Parramatta Leagues Club board sacked, administrator appointed

[Twizzle]

I dont think its a fair comparison to compare an NRL players situation with a common workplace scenario.

We dont know what's in their contracts.

 

[Gronk]

I dont think its a fair comparison to compare an NRL players situation with a common workplace scenario.

We dont know what's in their contracts.

Agree. I'm all behind claims for Alex Mckinnon, Yow Yeah etc, but adopt a cynical approach when Choc is in his 30's and might be playing bone on bone on worn old knees. How is it our fault that his knees are shot ? I find it odd that there is no onus on the player to provide a service.

The choc case will set a precedent for older players now. They will have to get used to 1 year contracts or 1+1+1 contracts with options in favour of clubs.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Agree. I'm all behind claims for Alex Mckinnon, Yow Yeah etc, but adopt a cynical approach when Choc is in his 30's and might be playing bone on bone on worn old knees. How is it our fault that his knees are shot ? I find it odd that there is no onus on the player to provide a service.

The choc case will set a precedent for older players now. They will have to get used to 1 year contracts or 1+1+1 contracts with options in favour of clubs.

Gronk, nobody forced our club to offer Choc a 4-year contract starting at the age of 31 (and after playing nearly 300 NRL games). The risks were there for all to see. The 'cynical approach' could arguably best describe our strategy in signing him to such a deal.

 

[hybrideel]

Exactly, i don't think even one of us mug punters thought a 4 year deal was a good idea citing his age and injury issues, which Pou then constantly argued about

 

[forward pass]

The important thing with any insurance policy is the duty of disclosure. We don't know what was disclosed when the policy was taken out so hard to say if they are right or wrong.

 

[Gronk]

The important thing with any insurance policy is the duty of disclosure. We don't know what was disclosed when the policy was taken out so hard to say if they are right or wrong.

No doubt the insurer required a medical so as to establish the condition of the insured at the commencement of the policy. Otherwise they would be unable to arrive at the current "pre-existing condition" stance. Accordingly, we should not have to pay him for the same injury that was purportedly pre-existing at the time of his commencement of service.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

In this case it's to our advantage that Greenberg is a dodgy bugger with no regard for either following or setting a precedent because payments like this should obviously be counted in the cap.

 

[emjaycee]

In this case it's to our advantage that Greenberg is a dodgy bugger with no regard for either following or setting a precedent because payments like this should obviously be counted in the cap.

I don't agree that this should be counted in the cap.
The cap is supposedly to limit the amount clubs spend on their playing roster in any given year. Once the NRL accepted that Choc could no longer form part of our playing roster, they logically could no longer include his salary in the cap.

This is distinct from who pays out the remainder of his employment contract with us, the insurance company or the club as his employer.

 

[The EELiminator]

In this case it's to our advantage that Greenberg is a dodgy bugger with no regard for either following or setting a precedent because payments like this should obviously be counted in the cap.

i think he knew that counting it in the cap would utterly destroy our recruitment for two years and decided to finally give us a break

 

[Gronk]

I don't agree that this should be counted in the cap.
The cap is supposedly to limit the amount clubs spend on their playing roster in any given year. Once the NRL accepted that Choc could no longer form part of our playing roster, they logically could no longer include his salary in the cap.

This is distinct from who pays out the remainder of his employment contract with us, the insurance company or the club as his employer.

Yet Todd insisted that the money we paid Hayne whist he tried to play NFL WAS in the cap ?

 

[emjaycee]

Yet Todd insisted that the money we paid Hayne whist he tried to play NFL WAS in the cap ?

Because at the time Hayne was a chance of returning whereas the NRL has fully accepted Watmough's retirement from the game. I'd go as far as to suggest if Watmough had miracle surgery and could suddenly play again, then his salary while 'retired' would find its way back into the cap.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I don't agree that this should be counted in the cap.
The cap is supposedly to limit the amount clubs spend on their playing roster in any given year. Once the NRL accepted that Choc could no longer form part of our playing roster, they logically could no longer include his salary in the cap.

This is distinct from who pays out the remainder of his employment contract with us, the insurance company or the club as his employer.

Then what's to stop clubs from signing older players to long contracts they have no hope of seeing out? It's like promising them a job after football.

 

[The EELiminator]

Having said that, if they'res a change of Government in the NT (highly likely) then there won't be any renewal of the deal to negotiate in any case.

not necessarily if the new government looks at the books and decides our sponsorship is giving a fair return they might allow the arrangement to continue

 

[Gary Gutful]

not necessarily if the new government looks at the books and decides our sponsorship is giving a fair return they might allow the arrangement to continue

So in other words, they'll bin it.

Bogan league fans opt for Bali over Kakadu.

 

[The EELiminator]

So in other words, they'll bin it.

Bogan league fans opt for Bali over Kakadu.

there's a fair chance they will bin it out of spite just because the other party came up with it

 

[Gary Gutful]

there's a fair chance they will bin it out of spite just because the other party came up with it

Yeah. That's what usually happens.

 

[Gronk]

not necessarily if the new government looks at the books and decides our sponsorship is giving a fair return they might allow the arrangement to continue

IIRC the NT Treasure is an Eels fan.

So yes, there is still merit in continuing the sponsorship added bonus is that Mad Max will provide better stability plus our "stars" Norman, Jennings and French (plus Michael Doolan, Troy Dargan etc) are all indigenous, which compliments the program we have with the NT RL.

Here's hoping that the new Gov see the benefit to continue. I personally think it's a great fit.

 

[Chipmunk]

not necessarily if the new government looks at the books and decides our sponsorship is giving a fair return they might allow the arrangement to continue

The entire thing is and will continue to be a political decision. The NT Sports Minister at the time is a Parra fan. It will be dead in the water.

 

[hineyrulz]

Gronk, nobody forced our club to offer Choc a 4-year contract starting at the age of 31 (and after playing nearly 300 NRL games). The risks were there for all to see. The 'cynical approach' could arguably best describe our strategy in signing him to such a deal.

As usual Barry is pretty much spot on.

Blind Freddy could see that he was a massive risk.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Exactly, i don't think even one of us mug punters thought a 4 year deal was a good idea citing his age and injury issues, which Pou then constantly argued about

The point is it didn't end up being a four year deal from the point of view of our salary cap. Everybody wins.