Salary Cap

[T.S Quint]

Chevy was hilarious!

Actually he was very good in his stint in Community as well. Shame he was a f**kwit no one wanted to work with and had to leave.

 

[T.S Quint]

I don't even know who the plumber is....

 

[Bazal]

Is the plumber Mario? Because that was a shithouse movie....

 

[T.S Quint]

Is the plumber Mario? Because that was a shithouse movie....

 

[yy_cheng]

Is the plumber Mario? Because that was a shithouse movie....

if it's mario then it is eelavation

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Since when does it cost $15,000 for a trip to f**king Seattle!

He obviously flew Qantas business or first.

 

[strider]

For those amongst us who are a little slow on the uptake, the seattle thing was what's called a "junket". A freebie. Purpose: to look like a club that you can get junkets from and be more enticing for players to come and play for.

You know how we always roll our eyes at the Roosters getting all the big names. They have connections. Playing there has it's perks. Why can't we try and play that game too?

You can only pay players a capped amount ... but there are loopholes and we are now trying to find them.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

To be honest, Sharp coming out with the 'we won't be bullied' stuff is pretty stupid. OK, don't get bullied and lose the NRL license....your choice.

By all means challenge the parts of the breach that you disagree with, but this rubbish about refusing the independent review, and saying we'll hire our own 'independent' reviewers, who report to us, shows how f**king arrogant and stupid everyone seems to become when they get involved with our club. A really, really dumb thing to say. Actually it deserves saying again.....f**k it's a dumb thing to do.

 

[emjaycee]

Warriors, Storm, Bulldogs all had significant breaches of the salary cap and none were forced to conduct independent reveiws under the threat of losing points. They lost points for breaching the cap.

So take our 4 points of us now and forget the independent review and let us start 2015 with a clean slate.

Oh hang on, Smith wasnt in charge when those 3 clubs breached and independent reviews are his brainchild as a means to get NRL appointed 'independent' directors into each and every club.

So it's easy Smith. Demand EVERY club has an independent review and implements the recommendations or not get licenced renewed but dont use our salary cap breach as a cover for your true agenda.

 

[strider]

To be honest, Sharp coming out with the 'we won't be bullied' stuff is pretty stupid. OK, don't get bullied and lose the NRL license....your choice.

By all means challenge the parts of the breach that you disagree with, but this rubbish about refusing the independent review, and saying we'll hire our own 'independent' reviewers, who report to us, shows how f**king arrogant and stupid everyone seems to become when they get involved with our club. A really, really dumb thing to say. Actually it deserves saying again.....f**k it's a dumb thing to do.

did sharp actually say "bullied" ... the story has it in quotes in the headline and the intro - but there is NOT any actual quoted part from sharp where he says bullied .... maybe he mentioned it to the writer????

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Warriors, Storm, Bulldogs all had significant breaches of the salary cap and none were forced to conduct independent reveiws under the threat of losing points. They lost points for breaching the cap.

So take our 4 points of us now and forget the independent review and let us start 2015 with a clean slate.

Oh hang on, Smith wasnt in charge when those 3 clubs breached and independent reviews are his brainchild as a means to get NRL appointed 'independent' directors into each and every club.

So it's easy Smith. Demand EVERY club has an independent review and implements the recommendations or not get licenced renewed but dont use our salary cap breach as a cover for your true agenda.

Nah, mate I don't think I entirely agree. And I have zero problem with one or two independent directors being appointed to our club or any club (if that is indeed what he wants). The clubs' decisions have the capacity to greatly enhance or erode the value of the NRL as a whole, and the clubs get value of out of their attachment to the NRL (as a whole). Our club (i.e. our members collectively and the people they appoint to represent them) has demonstrated that it is manifestly incapable of staying out the headlines for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: And on top of *wanting* to resist the push for an independent review, coming out in the media the day after the provisional penalty is announced with a heap of bluster is hardly the best way to go about it. It will just destroy any chance of leniency towards any 2nd tier issues we have for the remainder of this year.

What happened 5 years ago shouldn't be the basis of determining the best course of action now......if we make decisions based on what we did 5 years ago we'd never change. We hire SK 5 years ago.

Let's say you're right and the result of an 'independent' review is a recommendation that the club allow 1 or 2 NRL-vetted directors to be appointed to the board. What is it that you don't like about that? That they are not appointed by members?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

did sharp actually say "bullied" ... the story has it in quotes in the headline and the intro - but there is NOT any actual quoted part from sharp where he says bullied .... maybe he mentioned it to the writer????

"We're prepared to fight for our belief and our brand. I don't think we should be bullied for what's happened here," Sharp said on Friday night.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/parramatta-eels/parramatta-chairman-steve-sharp-says-eels-wont-be-bullied-into-changes-by-nrl-20150522-gh7ux3.html

Pretty open and shut I'd think mate.

 

[strider]

Warriors, Storm, Bulldogs all had significant breaches of the salary cap and none were forced to conduct independent reveiws under the threat of losing points. They lost points for breaching the cap.

So take our 4 points of us now and forget the independent review and let us start 2015 with a clean slate.

Oh hang on, Smith wasnt in charge when those 3 clubs breached and independent reviews are his brainchild as a means to get NRL appointed 'independent' directors into each and every club.

So it's easy Smith. Demand EVERY club has an independent review and implements the recommendations or not get licenced renewed but dont use our salary cap breach as a cover for your true agenda.

yeah I ranted and raved earlier in this thread (in a not so eloquent manner) ... but it all just seemed a bit whacked to me

when I watched Dave Smith's press interview on it - it was like a total contradiction - almost in the one sentence he played it down but then played it up as "unprecedented" .... why do we have to prove we can manage a cap when we are doing that right now?

teams are fined every year for cap breaches like ours ... do we ever hear about 2nd tier NYC cap breaches? Or even NYC breaches in general? I never have ... I'd guess it happens though ... yet now for us it's lumped in there and we have a mountain instead of a molehill

massive agenda driven shit from the NRL

 

[Twizzle]

Nice to see some strong leadership.

 

[strider]

"We're prepared to fight for our belief and our brand. I don't think we should be bullied for what's happened here," Sharp said on Friday night.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/parramatta-eels/parramatta-chairman-steve-sharp-says-eels-wont-be-bullied-into-changes-by-nrl-20150522-gh7ux3.html

Pretty open and shut I'd think mate.

hehe - I need to see an optometrist

 

[Bigfella]

Sounds like we are keen to have the four points deducted.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

teams are fined every year for cap breaches like ours ... do we ever hear about 2nd tier NYC cap breaches? Or even NYC breaches in general? I never have ... I'd guess it happens though ... yet now for us it's lumped in there are we have a mountain instead of a molehill

massive agenda driven shit from the NRL

How many of them were $400k over the limit, and flagrantly so. While we may accept that the current administration were landed with this problem by the previous clowns, the NRL can't say 'oh well it was the previous lot'......the NRL can't stop 'the previous lot' from returning to power at the next election.

If the $400k + breach sticks after we challenge it, we f**king well deserve to be punished. This is not the result of minor variations due to match payments / bonuses (which is what I think pretty much all recent breaches have derived from).

 

[emjaycee]

Nah, mate I don't think I entirely agree. And I have zero problem with one or two independent directors being appointed to our club or any club (if that is indeed what he wants). The clubs' decisions have the capacity to greatly enhance or erode the value of the NRL as a whole, and the clubs get value of out of their attachment to the NRL (as a whole). Our club (i.e. our members collectively and the people they appoint to represent them) has demonstrated that it is manifestly incapable of staying out the headlines for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: And on top of *wanting* to resist the push for an independent review, coming out in the media the day after the provisional penalty is announced with a heap of bluster is hardly the best way to go about it. It will just destroy any chance of leniency towards any 2nd tier issues we have for the remainder of this year.

What happened 5 years ago shouldn't be the basis of determining the best course of action now......if we make decisions based on what we did 5 years ago we'd never change. We hire SK 5 years ago.

Let's say you're right and the result of an 'independent' review is a recommendation that the club allow 1 or 2 NRL-vetted directors to be appointed to the board. What is it that you don't like about that? That they are not appointed by members?

Mate i am all for independant directors that arent voted on by members comprising part of the Board and in fact have provided my views on a new board structure to the Club's CEOs (both of them) and to at least one director.

I just don't believe Smith should hide his true agenda and that all 16 clubs ahould have the same requirements applied.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

hehe - I need to see an optometrist

I actually thought the same thing as you when I read the headline......I couldn't initially find the quote and thought some sub-editor had creatively added it to the headline

 

[strider]

How many of them were $400k over the limit, and flagrantly so. While we may accept that the current administration were landed with this problem by the previous clowns, the NRL can't say 'oh well it was the previous lot'......the NRL can't stop 'the previous lot' from returning to power at the next election.

If the $400k + breach sticks after we challenge it, we f**king well deserve to be punished. This is not the result of minor variations due to match payments / bonuses (which is what I think pretty much all recent breaches have derived from).

thats my point ... it is NOT $400K+ of NRL and NRL 2nd tier cap .... it's about 330K - apparently 60K of which is Lasalo playing 4 mins in a 40 point flogging - the rest is NYC cap stuff ... do they normally report NYC stuff? I dunno maybe they do but it's never be explicitly distinguished like it is being with us in such an "unprecedented" way

I understand the current admin were dumb - and I understand it is a combo of that dumb + the idiocy of Spags/Ossie/SK/Ricky n co .... I mean why did we: a) take Lasalo as the 19th man? b) play him for 4 mins when we were already dead and burried? ... I dunno maybe we had no other option? But why didn't we clear it with the NRL like the process is?