Rumours and Stuff

[Chipmunk]

Mannah isn't retiring and Auva's is under contract for next year - see PD

How do we see PD?

 

[84 Baby]

The moratorium is for the staff members, not the club. It's to try to encourage a whistleblower to come forward.

Yeah just like with Seward... but I guess his 'punishment' really just reinforces what you said

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Look in a mirror and say 'Twizzle' five times.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

How do we see PD?

I think u eat the worm

 

[BlueAndGoldPride]

I would like access to PD if it's possible.
Would be nice to read some footy chat.

 

[El Diablo]

WTF? The offer of a moratorium would have been nice last year you pricks!!

they did

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-for-cap-rorting-secrets-20170718-gxdr2o.html

Parramatta officials suspected of having knowledge of salary cap cheating were also made aware of the moratorium. Had they come forward from the outset, it's likely a moratorium would have been granted and the officials could have confessed without fear of reprisals.

However, the majority within the blue and gold boardroom denied any knowledge, resulting in the "gang of five" ultimately being sacked by the NSW government. The Eels were also fined and docked 12 competition points, which ended their finals campaign. Only last week, former Parramatta CEO Scott Seward, charged with fraud offences, escaped conviction after cooperating with NRL and police investigations.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

they did

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-for-cap-rorting-secrets-20170718-gxdr2o.html

Credit to the Go5 for sticking solid I suppose.

 

[Happy MEel]

The moratorium is for the staff members, not the club. It's to try to encourage a whistleblower to come forward.

Not what I read. It stated that they could get off the fine and points penalty.

From the article above:
"Should Manly agree to co-operate fully, the NRL's code of conduct can grant a moratorium period for full and complete disclosure. In return, the NRL can waive potential fines and loss of points."

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Not what I read. It stated that they could get off the fine and points penalty.

From the article above:
"Should Manly agree to co-operate fully, the NRL's code of conduct can grant a moratorium period for full and complete disclosure. In return, the NRL can waive potential fines and loss of points."

Which article above? The ones I followed do not include that quote. Rather, they include stuff like the following:

This week the NRL offered immunity to Manly officials in exchange for coming clean over potential breaches.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...investigation-into-manly-20170719-gxe57p.html

Edit: Don't worry. It's in the article I quoted

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Are we that small minded that we are now going to judge everyone by an Internet forum?

Not only witch, but also Bart and any other poster that doesn't suit our cyber standards.

Everyone has had their moments and the anonymity of the internet encourages comments and behaviour that you would not normally do. Besides the odd true Gentlemen like Eelementary, yy cheng and I bleed blue and gold everyone has been a f**kwit one time or another.

Some of you need to get out more.

Merkins need to be more entertaining than annoying. They need to either be more entertaining or less annoying. That's the only rule. You're borderline, by the way.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Parramatta officials suspected of having knowledge of salary cap cheating were also made aware of the moratorium. Had they come forward from the outset, it's likely a moratorium would have been granted and the officials could have confessed without fear of reprisals.

I don't think this moratorium would save anyone from being charged with fraud by the NSW Police.

 

[T.S Quint]

The moratorium is for the staff members, not the club. It's to try to encourage a whistleblower to come forward.

This is from the article posted:

Should Manly agree to co-operate fully, the NRL's code of conduct can grant a moratorium period for full and complete disclosure. In return, the NRL can waive potential fines and loss of points.

The author of this article may just be typing bullshit, but if it is true then it does seem a bit odd that the club can escape punishment simply by admitting fault.

 

[T.S Quint]

Not what I read. It stated that they could get off the fine and points penalty.

From the article above:
"Should Manly agree to co-operate fully, the NRL's code of conduct can grant a moratorium period for full and complete disclosure. In return, the NRL can waive potential fines and loss of points."

Beat me to it.

 

[T.S Quint]

I don't think this moratorium would save anyone from being charged with fraud by the NSW Police.

Sure, they can be charged...but then they will barely cop a slap on the wrist from the courts anyway, so what's the point.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

This is from the article posted:



The author of this article may just be typing bullshit, but if it is true then it does seem a bit odd that the club can escape punishment simply by admitting fault.

Yeh, you did read the edit to my post?

But regardless, this part of the article seems to be pulled right out of someone's arse. It doesn't suggest that the NRL have offered any such protection to Manly, it is simply describing an apparent provision in the code of conduct.

 

[T.S Quint]

Yeh, you did read the edit to my post?

But regardless, this part of the article seems to be pulled right out of someone's arse. It doesn't suggest that the NRL have offered any such protection to Manly, it is simply describing an apparent provision in the code of conduct.

Yes, I did see your post after I posted mine, sorry.
And I did say that part is probably just bullshit. Can't trust anything 'journos' print anymore.

 

[Chipmunk]

Sure, they can be charged...but then they will barely cop a slap on the wrist from the courts anyway, so what's the point.

I'm not actually sure they could be charged like Seward was, as Manly is privately owned. Manly would be both the victim and beneficiary of any similar crime.

 

[T.S Quint]

I'm not actually sure they could be charged like Seward was, as Manly is privately owned. Manly would be both the victim and beneficiary of any similar crime.

This could also be true.
Seward was charged with screwing over the Leagues Club members, wasn't he?
It's all up to the Integrity Unit to uncover the truth now.

f**k.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I'm not actually sure they could be charged like Seward was, as Manly is privately owned. Manly would be both the victim and beneficiary of any similar crime.

If they got involved in false invoicing etc, they could certainly be charged. But there's no suggestion that has happened

 

[Bazal]

I'm not actually sure they could be charged like Seward was, as Manly is privately owned. Manly would be both the victim and beneficiary of any similar crime.

If that's true then how does any privately owned company ever get charged with fraud?