Osborne met with Beavis today.

[Craig Johnston]

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.

again you're simply trying to make shuberts determinations for him.

local businesses that have no official existing sponsorshop of the eels cannot be penalised for seeing a business interest in sponsoring hayne as an eels product.

the nrl is also now under more pressure than it ever has to ensure that any new revenue for the game is not lost from being overly suspicious in 3rd party contracts

there is just as much grey that i can muddy up as you can.

why would any parra fan fight so hard to prevent the club from retaining it's best players anyway? :?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

The thing is that you're making an argument on how things should be. I don't necessarily disagree with you on how things should be.

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from doing anything. I just actually know what the rules are and how they are interpreted. What I talk about is what the actual situation exists as. I'm not making determinations for Schubert - I'm making comments based on the way he has acted before, based on the rules the NRL set and how they have acted upon them in the past (for example, the property deals).

Any "local" company would automatically come under NRL salary cap because it would be conditional upon HaHa remaining at Parramatta (already dealt with in the quote that you posted).

Any company that got involved with a player via the Club would come under the salary cap as they would be classed as "related to" the Club (already dealt with in the quote that you posted).

In terms of the Club, they can only be involved in $150k in sponsorships. That's it, nothing else.

Anything outside this needs to be negotiated with a 100% absence from any Club. The Club cannot negotiate, introduce or in any way be involved in anything outside the $150k. No deal can be done along the lines of "We'll sponsor you if you play for Parra" (which is the kind of deal that would come from the companies that are "lining up" to do business with our Club).

Anything outside of the $150k cannot make mention of the NRL or the Parramatta Eels without the express permission of the NRL (who own the rights not just to the competition but also each Club). The player can only use their own name and image (not game images) and that's it.

You talked about new revenue streams. Well, go talk to the NRL. They set the rules and they have explicitly shown how they will be interpreted and enforced. While you are there, please make sure to explain to them why you are trying to destroy the salary cap (because the rich Clubs would exploit this whereas the poor Clubs wouldn't be able to).

There's no grey for anyone to muddy up, despite your suggestions. The more I (re)think about it the clearer it becomes. It's actually quite cut and dried.

The fact that you can't admit that you are wrong, the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, the fact that you are mixing up sentiments and should bes with actual rules and regulations is the only reason that this discussion is still going on.

My advice is to actually read and fully understand the quotes you post before gibbering on about them based on a (very) loose understanding (if you can call it understanding). It saves you from looking like a fool.

 

[NorthShoreEel]

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

Owned by people from Hillsong - not certain that it is the church itself, but, they are associated at the least.

There is a Gloria Jeans in the complex/church (if thats what you want to call it).

 

[Gronk]

There's more speculation in the Telecrap this morning and a quote from Ossie stating that Hayne has indicated that he wants to remain an Eel.

Sauce: Hoi Sin

 

[yy_cheng]

Gronk,

is that Chan Hoi Sin, the guy who works at Chinatown?

 

[MarkInTheStands]

Yeah HJ is right.

I have spoken at great lengths with club officials from several clubs. I remember speaking to one during a Salary cap audit and indeed Ian Schubert is no mug. He had just called because a high profile player just purchased a car (like that afternoon)from a Car Dealer who was a sponsor of the club.

Schubert was quoted to me as saying "You had better hope the dealer didn't give him any discount on that car because I will count that in your cap and you guys are so close as it is . . .".

So in reality if the board have people lining up to sponsor the club, that is great it means less work for you and I in buying the memberships, merchandise and other consumables from the club or throwing cash into a poker machine. They can even off the use of Jarryd Hayne, for an extra $50,000 or so that is paid to the club and then paid to Jarryd. Jarryd can only do that for one company as far as I understand it and as long as Hindy, Caylo, Burt, Inu or Mateo aren't doing it already.

But if Jarryd wants to sign 3rd party agreements, then his manager Wayne Bevis will be the one having companies "Line Up".

 

[Eelementary]

Yeah HJ is right.

I have spoken at great lengths with club officials from several clubs. I remember speaking to one during a Salary cap audit and indeed Ian Schubert is no mug. He had just called because a high profile player just purchased a car (like that afternoon)from a Car Dealer who was a sponsor of the club.

Schubert was quoted to me as saying "You had better hope the dealer didn't give him any discount on that car because I will count that in your cap and you guys are so close as it is . . .".

So in reality if the board have people lining up to sponsor the club, that is great it means less work for you and I in buying the memberships, merchandise and other consumables from the club or throwing cash into a poker machine. They can even off the use of Jarryd Hayne, for an extra $50,000 or so that is paid to the club and then paid to Jarryd. Jarryd can only do that for one company as far as I understand it and as long as Hindy, Caylo, Burt, Inu or Mateo aren't doing it already.

But if Jarryd wants to sign 3rd party agreements, then his manager Wayne Bevis will be the one having companies "Line Up".

If you were a player with a club sponsored by a motor company, wouldn't you buy your vehicle from the aforementioned company expecting to get a discount?

So the probability that said player got a discount on said vehicle from said dealer is pretty high - raising the question, 'are we in trouble with the cap now, seeing as Mr. Schbert gave us a warning?'

 

[mickdo]

So in reality if the board have people lining up to sponsor the club, that is great it means less work for you and I in buying the memberships, merchandise and other consumables from the club or throwing cash into a poker machine.

I believe this was the intent, so that the leagues club did not need to continue its transformation into a casino, and could actually resemble its name once again

 

[MarkInTheStands]

If you were a player with a club sponsored by a motor company, wouldn't you buy your vehicle from the aforementioned company expecting to get a discount?

So the probability that said player got a discount on said vehicle from said dealer is pretty high - raising the question, 'are we in trouble with the cap now, seeing as Mr. Schbert gave us a warning?'

That was pretty much how it went and then the club contacted the player and the agent to ensure no such deals were in place and he paid a fair market value for the vehicle that any other joe can walk in an get.

I know in Motorsport Circles, factory sponsored drivers, get cars, but they are part of their payment and are actually leased to the drivers.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

If you were a player with a club sponsored by a motor company, wouldn't you buy your vehicle from the aforementioned company expecting to get a discount?

So the probability that said player got a discount on said vehicle from said dealer is pretty high - raising the question, 'are we in trouble with the cap now, seeing as Mr. Schbert gave us a warning?'

Absolutely and I think that is part of what I think was a fair point made by CJ in relation to the way things should be.

However, it opens up a Pandora's Box that could create a divide between the rich and the not-so-rich.

As soon as they relax the rules at all, guys like Politis are just gonna step in and start buying. Qld Clubs are going to get stronger because they have a whole state to split between only 3 Clubs whereas we have to split our state between 11. Hell, NZ will have an entire country to work with.

Clubs would begin to bankrupt themselves by "using" sponsors to pay the deals but then "paying back" the sponsors out of the Club's pocket.

Stuff like that.

The way it is currently is very black and white. In reality the situation sucks and, as has been pointed out, it kinda holds back from our ability to generate money for the sport and its stars. However, it's pretty much the only way under our present situation to ensure equality and a fair system for all Clubs.

At present, the only difference between what Clubs can spend is whether they themselves can afford the gap between the NRL grant and the salary cap ceiling. Some Clubs can, others not so much.

Loosen the cap rules and this small difference between Clubs will begin to expand quite rapidly.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

Absolutely and I think that is part of what I think was a fair point made by CJ in relation to the way things should be.

However, it opens up a Pandora's Box that could create a divide between the rich and the not-so-rich.

As soon as they relax the rules at all, guys like Politis are just gonna step in and start buying. Qld Clubs are going to get stronger because they have a whole state to split between only 3 Clubs whereas we have to split our state between 11. Hell, NZ will have an entire country to work with.

Clubs would begin to bankrupt themselves by "using" sponsors to pay the deals but then "paying back" the sponsors out of the Club's pocket.

Stuff like that.

The way it is currently is very black and white. In reality the situation sucks and, as has been pointed out, it kinda holds back from our ability to generate money for the sport and its stars. However, it's pretty much the only way under our present situation to ensure equality and a fair system for all Clubs.

At present, the only difference between what Clubs can spend is whether they themselves can afford the gap between the NRL grant and the salary cap ceiling. Some Clubs can, others not so much.

Loosen the cap rules and this small difference between Clubs will begin to expand quite rapidly.

HJ, the way the rich (in the fiction) do it is through legalese utilities like foundations. This way they own nothing yet control everything. You can be sure the fictitious rich are running such utilities right now and have done so for a very long time. Schubert will have no way of finding his way through such a maze of utilities (fictitious persons) and tie them back to his jurisdiction, giving him legalised powers of enforcement over fictitious persons like private corporations dressed up as foundations. Those seen as good boys not rocking the freemasonic boat (regardless of whether they are conscious or not of such a force), they and their families are commercially looked after for life. If it suits (are aligned with) the agenda of the establishment control over the sheeple (the big picture) then even superstars are conscripted and used to further their aims and no Schubert can do anything about it, and if he got a scent and tracked it,... well only two options ensue when you take on the powers that be, and you already know what they are..........

Boooooooooo Casper