will need to be done purely on her face and name without any reference to anything related to the game or Club.

That's right, isn't it?

not quite, the sponsors simply do not have to be current sponsors of the club.

the speculation is that there are plenty of sponsors who would now like to be associated with the club post fitzgerald.

wether or not a 3rd party sponsor who signs hayne this season and becomes a club sponsor next season affects the arrangement, i'm not sure.

 

[big boppa eel]

Yes, I don't deny that Denis is a mate. Paul Osborne (old Canberra boy) is a good choice to replace him it seems. I have been impressed with him so far, by what I have seen.
This Club is here because of blokes like Jack Argent, Stan Simpson, Jack Boyle, Spencer O'Neill, Joe Joseph, Bazil Cohen, Alan Overton and Denis FITZGERALD.
Don't forget the blokes who dug the well the current crop are drinking at....

Yes I do agree in regards to the club exisisting due to the above mentioned people Fitzy included, in saying this though you must admit things are very much looking up for Parra since Fitzy's exit, take a deep breath Pete and enjoy the ride.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

Pete,

people don't have your years of life experiences. They'll realize it when they get to your age.

I must admit, I've had a easy run so far in my life.

But I know many a 30 y.o. both male and female feel like they are at crossroads in their lives especially with the economic downturn, about finding a life partner, about having children and about their future. For them, whether Hayne signs with Parra is a non-event

You are wise beyond your years yy cheng.

Boooooooooooo Casper

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

not quite, the sponsors simply do not have to be current sponsors of the club.

the speculation is that there are plenty of sponsors who would now like to be associated with the club post fitzgerald.

wether or not a 3rd party sponsor who signs hayne this season and becomes a club sponsor next season affects the arrangement, i'm not sure.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, CJ, otherwise Clubs could use their business connections to sponsor players and, in essence, avoid taking that money out of the salary cap.

Firstly, I know that a player cannot use the NRL or their Club when brokering their own deals. Any, say, billboard that has HaHa and then the Parra Eels gets counted against us in some way. Any billboard that just has HaHa and nothing to do with Eels/NRL can't be touched because intellectual property rights of the individual (which the NRL has no legal right over) are being used. Example - Mason's "Champion" billboard that used to be on Parra Rd., Israel Folau's Gatorade commercial.

Anyways...

If there were no restrictions then we could just sign HaHa for $50k and get a company who are "mates" with the Club to sponsor HaHa for $600k - bingo, $650k per year. The Club could then simply find a way to pay back the "sponsor" and effectively we'd be paying the money ourselves. Rich clubs could then use this to circumvent the salary cap.

As such, this is why I believe there is a $150k third-party cap that each Club can be involved in that can be split between as many players as the Club wants.

As I just said above, a player does have the right to use their own image to generate as much revenue as they can, however.

Does that make sense?

 

[mickdo]

Any billboard that just has HaHa and nothing to do with Eels/NRL can't be touched because intellectual property rights of the individual (which the NRL has no legal right over) are being used. Example - Mason's "Champion" billboard that used to be on Parra Rd., Israel Folau's Gatorade commercial.

I don't reckon it's going to be long before Hayne has that kind of marketability... if he doesn't have already. Maybe we'll see him on Hillsong billboards soon? ;-)

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Well, we've had a talk about this before, mickdo.

What will Hillsong be willing to offer? A Gloria Jeans outlet?

 

[mickdo]

Well, we've had a talk about this before, mickdo.

What will Hillsong be willing to offer? A Gloria Jeans outlet?

Indeed we have, but isn't Gloria's owned by Wesley Mission?

 

[Craig Johnston]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, CJ, otherwise Clubs could use their business connections to sponsor players and, in essence, avoid taking that money out of the salary cap.

Firstly, I know that a player cannot use the NRL or their Club when brokering their own deals. Any, say, billboard that has HaHa and then the Parra Eels gets counted against us in some way. Any billboard that just has HaHa and nothing to do with Eels/NRL can't be touched because intellectual property rights of the individual (which the NRL has no legal right over) are being used. Example - Mason's "Champion" billboard that used to be on Parra Rd., Israel Folau's Gatorade commercial.

Anyways...

If there were no restrictions then we could just sign HaHa for $50k and get a company who are "mates" with the Club to sponsor HaHa for $600k - bingo, $650k per year. The Club could then simply find a way to pay back the "sponsor" and effectively we'd be paying the money ourselves. Rich clubs could then use this to circumvent the salary cap.

As such, this is why I believe there is a $150k third-party cap that each Club can be involved in that can be split between as many players as the Club wants.

As I just said above, a player does have the right to use their own image to generate as much revenue as they can, however.

Does that make sense?

The basic guide is that if a player is receiving money from any person as a way of inducing him to play for the Club, then that money will be included in the Salary Cap.
Income that a player earns from parties not related to his Club is generally not included in the Salary Cap, however the details of the agreement must be advised to the Club by the player. The Club must then get approval for the agreement from the Salary Cap Auditor in orde r for the Remuneration to be excluded.
In 2006, the NRL also introduced an allowance for players who enter into Third Party Agreements with club sponsors. IN 2007 three of the top six players are allowed to earn up to an extra $50,000 each from sponsorship leveraging but the total payments under these sponsorship leveraging agreements must not exceed $150,000.00 per club.

http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

schuey ain't a mug mate. give people a little more credit.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

But your second quote just proves me right.

If these sponsors are lining up to work with Parra, then doing a deal with them is an inducement to stay with the Club.

Say Company X is one of those "lined up" to work with Parra now that Fitzy is gone. They're not gonna give HaHa $200k if she goes to Melbourne. They're only going to do it if she stays with Parra.

As such, this contract is an inducement to stay with Parra. That means that it will be included in the salary cap.

So, ok, the $150k that I mentioned specifically relates to existing Club sponsors.

However, my point remains valid in that we cannot use these "lined up" sponsors to keep HaHa by increasing the overall contract because these deals, as I have just shown, would be considered an inducement to stay at Parramatta. Note also that it says:

Income that a player earns from parties not related to his Club is generally not included in the Salary Cap

which essentially means these current non-sponsors would not be able to have a deal with HaHa without it being included in the salary cap because the fact that they are "lined up" to work with us makes them "related to the Club" and thus automatically brings in the salary cap.

So:

1) Players can earn their own money, based on their intellectual property rights. The Club must be informed of these deals and the Club must in turn inform the NRL but if they are legitimately done (with no connection to the Club and without infringing on the NRL's own intellectual property rights) then they will not be knocked on the head by Ian Schubert.

2) Any company, party or person who is connected or related to the Club will have any contract with a player included in the salary cap. As such, if the Club is involved in helping to negotiate the deal (or even introduce the parties) then this will come under the salary cap.

Look at what happened with Spags and the property deals. If I remember correctly, whilst Spags wasn't an official sponsor of the Club he was "connected" to the Club and so that is why the deals were investigated.

3) This company will sponsor you if you stay with Parramatta but they won't if you go to Melbourne because this company is "lined up" to do business with us - this is an inducement to stay with the Club and is thus under the salary cap.

Does that sound right?

 

[strider]

deja vu ... this whole conversation went down about 3 months ago :sarcasm:

 

[Craig Johnston]

But your second quote just proves me right.

If these sponsors are lining up to work with Parra, then doing a deal with them is an inducement to stay with the Club.

Say Company X is one of those "lined up" to work with Parra now that Fitzy is gone. They're not gonna give HaHa $200k if she goes to Melbourne. They're only going to do it if she stays with Parra.

As such, this contract is an inducement to stay with Parra. That means that it will be included in the salary cap.

So, ok, the $150k that I mentioned specifically relates to existing Club sponsors.

However, my point remains valid in that we cannot use these "lined up" sponsors to keep HaHa by increasing the overall contract because these deals, as I have just shown, would be considered an inducement to stay at Parramatta. Note also that it says:



which essentially means these current non-sponsors would not be able to have a deal with HaHa without it being included in the salary cap because the fact that they are "lined up" to work with us makes them "related to the Club" and thus automatically brings in the salary cap.

So:

1) Players can earn their own money, based on their intellectual property rights. The Club must be informed of these deals and the Club must in turn inform the NRL but if they are legitimately done (with no connection to the Club and without infringing on the NRL's own intellectual property rights) then they will not be knocked on the head by Ian Schubert.

2) Any company, party or person who is connected or related to the Club will have any contract with a player included in the salary cap. As such, if the Club is involved in helping to negotiate the deal (or even introduce the parties) then this will come under the salary cap.

Look at what happened with Spags and the property deals. If I remember correctly, whilst Spags wasn't an official sponsor of the Club he was "connected" to the Club and so that is why the deals were investigated.

3) This company will sponsor you if you stay with Parramatta but they won't if you go to Melbourne because this company is "lined up" to do business with us - this is an inducement to stay with the Club and is thus under the salary cap.

Does that sound right?

being "lined up" according to a forum is far from being conclusively determined by shubert as an inducement.

a sponsor only needs to demonstrate that they see a defined return for their investment to substantiate that the deal is above board

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

No. A sponsor needs to show that they are not connected with the Club.

People who are officially linked with 3P - and thus the Club - have stated here (and thus publically) that we have these sponsors lined up.

That links them to the Club.

Also, if Osbourne is as above board as he seems, he will know this and try not to curcumvent the rules.

"I see a defined return for my investment" is not a line that will be accepted from a company that wanted to do business with Parramatta but instead "coincidentally" ended up doing a totally non-related deal with the likes of HaHa.

Also, if these companies were already "lined up" prior to the election then I'd say there's already been enough official involvement between them and the Club (even if only initial talks) for this to constitute enough of a paper trail for the NRL to smell something fishy. All you would need is one note pertaining to one meeting and it would be enough to unravel the entire thing. After all, most companies interested in these kind of ventures wouldn't wanna get caught out in a deal that ended up screwing the Club over, and cutting short the dollars from a contract that ended with a star player doing a Gasnier.

I've gone over it all again and I am reassured that I am correct on this one. Any company etc that does a deal with HaHa via the Club or anyone related to the Club, any company that has already expressed interest in dealing with the Eels, will have their contract sum included in the salary cap, irrespective of whether HaHa identifies within this contract as an Eels player.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Guys guys guys, we already have a way of cheating the cap. Roy's a gangsta!!