SMH
Did the NRL get it right? Questions linger over Manly cap scandal
The NRL’s investigation of Manly's salary cap rorting has raised more questions than it has provided answers.
It is the third time a club has systematically cheated the system in the space of just eight years, yet the Sea Eagles sanctions are unlikely to act as a deterrent to other clubs considering breaking the rules.
There are a number of questions head office must answer.
Was the punishment right?
It is impossible to say without seeing the evidence laid out in full. Which is why the NRL should make the breach notices and case file public
Rugby League Central should be transparent with all the details – the players involved, the roles of the agents, the promised sums of money at the heart of the alleged rorts – so that all stakeholders can inform their opinion.
Given the seriousness of the charges – systemic breaches involving 13 players worth $1.5 million over five years – there is a perception that Manly got off lightly. The fact they didn’t lose a single competition point hardly serves as a disincentive to other clubs.
Manly has sought leave to appeal against the decision. If granted, it will give the case what it needed from the outset – an independent set of eyes to review the evidence.
In the case of chairman and co-owner Scott Penn, it can be argued that he is actually $160,000 better of financially because the fine ($500,000 after $250,000 is suspended) amounts to less than a punishment that prevents him from spending $660,000 in the salary cap over this season and next.
All of the gory details in the Parramatta salary cap debacle became public because the club leaked them.
If the NRL seriously believes they have acted appropriately in the Manly matter, then their determination should stand the test of public scrutiny.
Upon becoming ARLC chair, Peter Beattie promised a new era of transparency. If their case is truly rock solid, name and shame all of those involved.
Why has the NRL taken no action against player agents?
It has been more than two years since the NRL handed down its sanctions against Parramatta for rorting the system.
Yet despite promises to take action against the agents involved, nothing has happened.
Player managers have been the common denominator in recent salary cap scandals, yet they continue to operate without fear of reprisal.
The NRL’s excuse is that managers do not come under their jurisdiction but are governed by the agent accreditation committee. The fact a number of player agents preside over that committee makes the situation even more farcical.
Clearly, the agents should be brought under the jurisdiction of the NRL so the governing body has some control over them.
The punishments should also be harsh enough to deter others.
Four agents got busted in the Melbourne cap scandal. One of them put up his hand and was let off with a warning. The other three were banned for just six months but continued to go about their business during their suspensions.
One agent was involved in the past two salary cap scandals, yet no action has been taken.
In this environment, there is no accountability for agents, let alone the players they represent.
Are third-party agreements the problem?
Third-party agreements are another common denominator in recent scandals.
TPAs must be at "arm’s length" from NRL clubs, but this is a murky area that lends itself to manipulation.
Up until recently, clubs had been able to avail themselves of a "best endeavours" clause that has further clouded an already grey area.
In response to complaints that TPAs undo the work of the salary cap by providing a greater disparity between rich and poor clubs, the NRL claims the number and worth of such deals is overstated.
All the more reason to overhaul the current system. Ironically, Manly CEO Lyall Gorman is one of the club bosses tasked with leading a review.
Under the existing framework, dodgy TPA deals often fall through. A supplier can pull out of an undisclosed deal knowing that neither the player or his agent can complain about missing out on money they are not legally entitled to.
One way to better regulate the system would be for all TPAs to be registered with the NRL, and then head office should make the details public for the sake of transparency.
How can we ensure the right penalties are handed out?
For starters, the integrity unit should be independent from the NRL. What if an NRL staffer needs to be investigated? Under such a system, there are no conflicts of interest.
The current narrative in club land is that the NRL hit Manly with a feather over fears Penn would walk if he copped a hefty sanction.
The governing body has made it clear after signing off on the new funding agreement that it is no longer in a position to financially prop up clubs.
If Penn walked away and took the millions of dollars he invests into the Sea Eagles with him, the club would fold. Did this come into the NRL’s consideration when coming to a determination?
If all of the findings are made public, we can come to our own conclusions. But until that happens, rumours that Penn got off "scott free" won’t go away.
Which brings us to the treatment of Bob Fulton. We can accept that the NRL can’t compel someone no longer involved in the game to be interviewed, but there is no reason why they can’t furnish him with the evidence they have against him.
His response or non-response can determine any future involvement in the game.
How can salary cap scandals be stopped?
Rorting of the salary cap is perhaps the most serious crime in the game and should be punished accordingly.
Having witnessed the sanctions handed out in recent scandals, clubs obviously believe cheating is worth the risk.
The NRL also has to make public its framework for dealing with such issues.
There is a belief in club land that the speed of the investigation has a direct correlation with the punishment.
For instance, Parramatta were docked 12 competition points because that’s how many the Eels had earned when the NRL announced its penalty on May 3, 2016.
What if the integrity unit had come to its conclusion in August? Or the following February?
We are told Manly didn’t get docked points because they are salary cap compliant this year. But how does this help the Dragons, who were pipped for a finals spot by a team that had promised its players illegal, undisclosed payments?
Future scandals should be handled by an independent body. This ensures that commercial considerations – such as will Manly fold and leave the NRL with just seven games to broadcast every weekend – cannot be considered in integrity matters.
It has been suggested, unfairly, that NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg has a vested interest in outcomes because of perceived baggage or relationships from his time as a club boss. An independent investigation at arm’s length from the NRL erases any such scuttlebutt.
Another part of the solution is the publishing of player salaries and TPAs.
The practice is common in American sport and provides further transparency.
It won’t guarantee the end of illegal payments, but if players are found to have pocketed a cent more than what is declared to the tax office, then they can be held accountable.
