Cap cheating, pill popping Eels in CRISIS 2016 thread

Ice wrote:
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.

ryno_ wrote:

Doesnt matter. 3rd Party Agreements need to be independent of the club. The club cannot be involved in securing them in any way.



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.



So whats the boards current performance got to do with the price of tea in china then? Why bother bring up $12M profit?



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.

You suggestion that a player should in no way consult with his primary employer to regarding appearances as a representative of that employer is absurd in the extreme. It makes everything else you say totally irrelevant.

I'm saying, the relevance of their performance is that they CAN turn things around and have proven it so shouldn't be kicked off the board until such time as a full investigation proves they are personal responsible for and guilty of systematic salary cap breaches. It doesn't help Parra and it doesn't help the league, but it would certainly sell a shit load of papers. If you think it should happen before then, then so be it, nothing I can do can change that.

RE every other club, I don't need to prove it, its a known fact. All clubs allow players to make appearances for TPA's. IF they said you can't do it, then they wouldn't, but they do, ergo, they all sanction it.

"what has been seen in the media IS enough to hang the lot of them" haha, deadest that will do me, judgement by media. One of the best I've ever heard.

Ice wrote:

You suggestion that a player should in no way consult with his primary employer to regarding appearances as a representative of that employer is absurd in the extreme.  It makes everything else you say totally irrelevant.

 

That isn't anyones suggestion, it's the bloody rules! Saying you don't agree with the rules is no defence for not complying with them.
Maybe once you've read this you could forward it to the board.
From the NRL website
Unlimited - Players can earn unlimited amounts from corporate sponsors who are not associated with the club and who do not use the game's intellectual property (no club logos, jerseys or emblems) provided these are pre-approved. These agreements may not be negotiated by the club as an incentive for a player to sign a contract, nor can they be guaranteed by the club.

Ice wrote:
You suggestion that a player should in no way consult with his primary employer to regarding appearances as a representative of that employer is absurd in the extreme.  It makes everything else you say totally irrelevant.

Firstly, thats not my suggestion. Learn to read. I'm not saying the player shouldnt consult with his employer for appearances - im saying the club shouldnt consult the third party for appearances. Funnily enough, the NRL say the same thing.

ryno_ wrote:
If the player is to make an appearance somewhere, he (or his agent) has to negotiate that himself.

The third party can't consult the club. The club cannot approach the third party. The player (or his agent) must do both of these things. Its baffling that you cant grasp that.

The Eels board WERE organsing appearances and benefits for third parties. This. Is. Against. The. Rules. It could not be more clear cut.

Ice wrote:
RE every other club, I don't need to prove it, its a known fact.  All clubs allow players to make appearances for TPA's.  IF they said you can't do it, then they wouldn't, but they do, ergo, they all sanction it.

Of course clubs _allow_ their players to make appearances for third parties. Thats not the issue. Clubs arent allowed to organise benefits themselves, which is what the Eels have been caught doing.

Ice wrote:"what has been seen in the media IS enough to hang the lot of them"  haha, deadest that will do me, judgement by media.  One of the best I've ever heard. :beer: :beer:

No, not judgement by media. Judgement by the evidence provided. I dont care what the media's opinion or take on the evidence is. Looking at the evidence provided, its a smoking gun. It is literally a signed document stating their intention to cheat the cap. Literally. Its baffling that a legal document, signed by the board, outlining their cheating is not good enough for you.

Your either dont understand the rules they are breaking or have your head buried in the sand. Judging from your last post, its probably a bit of both.

I get that a player will have to say to a coach "Hey Brad, Mick's Panel Beaters (a TPA)want me to be there for a photo shoot on Tuesday 9:00am. Can I accept this or do we have training?" What I don't accept is the coach/club rep replying "9 is no good, how about 10? And of course see what match dates they want the free corporate box and I'll leave the tickets and key to the fully stocked bar fridge with Mildred at reception for them.".

Krump wrote:
That isn't anyones suggestion, it's the bloody rules! Saying you don't agree with the rules is no defence for not complying with them.
Maybe once you've read this you could forward it to the board.
From the NRL website
Unlimited - Players can earn unlimited amounts from corporate sponsors who are not associated with the club and who do not use the game's intellectual property (no club logos, jerseys or emblems) provided these are pre-approved. These agreements may not be negotiated by the club as an incentive for a player to sign a contract, nor can they be guaranteed by the club.

I'm saying if a player is going to a luncheon put on by his third party sponsor (not in uniform and not as an Eels Player, yeah like that happens), lets say its a car dealer, then I'm pretty sure the Club would expect the player seeks permission to go or at the very least their blessing, its a common courtesy. It absolutely happens at every club. I'm not saying it isn't a breach of the rules, I'm just saying that they are daft rules they all clubs mould to their own benefit and anyone who doesn't believe that is a fruit cake and if that is the worst of it at the Eels then whoop de do. The real issue the NRL need to address is the absurdity of the rules and if they RLPA had the nuts, they'd challenge the rules cause they are an absolute restraint of trade, draconian and all they lead to are issues like this.

Seriously, what kind of a business that is truly NOT associated with a club is going to fork over their hard earned for nothing from that club. The best result of this whole investigation will be if they realise how stupid and totally unworkable the rules are and they change them.

Every big name player that signs gets a figure that is floated out and its always $XX plus $xx in TPA's. Its horse shit. Or when a player leaves a club disgruntled because they didn't receive TPA payments. IF the club was at arms length and cant be involved in the process how can the player gripe about not receiving TPA payments, surely those incidents are a private matter between the player manager and these Mysterious Third Parties who are willing to pay oodles for nothing.


Its all a debacle.

Im not trying to justify anything the Eels have done, im just saying the whole fu.cking thing is a joke.

Dip wrote:I get that a player will have to say to a coach "Hey Brad, Mick's Panel Beaters (a TPA)want me to be there for a photo shoot on Tuesday 9:00am. Can I accept this or do we have training?" What I don't accept is the coach/club rep replying "9 is no good, how about 10? And of course see what match dates they want the free corporate box and I'll leave the tickets and key to the fully stocked bar fridge with Mildred at reception for them.".

I have no problem with this, that they cant do it is a joke.

The only people with their head buried in the sand are the people that think it doesn't happen at every club and the people who think it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

ryno_ wrote:

Firstly, thats not my suggestion. Learn to read. I'm not saying the player shouldnt consult with his employer for appearances - im saying the club shouldnt consult the third party for appearances. Funnily enough, the NRL say the same thing.



The third party can't consult the club. The club cannot approach the third party. The player (or his agent) must do both of these things. Its baffling that you cant grasp that.

The Eels board WERE organsing appearances and benefits for third parties. This. Is. Against. The. Rules. It could not be more clear cut.



Of course clubs _allow_ their players to make appearances for third parties. Thats not the issue. Clubs arent allowed to organise benefits themselves, which is what the Eels have been caught doing.



No, not judgement by media. Judgement by the evidence provided. I dont care what the media's opinion or take on the evidence is. Looking at the evidence provided, its a smoking gun. It is literally a signed document stating their intention to cheat the cap. Literally. Its baffling that a legal document, signed by the board, outlining their cheating is not good enough for you.

Your either dont understand the rules they are breaking or have your head buried in the sand. Judging from your last post, its probably a bit of both.

So you have seen all the document in full context or not? And are you willing to make a judgment without seeing all the evidence and all the facts and the full context of the board discussions?

Again, im not saying its right and I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying lets see what decisions are made when ALL the information/facts/evidence are fully investigated. That is it, that is my whole point right there. YOu can twist all the other bullcrap you and I are both posting as much as you like, but its all irrelevant to the fact that we are currently the NRL Champions, cause if you beat the Champions, that makes you the Champion.........................

Just weighing in on the corporate box, that happens everywhere. I've been to a handful of games in every code around Australia thanks to sponsors either from mates I know or our own.

Surely there's nothing wrong with that, that's the perks of being a sponsor.

What players do in their own time is their own business. That includes TPA's. It's not like training sessions get sprung on them the day before. These are professional athletes who's schedules are planned for the first 20 weeks of the competition (and yes Ice I have sat in a professional athletes lounge room while he compared his schedule with a Wests Tiger player). I didn't take a photo so hopefully my word is bond.

Now a good player to have on your TPA is a bloke who between the morning weights session and afternoon ball session grabs some lunch at shows up at the workshop unannounced at lunchtime to have lunch with the mechanics. The staff are happy and it's good promo for my business, his pic on the wall with my cars, people see him driving one of my cars. People notice the sticker down the side promoting my business. That's why I front up the TPA cash, it's reward and recognition for my employees and promo for my business.

A shit player is one who drives my car around, only does the bare minimum appearance at the xmas party and leaves before any of the employees kids can get a photo or autograph and never misses cashing a cheque.

Once again not at liberty to say who they were but both real Tigers examples getting a TPA from the same car dealership.

I will say a car is along way from a house when talking TPA's

Ice wrote:I'm saying if a player is going to a luncheon put on by his third party sponsor (not in uniform and not as an Eels Player, yeah like that happens), lets say its a car dealer, then I'm pretty sure the Club would expect the player seeks permission to go or at the very least their blessing, its a common courtesy.  

You simpleton, nobody is saying that scenario is against the rules.

What would be against the rules is if the third party rings the club and asks for Corey Norman (just as an example) to come down at lunch to meet and greet. Which is what the club was organising. If Norman goes to the club and tells them its on, thats fine.

Ice wrote:It absolutely happens at every club.

Of course your scenario happens at every club. Its not against the rules for a player to sort out a third party appearance.

Ice wrote:I'm not saying it isn't a breach of the rules

Its not a breach of the rules.

Ice wrote:I'm just saying that they are daft rules they all clubs mould to their own benefit and anyone who doesn't believe that is a fruit cake

Proof or GTFO

Ice wrote:and if that is the worst of it at the Eels then whoop de do.

600k of dodgy deals in one meeting? whoop de do indeed.

Ice wrote:The real issue the NRL need to address is the absurdity of the rules and if they RLPA had the nuts, they'd challenge the rules cause they are an absolute restraint of trade, draconian and all they lead to are issues like this.

The rules arent absurd - you just dont understand them.

Its not restraint of trade, the players are free to get whatever sponsorships they want, aslong as the club isnt involved. Theres no issue if the Eels stay out of the player's deals, like they are meant to and like 15 other clubs do.

Ice wrote:Seriously, what kind of a business that is truly NOT associated with a club is going to fork over their hard earned for nothing from that club.  The best result of this whole investigation will be if they realise how stupid and totally unworkable the rules are and they change them.

Every big name player that signs gets a figure that is floated out and its always $XX plus $xx in TPA's.  Its horse shit.

TPAs - not organised by the club. The players agent reaches out to companies in the market and organises them. Best time to do it. New player to the market, he'll be getting free press as a "new signing"

Ice wrote:Or when a player leaves a club disgruntled because they didn't receive TPA payments.

Because they couldnt get them in that market, they might move to a market who will give them out.

Ice wrote:IF the club was at arms length and cant be involved in the process how can the player gripe about not receiving TPA payments, surely those incidents are a private matter between the player manager and these Mysterious Third Parties who are willing to pay oodles for nothing.

They are a private between a player and the third parties. The player can well gripe at not getting them though. I imagine they would be easier to get somewhere like townsville then penrith.

Honeysett wrote:Just weighing in on the corporate box, that happens everywhere. I've been to a handful of games in every code around Australia thanks to sponsors either from mates I know or our own.

Surely there's nothing wrong with that, that's the perks of being a sponsor.

Yes, but not a player's personal sponsor. If a club is giving a company, who dont actually sponsor the club, hospitality then thats against the rules.

Honeysett wrote:Just weighing in on the corporate box, that happens everywhere. I've been to a handful of games in every code around Australia thanks to sponsors either from mates I know or our own.

Surely there's nothing wrong with that, that's the perks of being a sponsor.

I've both accepted and provided those boxes as and from a sponsor, but a TPA is not a sponsor. I've never been to a box provided to a TPA by a club

Honeysett wrote:Just weighing in on the corporate box, that happens everywhere. I've been to a handful of games in every code around Australia thanks to sponsors either from mates I know or our own.

Surely there's nothing wrong with that, that's the perks of being a sponsor.

Nah, that different, that is corporate sponsorship.

The issue is companies who aren't actually Corporate Sponsors, but are "Third Party Sponsors" getting free tickets to corporate sweets.

Example: Joe of Joe Smash Repairs isn't a corporate sponsor of the...lets call them Bears, but he is a die hard Bears fan and he has agreed, via negotiation ONLY between Player A and his Manager,(cause he Facebook messaged them!!) that he will pay Player A $50k if he signs with the Bears, no strings attached, no discussion with the Bears and no expectation that he will even get a ticket to a Bears game or perhaps a signed jersey for his daughter, he just wants Player A to come along to an open day at his daughters school fete and perhaps put a photo of Player A (in a Joes Smash Repairs T-Shirt) in the local Gazette. The Bears, in their wisdom, never speak with Joe, and nobody ever thinks, hey perhaps Pirtek, our major sponsor, who provide hoses and stuff, might invite Joe to one of the Corporate Boxes one night.

It happens everywhere, its "against the rules" and its a debacle that it can't happen.

Your Name wrote:

I've both accepted and provided those boxes as and from a sponsor, but a TPA is not a sponsor. I've never been to a box provided to a TPA by a club

I've been to both.

Ice wrote:

So you have seen all the document in full context or not?  And are you willing to make a judgment without seeing all the evidence and all the facts and the full context of the board discussions?

Again, im not saying its right and I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying lets see what decisions are made when ALL the information/facts/evidence are fully investigated.  That is it, that is my whole point right there.  YOu can twist all the other bullcrap you and I are both posting as much as you like, but its all irrelevant to the fact that we are currently the NRL Champions, cause if you beat the Champions, that makes you the Champion.........................

Dont need to see the full context of the meeting minutes. Thats the beautiful thing about meeting minutes, they are sectioned off and the other sections are, legally, irrelevant. Things said later on do not and cannot excuse the previous statement.

They discussed illegal deals. They wrote these discussions on a legal document. They signed the legal document. Smoking gun, further examination to justify guilt not required.

Id be mad if my club was that stupid aswell. And id rather be undefeated in 2nd place then outside the top 8 with 1 win, regardless of who that win is against.

Ice wrote:

I'm saying if a player is going to a luncheon put on by his third party sponsor (not in uniform and not as an Eels Player, yeah like that happens), lets say its a car dealer, then I'm pretty sure the Club would expect the player seeks permission to go or at the very least their blessing, its a common courtesy.  It absolutely happens at every club.  I'm not saying it isn't a breach of the rules, I'm just saying that they are daft rules they all clubs mould to their own benefit and anyone who doesn't believe that is a fruit cake and if that is the worst of it at the Eels then whoop de do.  The real issue the NRL need to address is the absurdity of the rules and if they RLPA had the nuts, they'd challenge the rules cause they are an absolute restraint of trade, draconian and all they lead to are issues like this.

Seriously, what kind of a business that is truly NOT associated with a club is going to fork over their hard earned for nothing from that club.  The best result of this whole investigation will be if they realise how stupid and totally unworkable the rules are and they change them.

Every big name player that signs gets a figure that is floated out and its always $XX plus $xx in TPA's.  Its horse shit.  Or when a player leaves a club disgruntled because they didn't receive TPA payments.  IF the club was at arms length and cant be involved in the process how can the player gripe about not receiving TPA payments, surely those incidents are a private matter between the player manager and these Mysterious Third Parties who are willing to pay oodles for nothing.


Its all a debacle.

Im not trying to justify anything the Eels have done, im just saying the whole fu.cking thing is a joke.

Your totally right that it's a debacle and a joke and that all clubs probably try to do it. I think TPS'a deserve their own thread where I can rant for the next ten fucking years about how incompetent my club is for not being able to organise them however none ofthat changes the fact that Parra are rorting it's becoming blatantly obvious.

Ice wrote:

I've been to both.

So you have benefited from the Eels rorting the cap or the TPA company paid for the box ?

ryno_ wrote:

You simpleton, nobody is saying that scenario is against the rules.

What would be against the rules is if the third party rings the club and asks for Corey Norman (just as an example) to come down at lunch to meet and greet. Which is what the club was organising. If Norman goes to the club and tells them its on, thats fine.



Of course your scenario happens at every club. Its not against the rules for a player to sort out a third party appearance.


Its not a breach of the rules.


Proof or GTFO


600k of dodgy deals in one meeting? whoop de do indeed.


The rules arent absurd - you just dont understand them.

Its not restraint of trade, the players are free to get whatever sponsorships they want, aslong as the club isnt involved. Theres no issue if the Eels stay out of the player's deals, like they are meant to and like 15 other clubs do.



TPAs - not organised by the club. The players agent reaches out to companies in the market and organises them. Best time to do it. New player to the market, he'll be getting free press as a "new signing"



Because they couldnt get them in that market, they might move to a market who will give them out.



They are a private between a player and the third parties. The player can well gripe at not getting them though. I imagine they would be easier to get somewhere like townsville then penrith.

Ryno, deadest, you are suggesting now that I am saying ALL 600k is about TPAs. I honestly couldn't care less about the semantics that you keep banging on about without all the facts.

All clubs do it, you know it, and I know it, this isn't a court of law in this forum, evidence schmevidence.

But the investigation going on in the media sure as hell requires all the facts to be presented.

Mate, I'm just saying until we have seen ALL the facts, and its been fully investigated, I'll reserve judgement, you are saying you've seen enough to hang them. So be it.

ryno_ wrote:

Dont need to see the full context of the meeting minutes. Thats the beautiful thing about meeting minutes, they are sectioned off and the other sections are, legally, irrelevant. Things said later on do not and cannot excuse the previous statement.  

They discussed illegal deals. They wrote these discussions on a legal document. They signed the legal document. Smoking gun, further examination to justify guilt not required.

Id be mad if my club was that stupid aswell. And id rather be undefeated in 2nd place then outside the top 8 with 1 win, regardless of who that win is against.

So there you have it, you are willing to discount evidence that may in fact be totally relevant. You can't say it isn't relevant if you haven't seen it. Why wouldn't the leakers leak the full document and why wouldn't the media release it in full........unless if they did that it may change the context of there agenda. How are some sections of a meetings minutes "Legally irrelevant" but others not?? Deadset, you cant say that without having seen it all. Things said later on might absolutely give total relevance and context to abridged minuted information earlier in the minutes, THAT is the beautiful thing about minutes.

I'm not mad, how can you be mad when your team are the reiging Champions........seriously, I was trying to lighten the mood theier earlier but it clearly went over your head. Who do you go for anyway Ryno, ive completely forgotten.