How many points will parra lose

Fortitude wrote:Im hoping the Eels will start shedding players, coz I want Paulo at the Ders ASAP.

But, does this open the door for clubs like the Ders to be over the cap for the current season?  I assume clubs make signings for future seasons forecasting what their salary situation will be for the future season not the current one? or am I over thinking this?

Doubt the Raiders would be spending their cap anyway, so that's not likely to be an issue.

Fortitude wrote:Im hoping the Eels will start shedding players, coz I want Paulo at the Ders ASAP.

But, does this open the door for clubs like the Ders to be over the cap for the current season?  I assume clubs make signings for future seasons forecasting what their salary situation will be for the future season not the current one? or am I over thinking this?

You're over thinking it. No cap space this year=no new players this year.

Krump wrote:
Who does that remind you of...

Hey - don't be taking any credit there: I spoon fed you that one!

The NRL need to make things clearer around TPAs. Its very easy to do, just list how much each club spends on TPA's and list the companies providing those TPAs. This way everything (but the private individuals getting them and amounts they each get) is out in the open and any connections between club and tpa providers are easy to see. The NRL wont do it because the clubs dont really want this to happen, they all know how to get around the cap this way. Only Parra are stupid enough to leave a big paper trail and do it so openly. One of the things they are in trouble for is providing free tickets and private boxes to TPA providers who are not meant to have anything to do with the club, i myself have been into private boxes of TPA providers at other clubs, this is a very common and know thing to do.

Krump wrote:
Apparently if they can prove he has new injuries forcing him to retire his salary comes off the cap. That's what I'm reading everywhere anyway.

Read that too. It is relying on on the insurance claim being accepted. Unfortunately I reckon the insurance company would not be dictated by Parra's timetable, particularly if it means them paying out several hundred thousand dollars a year.

Hopefully Parra get this sorted sooner rather than later. It's been good watching them perform so well this season.

Shanbon wrote: One of the things they are in trouble for is providing free tickets and private boxes to TPA providers who are not meant to have anything to do with the club, i myself have been into private boxes of TPA providers at other clubs, this is a very common and know thing to do.

How much did the TPA provider pay for those boxes?

If parra have lost points for every game they have won whilst over the cap this season, then why aren't the points being given to the teams they have beaten?

I posted this on the GH, so just copying from there:
Didn't it come out a while back that some clubs had over 1mill in TPA's while others had less than 200k? In the unlikely event parra were a team at the bottom of the scale, they could still be worth less than teams at the top of the scale... What a ludicrous system. They are basically over the cap by something roughly equal to milfs TPA top up....

jstands wrote:If parra have lost points for every game they have won whilst over the cap this season, then why aren't the points being given to the teams they have beaten?

Beats me, I've never understood this part of the punishment. It would be like dqing a horse and then having no winner...

jstands wrote:If parra have lost points for every game they have won whilst over the cap this season, then why aren't the points being given to the teams they have beaten?

Because the other team still didn't win, and you have to win to get points. I guess they set the precedent when the Dogs had their points taken away in 2002, and also when teams lose points for substitution infractions, like when the Dogs lost points for too many players against Penrith a few years ago.

Dip wrote:

Haha was expecting a few comments, but my point is that we don't really know what Foran has done. Would the outrage be less if hypothetically he also beat up his ex on a drug induced rage. I don't remember too much backlash when Dylan Walker was released.

Personally I'd keep Foran if it is something like depression. They fought hard to keep him last when when he was apparently entitled to do a DCE style backflip, and I don't think anything has changed. I would think the Eels see Norman and Foran as the foundation they can build a team around.

Re Watmough, would they save anything though? Without him having breached his contract they would have to pay out his contract unless someone else signs him, and I doubt there are any or many clubs willing to sign him, so you're not actually saving anything.

From what I recall Dylan Walker has having some fun and took it too far and had too much. Foran is clearly struggling with something and without going into rumours.

We don't know what Foran has done and you're ready to sack him haha, tough task master.

Dip wrote:

Because the other team still didn't win, and you have to win to get points. I guess they set the precedent when the Dogs had their points taken away in 2002, and also when teams lose points for substitution infractions, like when the Dogs lost points for too many players against Penrith a few years ago.

I think you are talking about the wrong code when you mention precedence having any bearing. If it did, wouldn't they have an entire season without points regardless of what they did this season, like the storm.

Anyway I understand what you are saying but it still makes no sense to me. The other team have been retroactively dq'd. Therefore the opponent wins by virtue of being the only team remaining. If parra just didn't arrive to any of those games and forfeited, they wouldn't give the opponents 0 points because they didn't beat them, they would give them the win (extreme example I know, but you see where I'm going).

Edit: or if Parra were up 50-0 with 79min gone and suddenly half their team decided to Fifita the refs, resulting in a forfeit/dq, the other team would be awarded the win, regardless of the scoreline.

Sooo, what a fun day for Parra Fans.

Honestly, though I said we'd make the 8 still, that was just me trying to remain positive in the face of the whole debacle, but I don't think we will. If we did, it would be a bigger effort than Leicester.

Fortunately, given the Knights are still in the comp, I'm confident we can avoid the spoon and impact on some other teams chances on the run home.

Now, the fine and then points I can deal with, they are short term issues, but the shedding of players is a concern.

I think we simple have to do one thing, and that is ensure we retain Foran, Norman and Peats. I don't care who else we lose as long as we retain those guys.

Junior Paulo has been huge, but for mine, he is the first to go. He can be accommodated by the Raiders and this will save us a good chunk of change.

Apparently Ryan Morgan has been released to the Storm for the remainder of the year so there is some more pretty much done. We've got what, 9 days before our next game, and I think there are a couple of others we might be able to find a home for. Cameron King is one, maybe even Wicks and Gordon and I am sure there are a couple of others that would get us pretty close to the mark.

Watbro is a non factor in all this for this year. Even if the insurance comes through, that only impacts us next year, not this year. However, it is vital going forward, and I thik will be the difference between us keeping NOrman or not. Insurance comes through, I think we sign Norman and shed a handful of other. No Insurance for Watbro, no Norman in 2017, and that is trouble.

Honeysett wrote:

Yep so if player x is claiming he made $600k last year and Parra have on the books he made $400k after 3rd party payments then there is a discrepancy and if the players aren't claiming it correctly they'd be entering the murky waters of tax fraud.  

This sort of thing I'd back the player as being oblivious. I get $400K from the club $200k in 3rd parties as per my contract, I fill in my tax $600K ( in actual fact I'm a registered small businesses and the $200K gets paid to it, because the tax bracket is lower. But that's a whole nother conversation).

The player doesn't know as was the case with Parramatta that the club is paying the 3rd party to pay me.

On the other hand if a boat ends up in my dads driveway that isn't on any paperwork and I don't claim as fringe benefits, then I know shit is shonky.

Ice wrote:Sooo, what a fun day for Parra Fans.

Honestly, though I said we'd make the 8 still, that was just me trying to remain positive in the face of the whole debacle, but I don't think we will.  If we did, it would be a bigger effort than Leicester.

Fortunately, given the Knights are still in the comp, I'm confident we can avoid the spoon and impact on some other teams  chances on the run home.

Now, the fine and then points I can deal with, they are short term issues, but the shedding of players is a concern.

I think we simple have to do one thing, and that is ensure we retain Foran, Norman and Peats.  I don't care who else we lose as long as we retain those guys.

Junior Paulo has been huge, but for mine, he is the first to go.  He can be accommodated by the Raiders and this will save us a good chunk of change.

Apparently Ryan Morgan has been released to the Storm for the remainder of the year so there is some more pretty much done. We've got what, 9 days before our next game, and I think there are a couple of others we might be able to find a home for. Cameron King is one, maybe even Wicks and Gordon and I am sure there are a couple of others that would get us pretty close to the mark.

Watbro is a non factor in all this for this year.  Even if the insurance comes through, that only impacts us next year, not this year.  However, it is vital going forward, and I thik will be the difference between us keeping NOrman or not.  Insurance comes through, I think we sign Norman and shed a handful of other.  No Insurance for Watbro, no Norman in 2017, and that is trouble.

I'm internet poor this week, can you spare a link where they are over this year. I always thought this year they were sweet ? Melbourne coverage is abhorrent.

Someone has probably already said this

Im thinking to make the top 8 you will need 28 points and a good points diff will help.
soooo they need to win 12 of their next 15 games to make the top 8

Now if they ever did have a chance to win the entire comp, then they should actually be able to do that

Below is an extract and quote from an Eels player manager and this is the thing I really don't get and it is why TPA's must be stopped.

"This manager said he had a player sign with the club on a deal worth $200,000 a season with $175,000 guaranteed and the other $25,000 made up of third party agreements (TPAs).

“I’m still chasing them for the third parties,” the agent revealed.

Now, what I don't get is this.  How can a Manager have a player sign with a club for $200k, with $175k guaranteed by the club (which is fine) and then the other $25K made up of TPA's, and then come out and say he is STILL chasing them (the Club, like with Foran and Manly) for the TPA's, when the club is NOT ALLOWED TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY WITH TP fucking A's.

This is not a rant about trying to say we have done nothing wrong, we have, I accept that, but the whole TPA thing is just an absolutely joke. If I am a player and my manager says "Hey Sign here for $xx, I've got $xx guaranteed and $xx in TPAs and that is the best offer" my simple question is "What is willing to offer the most guaranteed?"  Because that is the best offer, cause TPAs by DEFINITION cannot be Guaranteed by anyone involved with the Club.  If I'm joining a club based on some TPA top up's, you can bet your ask I am asking for a contract from the company providing the TPA, NOT the club I am signing with, because I KNOW they cant be involved in them.

I'm telling you, it is the scum bag Managers that are responsible for this mess.  The 4.5%ers or whatever it is they call them.  I bet you they take there cut based on the full amount, not just the guaranteed amount.

Seriously, every time a player moves clubs you here about his TPA's and how much of his contract it is, but seriously, how many of these knuckle heads are even worth a TPA? Every Tom Dick and Harry seems to be promised one, but sorry, there are only a few players from each team that are worth a pinch of shit or more in TPA's. Seriously, in the above example, no player worth $175k Gauranteed is worth $25k in TPA's, $175K wouldn't even make you a rep player or a TOP 10 player at a club, but we are supposed to believe some business honchos are willing to part with $25k for him to show up at a gold day? Please, you are having me on Player Managers.


Ahhhh, fuck it all, its just a joke.  Grrrrrrr

Below is an extract and quote from an Eels player manager and this is the thing I really don't get and it is why TPA's must be stopped.

"This manager said he had a player sign with the club on a deal worth $200,000 a season with $175,000 guaranteed and the other $25,000 made up of third party agreements (TPAs).

“I’m still chasing them for the third parties,” the agent revealed.

Now, what I don't get is this.  How can a Manager have a player sign with a club for $200k, with $175k guaranteed by the club (which is fine) and then the other $25K made up of TPA's, and then come out and say he is STILL chasing them (the Club, like with Foran and Manly) for the TPA's, when the club is NOT ALLOWED TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY WITH TP fucking A's.

This is not a rant about trying to say we have done nothing wrong, we have, I accept that, but the whole TPA thing is just an absolutely joke. If I am a player and my manager says "Hey Sign here for $xx, I've got $xx guaranteed and $xx in TPAs and that is the best offer" my simple question is "What is willing to offer the most guaranteed?"  Because that is the best offer, cause TPAs by DEFINITION cannot be Guaranteed by anyone involved with the Club.  If I'm joining a club based on some TPA top up's, you can bet your ask I am asking for a contract from the company providing the TPA, NOT the club I am signing with, because I KNOW they cant be involved in them.

I'm telling you, it is the scum bag Managers that are responsible for this mess.  The 4.5%ers or whatever it is they call them.  I bet you they take there cut based on the full amount, not just the guaranteed amount.

Seriously, every time a player moves clubs you here about his TPA's and how much of his contract it is, but seriously, how many of these knuckle heads are even worth a TPA? Every Tom Dick and Harry seems to be promised one, but sorry, there are only a few players from each team that are worth a pinch of shit or more in TPA's. Seriously, in the above example, no player worth $175k Guaranteed is worth $25k in TPA's, $175K wouldn't even make you a rep player or a TOP 10 player at a club, but we are supposed to believe some business honchos are willing to part with $25k for him to show up at a golf day? Please, you are having me on Player Managers.


Ahhhh, fuck it all, its just a joke.  Grrrrrrr

Anyone else think they should check who's everyone girlfriend/wife/family work for and see if the club has paid them a big salary. That's an easy way around the salary cap, club hires the wife of a player and gets her to organise an event once per year and pays her $100k a year to do it. Still goes into the pocket of the player in the end.

Honeysett wrote:Anyone else think they should check who's everyone girlfriend/wife/family work for and see if the club has paid them a big salary. That's an easy way around the salary cap, club hires the wife of a player and gets her to organise an event once per year and pays her $100k a year to do it. Still goes into the pocket of the player in the end.

Maaaaate, if you had a girlfriend or wife, you'd know the money doesn't ever go to the player in the end.......