Happy Monday, if anyone wants a good laugh to start their week, skip to 32:50 mark and listen to this f***wit talk. It is laughable seriously. Claiming the offer of $300k was a great deal and we can put that into our junior system. But said we can put some money into the cap but at same time said they cannot break the rules in regard to cap as it is unfair. But can break the rules with contracts?
Replies
FMD. I thought he was smart enough to be neutral in this. But here he is throwing his full support behind the Melbourne Storm publicly and we now have the private messages too. This is astonishing.
Brent Read came in saying all was fair game, Riccio said V'Landys has made it clear whose side he is on. It is poor, they should be nutural and say "It's between two clubs and how it should be".
I think it's one of the first things I mentioned the nrl have zero business in this discussion it's a A & B conversation I don't know how the nrl get involved in this unless Melbourne know physically they can't get past Lomax's signed sealed deal and have obviously lobbied the nrl privately who've now jumped in on Melbourne's side.
Its a really poor look for the game.
But to say that the amount of money is a good deal is the worst part. He could have said Melbourne made an offer and Parra didn't agree, that is all it is right now, let both of them sort it out.
This isn't just Vlandy's doing. We all know certain clubs seem to get everything there own way and all this is doing is allowing the fans to see what has been happening for years due to the court case.
Protected clubs using the NRL to bully smaller clubs has been going on for a while. I have no doubt the NRL would have loved to see Izzy Folou back in the game but some clubs would've complained at the thought of him going to Parra. He was a former Storm player, I wonder if they pressured the NRL to act then as well.
It makes you wonder if a whistle blower went directly to the NRL and not media about salary cap cheating, performance enhancing drugs or any other major issue would the NRL support the club or follow through with an investigation. Everyone knows these things happen but if NRL HQ are so easily manipulated it explains how some clubs have gotten away with so much.
At least there are now only two options for V'Landys when the court makes its determination.
After V'Landys stupidly sided with Storm in saying $300k is fair, if the court goes that way then every NRL fan bar Storm dimwits will say the fix was in. V'Landys credibility is in the toilet. Or the court goes the other way and supports the Eels and every NRL fan knows V'Landys is a hypocrit and lacks credibility.
Either way, V'Landys should fire his PR advisers. He has tanked himself
The issue is not so much V'Landys siding with Storm, for him it is publically saying so. He already is a hypocrite showing his muscles over a 10 year ban. When push came to shove he decides to defend the person that signed for R360. Go figure.
But coming out publically was idiotic. Thing is he knows exactly what he is doing, he is arrogant enough to believe it will go in his, the NRL and Melbourne's favour.
Daz, the third option is a read down. Technically it'd be an Eels win but it could be spun as a moral victory for Lomax/PLV/Storm: like us, the equity courts saw the restraint as being too punitive.
It's a safe option for the courts too in some ways. Lomax doesn't have clean hands, while we do. But a restraint until 31 October 2028 may be seen as heavy, especially if it proven we said no to him returning.
It's going to be interesting to see how the courts see this.
HOE, you're right to point to a court write down as being capable of permitting a spin where V'Landys claims he was the sensible one.
However - and lawyers please step in to clarify - I believe a write down is not a writing. That is, a write down is not a crafting of conditions. So, the court can write down 3 years to 1, but writing a new condition (like $X is fine) would be to craft new conditions?
Daz, A read down (e.g. trimming the length) would seem an easy and efficient way out as they're not nuking our restraint.
However, the wording is "on such terms as the Court thinks fit" in the Restraint of Trade Act (1967) no 67 s4.
There could be some other relief granted or conditions the court could order beyong trimming the three years.
We'd need a lawyer here to advice as to the extent of discretionary powers the court has, but you'd assume it's not rewriting the whole deed of release or nature of the retraint, especially since it would be upheld in our hypothetical example.
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
of 6 Next