Wondering what we thought of the story that has popped up a bit today but I don't think has been discussed here about Parramatta Council
The story popped up on Ray Hadley's program this morning which you can listen to here:
And is the subject of another Fairfax piece here:
Now, firstly again. Parramatta Council paying for an Eels player as an ambassador is exactly the kind of Third Party Agreement that the NRL wants to encourage. From a marketing point of view, I think the council could get a massive amount of mileage from an Eels players to promote its various endeavours and at the same time it helps an important organisation within the Parramatta community.
I can't see the problem, but then I'm not a Parramatta Council rate payer.
What I will point out, and this is the problem that the NRL now has, is the comments by Hadley and the councillor in the Fairfax article equating this deal with the salary cap dramas. There is simply no public understanding of how TPAs work - what is allowed and what isn't.
Replies
Sounds a good deal to me. I can think of worse ways of Council spending rate-payers' money but I do see the flip side because councillors use entertainers as vote winners. So I would like to see the player promotion working for the ratepayer not the Mayor. As for your invitation to listen to Hadley. No thanks I'd rather stick a biro through my ear.
Is there even a private understanding of how they work? I get the feeling that a lot of what the NRL considers a legit TPA vs one they'd reject may be a lot more discretionary and judgement based than black and white. And if this is the case it's a terrible system. How do you know whether a TPA will pass muster? Just submit it to the NRL and hope for the best.
If there were black and white rules surely they'd have been made public by now. There's no reason to keep them confidential.
If the NRL pass and reject TPA the same way the video refs awards trys. God help us.
They wanna impose a fine on us....we fight. why are we picked on yet other teams are allowed to continue without scrutiny or, worker still, without their transgressions highlighted.