Pascoe sanctioned by the NRL

@Telltails said:
Still cant believe that anyone thinks it feasible that Pascoe did a deal in 2015 to bring him back as a player at 35 years of age, and after the circumstances under which he left why would we even contemplate it. If Liddle was up to it like we expected him to be, Farah as a player would be a fond memory at this club.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it, but it is easy to make the argument and its not the only argument that could be made.
 
@fibrodreaming said:
You make the point that the NRL would not go in hard without solid evidence, while I find it hard to believe that the Club would protest so much if it was an open and shut case against us.
Click to expand...

I truly hope you are right and I am wrong!
 
@diedpretty said:
So Pascoe went to all that trouble to keep the deal quiet and asked Ayoub to not say anything because we want to keep it a secret then notifies the media of the role being offered. Hmmmm I can see how that makes sense.
Click to expand...

It would be all about the timeline.
Possibly he found out about the cap implications after it was all over the media. Oooops, let's just tell Sam to keep it hush hush. We'll be good if no says anything.
 
@gallagher said:
It would be all about the timeline.
Possibly he found out about the cap implications after it was all over the media. Oooops, let’s just tell Sam to keep it hush hush. We’ll be good if no says anything.
Click to expand...

The reports of the role all come from a Pascoe quote in 2015, according to the NRL the agreement was entered into in 2016.
 
All this back and forward and pretty much everyone to man is still unsure about the legitimacy or legalities of the NRL's case.

Ill wait for the smoking gun.
 
Question to those with cap knowledge.

Do clubs submit some sort of intent document with the NRL prior to signing players or is a signed contract submitted to the NRL for sanctioning?

And are the rules different when signing players to post player roles?
 
The NRL rules are currently OTR. On The Run! Todd Greenberg is more than likely going to face the legal blowtorch from Ben Barba's camp over Duty of Care … Vicarious Liability!
 
You are implicating Farah and Ayoub as being complicit in this arrangement and the NRL has already said they are innocent of any wrong doing. Pascoe is the only target. A contract involves two parties why is the NRL only targeting Pascoe if your scenario has any validity?
 
I'd wager that is because it is the clubs responsibility to manage their cap and report their roster spending accordingly. Players are not responsible for cap management and will take their most amount of money on offer where it suits.
 
@Telltails said:
You are implicating Farah and Ayoub as being complicit in this arrangement and the NRL has already said they are innocent of any wrong doing. Pascoe is the only target. A contract involves two parties why is the NRL only targeting Pascoe if your scenario has any validity?
Click to expand...

It is the Tigers who have come out and said there is no contract, the NRL have said the Tigers have entered an arrangement with Farah for a post career role, someone here isnt telling the truth and hopefully it is the NRL lying. I just not going into this with my eyes closed.
 
I think the last post says it all.
NRL are saying an unsigned contract is an ageement, WTS are saying there is no agreement because the contract isnt signed.
Thats just my interpretation.
 
@uuem said:
I think the last post says it all.
NRL are saying an unsigned contract is an ageement, WTS are saying there is no agreement because the contract isnt signed.
Thats just my interpretation.
Click to expand...

The NRL hasn't said the contract is unsigned, they have said they have documentation that shows we entered into an agreement with RF for the role.
 
From what I have heard on here and read elsewher in the media.
To finalise Robbies departure him manager wanted his future employment with the club in writing before it would proceed. By that I think Pascoe probably had a contract drawn up and signed it which Robbies manager has filed away to be used if needed and that is why the contract was off site.
 
@uuem said:
From what I have heard on here and read elsewher in the media.
To finalise Robbies departure him manager wanted his future employment with the club in writing before it would proceed. By that I think Pascoe probably had a contract drawn up and signed it which Robbies manager has filed away to be used if needed and that is why the contract was off site.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I think probably happened too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 521 (members: 33, guests: 488)
Back
Top