Pascoe sanctioned by the NRL

[cochise]

No I can look at this objectively and see what the Tigers did looks incredibly dodgy.

You have been given information on which you have based your opinions. You have relayed that information, and others have made their opinions. Don't presume to think you are being objective where others are not. It is all still just personal opinions.

I am concerned that we will never know what has happened. If the NRL keeps to their version that WT deliberately cheated, and WT keeps saying that no we did not, how will we ever know what really happened? I'd really like to know, one way or the other.

The NRL has stated that the Tigers have breached the Salary Cap rules. Offering a post career role and not declaring it looks dodgy. **People would be up in arms if this was the Roosters**.

If Easts offered, say, SKD, a post career role when he left for Newcastle (and didn't tell the NRL), then I wouldn't be up in arms - if fact, I couldn't care less.

If, on the other hand, Easts offered one of their marquee players a post career role, and reduced his last contract payments with a promise of paying him the balance post retirement, then I would be cranky.

It all depends on the circumstances.

As it happens, I have four close friends who support other NRL clubs (one of which is Easts) and they all think the Tigers have been harshly treated. But, of course, that's only a sample of four.

What if it was to replace a TPA he was losing?

Anyway I said I wouldn't argue it anymore, so that is it.

 

[gallagher]

They have not been sanctioned in the same category as the majority of the other clubs. Greenburg also stated that the commission has ask them to give tougher penalties so these penalties will have to be compared to the clubs that breach the cap in the future.

1) We have been sanctioned over an alleged - or attempted- **breach of the salary cap.**
_Melbourne, Manly and Eels were all done for breaches of the salary cap._
2) Our financial penalties are reflective of this, as they are in the same/similar capacity of those who have systematically rorted the cap.
_Melbourne got fined $300k more than us, Parra $300k less and Manly $600k less_
These are actual solid facts, so IDK how you can deny that we are not being categorised similarly or the same?

Rubbery figures. Melb got fine $1.6m, Parra $1.3mill. We got done $750k.

If your including our cap reduction then surely you would note their premiership points reductions. **Thats IF youre interested in a fair comparison.**

There is no way to give a fair comparison which has been my point all along.
Club A - Use underhanded methods by paying players 1,2,3,4 and 5 and be $500k-$1mil over the cap.
Club B - Offer player post-career job and don’t declare this role with the NRL.

FYI Parra only received a $1mil fine. And why wouldn’t include the cap reduction penalty when I’m talking overall financial penalties.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-sanctions-ratified/7582924

No. Parra copped a $1mil fine and had to pay back the $370k from the nines prizemoney. We only copped a $750k fine. The salary cap reduction isnt costing us money, its actually saving us money. So parra's fine wasnt $300 less than ours, it was actually $620k more than ours.

Thats IF your after a fair comparison on financial penalties.

 

[jadtiger]

1) We have been sanctioned over an alleged - or attempted- **breach of the salary cap.**
_Melbourne, Manly and Eels were all done for breaches of the salary cap._
2) Our financial penalties are reflective of this, as they are in the same/similar capacity of those who have systematically rorted the cap.
_Melbourne got fined $300k more than us, Parra $300k less and Manly $600k less_
These are actual solid facts, so IDK how you can deny that we are not being categorised similarly or the same?

Rubbery figures. Melb got fine $1.6m, Parra $1.3mill. We got done $750k.

If your including our cap reduction then surely you would note their premiership points reductions. **Thats IF youre interested in a fair comparison.**

There is no way to give a fair comparison which has been my point all along.
Club A - Use underhanded methods by paying players 1,2,3,4 and 5 and be $500k-$1mil over the cap.
Club B - Offer player post-career job and don’t declare this role with the NRL.

FYI Parra only received a $1mil fine. And why wouldn’t include the cap reduction penalty when I’m talking overall financial penalties.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-sanctions-ratified/7582924

No. Parra copped a $1mil fine and had to pay back the $370k from the nines prizemoney. We only copped a $750k fine. The salary cap reduction isnt costing us money, its actually saving us money. So parra's fine wasnt $300 less than ours, it was actually $620k more than ours.

Thats IF your after a fair comparison on financial penalties.

The salary cap reduction comes out of our grant from the NRL so it is not saving us anything it is saving the NRL from having to give it to us.

 

[gallagher]

Rubbery figures. Melb got fine $1.6m, Parra $1.3mill. We got done $750k.

If your including our cap reduction then surely you would note their premiership points reductions. **Thats IF youre interested in a fair comparison.**

There is no way to give a fair comparison which has been my point all along.
Club A - Use underhanded methods by paying players 1,2,3,4 and 5 and be $500k-$1mil over the cap.
Club B - Offer player post-career job and don’t declare this role with the NRL.

FYI Parra only received a $1mil fine. And why wouldn’t include the cap reduction penalty when I’m talking overall financial penalties.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-sanctions-ratified/7582924

No. Parra copped a $1mil fine and had to pay back the $370k from the nines prizemoney. We only copped a $750k fine. The salary cap reduction isnt costing us money, its actually saving us money. So parra's fine wasnt $300 less than ours, it was actually $620k more than ours.

Thats IF your after a fair comparison on financial penalties.

The salary cap reduction comes out of our grant from the NRL so it is not saving us anything it is saving the NRL from having to give it to us.

Fair enough, its not saving us money or costing us money. Its not a financial hit.

 

[cochise]

Rubbery figures. Melb got fine $1.6m, Parra $1.3mill. We got done $750k.

If your including our cap reduction then surely you would note their premiership points reductions. **Thats IF youre interested in a fair comparison.**

There is no way to give a fair comparison which has been my point all along.
Club A - Use underhanded methods by paying players 1,2,3,4 and 5 and be $500k-$1mil over the cap.
Club B - Offer player post-career job and don’t declare this role with the NRL.

FYI Parra only received a $1mil fine. And why wouldn’t include the cap reduction penalty when I’m talking overall financial penalties.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-sanctions-ratified/7582924

No. Parra copped a $1mil fine and had to pay back the $370k from the nines prizemoney. We only copped a $750k fine. The salary cap reduction isnt costing us money, its actually saving us money. So parra's fine wasnt $300 less than ours, it was actually $620k more than ours.

Thats IF your after a fair comparison on financial penalties.

The salary cap reduction comes out of our grant from the NRL so it is not saving us anything it is saving the NRL from having to give it to us.

Is that written anywhere?

 

[fibrodreaming]

You have been given information on which you have based your opinions. You have relayed that information, and others have made their opinions. Don't presume to think you are being objective where others are not. It is all still just personal opinions.

I am concerned that we will never know what has happened. If the NRL keeps to their version that WT deliberately cheated, and WT keeps saying that no we did not, how will we ever know what really happened? I'd really like to know, one way or the other.

The NRL has stated that the Tigers have breached the Salary Cap rules. Offering a post career role and not declaring it looks dodgy. **People would be up in arms if this was the Roosters**.

If Easts offered, say, SKD, a post career role when he left for Newcastle (and didn't tell the NRL), then I wouldn't be up in arms - if fact, I couldn't care less.

If, on the other hand, Easts offered one of their marquee players a post career role, and reduced his last contract payments with a promise of paying him the balance post retirement, then I would be cranky.

It all depends on the circumstances.

As it happens, I have four close friends who support other NRL clubs (one of which is Easts) and they all think the Tigers have been harshly treated. But, of course, that's only a sample of four.

What if it was to replace a TPA he was losing?

Anyway I said I wouldn't argue it anymore, so that is it.

If, in my hypothetical, in order to move him on, the post career deal to SKD was to compensate for lost TPAs, then I still wouldn't care.

Why wouldn't I care - because they were not under-paying players in order to supplement their roster.

I agree that if the WT knowingly broke the rules, then some sanction is necessary.

I was really only commenting on your observation that we would be up in arms if the Roosters (or another club) did it.

 

[cochise]

The NRL has stated that the Tigers have breached the Salary Cap rules. Offering a post career role and not declaring it looks dodgy. **People would be up in arms if this was the Roosters**.

If Easts offered, say, SKD, a post career role when he left for Newcastle (and didn't tell the NRL), then I wouldn't be up in arms - if fact, I couldn't care less.

If, on the other hand, Easts offered one of their marquee players a post career role, and reduced his last contract payments with a promise of paying him the balance post retirement, then I would be cranky.

It all depends on the circumstances.

As it happens, I have four close friends who support other NRL clubs (one of which is Easts) and they all think the Tigers have been harshly treated. But, of course, that's only a sample of four.

What if it was to replace a TPA he was losing?

Anyway I said I wouldn't argue it anymore, so that is it.

If, in my hypothetical, in order to move him on, the post career deal to SKD was to compensate for lost TPAs, then I still wouldn't care.

Why wouldn't I care - because they were not under-paying players in order to supplement their roster.

I agree that if the WT knowingly broke the rules, then some sanction is necessary.

I was really only commenting on your observation that we would be up in arms if the Roosters (or another club) did it.

Clubs are not allowed to pay TPA's though. Anyway, I have to stop being dragged back into this lol

 

[Tiger_Steve]

If Easts offered, say, SKD, a post career role when he left for Newcastle (and didn't tell the NRL), then I wouldn't be up in arms - if fact, I couldn't care less.

If, on the other hand, Easts offered one of their marquee players a post career role, and reduced his last contract payments with a promise of paying him the balance post retirement, then I would be cranky.

It all depends on the circumstances.

As it happens, I have four close friends who support other NRL clubs (one of which is Easts) and they all think the Tigers have been harshly treated. But, of course, that's only a sample of four.

What if it was to replace a TPA he was losing?

Anyway I said I wouldn't argue it anymore, so that is it.

If, in my hypothetical, in order to move him on, the post career deal to SKD was to compensate for lost TPAs, then I still wouldn't care.

Why wouldn't I care - because they were not under-paying players in order to supplement their roster.

I agree that if the WT knowingly broke the rules, then some sanction is necessary.

I was really only commenting on your observation that we would be up in arms if the Roosters (or another club) did it.

Clubs are not allowed to pay TPA's though. Anyway, I have to stop being dragged back into this lol

Cochise, put the phone down, stand away from your computer, go outside and kick a ball or something ….... problem solved?

 

[cochise]

What if it was to replace a TPA he was losing?

Anyway I said I wouldn't argue it anymore, so that is it.

If, in my hypothetical, in order to move him on, the post career deal to SKD was to compensate for lost TPAs, then I still wouldn't care.

Why wouldn't I care - because they were not under-paying players in order to supplement their roster.

I agree that if the WT knowingly broke the rules, then some sanction is necessary.

I was really only commenting on your observation that we would be up in arms if the Roosters (or another club) did it.

Clubs are not allowed to pay TPA's though. Anyway, I have to stop being dragged back into this lol

Cochise, put the phone down, stand away from your computer, go outside and kick a ball or something ….... problem solved?

I just kicked the dog, does that count?

 

[Tiger_Steve]

If, in my hypothetical, in order to move him on, the post career deal to SKD was to compensate for lost TPAs, then I still wouldn't care.

Why wouldn't I care - because they were not under-paying players in order to supplement their roster.

I agree that if the WT knowingly broke the rules, then some sanction is necessary.

I was really only commenting on your observation that we would be up in arms if the Roosters (or another club) did it.

Clubs are not allowed to pay TPA's though. Anyway, I have to stop being dragged back into this lol

Cochise, put the phone down, stand away from your computer, go outside and kick a ball or something ….... problem solved?

I just kicked the dog, does that count?

Good start!!

 

[Lauren]

1) We have been sanctioned over an alleged - or attempted- **breach of the salary cap.**
_Melbourne, Manly and Eels were all done for breaches of the salary cap._
2) Our financial penalties are reflective of this, as they are in the same/similar capacity of those who have systematically rorted the cap.
_Melbourne got fined $300k more than us, Parra $300k less and Manly $600k less_
These are actual solid facts, so IDK how you can deny that we are not being categorised similarly or the same?

Rubbery figures. Melb got fine $1.6m, Parra $1.3mill. We got done $750k.

If your including our cap reduction then surely you would note their premiership points reductions. **Thats IF youre interested in a fair comparison.**

There is no way to give a fair comparison which has been my point all along.
Club A - Use underhanded methods by paying players 1,2,3,4 and 5 and be $500k-$1mil over the cap.
Club B - Offer player post-career job and don’t declare this role with the NRL.

FYI Parra only received a $1mil fine. And why wouldn’t include the cap reduction penalty when I’m talking overall financial penalties.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-sanctions-ratified/7582924

No. Parra copped a $1mil fine and had to pay back the $370k from the nines prizemoney. We only copped a $750k fine. The salary cap reduction isnt costing us money, its actually saving us money. So parra's fine wasnt $300 less than ours, it was actually $620k more than ours.

Thats IF your after a fair comparison on financial penalties.

Okay sorry I didn't actually know that, but returning $370k prize money isn't exactly akin to taking a direct $639k hit to your salary cap either.

I have no idea of its relevance when my only point has ever been that the NRLs punishment for our breach is hugely disproportionate.
I've only questioned their ability to act impartial, seeing as they have labelled our case as salary cap cheating, irrespective of the level of breach - and any surrounding circumstances. But I honestly do not wish to continually get into semantics over the penalties of other clubs. If you looked at the context in which this was posted, you can clearly see that it's in response to whether we are being categorised the same as those clubs.

 

[Harvey]

Parramatta, Caterbury & Melbourne were blatantly cheating the cap. They were making cash payments to multiple players outside of the terms of the contract that was registered with the NRL, at the time that they were still playing for the club.

They were also using 3rd parties and false invoices to pass the money along. This is fraud and money laundering, and those involved should be thankful that they were not jailed rather than just facing NRL sanctions.

There is no way that our salary cap infraction is in the same league and the financial penalties that they tigers are facing are excessive.

 

[supercoach]

Parramatta, Caterbury & Melbourne were blatantly cheating the cap. They were making cash payments to multiple players outside of the terms of the contract that was registered with the NRL, at the time that they were still playing for the club.

They were also using 3rd parties and false invoices to pass the money along. This is fraud and money laundering, and those involved should be thankful that they were not jailed rather than just facing NRL sanctions.

There is no way that our salary cap infraction is in the same league and the financial penalties that they tigers are facing are excessive.

Harvey…well said".......what we have alleged to have done is not even on the same scale as the ones you have spoken about. If we have broken the rules, sure give us a penalty, but make the penalty fit the crime

 

[jadtiger]

There is no way to give a fair comparison which has been my point all along.
Club A - Use underhanded methods by paying players 1,2,3,4 and 5 and be $500k-$1mil over the cap.
Club B - Offer player post-career job and don’t declare this role with the NRL.

FYI Parra only received a $1mil fine. And why wouldn’t include the cap reduction penalty when I’m talking overall financial penalties.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-sanctions-ratified/7582924

No. Parra copped a $1mil fine and had to pay back the $370k from the nines prizemoney. We only copped a $750k fine. The salary cap reduction isnt costing us money, its actually saving us money. So parra's fine wasnt $300 less than ours, it was actually $620k more than ours.

Thats IF your after a fair comparison on financial penalties.

The salary cap reduction comes out of our grant from the NRL so it is not saving us anything it is saving the NRL from having to give it to us.

Is that written anywhere?

I dont know if it is written down anywhere but it is the way penalties have been handled in the past by the NRL

 

[fibrodreaming]

If Easts offered, say, SKD, a post career role when he left for Newcastle (and didn't tell the NRL), then I wouldn't be up in arms - if fact, I couldn't care less.

If, on the other hand, Easts offered one of their marquee players a post career role, and reduced his last contract payments with a promise of paying him the balance post retirement, then I would be cranky.

It all depends on the circumstances.

As it happens, I have four close friends who support other NRL clubs (one of which is Easts) and they all think the Tigers have been harshly treated. But, of course, that's only a sample of four.

What if it was to replace a TPA he was losing?

Anyway I said I wouldn't argue it anymore, so that is it.

If, in my hypothetical, in order to move him on, the post career deal to SKD was to compensate for lost TPAs, then I still wouldn't care.

Why wouldn't I care - because they were not under-paying players in order to supplement their roster.

I agree that if the WT knowingly broke the rules, then some sanction is necessary.

I was really only commenting on your observation that we would be up in arms if the Roosters (or another club) did it.

**Clubs are not allowed to pay TPA's though**. Anyway, I have to stop being dragged back into this lol

Yes, I know. But that was not the point I was commenting on. You observed that we would be up in arms if the Roosters did the same.

was simply saying that I wouldn't care if any other club did the same because the arrangement didn't give the club a salary cap advantage so that they could strengthen their roster. That's all.

Presumably these rules are in place to prevent clubs obtaining a salary cap advantage. If so, perhaps that's why there is a certain amount of sympathy for the Tigers among NRL supporters.

 

[JD Tiger]

Rubbery figures. Melb got fine $1.6m, Parra $1.3mill. We got done $750k.

If your including our cap reduction then surely you would note their premiership points reductions. **Thats IF youre interested in a fair comparison.**

There is no way to give a fair comparison which has been my point all along.
Club A - Use underhanded methods by paying players 1,2,3,4 and 5 and be $500k-$1mil over the cap.
Club B - Offer player post-career job and don’t declare this role with the NRL.

FYI Parra only received a $1mil fine. And why wouldn’t include the cap reduction penalty when I’m talking overall financial penalties.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-sanctions-ratified/7582924

No. Parra copped a $1mil fine and had to pay back the $370k from the nines prizemoney. We only copped a $750k fine. The salary cap reduction isnt costing us money, its actually saving us money. So parra's fine wasnt $300 less than ours, it was actually $620k more than ours.

Thats IF your after a fair comparison on financial penalties.

The salary cap reduction comes out of our grant from the NRL so it is not saving us anything it is saving the NRL from having to give it to us.

Aha! Got you, you snake in the grass NRL! Real story is that they are going broke and hence are trying to cover themselves by giving the clubs less money in the grants. Truth comes out Finally!

 

[cochise]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/parramatta-eels-salary-cap-sanctions-ratified/7582924

No. Parra copped a $1mil fine and had to pay back the $370k from the nines prizemoney. We only copped a $750k fine. The salary cap reduction isnt costing us money, its actually saving us money. So parra's fine wasnt $300 less than ours, it was actually $620k more than ours.

Thats IF your after a fair comparison on financial penalties.

The salary cap reduction comes out of our grant from the NRL so it is not saving us anything it is saving the NRL from having to give it to us.

Is that written anywhere?

I dont know if it is written down anywhere but it is the way penalties have been handled in the past by the NRL

The fines do, I thought the salary cap reduction just came off our cap?

 

[diedpretty]

The salary cap reduction comes out of our grant from the NRL so it is not saving us anything it is saving the NRL from having to give it to us.

Is that written anywhere?

I dont know if it is written down anywhere but it is the way penalties have been handled in the past by the NRL

The fines do, I thought the salary cap reduction just came off our cap?

That makes more sense. The NRL grant to clubs is higher than the cap and covers other expenses apart from the cap. It's an interesting point. If we still receive our full grant but have $640k less to spend in our cap we should be able to allocate that money elsewhere. Maybe even to reduce the fine of $750k.

 

[cochise]

Is that written anywhere?

I dont know if it is written down anywhere but it is the way penalties have been handled in the past by the NRL

The fines do, I thought the salary cap reduction just came off our cap?

That makes more sense. The NRL grant to clubs is higher than the cap and covers other expenses apart from the cap. It's an interesting point. If we still receive our full grant but have $640k less to spend in our cap we should be able to allocate that money elsewhere. Maybe even to reduce the fine of $750k.

Yeah the salary cap reduction pretty much cancels out the fine as we save $640k from the reduction but will have a grant that is $750k less. Its really the $640k we can't spend on players that hurts more than anything.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

Gotta laugh at the Sharks penalty. Apparently they were only fined $400 000 for Flanagan breaching the NRL's restrictions placed on him. That was the amount that was suspended from the original fine. Goes to show what an absolute pitiful joke these "suspended" penalties are. Basically "we will fine you $1m but suspend half of it, if you take the chance on committing a 2nd offence and happen to get caught yet again, your additional punishment will not exceed what the original punishment was". That's farcical IMO.
If you get caught breaching your original sanctions your penalty should be doubled or tripled to be any deterrent whatsoever.
So basically WT allegedly make 1 transgression and are hit with a fine of $750 000: the Sharks make 2 (the 2nd one in direct defiance of the 1st offence) yet are only financially punished an extra $250 000\. That is a bloody disgrace whichever way you spin it.