- May 6, 2016 - 12:28PM Louise Hall Court Reporter
- Assuming the Parramatta Eels can make adjustments and come in under the salary cap, they will be allowed to accrue competition points while five directors pursue legal action against their suspension after the NRL had an apparent last-minute change of heart.
In the NSW Supreme Court on Friday morning, Arthur Moses, SC, the barrister for the "group of five" including club chairman Steve Sharp, said the NRL had last night advised the club it can accrue points notwithstanding the court action.
The NRL may deduct some or all of the competition points accrued by the club during the 2016 season, including the 12 points won to date, when it makes a final decision on the club's punishment in June.
The nature and extent of any sanction won't be determined until the club has had the opportunity to plead its case to the NRL.
The NRL has attempted to claim there has been a "misunderstanding" about the status of the competition points.
But Mr Moses said NRL CEO Todd Greenberg had made public statements to the effect that the club could not accrue points while the injunction was ongoing.
"We received a letter late yesterday [that said] while the injunction is on foot we won't stop you from accruing points, while you are below the salary cap," he told the court.
The NRL's barrister Lachlan Gyles SC said the NRL wanted the court to lift the injunction granted on Tuesday temporarily preventing the NRL from restricting the functions of the directors and club officials.
"We say there is no need for the injunction," Mr Gyles told Justice James Stevenson. "We say it's causing confusion".
However, Justice Stevenson extended the injunction until Monday.
Mr Moses said the directors and officials wanted the matter heard as soon as possible and wanted a final hearing next week.
"[The NRL] started it, they should finish it; it's not fair for this to be dragging on," Mr Moses said.
But Mr Gyles said the NRL needed more time to respond to the case, which may include lodging a cross claim.
"The NRL is happy for these individuals to have their day in court in the near future but they need a fair opportunity to deal with the case," he said.
The NRL has made a claim for confidentiality over the 64-page breach notice given to the Eels. Mr Moses told the court the notice contained statements by former Parramatta CEO Scott Seward.
Mr Seward has given a 37 page statement making allegations as to what each of the five individuals knew.
"[The NRL] has relied on the former CEO to make adverse inferences," Mr Moses said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/parramatta-eels/parramatta-eels-allowed-to-accrue-nrl-points-while-direc
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies
And now the NRL now want confidentiality because of Seward hahaha who leaked it in the first place.
The NRL was pretty bloody happy for club and we fans and players to be dragged through the courts of public opinion and obviously leaking some of it it for months,...
Seriously I don't give a shit who in charge of club but to say the club has been treated fairly and the NRL are to be relied upon in the way they've handled and presented this, is niave thinking.
so elequoently put brissy. Greenderp has it in for us it seems.
Brissyeel, I am a new (but aging) member and I have just read your Blog of May 5 and you got me thinking about what Civil action by Parra might be possible . Now I'll put the disclaimer up front. The questions I am raising are from the perspective of a Jurist & non-qualified "bush lawyer".
In a criminal case the verdict of the Court can be a mistrial, a retrial, guilty or not-guilty. In a Civil case a determination is made by the Court and can involve multiple Points of Law. The Points of Law we may be able to lay before the Court:
Denial of due process and/or right of reply? eg; after a 3 to 6 month intensive investigation we are given what seems to be minimal time to respond. The people who the NRL say have the most knowledge of the alleged breaches and should be the reviewers and respondents to the breach notice are removed from the process.
Precedence? eg; in a previous case of a salary cap breach (The Bulldogs) the players at the club involved were permitted to take pay cuts to meet the cap requirements. Parra have been denied this option.
Conflict of interest? eg; Scott Seward a dismissed and former (disgruntled and allegedly rogue) employee has given evidence to the NRL. Was that evidence used in making their determination and could it be viewed as tainted.
Victimisation? eg; the NRL's own former Salary Cap Officer, Ian Schubert, had reported us as compliant. In the NRL's interpretation we are not. So if Ian Schubert were to state that he applied the same review process at Parra as he did with any or all other clubs in the competition when he was employed by the NRL, why are no other clubs going to be scrutinised. The Court may request the relevant reports for comparison to judge if there is an inequity.
Coercion? eg; media reports have the NRL posturing that certain evidence of criminal practices as a result of their investigation may be passed to the Police or the ATO. Could this be viewed as a veiled threat that Parra just wear the penalties handed down without protest. Perhaps the DPP might query the NRL on how long they have had this evidence and why they have failed to pass it on to the relevant authorities. Could the NRL be liable to a charge of withholding evidence of criminal activity. Does it even matter if the evidence is non-existent.
Wait, so the NRL are trusting Seward who made a last minute change to Forans contract, unknowingly to the board. Hmmm okay....
nothing to see here. How about a perceived conflict of interest or just a conflict of interest full spot.
Who's gonna defend our rights to fairness if the club doesn't?
Maybe more they can dredge up on us but at the moment what have we to lose?
Think they deserve to have the right of reply.
Think the sharp haters will get their chance soon enough but let them just give their side of the story through their legal advice...fail to see what's wrong with that myself.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next