Pascoe sanctioned by the NRL

[gallagher]

Just saw this in the Daley thread - posted by Masterton - so can someone please clarify for me does this not suggest that our fine is $750k + 639k? That was what my initially understanding was, however I've seen some people on here say that or total fine is $750k yet $639k from that ($750k) needed to be specifically taken from cap.

_The club was also fined $750,000 while a **further** $639,000 – the amount of Farah's four-year post-football arrangement – is set to be removed from the Tigers' 2019 cap._

I am no authority, but my understanding was we have to pay a fine of $750k to the NRL, and in addition our salary cap is reduced by $639k as well. So we as a club are in a sense put out by $1,389,000

Thankyou. I thought it looks to be that, just from going by that paragraph.
I've seen various posts on here where they've said different, so I was unsure and honestly started to think that I'd initially misread the penalty.
News articles aren't very clear with the fine amounts either. I see both those figures used yet there's no great detail given.(The ones from 18 or 19 Dec)

I think the confusion is that people want to add up the two figures. But one is a fine and one is a restriction.
We owe $750k to the NRL.
Our cap has been reduced by $639k.
Two seperate penalties.

 

[hammertime]

Yep, so net impact in dollar terms for us will be $750k and $639k of that could have been spent on a player.

 

[Lauren]

Just saw this in the Daley thread - posted by Masterton - so can someone please clarify for me does this not suggest that our fine is $750k + 639k? That was what my initially understanding was, however I've seen some people on here say that or total fine is $750k yet $639k from that ($750k) needed to be specifically taken from cap.

_The club was also fined $750,000 while a **further** $639,000 – the amount of Farah's four-year post-football arrangement – is set to be removed from the Tigers' 2019 cap._

I am no authority, but my understanding was we have to pay a fine of $750k to the NRL, and in addition our salary cap is reduced by $639k as well. So we as a club are in a sense put out by $1,389,000

Thankyou. I thought it looks to be that, just from going by that paragraph.
I've seen various posts on here where they've said different, so I was unsure and honestly started to think that I'd initially misread the penalty.
News articles aren't very clear with the fine amounts either. I see both those figures used yet there's no great detail given.(The ones from 18 or 19 Dec)

I think the confusion is that people want to add up the two figures. But one is a fine and one is a restriction.
We owe $750k to the NRL.
Our cap has been reduced by $639k.
Two seperate penalties.

Thankyou for clarifying also gallagher. Though I personally wish it was over with already, my only hope is that the adjudication process will be fair so we get a positive outcome from it.

 

[gallagher]

I am no authority, but my understanding was we have to pay a fine of $750k to the NRL, and in addition our salary cap is reduced by $639k as well. So we as a club are in a sense put out by $1,389,000

Thankyou. I thought it looks to be that, just from going by that paragraph.
I've seen various posts on here where they've said different, so I was unsure and honestly started to think that I'd initially misread the penalty.
News articles aren't very clear with the fine amounts either. I see both those figures used yet there's no great detail given.(The ones from 18 or 19 Dec)

I think the confusion is that people want to add up the two figures. But one is a fine and one is a restriction.
We owe $750k to the NRL.
Our cap has been reduced by $639k.
Two seperate penalties.

Thankyou for clarifying also gallagher. Though I personally wish it was over with already, my only hope is that the adjudication process will be fair so we get a positive outcome from it.

I think they've done the best thing in admitting fault but asking for leniency. Get it out of the way and let Maguire and the players go into the season with nothing going on in the background like a court case.

 

[sheer64]

Thankyou. I thought it looks to be that, just from going by that paragraph.
I've seen various posts on here where they've said different, so I was unsure and honestly started to think that I'd initially misread the penalty.
News articles aren't very clear with the fine amounts either. I see both those figures used yet there's no great detail given.(The ones from 18 or 19 Dec)

I think the confusion is that people want to add up the two figures. But one is a fine and one is a restriction.
We owe $750k to the NRL.
Our cap has been reduced by $639k.
Two seperate penalties.

Thankyou for clarifying also gallagher. Though I personally wish it was over with already, my only hope is that the adjudication process will be fair so we get a positive outcome from it.

I think they've done the best thing in admitting fault but asking for leniency. Get it out of the way and let Maguire and the players go into the season with nothing going on in the background like a court case.

A NRL paid jurno is stating we have claimed mismanagement? I doubt it very much.

 

[happy_tiger]

The club has mounted what they believe is an unbeatable defence & have complete confidence we will get our CEO back !
But if the result don't work in our favour then legal action will follow.

Cheers Pom

Does that include avoiding fines or just getting Pascoe back ??

 

[tigerap]

Yep, so net impact in dollar terms for us will be $750k and $639k of that could have been spent on a player.

To clarify:

The $750k fine is not salary cap related. It needs to be funded by the clubs operating income.
The $639k salary cap reduction, means we cannot buy a marquee player for 2019….so our roster is massively disadvantaged

Its a double barrel impact.

Plus add to the fact we lose our CEO.

 

[cochise]

Yep, so net impact in dollar terms for us will be $750k and $639k of that could have been spent on a player.

To clarify:

The $750k fine is not salary cap related. It needs to be funded by the clubs operating income.
The $639k salary cap reduction, means we cannot buy a marquee player for 2019….so our roster is massively disadvantaged

Its a double barrel impact.

Plus add to the fact we lose our CEO.

Basically what will happen is when we receive our NRL grant it will be short $750K, this will have very little impact on our operational costs as we are also restricted in our salary spending of $639K. Basically this will cost us $111K and limit what we can spend on players by $639K.

 

[jirskyr]

I don't think the other Clubs went cap in hand to the NRL asking for Cap relief for their players claiming they were destabilising figures…only to promise them jobs after footy..

If that is true is was pretty Suss from the outset

Very easy explanation - destabilising on-field as a player, not off-field in some developmental or ambassador role. I don't get why that is such a big deal?

You can want a guy to finish up his playing career without wanting to throw him under the bus. Tigers have been happy to provide gigs for retiring players before and it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't happy to see those players move on.

It can be as simply as Player X does not get on with Coach Y, but has potential talent in other areas for the club, areas that don't directly affect Coach Y (ignoring of course that Coach Y is now sacked, and perhaps even that the CEO assumed a high chance of Coach Y no longer being hired by the time the ambassador role came around).

 

[Telltails]

I don't think the other Clubs went cap in hand to the NRL asking for Cap relief for their players claiming they were destabilising figures…only to promise them jobs after footy..

If that is true is was pretty Suss from the outset

Very easy explanation - destabilising on-field as a player, not off-field in some developmental or ambassador role. I don't get why that is such a big deal?

You can want a guy to finish up his playing career without wanting to throw him under the bus. Tigers have been happy to provide gigs for retiring players before and it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't happy to see those players move on.

It can be as simply as Player X does not get on with Coach Y, but has potential talent in other areas for the club, areas that don't directly affect Coach Y (ignoring of course that Coach Y is now sacked, and perhaps even that the CEO assumed a high chance of Coach Y no longer being hired by the time the ambassador role came around).

Clearly Nick Weeks was paying no attention to what was happening at the WTs during the JT/ RF fued and the impact it had on the club.

 

[gallagher]

I think the confusion is that people want to add up the two figures. But one is a fine and one is a restriction.
We owe $750k to the NRL.
Our cap has been reduced by $639k.
Two seperate penalties.

Thankyou for clarifying also gallagher. Though I personally wish it was over with already, my only hope is that the adjudication process will be fair so we get a positive outcome from it.

I think they've done the best thing in admitting fault but asking for leniency. Get it out of the way and let Maguire and the players go into the season with nothing going on in the background like a court case.

A NRL paid jurno is stating we have claimed mismanagement? I doubt it very much.

Well it would be nice if the club told us what is happening.

 

[innsaneink]

From what I've read we've put our hand up… Accepted guilt.
Our argument is flimsy bordering on limp celery stick

 

[WT2K]

If the cap fine stands, I'm guessing it's for the 2019 cap that will be hit?

 

[fibrodreaming]

From what I've read we've put our hand up… Accepted guilt.
Our argument is flimsy bordering on limp celery stick

The Pom advised yesterday that "The club has mounted what they believe is an unbeatable defence & have complete confidence we will get our CEO back".

While Chammas is reporting that: "It's understood the Tigers are accepting responsibility for mismanagement".

Are these two views compatible ? Is accepting responsibility for mismanagement putting forward an unbeatable defence ?

I'm hoping that we are denying any wrongdoing, or at most, admitting only to an unwitting technical breach.

 

[happy_tiger]

I don't think the other Clubs went cap in hand to the NRL asking for Cap relief for their players claiming they were destabilising figures…only to promise them jobs after footy..

If that is true is was pretty Suss from the outset

Very easy explanation - destabilising on-field as a player, not off-field in some developmental or ambassador role. I don't get why that is such a big deal?

You can want a guy to finish up his playing career without wanting to throw him under the bus. Tigers have been happy to provide gigs for retiring players before and it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't happy to see those players move on.

It can be as simply as Player X does not get on with Coach Y, but has potential talent in other areas for the club, areas that don't directly affect Coach Y (ignoring of course that Coach Y is now sacked, and perhaps even that the CEO assumed a high chance of Coach Y no longer being hired by the time the ambassador role came around).

From the outside without an explanation to the NRL ….....it looks murky

That's my point

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

From what I've read we've put our hand up… Accepted guilt.
Our argument is flimsy bordering on limp celery stick

The Pom advised yesterday that "The club has mounted what they believe is an unbeatable defence & have complete confidence we will get our CEO back".

While Chammas is reporting that: "It's understood the Tigers are accepting responsibility for mismanagement".

Are these two views compatible ? Is accepting responsibility for mismanagement putting forward an unbeatable defence ?

I'm hoping that we are denying any wrongdoing, or at most, admitting only to an unwitting technical breach.

Let's not forget Chammas is an NRL journalist, as in actually writes for the NRL. He'll write whatever they want him to.

 

[coivtny]

From what I've read we've put our hand up… Accepted guilt.
Our argument is flimsy bordering on limp celery stick

Have you read our appeal submission?

 

[happy_tiger]

Would it be safe to say if we win this case that Greenburg job would be in jeopardy

 

[cochise]

Would it be safe to say if we win this case that Greenburg job would be in jeopardy

I wouldn't think so as the commission would have approved the sanctions.

 

[Russell]

Would it be safe to say if we win this case that Greenburg job would be in jeopardy

I wouldn't think so as the commission would have approved the sanctions.

And - do you also think that our board would have approved our CEO's decision - if so why have they singled out Pascoe?