Club announcement - Matai & Stewart to Retire

[ALinda]

I would really like to see a final resolution to this saga before round 1.

Snake and Skivvy deserve their money and a happy retirement. As hard as it is on the club, we need to move on for the sake of this team!

Wouldn't we all...enough is enough

 

[anthonyb1965]

Inevitable but still very sad, both Club Legends who gave us wonderful memories in the maroon and white. Thanks Brett and Steve!

 

[Brissie Kid]

Manly Sea Eagles appeal NRL's rejection of Brett Stewart retirement clearance
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...art-retirement-clearance-20170212-gub2fu.html

 

[Eagleheart]

If Choc had been 100% fit with no history of injuries, would the make believe collision he apparently had with Scott caused a career ending injury? I bet 100% no way. It was his pre existing injuries that were the main problem.

And 'the Knights successfully argued a medical retirement clearance for Kade Snowden last year and had his contract removed from the salary cap.'

So really what is going on here for the NRL not to give cap exemption for Snake and Matai?

This is actually quite serious and if they don't give us some cap relief this is cause enough for a protest or some other action from our club, the fans and the wider NRL community, that would send a clear message to the NRL that this not right.

Even fans from other clubs agree that they should get cap exemption, given the precedents that have already been set.....!

 

[Lord Eagleton]

I can guess what their response will be Batty. And its the reason why they are a joke of a sporting organisation. Biased, incompetent, cheating fools whos policy with the competition is to play God at all opportunities, depending on where their business needs are greatest. I hate them. Can you tell? lol

 

[The Who]

To highlight how stupid the rule is let's ask the NRL this:
Would a player only be deemed to have suffered career-ending concussion if he was knocked out once?

 

[pjayz]

I emailed the NRL to ask why insurance can deny both players of a medical retirement claim but the NRL can choose which clubs they want to give the cap exemptions to.

Interesting to hear their reply.

Dear Batty,

The reason we allowed medical retirements for those two players is that we find both Parramatta and Newcastle to be upstanding, integrous organisations that have not put a foot wrong in their history. Well...I mean...that cap cheating business was just a little misunderstanding and the drug suspension of three Knights players back in '97 and well, the Mullen thing, again, more about boys just being boys really. Manly on the other hand...well let me tell you, they have won too many damn premierships in their time and made 10 finals appearances in a row which...well..quite frankly is just greedy.

Yes greed, that is why we don't trust Manly and we'll be damned if we clear Mr Stewart and Mr Matai's medical retirements. I mean...really...how bad are these so called 'injuries' anyway? They can still walk can't they?

Well I hope that clears things up.

Love,

Toddles

 

[Fluffy]

While there is a contract yes. However if both parties agree to walk away then there is no contract. Nothing can count on the cap. Its only a sticking point because Penn wont fork up the money.

Incorrect - anyone involved with the club as well as sponsors etc cannot just pay players outside of the cap, it is included even after their contract has finished. Otherwise there would be handshake deals all the time and no need to have brown paper bags and new boats or apartments.

The best you can do is have them gainfully employed in a genuine role (not like the old days where you could earn 100K per year at the leagues club working 1 shift per week)

 

[Shoe1]

Incorrect - anyone involved with the club as well as sponsors etc cannot just pay players outside of the cap, it is included even after their contract has finished. Otherwise there would be handshake deals all the time and no need to have brown paper bags and new boats or apartments.

The best you can do is have them gainfully employed in a genuine role (not like the old days where you could earn 100K per year at the leagues club working 1 shift per week)

Cellarman, remember when most players' occupation was cellarman? I think that meant that they tapped the odd keg at the leagues club, or at least went to the club occasionally.

 

[Woodsie]

Cellarman, remember when most players' occupation was cellarman? I think that meant that they tapped the odd keg at the leagues club, or at least went to the club occasionally.

And before computers the pokies would be emptied by a "trusted" employee and the takings in 20c pieces placed in burlap sacks for later "counting."

 

[Eagles2nv]

Nrl has requested further information into Skivvys request.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...t/news-story/9243a401c36c191e2645086eb14a375b

 

[Supreme Leader]

Nrl has requested further information into Skivvys request.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...t/news-story/9243a401c36c191e2645086eb14a375b

What a joke! Why don't they just look at any of the last 2 years games and identify which hit hurt the most. Seriously?

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Anyone who thinks the NRL are going to look kindly on us has rocks in their head, Greenslime hates us, and this is his big opportunity to keep us back down the bottom for another year whilst the "favoured sides" rock on at the top.

There's zero benefit in a successful Manly, its all about TV ratings boys and sadly we do not rate!

 

[Fluffy]

What a joke! Why don't they just look at any of the last 2 years games and identify which hit hurt the most. Seriously?

agree - surely someone can get footage of the last game he played and find out when he started limping and look at the previous contact and boom there is your "event"

 

[TimmyQ]

Manly Sea Eagles appeal NRL's rejection of Brett Stewart retirement clearance
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...art-retirement-clearance-20170212-gub2fu.html

The thing that really annoys me is this - if a club offers a long term contract to a player with injury issues and they cant play they still have to pay them out and fair enuff. But gee then to double whammy the poor club and say 'Youre paying that dood but u cant replace him' is just ridiculous. Not much of a win for a club even if they DO get the cap exemption ffs. They're still out of pocket massively anyway paying for 2 blokes with only 1 on the field. And who loses in this current situation??? Us the bloody fans because our team is gonna run around with $1.2 odd mill of players not on the park. Just farsical...

 

[Tragic Eagle]

I cannot understand what mischief the NRL are trying to circumvent with this draconian requirement that the injury that ends the player's career is new? what difference does it make? If his career is over as a result of any injury (particularly one incurred on the football field playing in the NRL) then it is unconscionable to require a club to carry the continuing burden of their contracted salary under the cap. Firstly the contract no longer exists as it is "Frustrated" at law. Secondly the NRL are empowered to make rules to protect the safety of the players and the integrity of the game no just to create unnecessary hoops for the clubs to jump through without justification. Take them to Court!

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I cannot understand what mischief the NRL are trying to circumvent with this draconian requirement that the injury that ends the player's career is new? what difference does it make? If his career is over as a result of any injury (particularly one incurred on the football field playing in the NRL) then it is unconscionable to require a club to carry the continuing burden of their contracted salary under the cap. Firstly the contract no longer exists as it is "Frustrated" at law. Secondly the NRL are empowered to make rules to protect the safety of the players and the integrity of the game no just to create unnecessary hoops for the clubs to jump through without justification. Take them to Court!

No doubt they will but it may take quite some time to be sorted , so they may just be better sucking it up and operating on 1.4 million less than the rest!!

 

[Shoe1]

Dr Bloomfield's past at manly should be immaterial, otherwise it is a clear conflict of interest. His knowledge of previous injuries should have no bearing on the current decision. Manly would be presenting notes based on a new doctor's advice.

Bloomfield should stand aside for this decision as the perception is that he cannot be independent in this case.

Another aspect that will occur as a result of this decision is that no club will be keen to sign any older player for more than a year at a time. The rlpa should take note.

 

[Woodsie]

I cannot understand what mischief the NRL are trying to circumvent with this draconian requirement that the injury that ends the player's career is new? what difference does it make? If his career is over as a result of any injury (particularly one incurred on the football field playing in the NRL) then it is unconscionable to require a club to carry the continuing burden of their contracted salary under the cap. Firstly the contract no longer exists as it is "Frustrated" at law. Secondly the NRL are empowered to make rules to protect the safety of the players and the integrity of the game no just to create unnecessary hoops for the clubs to jump through without justification. Take them to Court!

The purpose of the rule Tragic is to prevent clubs doing exactly what Parra did with Watmough (and got away with it) and what Newcastle are now attempting to do with Mat Scott.

Cowboys have offered Scott a 2 year deal at about $1.2mil. A reasonable amount and length of time for a bloke 32 yo. Along comes a cashed up club, desperate for success, and they offer $1mil a year for 3 years, knowing full well that the chances of the bloke playing the 3rd year is highly unlikely but don't care, they only really want him for one, maybe two years to build a team around.

They have the money and are happy to pay the player out, his not only deprives the original club of a star player but if they do so knowing that if they can just medically retire the player from the last year of his contract and not have it count under the salary cap it is deliberate manipulation of the cap.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

The purpose of the rule Tragic is to prevent clubs doing exactly what Parra did with Watmough (and got away with it) and what Newcastle are now attempting to do with Mat Scott.

Cowboys have offered Scott a 2 year deal at about $1.2mil. A reasonable amount and length of time for a bloke 32 yo. Along comes a cashed up club, desperate for success, and they offer $1mil a year for 3 years, knowing full well that the chances of the bloke playing the 3rd year is highly unlikely but don't care, they only really want him for one, maybe two years to build a team around.

They have the money and are happy to pay the player out, his not only deprives the original club of a star player but if they do so knowing that if they can just medically retire the player from the last year of his contract and not have it count under the salary cap it is deliberate manipulation of the cap.

And welcome to a new Rort, and what I see as the eventual demise of the salary cap due to the system being broken, to,e and time again.

I'm convinced that they will eventually move to a points system to even up the comp.

What we have now with TPA's, Rorts , brown paper bags, double contracts etc etc ain't working!!