Pascoe sanctioned by the NRL

@ said:
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.

If that has been handed down today (or recently) then that is what we should be comparing our penalty with. And I agree with FTB, disgraceful.

The penalties need to be more cut and dry, much more transparent. You do this, and we punish you this way. Direct and clear for all to see. Punishing a team now under today's punishments for offences committed years ago raises another problem. It's just a mess.
 
@ said:
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.

I changed my mind lol
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
I don't believe it to be a minor indiscretion.

I think it's a clear breach and deserves some form of punishment. I just want to see other clubs cop this as well. Inglis staying at Souths and Thurston at the Cowboys are examples of the same thing happening as what we did with Robbie. I don't know how the NRL are going to start policing this rule.

We should never have pushed Robbie out and I don't think Robbie has been a great marquee player for us at all. It was a really poor business decision that we allowed an incompetent coach to make.

Spot on, we gave the keys to the side to a learner driver, and he crashed the side big time, any person with a small amount of league knowledge could foresee this happening :brick:

I was waiting for you to weigh in with who was to blame.

Thanks for waiting, sorry I have an opinion
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
I think it's a clear breach and deserves some form of punishment. I just want to see other clubs cop this as well. Inglis staying at Souths and Thurston at the Cowboys are examples of the same thing happening as what we did with Robbie. I don't know how the NRL are going to start policing this rule.

We should never have pushed Robbie out and I don't think Robbie has been a great marquee player for us at all. It was a really poor business decision that we allowed an incompetent coach to make.

Spot on, we gave the keys to the side to a learner driver, and he crashed the side big time, any person with a small amount of league knowledge could foresee this happening :brick:

I was waiting for you to weigh in with who was to blame.

Thanks for waiting, sorry I have an opinion

Thanks for sharing it. It wasn’t really clear how you felt about Taylor.
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
I think it's a clear breach and deserves some form of punishment. I just want to see other clubs cop this as well. Inglis staying at Souths and Thurston at the Cowboys are examples of the same thing happening as what we did with Robbie. I don't know how the NRL are going to start policing this rule.

We should never have pushed Robbie out and I don't think Robbie has been a great marquee player for us at all. It was a really poor business decision that we allowed an incompetent coach to make.

Spot on, we gave the keys to the side to a learner driver, and he crashed the side big time, any person with a small amount of league knowledge could foresee this happening :brick:

I was waiting for you to weigh in with who was to blame.

Thanks for waiting, sorry I have an opinion

I'm very patient.
 
@ said:
@ said:
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

It's not hard to understand is it?
 
@ said:
I'll make this my last post on the subject, as I don't want to keep arguing with fellow Tigers fans, especially ones whose opinions I value.

I sincerely hope that this is an honest mistake and we get cleared of any wrongdoing, I'm just extremely skeptical of that as the way this has played out look very dodgy.

I am sorry if my posts upset anyone.

Don't be sorry, you're entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. It's a different perspective and it's healthy to be exposed to it.
 
@ said:
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.

I think this is where the frustration lies. The blatant inconsistency with penalties. I understand that the Dogs, Storm and Parra all copped heavy penalties, but that was for systematic rorting. To be hit with similar financial penalties and have a CEO stood down indefinitely for one openly reported post career job is totally disproportionate in comparison.

I also agree that if you are caught not complying with penalties issued from a previous breach ala Flanno in contact with the Sharks, you should cop even harsher penalties.

One thing is for sure, if the fines and suspensions stand for WT, I would expect every other minor transgression that takes place hereafter is penalised as heavily. I have no faith in the NRL to be consistent going forward.

One thing is for sure, WT will certain not to advertise post career jobs publicly next time.
 
You back your club in this situation. They have stated their position. It makes no sense to me why anyone would support, accept, or defend the actions of the NRL based on the reaction of the club who currently feel they have been harshly penalised.
It is not about the breach, it is about the penalty and the assumption made by the NRL that the club, and specifically Justin Pascoe, deliberately cheated.
Until the NRL unequivocally prove otherwise, or Pascoe admits to what he has been accused of, well then as fans we support what ever position the club takes at this point.
 
@ said:
You back your club in this situation. They have stated their position. It makes no sense to me why anyone would support, accept, or defend the actions of the NRL based on the reaction of the club who currently feel they have been harshly penalised.
It is not about the breach, it is about the penalty and the assumption made by the NRL that the club, and specifically Justin Pascoe, deliberately cheated.
Until the NRL unequivocally prove otherwise, or Pascoe admits to what he has been accused of, well then as fans we support what ever position the club takes at this point.

Fair enough, can't berate someone for attempting to display a bit of objectivity either though.
 
The trouble with the NRL is, they are the ones who charge you with theoffence, they are the judge who passes sentence and they are the judge who makes judgement on any appeals. So for them to over turn the original judgement is basically admitting they were wrong….....it ain’t going to happen.

As I said before it’s like Dodge city in the old American western movie
 
@ said:
The trouble with the NRL is, they are the ones who charge you with theoffence, they are the judge who passes sentence and they are the judge who makes judgement on any appeals. So for them to over turn the original judgement is basically admitting they were wrong….....it ain’t going to happen.

As I said before it’s like Dodge city in the old American western movie

I agree, that's why I think we should have our legal team look at whether the NRL has acted in such a way that has breached any overarching legal principles that would make the courts a better course of action. Of course I'd imagine they can still appeal to the NRL as a first step and then revert to the courts if that fails. Having said that I think they have to be realistic. They will know the extent to which they have broken the rules and whether it was deliberate or inadvertent. If it's a major breach, done deliberately, they may well decide to cop the punishment after the appeal process is completed and let it rest.
 
I'll say it again, the part I can't cop is that Tigers apparently aren't allowed to make Farah an ambassador, but other clubs can do it.

I'm not really interested in the ins-and-outs of it, whether or not you get NRL pre-approval, or ask for cap reductions whilst playing, or try to remove a senior player and call him destabilising, or promise a job or hint at a job or any such combination of events and effects.

I don't even care if we really were cheating / lying / obscuring.

Either you can give a bloke a post-career job or you can't. I don't see why there is any grey area unless the club is simultaneously taking the piss on the value of their latter-year contract. You know, the way NRL allowed Broncos to do with Lockyer. If you pay a player approx what he is worth whilst he is on the field, who cares if you offer him a sweet deal when he retires?

Or put it another way, do you really think Greg Inglis would have retired if Souths offered him his "ambassador" money only if he played? If Souths said to Greg "look, we'll keep paying you and it'll be $200K for 2 seasons - either you play on or you retire, but we aren't paying more than that in the next deal".

In fact NRL may have gotten suss if you are trying to lowball GI for two years as a player. But making him an ambassador is ok.

However you want to spin it, off-field roles are deals for players - sweetened deals organised directly by the club. Doesn't matter if you discount his final salary or not, it has a direct impact on the decisions and the financial position of the player in his final years.

You reckon Corey Parker would have retired so nicely if Broncos hadn't looked after him off-field with a coaching job? One that Wayne Bennett subsequently cut but nonetheless they were looking after Corey.

And JT. And Billy. And Lockyer… Mini, Luke Ricketson etc. They're all cool, can have all the jobs they want - but Robbie Farah, no that's deceitful.
 
I really want this to go to court, if we won Greenberg and his cronies will look so stupid. And I am pretty confident Greenberg would be shown the door based on incompetence.
 
Greenberg vents frustrations at club CEOs and captains over off-field incidents

Author: Brad Walter
NRL.com Senior Reporter
Timestamp: Mon 21 Jan 2019, 06:12 PM

Todd Greenberg vented his frustrations at the recent anti-social behaviour in the NRL to club CEOs and captains during an unprecedented phone hook-up on Monday, warning them about the damage these acts cause the game.

The NRL chief executive told them the series of off-field incidents was unacceptable and told them that any player found guilty of violence against women would face heavier sanctions than those previously handed down.

Melbourne skipper Cameron Smith told fellow club captains that players weren't living up to their part of the deal in being partners in the game.

Greenberg also warned that players featuring in any inappropriate videos that became public - regardless of how old they were - and any player sharing inappropriate videos on supposedly private groups such as WhatsApp would also be sanctioned.

"To their credit, there were captains stepping off training paddocks and every single one of them jumped on the call, so it was really important," Greenberg said.

Storm captain Cameron Smith.
Storm captain Cameron Smith.
"I told them that I felt the last few months had been unbelievably damaging for the game and we should be better than we are.

"I said to them that this is not just my responsibility, I need all of your help. You guys need to go back to your clubs and speak to your players about expectation because what I have seen is just not good enough."

Many senior players are embarrassed about the negative headlines since the end of the first season under a new collective bargaining agreement between the RLPA and the NRL, which made the players partners in the game.

"Cameron Smith said this on the call today," Greenberg said. "He said 'a year ago I was actively involved with Todd to do the collective bargaining agreement and we have got a great deal, and we are partners. But we are not living up to our end of the bargain and we have got to be better.' I think he summed it up pretty well."

As a former Canterbury CEO, Greenberg is aware that players are likely to take more notice of their captains or coaches than club officials.
\
\
"We have some unbelievably talented and strong leaders across our clubs and I need their help," he said.

"I need them to stand up in front of their playing groups and call out behaviour that is not appropriate. Some of the things I have seen are just ridiculous, dumb and inappropriate.

"I need the senior players to call that out in their own squads and clubs and say that is not who we are as a game or a sport, and we are not going to stand by and see that happen."

Asked whether action could be taken over videos that were made public several years after they had been filmed, Greenberg said any player whose actions bought the game into disrepute faced sanction.

"If the game's brand gets damaged, whether it happens five minutes ago or five years ago and it is damaged because the players are doing the wrong thing or inappropriate things or dumb things and it gets out there will be consequences," he said.

"I also said to them that if you post something on a WhatsApp [or similar] group we will treat it exactly the same as if you post it on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram because the propensity for it to get out is almost certain.

"People are looking obviously as we are at who is distributing this information and there are laws in place for that but beyond that, and this is the message I gave to the players, don't look to blame others for who is sending this stuff out.

"Have some accountability yourselves and not video it in the first place and then don't put it in WhatsApp groups because at its very core it is dumb, it is immature, it is idiotic and it can be very damaging to you individually because you put your livelihood at risk and in the hands of other people, you damage the club you are playing for and importantly from where I sit you damage the game, and I am not going to stand around and let that happen."

Greenberg said the NRL would wait for players facing criminal charges to have their day in court, but if found guilty he promised the penalties would be tough.

"These are very serious criminal charges and if players are found guilty of those serious criminal charges they will face a significant time out of the game if ever playing again," he said.

"Violence against women and charges that relate to violence against women will take the very highest accountability so you can expect very big sanctions against that, and people who want to start comparing our sanctions against previous ones should probably start again because there is going to be a reset and we are going to get harder and we are going to get tougher."
 
@ said:
Greenberg vents frustrations at club CEOs and captains over off-field incidents

Author: Brad Walter
NRL.com Senior Reporter
Timestamp: Mon 21 Jan 2019, 06:12 PM

Todd Greenberg vented his frustrations at the recent anti-social behaviour in the NRL to club CEOs and captains during an unprecedented phone hook-up on Monday, warning them about the damage these acts cause the game…

The nerve of that scum Greenturd. Giving Inglis a character reference, but then having a whinge about the players misbehaving? Really? I do not understand how he can get away with that??

Didn't Inglis even plead guilty?? I know he got bugger all as a punishment by the court, but how can the NRL CEO not impose some sort of sanctions for that?? I do not understand.
 
Its good news that they are finally going to get tough on the morons in our game, but lets see if they goes through with it though.

Rumours on facebook about slimey fart getting into strife are around too.
 
@ said:
Its good news that they are finally going to get tough on the morons in our game, but lets see if they goes through with it though.

Rumours on facebook about slimey fart getting into strife are around too.

Cochise & yourself revel in playing the role of devil's advocate.
Nothing will change till Greenburg is fired/resigns I'm afraid.
 
Back
Top