Parramatta Leagues Club board sacked, administrator appointed

[Forty20]

Are you sure everything has been leaked by the NRL?

This is a pertinent question. I dare say that there were more leaks from the club than fans realise, even if the leaking of the information seems counter-intuitive. The Brad Arthur interview transcripts come to mind.

 

[emjaycee]

 

[Chipmunk]

This is a pertinent question. I dare say that there were more leaks from the club than fans realise, even if the leaking of the information seems counter-intuitive. The Brad Arthur interview transcripts come to mind.

I'm with you on this train of thought Forty.

 

[Chipmunk]

View attachment 8688

Why did you post this?

 

[emjaycee]

Why did you post this?

Oops. it must have been in my cache.... my bad.

 

[phantom eel]

In a criminal matter what you have described above is essentially the opposite of how it works. Any witness would give a statement to the police the main purpose of which is to allow the defendant to know what the evidence is that that person is going to give at a hearing and then at the hearing the witness gives their evidence orally without the statement there to help them. The defendant gets to say "hang on in your statement you made months ago you said this now you say the opposite YOU ARE A LIAR!! why would we trust anything you have sworn to" - these are called prior inconsistent statements and spell doom for a witnesses credibility.
Its the same in civil matters. You get an affidavit sworn by the witness, they tender that at a hearing and say this is absolutely the truth and then they get cross examined about their affidavit.

I'm not quite sure that's a good comparison?

Sure, criminal/civil court case witnesses give sworn statetments/affidavits and then are questioned (publically) during a hearing on a witness stand. But in our situation, the interview with Seward was not a public questioning on a witness stand. It appears to have been undertaken first - before his sworn statement was tended to investigators.

We have received Seward's sworn statement. If there is a subsequent court case/hearing Seward can be called as a witness and questioned on the stand against his sworn statement, as above.

However asking for Seward's original interview transcripts, in the hope that these will somehow be different to the sworn statement that we have received - and in the absence of any court case/hearing (which we are pretty powerless to bring, because WE f**ked up) - is really just deflecting, delaying, and tilting at windows imo.

Its the lack of cross examination here that leaves you concluding well this guys evidence is totally untested (unless you have faith in the investigator - his mate Greenberg), which stinks when you think he is right in the thick of it and is by his own admission a person of dubious character who is willing to cheat the salary cap. Why would you trust that persons evidence.

We (our Directors/the Club) have to abide by the NRL's rules, to participate in the NRL's competition. We breached those rules - I don't think that is in question? We therefore need to receive our penalty within the NRL competition, for which the NRL sets the rules. We have had our chance to make submissions against the preliminary findings. The preliminary findings stand.

We/the Club need to stop whinging now, cop our medicine, and build for the future - thankfully under an administrator, instead of the voluntary Board members who got us into this mess (or similar equivalents who have been hoping to get themselves a piece of the action).

 

[phantom eel]

Yes, Parramatta's solicitors wrote to the NRL after they got the breach notice (which is probably after the media got it) and said we also need to see the transcripts of the interviews with Seward and Ricky Stuart. The NRL refused to give these two documents over saying "You don't need those documents to be able to respond".

Sounds like a true statement imo. We should have responded to the breach notice, and to the sworn statement - rather than carry on like we had some right to see every word that Seward uttered to anyone.

 

[phantom eel]

I actually think there is an element of 'scorched earth' to it all. The former directors know it's over for them. They just want to bring the system down. Player managers, rival clubs, the NRL... I hope they all cop the blowtorch.

Yeah, it could be a massive dummy spit from the remaining Directors... who are clearly further out of their depth than they ever were. I don't think they're smart enough to scorch the earth for anything other than selfish reasons - even though I'd love to see some scrutiny turned on player managers, and how the TPAs are done at other clubs without "breaching".

What's the point in appealing? Someone explain to me because I'm lost with what's happening and why

I believe our club admin (what will be left of it) is allowed to lodge one more internal appeal to the NRL. I'd imagine that the original evidence, decision, our submission, and the final penalty are reviewed by someone not involved in the original case, along with any points made in our final appeal.

It could go one of four ways - the NRL can uphold the decision and penalty, uphold the decision and increase the penalty, uphold the decision and reduce the penalty, or overturn the decision and decide next steps. Is it worth it? The NRL clearly aren't encouraging the course of action... but maybe because they can see how stupid what's left of our Board are to risk copping further penalties over this? Everyone really should just move forward - the appointment of an administrator to the Club tomorrow will be a welcome development imo.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Didn't Seward have a non-disclosure agreement. If he's been paid a lot of money on condition of not breaching that agreement I think the club has a right to know.

 

[phantom eel]

Didn't Seward have a non-disclosure agreement. If he's been paid a lot of money on condition of not breaching that agreement I think the club has a right to know.

The club agreed to waive that agreement. The club requested that a club lawyer be present when Seward gave interviews to the NRL investigators. We don't know whether Seward was paid any money by the Club in relation to a non-disclosure agreement, and if he was the money was probably more in relation to settling/preventing a potential unfair dismissal claim being lodged, rather than him being a "whistlebower" as it were?

 

[phantom eel]

Here you go Natheel... more detail about the appeal and what the Club lodged today in this article:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...l-as-board-faces-sacking-20160718-gq8cog.html

In what might be their last act of the troubled administration, a Monday deadline to seek leave to appeal the club's salary cap sanctions with the NRL was also met, with League Central confirming receipt of documentation late in the day.

But the chances of any hearing coming before the NRL appeals committee chairman and its chairman, former High Court judge Ian Callinan, now appear to have nosedived, with the incoming administrator to have the power to abort that process or decide to discontinue funding it.

Parramatta director Paul Garrard said the board had a responsibility to appeal the severity of the NRL penalty. The deduction of 12 competition points was not being contested but after advice from their lawyers, Carroll & O'Dea, the board is arguing against the $1 million fine, believing it to be excessive, and the removal of the Eels' for-and-against record for the first nine rounds of the season when the team was deemed to be over the cap.

"You can appeal on a number of different areas," Garrard said. "We feel the penalty is too severe. It could be mitigated by a lot of the very good governance work that has been implemented in the last 12 months. We're seeking mediation around the excessive penalties that were dished out.

"The $1 million fine ... we've got a responsibly to do that, to try and mitigate that somehow."

So nothing to do with Greenburg/Seward/evidence really... just bring on the adminstrator and move forward, I say!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The club agreed to waive that agreement. The club requested that a club lawyer be present when Seward gave interviews to the NRL investigators. We don't know whether Seward was paid any money by the Club in relation to a non-disclosure agreement, and if he was the money was probably more in relation to settling/preventing a potential unfair dismissal claim being lodged, rather than him being a "whistlebower" as it were?

Without financial incentive why would anyone agree to an NDA?

 

[strider]

I am led to believe we got the tape(s) and transcribed them ourselves (well our lawyers did) anyway.

So they happily gave us tapes of his interview, but not of sewards?

That sounds dodgy as hell

 

[emjaycee]

So they happily gave us tapes of his interview, but not of sewards?

That sounds dodgy as hell

No one else gave a sworn statement.

 

[T-Boon]

No one else gave a sworn statement.

Thats the dodgiest bit.
They changed the procedure for some reason. It seems likely that the interview included things the NRL did not want to the Eels to know so they had him sign a statement so they could exclude those things ...Who did the statement up for him?
I'd be happy with Parra saying we would be prepared to drop further legal action if you provide the transcript.

 

[84 Baby]

Actual & perceived deception are akin.
The three most likely reasons in order IMO are:
1. There is no difference between tape and statement and NRL don't want the saga to continue wasting time waiting for us to listen to tape, but in doing so are contributing to the wastage of time
2. There is no difference between tape and statement and NRL DO want the saga to continue to allow public (media) opinion to fester against us
3. There is a difference that'd f**k up there case

 

[84 Baby]

And it's like the fact the board should have ratted on the old mob instead of adding to it, the best way to highlight their guilt is give them the evidence of it

 

[strider]

No one else gave a sworn statement.

Sorry but it is dodgy as hell .... they are CLEARLY trying to hide stuff

It doesnt help our case at all ... hang our board in church street for all i care .... but it doesnt give you any faith in the NRL if they are so clearly hiding things

 

[strider]

Actual & perceived deception are akin.
The three most likely reasons in order IMO are:
1. There is no difference between tape and statement and NRL don't want the saga to continue wasting time waiting for us to listen to tape, but in doing so are contributing to the wastage of time
2. There is no difference between tape and statement and NRL DO want the saga to continue to allow public (media) opinion to fester against us
3. There is a difference that'd f**k up there case

0. There is stuff in the recordings that does nothing to help parra's case but is very bad for the NRL and they don't want it out there

 

[Gronk]

0. There is stuff in the recordings that does nothing to help parra's case but is very bad for the NRL and they don't want it out there

100% Could be anything, but advice given to Seward by his mentor might bite hard.