Just able to get on the web, looked at the eels web site & a new Chairmans message on it. Must be very relevant as it follows on what I saw on the TV earlier today
I missed a part of the Channel 9 Sunday Footy show, Erin Molen is the host of the show these days, at a later point in the show they must have a new segment which is meant possibly to be a reinventation of the old Sunday Roast. Today she had 3 so called Journo's media specialist or whatever, none of whom I know their names, one I do not recognize in any way, one I do but another of balding & shaved head brigade, seen his face in papers, 3rd one is balding with black curl like hair & is a regular on the early part of the show, which I had also missed.
The part that got my attention after coming out of the toilet was they were discussing the penalty & decision regarding the latest saga. Balding head was actually speaking a relative mild way but as it was mostly gone on he was not making much head way, Shaved head then came up with the aspect that the NRL will be handing down their decision of the investigations on Tuesday this week.
He said that the decision would include fines, points deduction as well as the demand that board members involved/ complicint in what has gone on, will be required to resign or will be removed. Also they should not be allowed to compete in the finals. Balding guy wanted to stick up for the eels, the players fans & also the aspect of the loss of revenue by eels with lower crowds with fans boycotting & not attending matches, loss of a high viewer market for the networks. Eels could player park players in games as no point the players turning up or something like that.
Shaved head went off his head saying so what, look at what happened to the dogs, Tv rights & the like so what, they have cheated & the game does not need them as a result, again he referred to the dogs. Balding guy then said mentioned how Mannah turned up when he should not have played on Friday night, Shaved, so what that's whats expected of a player.
Balding then said. well one thing with it is that the eels can at least ensure that if they are not in the running this year, then they can rest any player that has any niggling injury to ensure they are all fit & ready next year, no one with any injuries.
Based only on what I saw/heard, & some of the above may be off slightly reading what Sharp has said I am thinking that the club will be given the decision with Tuesday being the latest. Club has 10 days to respond, but two sentences in his message has me concerned
These are the reasons why we sought assurances from the NRL that we will be allowed the chance to discuss our concerns about the investigation before any decisions were made. To date, this has been denied.
As a result, our club also reserves all of our legal rights. Rights which we will assert if we believe we have not been treated fairly. We are prepared to fight through the courts if need be.
Does the end of the first sentence imply that the eels are being denied the chance to discuss or respond to the decision? I am thinking that is the case, owing to the second sentence.
Based then on the 9 show, & what I saw/heard. all the stuff that Sharp has said is worrying but, not because of him or what is said overall as I think what he has said the eels will defend any decision considered unfair & the NRL is saying decision is final. & therefore there is a denial of natural justice in order to reply & defend themselves.
Shaved head on 9 along with the unknown (to me) were seriously putting down the club, & would have no bar of the other one, with the greatest emphasis of what the dogs suffered previously & the eels are cheats & therefore have to suffer the same. Seems they too want an execution, & likely they have not seen any of the clubs response to the charges either, so guilty as charged, without a chance to defend the charge. Are we in a country under the control of something similar to what we see in Iraq & Syria.
Replies
Mate, the breach notice is an explanation of how and why the NRL think the Eels have acted in contravention of the NRL rules. They will be issued the notice then be given time to respond before a decision is made by the NRL (Sharpy said 28 days).
Once that decision is made the Eels can appeal to another part of the NRL. While that process occurs the penalty remains imposed. The decision is reviewed by some employed as a judge - but it is not a court process. That person has the power to dismiss the breach, substitute another breach or add additional breaches (and penalties)
It looks like our board wants a meeting to discuss the breach notices before they are issued. But I don't believe there is anything in the NRL rules that requires the NRL to do this. However, there is certainly an opportunity to raise concerns in the time after the initial breach notice is given.
If the club feels they haven't been given an effective way to raise concerns they should certainly make that exceptionally clear at every opportunity they can.
Thanks nutcracker for the explanation & process. Sharp & Boulos have been making reference to the 28days in the past, probably they were hoping that in the time, so called due process there was means to meet & discuss the issue, which if going by the fine last year of $550K reduced to $465K after eels submission, that may be how it will be this time round.
Other aspect is that if there is nothing in the rules to allow for processing the whole thing before the penalty is applied, using last years decision as the example, the first announced fine would not be advertised until the representation/appeal is made resulting in the lower amount, which is likely what Sharp & the board are desirous of.
Problem with that segment this morning, & as I did not see the initial engagement & discussion point is that the left hand side fellow & Webster in particular were pushing the hardest line as prosecutor, jury & judge without compromise & no real evidence of proof was demonstrated on the hidden charge wrap sheet. With Webster so vehement in his attacks & comparison to what the dogs had to go through, Eels are presented in a worse case, & more a constant breach club than the dogs were. Greenburg would have to know on that score I would think
For me, I would think if the penalty is fair when measured against he charges, & who were deemed responsible for the breaches then they could still appeal & seek a review/reduction in any penalty. Again if the legal team they have assembled say they have a good case & good chance of winning in a court action, then I would support that taking place .
The NRL would naturally have to defend the charges, but could also be worried if the eels won an appeal, there could be a fair amount of concern that a successful appeal could be the basis of a demand for all clubs to have their books opened in both the general contract cap payments as well as TPA & any other extra contract payments.
The idiot on the right was the fool that wrote the article in the herald about the eels playing park footballers if the season is rubbed out.
Sorry, I thought Riccio was the one on the right, I thought it was strange the one in the middle was talking about resting players.
Brett
Thanks for the identification. & you are correct that Yvonne is the host, but seems that Errin was/is in charge of the particular segment
The fellow Riccio? does appear regularly & more in the start section of the show, & I have to admit he does provide fair comment. I guess Webstar having a shaved hear really changes his appearance when compared to the min pics in the newspapers. Who is the other/3rd person who sat next to Errin?
I worship shaven havens and this blogs getting me excited.
More like joyce Mayne in a Pool Haven Snake.
I just posted my first comment on the long thread Message From the Chairman 1/05/16
& as I was posting I realized that what I put in the speel of this post above, in the 4th paragraph here
board members involved/ complicint in what has gone on, will be required to resign or will be removed is actually wrong in saying board members.
What was actually said was any official of the club is actually what was said. That makes a difference as it could rope in other people who work in certain positions but not directly being a board member, other words an employee.
Poppa will do me for the best of it all. I have no idea of the real who on the first base is, but we have Riccio on 2nd, Webster on 3rd. Who is looking for the last run to get him home, to me something suggests he is going to get run out, & hopefully stumped right on the last base as he dives for it.
YYYYOOOOOUUUUUUUU'''''''''''''''''''''RRRR OUT