Eels Blogs

Madness

Posted by Bizlack on May 12, 2016 at 11:47am

Everyone thinking that the NRL was going to let us stay over the cap for the rest of the year have lost the plot.They own the league and they would have forced cap reductions on us. It may well have lead to a reduced cap next year or further sanctions this year.I am gutted to lose Peats but sadly it is the nature of this situation. We had to shed cash and it needed to be someone of value and someone off contract and basically the only 2 it would've worked with is Peats or Norman.My biggest concern is that an NRL owned and operated club were the beneficiaries of the deal.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

★

Votes: 0

Email me when people reply –

Replies

Frank The Tank May 12, 2016 at 11:51am

Well Hadley believes that regardless of us getting 'under the cap' by Friday, the clubs punishment maybe increased on June 3rd once the NRL hands down its final decision. Never heard such a bitter human in my life. Fucken grub of the highest order.
That's why offloading players will turn out to be a fruitless exercise. Releasing players to appease the NRL only to have the goal posts moved again after we comply.
- Omygindahouse > Frank The Tank May 12, 2016 at 12:28pm
  
  Greenburg is covering his dirty laundry up from his years at dogs
- Nutcracker > Frank The Tank May 12, 2016 at 1:25pm
  
  The penalty isn't going to change upwards with the final breach notice.
  But if the club appeals the final notice to the NRL Appeals Committee that committee (headed by a federal court judge) can alter, add or remove breaches. It's possible they could add breaches and increase the penalty.
  However, it would be extremely unlikely to remove any more points. The club has shifted players on the basis the NRL told them it would allow them to play for points.
  Hadley is scaremongering.
Bizlack May 12, 2016 at 11:56am

The point of my post was that if we didn't release Peats, who would they force us to shed? How much would they would reduce us by over future seasons? We are complying with the requests laid out by the NRL and despite the rants of one factions mouthpiece I can't see an increase of the preliminary penalty. The only change that the NRL was talking about after the court hearing was if we can produce evidence to the contrary, that's what right of reply is for.
Bart May 12, 2016 at 12:17pm

Exactly....... playing for no points was never gonna happen....they would of stepped in and forced us to shed players if we weren't cap compliant by 3rd June...an NRL spokesperson has already come out and expressed this!
- macybrown > Bart May 12, 2016 at 1:42pm
  
  Bart, think it may be possibly designed to help TG be seen as a greater hero after busting the greatest rorters of all times having to shed a favourite son against the "other 15 cap compliant clubs".
  
  I'll be buggered they came out and said that did they?Where was that said. And why wasn't this more widely known might've saved brad & the club some needless vitriol levelled at them. What a waste of time then for the play for no points idea, or peatsies dads rant!
Eric The 17.78cm Eel May 12, 2016 at 1:25pm

If you want an example of someone who has really lost the plot, read CuddlePuffKenny's latest post. That guy must get his rocks off by strangling small furry animals.
Kramerica May 12, 2016 at 1:25pm

My favorites were "Baggy Trousers" and "House of Fun" ... Suggs McPherson is a Ska legend!

I agree - we had no choice but to get under the cap - it would have been nice to tell the NRL to shove it but it was never a realistic option..
- Eric The 17.78cm Eel > Kramerica May 12, 2016 at 1:52pm
  
  Our house in the middle of the street
  Parra, looks like we're up shit creek.
Earl Grey May 12, 2016 at 3:47pm

Hoppas wearing his Sunday best!