5 minutes ago
THE NRL failed to follow its own rules when it suspended five Parramatta Eels officials over the salary cap scandal without giving them a chance to be heard, A NSW Supreme Court heard.
Suspended chairman Steve Sharp, directors Tom Issa and Peter Serrao, chief executive John Boulous and football operations manager Daniel Anderson are fighting the NRLs decision to deregister them as a result of the salary cap scandal exposed by the Daily Telegraph.
Their lawyer Arthur Moses SC told the hearing the NRL did not follow “procedural fairness” when they suspended the five officials over the alleged salary cap rort on May 3.
Tom Issa 
Daniel Anderson“On the proper construction of the NRL rules the defendant was required to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard as to whether they should be suspended,” Mr Moses said.
“This suspension of such registration is a serious consequences it may have a detrimental impact on current or future employment opportunities, their reputation and therefore their livelihood and standing within the community.
“These allegations have been made in the context of press conferences and continual publications in circumstances where individuals had not been given an opportunity to provide a response.”
He said “allegations had been thrown about like confetti,” about the officials who were described as the “gang of five.”
“There has been a public flogging of the plaintiffs,” he said.
Peter Serrao 
John Boulous.The NRL took action against the club and the five officials following a series of Daily Telegraph front pages alleging the Eels used Third Party Agreements to pay players far more than they should have been allowed under NRL salary cap rules.
The NRL announced on May 3 they were proposing to fine the Eels $1 million, dock them all 12 competition points, strip them of the 2016 Auckland Nines title and sack the five officials over the salary cap rort.
That afternoon the five officials were granted a temporary injunction in the NSW Supreme Court restraining the NRL from deregistering them.
Replies
While the article does not say a lot of anything new, it does show with the submission how the NRL did not follow their own rules in regard to their actions. See what transpires still early for the days comings & goings.
I've said earlier that I think the idea of holding a press conference to announce preliminary findings is not ideal. It's the way the NRL have always done it. They should make an announcement once the final breach notice is given.
However, it doesn't seem like all the jumping up and down about procedural fairness in the world (even legitimately so) will get us our 12 points back. Today's court action is about the five, not the club.
true.
So they are fighting over procedural fairness??? Not over their guilt?? What a total waste of time an Parra's money.
That is correct mate, it's not about the substantive breach issues facing the club, it's about the five individuals and that they weren't afforded procedural fairness.
Alan, don't know but its likely only one part in their argument. Although if the NRL have erred here it may, note may have some bearing on some aspects of the hearing. The 5 are not proceeding with their threat to sue, but probably on the basis of what has happened in total was unfair, or not correct & could mean some pressure on the NRL in their final decision.
Mate a lot of criminal matters get overturned on these sort of matters. If the investigation is tainted so is the outcome.
Grab a Chaff bag, throw them in and toss them off the harbour bridge.
It's not going to help the club by them fighting procedural fairness, only themselves.
They probably aren't guilty of cheating the cap to the extent that has been claimed by the NRL but what they make up for by lack of guilt they more than compensate by displaying their complete stupidity and utter ineptness whilst running the Eels.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next