I predict that the term "arms length" will become the crux of debate and legal restitution that could potentially shape the future of our club and in fact the NRL in its existing form.
Does the NRL have a patent on the definition of "at arms length"....... if not, then should parties (clubs, player managers, players, sponsors) be expected to fit in with the legal definition or adopt a media / NRL manipulated definition .
"arm's length" -Legal definition
adj. the description of an agreement made by two parties freely and independently of each other, and without some special relationship, such as being a relative, having another deal on the side or one party having complete control of the other. It becomes important to determine if an agreement was freely entered into to show that the price, requirements, and other conditions were fair and real. Example: if a man sells property to his son the value set may not be the true value since it may not have been an "arm's length" transaction.
Where is it outlined under the definition of at "arms length" that a club or representatives of a club cannot make introductions that will result in agreements to be made "at arms length"? Prove this argument and the Eels (Broncos, Bulldogs, Roosters, Sharks, Storm et al) are under the cap in 2016 and 2017..... as Schubert (paid consultant using the legal definition) has already outlined and argued.
Player managers are brokers for the NRL ensuring that agreements are convenienlty negotiated and agreed "at arms length" from the NRL and its interests.
The player managers don't want to bite the hand that feeds them......but Greenberg has unwittingly backed some into a corner and some are about to unite and open up the biggest can of worms in the history of the NRL.
An "illuminating" bombshell is coming. Watch this space!!!!
Back Sharp and team a little longer. We wont regret it.
Replies
Another good post from you Yoda but im afraid knowing what i know i cant back this board any longer as they are damaging the club, regardless if they find a technocality on the 'at arms length' term, which i agree with you is a joke, that doesnt change a thing, their jobs are untenable now mate.
I agree. 100%....But be patient.....so the axe drops on all. Or the system will remain and so will those that have kept it alive and exported it. Not long to go. Sunlight coming brother!!!
The players are the NRL's products. Pure and simple. They would say their product is the game, which is right too. The player manager trades the NRL products (player / seller) between their franchise members (buyer) or their own entities (Broncos in part). The player managers set / negotiate the price of the product (within NRL guidelines) which is leased for a period to a franchise.
Case in point....... if the NRL decides to allow Jarryd Hayne (for example) to play for the Eels and be paid 250K by the Eels and he can secure Nike as a personal sponsor for any amount which he does not have to disclose, he would cease to be a product of the NRL.
The player managers benefit is indeed an indirect benefit form the NRL. And that includes a blind eye.
Agree we need to be wait and been saying it....and god I hope your right!
Who better then to exploit any loophole in the salary cap rules & regulations.....then a very expensive QC and the ex NRL auditor Ian Schubert!!!!
Should I take them off yet?
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next