Salary Cap

[Gary Gutful]

Bullshit Pou. It is all the fault of the f**kwit faction I don't like, not the one I support.

 

[Chipmunk]

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

It does seem like this arrangement would have to be allowed under the Third Party rules. On a larger scale, if this arrangement wasn't allowed then the NRL is saying that if the club entered into a contract for Bunnings to supply outdoor furniture that none of their players could then have a TPA with Coles. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

What a bullshit crap article, so the NRL is "investigating" a TPA at the eels. I reckon the NRL "investigate" plenty of TPA not just at our club but other clubs as well. It's probably a "tick and flick" plus some discussions with the club / player manager etc.

But they are never reported in the media because no one gives a f**k!!! But it makes good reading to report on the "investigation" with eels, as we are already having a cap review done so it creates headlines and eels sells papers.

Nothing will come of it and we won't start on -4 points, but until the season starts the media will continue to suggest the eels season is f**ked because of the cap issues as it sells!!!

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

It does seem like this arrangement would have to be allowed under the Third Party rules. On a larger scale, if this arrangement wasn't allowed then the NRL is saying that if the club entered into a contract for Bunnings to supply outdoor furniture that none of their players could then have a TPA with Coles. That's just ridiculous.

Yes. It is fair enough that they check out deals like this though. As long as the supply agreement with the TP is at market rates, there should be no problem. A problem would arise if a club contracted with a TP to acquire goods / services at a significant premium, and that TP then effectively passed that premium on to a player employed by the club.

 

[84 Baby]

Yes. It is fair enough that they check out deals like this though. As long as the supply agreement with the TP is at market rates, there should be no problem. A problem would arise if a club contracted with a TP to acquire goods / services at a significant premium, and that TP then effectively passed that premium on to a player employed by the club.

Agreed but there is no mention of non-arm's length terms so it's obvious muckraking and Proszenko should be ridiculed as such

 

[emjaycee]

I reckon we have breached in this case.
The 2 companies are associated and we didn't declare that association when we lodged the TPA, thereby not giving the NRL a chance to approve the TPA with all relevant information.

Whoever signed off the declaration at the time is at fault.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Agreed but there is no mention of non-arm's length terms so it's obvious muckraking and Proszenko should be ridiculed as such

By 'they' I mean the NRL, not the SMH

 

[Twizzle]

Agreed but there is no mention of non-arm's length terms so it's obvious muckraking and Proszenko should be ridiculed as such

What would he write about if he cant have a cheap shot at us ?

If there is a leak somewhere, he seems to be their outlet.

 

[84 Baby]

By 'they' I mean the NRL, not the SMH

Some would argue that 'they' don't. The bigger cap breaches are usually uncovered by 'journalism', so more likely club/player/agent whistleblowers

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I reckon we have breached in this case.
The 2 companies are associated and we didn't declare that association when we lodged the TPA, thereby not giving the NRL a chance to approve the TPA with all relevant information.

Whoever signed off the declaration at the time is at fault.

What if the TPA came first?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I reckon we have breached in this case.
The 2 companies are associated and we didn't declare that association when we lodged the TPA, thereby not giving the NRL a chance to approve the TPA with all relevant information.

Whoever signed off the declaration at the time is at fault.

In the absence of information not included in the SMH article, why are we any more associated with the Moss companies than we are with our telephony supplier, electricity supplier, etc? I would presume that we'd have a fixed term contract with those suppliers too?

 

[Bigfella]

I reckon we have breached in this case.
The 2 companies are associated and we didn't declare that association when we lodged the TPA, thereby not giving the NRL a chance to approve the TPA with all relevant information.

Whoever signed off the declaration at the time is at fault.

But surely we can't run the Seward defence again?

Isn't there primary concern the overall governance techniques which allowed individuals to sign off on things which should t have passed muster?

That might be the worst possible scenarios

 

[emjaycee]

What if the TPA came first?

I reckon it did and that's what I meant.
TPA agreed in 2014.
Breaches identified and penalty imposed in mid-2015, including "good behaviour bond" for further breaches.

This 'breach' although it may have occurred in 2014 wasn't identified until late 2015 therefore I don't think it should result in loss of points.

 

[emjaycee]

But surely we can't run the Seward defence again?

Isn't there primary concern the overall governance techniques which allowed individuals to sign off on things which should t have passed muster?

That might be the worst possible scenarios

Yep, I would imagine that is the NRL's primary concern... my challenge is that if this occurred before they raised this concern (and threatened penalties for not correcting the concern) then they cannot necessarily apply the penalty after the fact.

Of course it is the NRL so they can, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[emjaycee]

In the absence of information not included in the SMH article, why are we any more associated with the Moss companies than we are with our telephony supplier, electricity supplier, etc? I would presume that we'd have a fixed term contract with those suppliers too?

But do we have TPA's with those suppliers?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

But do we have TPA's with those suppliers?

'We' may or may not (and of course, if we did, we may have disclosed that the company supplied us with electricity). But there's no reason why a player or his agent couldn't procure sponsorship from an organisation like Telstra.

I don't see that the simple act of supplying a club makes a TP an associate. The terms of the supply deal would be key.

 

[84 Baby]

So basically our 'issue' is we didn't tell NRL that one company was a subsidiary of another. Something the NRL should be able to do themselves

 

[El Diablo]

the NRL are just trying to find an excuse to say they have to control the board

 

[El Diablo]

our CEO isn't happy the NRL leaked this

 

[Gronk]

FMD. Foxsports are running analysis on our season if we are docked 4 points.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...l/news-story/3defe27550f56e2c1142589d0da52681