Salary Cap

[Twizzle]

How would that change the determination of whether we breached salary cap rules in 2015?

What exactly do you expect Schooey to have done in this case? He can't change what was disclosed to the NRL a year or more ago, and he can't change the terms of whatever contract Watmough signed with the TPs.

I would have expected him to investigate all contracts and report to us as to whether we have a potential salary cap issue.

Isn't that what a consultant does and what he was engaged to do ?

Otherwise why would we have appointed him ?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Is it just me or does it feel like we have ankle monitors on us and meanwhile the Roosters are unmonitored and breaking into houses n stealing cars ?

We haven't yet been found to have done anything wrong. And I don't think we will be on this particular count. Despite what the SMH article says, the cap rules as published on the NRL website simply say that cap-exempt TPAs can't involve an entity that is 'associated' with the club. This would be really pushing the definition of an 'associate'. Telstra, Optus, etc would be associates of all clubs under this interpretation.

http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I would have expected him to investigate all contracts and report to us as to whether we have a potential salary cap issue.

Isn't that what a consultant does and what he was engaged to do ?

Otherwise why would we have appointed him ?

Again, how would the change the current situation? If we breached the cap , we breached it.

And, as has been raised by someone above....he may well have raised the issue.....we don't know whether he did or didn't....so there's absolutely no evidence that we've got no value out of him.

 

[El Diablo]

Do we know what would happen if my auntie had balls ?

your uncle wouldn't be happy

 

[El Diablo]

these TPA's are a joke

i'd bet the NRL doesn't forensically go through them all at every club and there would be conflicts of interest everywhere

 

[Twizzle]

Again, how would the change the current situation? If we breached the cap , we breached it.

And, as has been raised by someone above....he may well have raised the issue.....we don't know whether he did or didn't....so there's absolutely no evidence that we've got no value out of him.

If he advises we have a potential problem we can address the issue with perhaps alternative TPAs or the like prior to signing new players like Jennings. If Watmong's TPA arrangement is a problem then it wont go away in 2016 will it ? Schoey was appointed in 2015 like you say.

It would have given us a heads to to address the problem.

He may not be fully to blame as I'm sure that there a few decision makers involved but it was his job to act as our consultant and advise us. As to whether we get full value out of him, time will tell but I see your point.

 

[parra-matters]

So can you tell me that not one TPA at the roosters doesn't have some kind of link to uncle nick or his associates?

 

[84 Baby]

We haven't yet been found to have done anything wrong. And I don't think we will be on this particular count. Despite what the SMH article says, the cap rules as published on the NRL website simply say that cap-exempt TPAs can't involve an entity that is 'associated' with the club. This would be really pushing the definition of an 'associate'. Telstra, Optus, etc would be associates of all clubs under this interpretation.

http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

All those sportswear sponsors will be spewing now that their TPAs are no longer cap exempt

 

[phantom eel]

We haven't yet been found to have done anything wrong. And I don't think we will be on this particular count. Despite what the SMH article says, the cap rules as published on the NRL website simply say that cap-exempt TPAs can't involve an entity that is 'associated' with the club. This would be really pushing the definition of an 'associate'. Telstra, Optus, etc would be associates of all clubs under this interpretation.

http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

Agree. The "entity" the TPA agreement is with is not the same "entity" that the club has dealings with.

Sure, there are common key personnel, and ownership... which makes things look a little murky. But hopefully the "entity" definition loophole is enough for them to say we were technically doing the right thing, and they need to tighten their rules if they don't want thing slike this to happen (which will impact on TPAs for players at many many more clubs than ours).

 

[phantom eel]

I think we can work out where the leaks are coming from.

Bring back 3P! :crazy:

 

[parra-matters]

if nothing else it has given us something to talk about today lol.

 

[phantom eel]

Yep, better than zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :lol:

 

[Delboy]

So , will he NRL advise us that they have done the same sort of review on the Broncs, Bulldogs and Rorters. Let me think, the Broncs ex manager didn't turn up, so dropped, Greenberg will never suggest the Bullgribs do anything wrong and Uncle Nick - enough said

Who does our ex chairman Talk to again, ummmm

 

[ash411]

So, let's say Coke sponsors a player.

Would we get punished because the board drinks coke?

This is stupid, and part of me wants us to just get the -4 so they'll be satisfied and leave us alone.

All the press and negative rubbish is doing more damage than losing 4 points will, IMO.

 

[phantom eel]

Who does our ex chairman Talk to again, ummmm

Could this have been the "big surprise" that Pricey mentioned might come to pass, after he, Ben Smith and Spags etc lost last year's elections? :sarcasm:

 

[ash411]

So , will he NRL advise us that they have done the same sort of review on the Broncs, Bulldogs and Rorters. Let me think, the Broncs ex manager didn't turn up, so dropped, Greenberg will never suggest the Bullgribs do anything wrong and Uncle Nick - enough said

Who does our ex chairman Talk to again, ummmm

Don't forget the Cowgirls as well... It was pretty obvious they were rorting, and the NRL was just like, "Meh, no need to look into that, they're fine.."

 

[phantom eel]

So, let's say Coke sponsors a player.

Would we get punished because the board drinks coke?

This is stupid, and part of wants us to just get the -4 so they'll be satisfied and leave us alone.

All the press and negative rubbish is doing more damage than losing 4 points will, IMO.

I'd be happy enough if they forced us onto 3 year board cycles with one third elected annually, as a deal to avoid us copping a -4 point penalty over this (or any other cap irregularity turned up by the review).

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Just to be clear.....the NRL have said nothing so far in regard to the Watmough TPA.

 

[emjaycee]

Some decent info is being leaked to the media here. Imo the NRL is preparing the fans for -4 point start. You don't leak this kind of info to the media for no reason!!

If we do start on -4, who is responsible ? Or will there be more scapegoats and excuses given.

Not sure this issue can result in -4 points.
If this is proved to be correct, it occurred before the cap penalty was imposed and the risk of losing 4 points which if I recall correctly was for "any further breaches of the salary cap" - not ones that occurred before the penalty.

I would suggest the NRL is applying pressure on us to meet the conditions of the audit and if we do, this issue may just disappear or become a very minor infraction.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Bring back 3P! :crazy:

I'm sure you'll agree they were also undermined by rival factions. It takes two to tango.