The Salary Cap fiasco

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by ManlyBacker, Mar 1, 2006.



Share This Page

  1. ManlyBacker

    By:ManlyBackerMar 1, 2006
    Winging it
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    11,597
    Likes Received:
    843
    Likes Given:
    738
    Ratings:
    +972 /7
    With all the talk recently about the capabilities and biases of Roy Masters; he has come up with a good article on the problems confronting the Warriors, the lack of effort in getting the Warrior shop in order since the new admin took over the club last November, and the crazy way that training and employment with a RL club are exempt from the cap.

    See http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/the-case-of-the-missing-salary-cap-manual/2006/02/28/1141095740712.html

    The most interesting statements are at the end of the article:
    "Yet player managers remain insistent over what they call anomalies in the salary cap rules, despite many of them never having read the NRL manual.

    "Is my job to be a constable in Schubert's investigation squad, or do the best deal I can for my client?" one asked, exposing why a salary cap investigation has produced a credibility gap for the code."

    Yes, the mighty Banagan is in the thick of it again. I guess saying that you don't need to know the rules when undertaking contract negotiations for your steeds is a bit like the financial planners saying they didn't need to know the investment qualifications of Westpoint for their clients. :roll:
     
  2. Matabele

    By:MatabeleMar 1, 2006
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    23,081
    Likes Received:
    457
    Likes Given:
    63
    Ratings:
    +516 /14
    Jim Banaghan probably put the Monaghan brothers onto that fine Canberra Investment broker - Eric Hawley of Pattersons.

    Do a google search on that one. ;)
     
  3. Jatz Crackers

    By:Jatz CrackersMar 1, 2006
    Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    9,342
    Likes Received:
    1,213
    Likes Given:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1,641 /10
    "is a bit like the financial planners saying they didn't need to know the investment qualifications of Westpoint for their clients"

    These days at least financial planners are required to possess a licence and display that license in any & all promotion of their business. This Banahan character (was he the fool with big mouth during MM contract negotiations?) sounds like a real unprofessional to me or maybe its simply a case of verbal diarrhoea
     
  4. Fluffy

    By:FluffyMar 2, 2006
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    20,471
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Likes Given:
    24
    Ratings:
    +6,821 /266
    benji marshalls manager has piped up saying he doesnt like what schubert is doing - reason is schubert is investigating marshell add with larkam.
     
  5. Guest

    By:GuestMar 2, 2006
    Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 /0
    If the NRL is serious about the salary cap then it needs to penalise the club boards, CEO's, players and player managers and anybody else who knew about any breaches of the cap. This is as well as having a standard system of points loss. Maybe even loss of points over 2 seasons and not just one.

    Cancellation of contacts for players and loss of accreditation with the NRL for player managers are what is required to keep the system above board otherwise it will eventually fail.

    If the penalties are substantial then the system wiill ensure that no breaches are made.

    But Gallop and his fellow ex-News corp buddies won't set up such a system because they are wimps.
     
  6. Matabele

    By:MatabeleMar 2, 2006
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    23,081
    Likes Received:
    457
    Likes Given:
    63
    Ratings:
    +516 /14
    I wonder how rigorously News Ltd is investigated with reference to its dealings with players at clubs that it owns???????????
     
  7. ManlyBacker

    By:ManlyBackerMar 2, 2006
    Winging it
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    11,597
    Likes Received:
    843
    Likes Given:
    738
    Ratings:
    +972 /7
    Company Directors are now regularly sent to prison. The law has been beefed up over the last few years and Directors are personally legally liable. With what we know, how many can say they do this (from ASIC):
    - be honest and careful in your dealings at all times
    - know what your company is doing
    - take extra care if your company is operating a business because you may be handling other people's money
    - make sure that your company can pay its debts on time
    - see that your company keeps proper financial records
    - act in the company's best interests ... and use any information you get through your position properly and in the best interests of the company. Using that information to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for yourself or for any other person, or to harm the company may be a crime or may expose you to other claims. This information need not be confidential; if you use it the wrong way and dishonestly, it may still be a crime.
     
  8. Fluffy

    By:FluffyMar 2, 2006
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    20,471
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Likes Given:
    24
    Ratings:
    +6,821 /266
    Well Melbourne have gone over the cap by the third highest amount - close to 700K and they havnt lost a single point, not suprisingly.

    Read into it what you will
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Top