Sea Eagle forever
- Sep 13, 2004
We made the 2017 finals with $1mil of cap sitting on the sidelines Snake and Matai. $330k should be a doddle.
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.SignUp Now!
I'm not considering them guilty. It might be my one-eyedness but why would the club spend a lot of money on an appeal if they believed they were guilty? Remember this all started with the match-fixing rubbish. I honestly believe Greenturd wanted to nail us for something. He got his way.The "but others are doing it too" excuse doesn't sit well with me. Those in business would know just because your competitors are doing it doesn't make it right.
Just another day in the Penn era, tarnished for life over the stupid acts of a few.
Todd would double it mate. In any case 330K of the 660K cap reduction has already been served in 2018. Wouldn't know it though the way the media is still saying we are being smashed with 750K (it's actually 500 with 250 suspended) and 660K for 2018 and 19 (2018 season is pretty much done)Why isn't half the fine suspended?
As you agree feathered friend . There are many examples of how clubs can turn their fortunes around and so there is hope for us as well . There are much better investments than investing your hard earned money in a NRL club and I believe any person that takes over a club has a passion for the club . Remember when Quantum pulled out their money and left ? The Penns are still there .Hey @BOZO I love your optimism mate. There are many examples of how clubs can turn their fortunes around. It takes great leadership and resolve. But a lot of the success stories centre around the WHY? Why are the Penns there for? What is their vision and their end goal? If it's to make Manly great again and to restore the club to it's former glory then there is no reason why we can't get there. But if it's purely to build multi level developments then our club will lose its soul and no super coach will be able to turn our fortunes around.
With this announcement , nothing changes my outlook that the guidelines of the Present T P A arrangements are much more erroneous and at fault then any so called technical or really insignificant interpretation type breaches as this instance with Manly and as no doubt would have been a very common practice with all clubs [ and i am sure many clubs who would have had much worse instances then Manly "s and of course which will be never investigated ] . Again providing all club T P A "s are fully and transparently disclosed and as was clearly the case with Manly here . what does it really matter to what degree the club or certain club officials initiate or make initial approaches to prospective or possibly interested third party sponsors and to then allow the manager and his client contracted existing player or more likely in a negotiation stage , a player on the market to then allow to continue and quite possibly then finalize such third party endorsement or sponsorship . In the realistic and practical sense and again providing all of the T P A 's are all officially disclosed and listed to the N R L , again what should it really matter or be such a supposed improper activity . Every sensible conclusion would again surely indicate a very low level discrepancy , again Big Deal whether a club official does or does not make the initial moves to facilitate or help organize a player T P A , again as long as it is fully disclosed , which they all were in this instance with Manly and completely unlike the Eels instance in recent times when there was total intent to deceive the N R L . Again if there was to be a similar analogy to the Slater situation , where there was a high degree of leniency and tolerance applied , Manly would not have been penalized as again just in the minor case of a technical breach , they should not have . Also again in all fairness to give the Penns their due , they could have just rolled over when the N R L first imposed their grubby and agenda motivated ruling , they stumped up some very serious coin [ also admittedly for their own reputational standing ] to challenge it and based on strong [ if it really came to the letter of the law , ] quite valid arguments and to defend the club "s reputation and image . That they were not successful is not an unfavorable or negative indictment or reflection on them or the Manly club but on a more balanced and club land realistic and general T P A practices level , a bad and unflattering reflection on Greenberg and his petty and inept cronies .
Just like Souffs investigating themselves and finding nothing wrong here!!!!!Who exactly heard our appeal? The NRL? The NRL come up with a penalty, we disagree and appeal to the NRL, who surprise surprise, knock it back. Who actually made the appeal decision and have they come out publicly and explained their decision? If not, why not?