Pascoe sanctioned by the NRL

so we didn't get any salary cap relief. farah's $1m was included in the cap anyway.

so is pascoe being terminated based on he "tried" to push the ambassador role as a way to pay robbie out?

so we got no salary cap relief, the supposed role hasn't been accepted (or started by Robbie), farah has still been paid his full dues?
where is this 639k coming from? is this excess to the amount we owed robbie? surely that can't be right? or is 639k some sort of back pay starting from way before pascoe that should've been included in the cap that the club tried to pass off at ambassador role?
 
all in all, i don't buy the whole "we were mean to you so here's 639k from an organisation that hasn't profited in 20 years"

however, since we have clearly not received an advantage (unless im missing something), the punishment is over the top. kinda like charging someone for intent to manslaughter when they are just speeding
 
@ said:
all in all, i don't buy the whole "we were mean to you so here's 639k from an organisation that hasn't profited in 20 years"
Click to expand...

It's clear he's a crowd favourite. It's not gifting the money. Robbie would add value in bringing in corporate revenue. Or increasing our brand, which might bring in more merch sales or membership.

It's not exactly a huge wage for 4 years work.
 
When did we last have an uneventful season without being screwed by a player(s), coach or the NRL? Since 2019 is already on that list hopefully WT's fight back for a change.
 
Very odd that we didn't actually get dispensation for Farah's previous contract. I originally understood the NRL must havr granted some kind of allowance, to now be so upset.

I don't see therefore why the NRL thinks it's dishonest to apply for an exemption, not get it, then offer a player a different role later in life.

It's like applying for Family Child Support and not being entirely sure whether or not you are eligible… then the govt knocks you back and fines you for paying for daycare anyway.
 
@ said:
Very odd that we didn't actually get dispensation for Farah's previous contract. I originally understood the NRL must havr granted some kind of allowance, to now be so upset.

I don't see therefore why the NRL thinks it's dishonest to apply for an exemption, not get it, then offer a player a different role later in life.

It's like applying for Family Child Support and not being entirely sure whether or not you are eligible… then the govt knocks you back and fines you for paying for daycare anyway.
Click to expand...

Did Raylene Castle or Todd Greenberg get de-registered after the Canterbury disaster?
 
@ said:
The more I read abou JP the more I think that Greenberg saw him as a threat to his position and so took extraordinary steps to tarnish his reputation. TG better watch his next steps carefully. This could get very ugly very quickly.
Click to expand...

Ha! You're thinking exactly what I'm thinking. It's one thing to run a wealthy club. It's something altogether different to drag one up from it's knees. Greenberg is trying to sure up his own future imo. JP is a threat - the game deserves the likes of him. High achievers in high positions are not expendable. Greenberg himself however is.
 
@ said:
@ said:
Very odd that we didn't actually get dispensation for Farah's previous contract. I originally understood the NRL must havr granted some kind of allowance, to now be so upset.

I don't see therefore why the NRL thinks it's dishonest to apply for an exemption, not get it, then offer a player a different role later in life.

It's like applying for Family Child Support and not being entirely sure whether or not you are eligible… then the govt knocks you back and fines you for paying for daycare anyway.

Did Raylene Castle or Todd Greenberg get de-registered after the Canterbury disaster?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they both bailed before the crap hit the fan
 
There's an awfully long list of past players employed by their previous clubs post career. Suggesting we can't do the same boggles the mind. If the difference is that ours is arranged whilst said player is still contracted to actually play as opposed to others that supposedly don't have a formal agreement in place, well really, that's a joke given it was so out there in the public domain for so long.
 
@ said:
There's an awfully long list of past players employed by their previous clubs post career. Suggesting we can't do the same boggles the mind. If the difference is that ours is arranged whilst said player is still contracted to actually play as opposed to others that supposedly don't have a formal agreement in place, well really, that's a joke given it was so out there in the public domain for so long.
Click to expand...

The issue is that we didn”t disclose it to the NRL.
 
@ said:
@ said:
There's an awfully long list of past players employed by their previous clubs post career. Suggesting we can't do the same boggles the mind. If the difference is that ours is arranged whilst said player is still contracted to actually play as opposed to others that supposedly don't have a formal agreement in place, well really, that's a joke given it was so out there in the public domain for so long.

The issue is that we didn”t disclose it to the NRL.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

All clubs do it as incentive for that player to sign another contract and stay at the club. Usually on a lower contract.

The player we offered it to was going to Souths.

Massive difference.

The issue is corruption within the NRL.
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
There's an awfully long list of past players employed by their previous clubs post career. Suggesting we can't do the same boggles the mind. If the difference is that ours is arranged whilst said player is still contracted to actually play as opposed to others that supposedly don't have a formal agreement in place, well really, that's a joke given it was so out there in the public domain for so long.

The issue is that we didn”t disclose it to the NRL.

All clubs do it as incentive for that player to sign another contract and stay at the club. Usually on a lower contract.

The player we offered it to was going to Souths.

Massive difference.

The issue is corruption within the NRL.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
@ said:
@ said:
There's an awfully long list of past players employed by their previous clubs post career. Suggesting we can't do the same boggles the mind. If the difference is that ours is arranged whilst said player is still contracted to actually play as opposed to others that supposedly don't have a formal agreement in place, well really, that's a joke given it was so out there in the public domain for so long.

The issue is that we didn”t disclose it to the NRL.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Greenburg is clutching - it was all over the media that is not an act of a club that is trying to be deceptive about something - which is what Pasco has been accused of and is the basis of the harsh penalty.

Greenburg and Weeks sat on their hands last year while Penrith openly poached our coach under contract, and completely sent our season off the rails. Penrith got their man and then they bring in new changes so it cant happen again. Thanks Todd.
And after all that we manage to sign a great replacement our cap is in great shape -so what do the NRL do in November they decide to dig this up, to knock us again and in doing so enforce an outrageous penalty, and get rid of our CEO.
Agenda all over it.
 
News this morning (Nine.com) that NRL want sharks to relocate.
There is an agenda!
I am starting to believe that Pascoe was deregistered because he was making us a financial success thus sustainable for the future. NRL don’t want that.
 
It like Dodge City…the NRL make the laws, police the laws,judge the laws and hand out the sentencing and worse they are self elected.

Basically they can do what they like. They will not do it, but the Tigers should drag this through a real court where at least they may get a fair chance at defending the charges laced against them.

Also just a foot note, this was well planned to coincide with Xmas, so the public attention would be distracted and any opposition would be minimal and get less media coverage. So keep up the protest on social media and keep the emails flowing to Greenberg, the voice of the people can be powerful
 
I completely understand players, coaches, player agents having to be registered with the NRL.
Club management no way, as there are times when what is best for the club, and what is best for the NRL (or its hierarchy) are going to be mutually exclusive.
Justin's sole existence at the Wests Tigers' is making decisions in the the day to day running of the club.
A senior manager being sacked and having his reputation shredded should be checking with his lawyers about "restraint of trade".
 
The B grade journalists and the shock jocks who are always looking to drag out the dirt and make names for themselves don't seem to be picking up any of this. I've completely lost track of who in the media owns who these days, but those involved with channel nine and Foxtell for starters are not about to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that their journalists have been told to cool it. For those with the skills, there are sites offering opportunities for budding journalists to contribute articles. One is the Roar https://www.theroar.com.au/contribute/ and Zero Tackle have made the offer from time to time. I just get the impression that we are getting stone walled, and need another way to stir up the hornet's nest.
 
@ said:
News this morning (Nine.com) that NRL want sharks to relocate.
There is an agenda!
I am starting to believe that Pascoe was deregistered because he was making us a financial success thus sustainable for the future. NRL don’t want that.
Click to expand...

I’m sure you have evidence of this to make such ridiculous claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 505 (members: 47, guests: 458)
Back
Top