Pascoe sanctioned by the NRL

@Telltails said:
No more outrageous than your suggestion that Pascoe planned to bring Farah back as a player when there was room in the cap - ignoring the fact that he would be 35 and whoever was coach may not of wanted a bar of it! But keep putting out there and someone will believe it.

I didn't say that was the plan, I said that it could be argued by people that was a reason considering he returned less than 2 years after the club organised to pay him $639K to leave.
 
@Russell said:
Yep we hid it in the media.

No one is disputing whether we were guilty or not.

Most on here are saying compared to the Sharks indiscretions (and there are many) we were more than harshly treated. The NRL knew this and reduced the penalties but still they are harsh compared to the Sharks.

The way you constantly are sticking up for the NRL over the penalties has me totally baffled. Are you sure you are not an NRL press officer???

Yes I think the penalties are harsh, but our club stuffed this up. That is who I am upset with.

What penalties would you change?
 
Maybe people will get over it if you would just let them vent.

Not having a dig, but in my opinion one of the reasons why this thread keeps going around and around is because you pull up everyone who posts thier negative view of the NRL and Greenberg.

I think Greenberg is a muppet and a mouth peace but in this instance he has the high ground.
 
@TCL said:
Maybe people will get over it if you would just let them vent.

Not having a dig, but in my opinion one of the reasons why this thread keeps going around and around is because you pull up everyone who posts thier negative view of the NRL and Greenberg.

I think Greenberg is a muppet and a mouth peace but in this instance he has the high ground.

So because my opinon differs, I am not allowed to vent? I'm just as upset as anyone else about this. I agree the Sharks should have gotten hit harder, but I would prefer to focus on what we did to put ourselves in this situation. What had our club done to ensure this doesn't happen again?

I really don't like Greenburg, I think he has done a terrible job and wish we had people like Quayle still involved in some capacity.
 
Pascoe should not have been de-registered.

Monetary penalties - 250,000 fine, cap payment of 639k stays but over the same period of the Farah ambassadorial contract i.e. i think it was four years.

This was also a first time offence not multiple offences as at the Sharks.
The Sharks club should be de-registered and their spot used in Brisbane or Perth. For God's sake how many chances does a club get, especially defying an NRL directive.
 
Not at all, of course you can vent. And just like everyone else you can say what you want, it's great that we have so many different opinions.

I'm just saying it's unreasonable for you to expect people to get over it if you keep posting your opposing opinion in reply to theirs.

I actually appreciated your point when you initially made it and agreed with a few of your points.
 
@Russell said:
The Sharks club should be de-registered and their spot used in Brisbane or Perth. For God’s sake how many chances does a club get, especially defying an NRL directive.

That punishes their fans. Pascoe deseves his deregistration. That is my last input on thread.
 
That's simple

The Sharks , tell them with all discretions they are playing this season for the fun of it

I think you are missing many people's points …...
 
@happy_tiger said:
That’s simple

The Sharks , tell them with all discretions they are playing this season for the fun of it

I would be ok with that, but I honestly dont care about what the Sharks have done or their penalties as I don't support them.
 
On and on it goes .. can somebody tell me how the WestsTigers benefited from this when they still had to pay Farah's wage to play somewhere else?
As for us saying sorry to the NRL… like saying sorry to your wife for getting home late from the pub.
 
Except you know that you will do that again. Hopefully the club either doesn't do it, or doesn't get caught.
 
The Sharks self reported their offence. They brought it to the attention of the media. This is why they were not hit with a fine much larger than ours.

Im all for conspiracies but our fans need to understand the circumstances before complaining that the Sharks were favored.
 
@The_Patriot said:
The Sharks self reported their offence. They brought it to the attention of the media. This is why they were not hit with a fine much larger than ours.

Im all for conspiracies but our fans need to understand the circumstances before complaining that the Sharks were favored.

There is not much point putting out the circumstances in this thread.
 
@happy_tiger said:
My question is this yet again …

Why did the NRL allow the deal to go through in the 1st place

We spoke about it when Robbie got his life membership …why doesn’t the NRL become pro active and say that is against the rules and you’ll be fined

And again if the NRL was angry about us asking for cap relief when we paid Robbie out …stop us from signing him back

Isn’t that what an empathetic employer does …act pro actively

Could what the NRL did be considered entrapment?
 
Issue with the Sharks situation is how do we know that Rothfield didn't get wind of what was happening and tell Russell to report it
 
No the article says "could" seize computers and phones and does not elaborate under what circumstances that would be possible and from whom.

If an employer comes to you and says "hand over your phone" I don't expect any amount of contract preamble can compel you to do so. Perhaps you go meet your lawyer then return and hand in your phone voluntarily, but the idea of phones being seizes unawares would appear to me to contravene personal civil rights. Or perhaps they have the right to cease your employment if you don't hand in the phone, like drugs tests.

I'm not saying I'm right, I just can't see a scenario where NRL are permitted to seize.
 
@happy_tiger said:
My question is this yet again …

Why did the NRL allow the deal to go through in the 1st place

We spoke about it when Robbie got his life membership …why doesn’t the NRL become pro active and say that is against the rules and you’ll be fined

And again if the NRL was angry about us asking for cap relief when we paid Robbie out …stop us from signing him back

Isn’t that what an empathetic employer does …act pro actively

Totally agree. They catch wind of the plan and they phone up Tigers and say "oh you'll need to clear that with us first, if that's your plan". Tigers say "oh ok, we didn't realise, thanks". The salary cap rules are too complicated to just have the NRL sit back and watch people infringe.

Rather than this BS of Tigers being underhanded for a public proposition that pretty much every Tigers fan was already aware of, but NRL appear to have not been.
 
Did you read the article or just the heading? It answers everything that you raised.

@jirskyr said:
No the article says “could” seize computers and phones and does not elaborate under what circumstances that would be possible and from whom.

The unit’s new and revised powers, which will be sent to all 16 NRL clubs this week, include:

*Confiscating computer data or smartphones for the purpose of an investigation;

*Providing the integrity unit “full and free access’’ to a club premises and “any other place where records are kept’’;

*Cracking down on breaches in relation to social media, including prohibiting “the display or transmission of any message that vilifies, intimidates or harasses a person’’, as well as prohibiting “the display or dissemination of sexually explicit or obscene images’’; and

*Requiring clubs to stump up any email or written communication in connection with a player or an official’s conduct.

@jirskyr said:
Or perhaps they have the right to cease your employment if you don’t hand in the phone, like drugs tests.

*The Daily Telegraph* understands if clubs refuse to co-operate, the NRL would consider it a breach of the rules, with the risk of a maximum $1 million fine in the most serious of cases.
 
Back
Top