The board "Noted" that they needed to be secured? Fair enough, did they minute that THEY needed to secure them or did they just note that it needed to be happen?
Doesnt matter. 3rd Party Agreements need to be independent of the club. The club cannot be involved in securing them in any way.
@Ice wrote:"servicing TPA providers accordingly with hospitality and player appearances" Isn't that why people provide third party sponsorship, so they can get player appearances and the like??? Why else would they do it. And only the Eels can service the appearance as that is who the player players for. I'd assume, given the player has a responsibility first and foremost to train and play, that if a Third Party wanted the player to make an appearance somewhere, that the Third Party would need to seek some sort of approval from the club so it didn't clash with the players other duties. I honestly have no issue with that and if that is the worst of it then its a storm in a teacup and nothing ALL other clubs aren't doing. I don't need to prove it to you, if you don't think it happens then its you who has their head in the sand.
Again, it has to be independent of the club. If the club is negotiating these benefits like hospitality and player appearances, then it is a salary cap breach. Its not hard. If the player is to make an appearance somewhere, he (or his agent) has to negotiate that himself.
And if you cant prove that every other club is doing it (as irrelevant as it is) yet continue to post it like it is fact then your post loses whatever precious little credibility it had to begin with.
@Ice wrote:Re the GoodWill stuff, I think we are arguing different things there. I'm not saying the goodwill should come in the form of reduced sanctions on this board for indisrcetions of previous boards, I'm saying they have a track record of turning around the leagues club and that should buy them a bit of additional time in turning around the football club, but it shouldn't be a reduction in fines or anything like that.
So whats the boards current performance got to do with the price of tea in china then? Why bother bring up $12M profit?
@Ice wrote:I'm not pretending anything doesn't exist, I've acknowledged stuff exists. Your pretending that action should be taken before everything is fully investigated and you are making assumptions about guilt or otherwise without all the facts.
I say lets see all the facts before we execute anyone.
You say its done and dusted and what you've seen in the media is enough to hang the lot of them.
I hope you're not a lawyer.
Im not saying its done and dusted (there could well be more systematic cheating left to uncover) - but what has been seen in the media IS enough to hang the lot of them. Its a deadset smoking gun, with the boards autograph on the bottom of it.