No end to Fifita probe in sight: Greenberg

Spot on Rayner. Not sure what business school Greenberg went to but he seems incompetent to be in charge. If all NRL decisions are made because he likes or doesn't like the games in a bad state. In relation to David Fifita I think we have to cut him a bit of slack because of his age. Sure he will learn but without knowing the facts I suppose he will get the same penalty as Nelson.

Context mushi. I was replying to the ridiculous statement by johnnyboy.

Baaaahahahahaha!!! Coming from a chooks fan... Like I said: Hypocrite. Where's 'sideline eye champ? I'm sure he'd blow a blood vessel at the poor standard of that statement. Or does sideline eye only come out when talking about someone else again. A hypocrite by any other name...

Who was the first person to use the term "salary sombrero" when referring to the Roosters? Just wondering. What followed was a conga line of sheep who repeat it. Obviously incapable of coming up with something new. You state that as a Public Company, Broncos are obliged to disclose ALL financial transactions. Didn't a sum of money "disappear" & magically "reappear" some years ago? How was that documented? You're quick to implicate the Roosters so I assume you haven't heard of the saying "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Have an adult explain it to you.

I think it’s more to do with the competition not starting for another 4 months that they aren’t in any sort of rush.

Actually it was you the centered the discussion around listing rules You said: "The Broncos “paper trail” is open for everyone to see, they are a publicly listed company. If only Uncle Nic had to abide by the same rules…" Am I okay now that you've stepped back from that ridiculous statement. Yes, yes I am.

In your rush to sound like you know what you're talking about you've missed the point. You highlighted Croft and Fifita. I'm saying the costs associated in sending a rep over there to support Fifita is so insignificant it wouldn't be specifically highlighted as part of any financial statement. If audited, the paper trail is there Are you trying to make a point that IF the Broncos wanted to hide the $30k payment they could? No doubt they could (or hire Uncle Nic's accountant :happy: ). But why? It's $30k, why risk the fall out over such an insignificant amount? The policies and ethics I was referring to about Croft was the fact we have all this information, started by a board member before the deal has been finalised. Standard procedure has the current club issue a release, then the new club announces the signing. It has nothing to do with financial reporting or the ASX or Lockyer breaching any codes as a board member. Ok? Now take a breath and keep your powder dry.

Nope. If you’re relying on audited true and accurate financial statements then Nic and the Broncos are in the same boat. (And anyone that thinks because you have finical statements it is impossible to hide a single payment requires a different word to naïve as it doesn’t do justice to the lack of knowledge in this case.) Being listed, in this matter, is more about continuous disclosure. I.e. reporting material developments on an ongoing basis. The only reason that this matter would be considered material would be if the uncovering of the deliberate deception were likely to result in significant sanctions from the NRL. But, given that it would be based on deception it’s kind of counter-intuitive to expect it to be uncovered by voluntary and deliberate disclosure by the deceiver in the midst of said deception. The Croft point isn’t odd it shows your position holds no merit. Player movements and availability isn’t considered material, and so it won’t be captured. If that wasn’t the case then Lockyer’s leak isn’t a violation of ethics it’s a violation of ASX listing rules and the corporations act.

Greenberg's comments show just how poor the NRL is as a body. So little action and add to that how slow they are in deciding other issues such as the Sam Burgess matter. Just a poor, poor organisation. Are they just scared of the media types like Rothfield, Kent and Weidler and how they will react? Grow something and make decisions irrespective of what others might think. I've been a league follower for over 60 years and this is the worst administration I can recall.

The Fifita issue didn't need to be disclosed under any financial statement because the Broncos haven't paid anything. Sending a bloke over for support would just be accounted for under daily operations. The Croft deal is a strange one. Rarely do you see all these details in the press before any official announcement. Lockyer coming out line he did goes against policy and the (pseudo) ethics around letting the contracted club announce his release before the me club does theirs. He supposed to be at training this week but technically still a Storm contracted player.

Actually no, that's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what is captured under continuous disclosure. :unhappy: BBL haven't actually disclosed that was ever an incident involving Fifita, or that they've signed Croft. So no being listed does not ensure there is an above board paper trail. You just need to read the headlines on the front pages of the paper the last week to figure that out.

The Broncos "paper trail" is open for everyone to see, they are a publicly listed company. If only Uncle Nic had to abide by the same rules... #hypocriteunderthesombrero

The "paper Trail" will reveal who paid the money to the Bali officials.