Wayne's World
First Grade
- Messages
- 6,102
That would because you've bought Hunt.
They only replaced Benji with a low contract and Rein was on a fair bit as well. I think like most clubs they are waiting for the final figure.
That would because you've bought Hunt.
the nrl isn't the only party holding up the CBA you know? takes 2 to tango
A lot of these things are already in place though, its kind of like contra in the TV rights deal, included so you can boast about a higher figure. I am surprised about the NRL including them in the cap though as it means that the NRL has to pay 130% of these items.
Possibly, but I'm sure the clubs expected it to be on top of a $9-10 million salary cap lolI'm thinking this was one of the clubs stipulations not the NRL's. It benefits the clubs enormously to have everything included in the cap amount otherwise they end up picking up the tab for the extras not in the cap on a lower grant amount.
Smart piece of work by the clubs.
Razor is correct on that point. The RLPA has said publicly they won't let the NRL rush through and sign off on the 2018 salary cap until all the items in the CBA are agreed to, with specific mention going to the players getting a fixed percentage of game revenues. Hence the NRL cannot be solely blamed for this situation.
That would because you've bought Hunt.
So my response - status quo $7 mil cap in 2018
And introduce the revised cap amount in 2019 if settled before mid Oct 2017
Just in time for the 1st Nov 2017 season 2019 signing window opens
If not settled by then it must wait for another 12 months and start in 2020
Not win win if they have budgeted $10 million on player salariesNot really as they would still be left with the bill. Say base cap was $10 mill then this $850k of extras was on top, that is $850k they would be expected to fund out of the left over grant amount. This way it is included so boosts their overall grant amount and it is covered by the NRL in that way. Win-win for them.
Not win win if they have budgeted $10 million on player salaries
Salary cap for next year, should have been known 12 months ago.TBH that is their own stupidity. NRL has never mentioned a potential cap figure. If clubs decided to base recruitment on media speculation then more fool them.
What should they have budgeted for?TBH that is their own stupidity. NRL has never mentioned a potential cap figure. If clubs decided to base recruitment on media speculation then more fool them.
but I do agree that any club that has over committed has to accept responsibility for that.TBH that is their own stupidity. NRL has never mentioned a potential cap figure. If clubs decided to base recruitment on media speculation then more fool them.
Missing out on Jack Bird won't hurt.Adding to the confusion is that there are some clubs (mine - the Knights - certainly) that have a vested interest in a player fire sale. It's certainly in our best interests for the cap to be as low as possible next year at this stage, and not just for financial reasons either.
We'd love it if some of the big spenders had to shed a player or two. We're sitting, ready to take advantage.
Except that expanding would increase revenue, particularly in WA and NZ(?)Why does everyone just assume this? Is the presumption that the TV money will always go up - and that expansion will never be on the agenda?
The gravy train will scream to a halt at some point. Our market is limited. There's only so much revenue the NRL can generate with its current footprint.
Six tackles with Gus podcast addressed this saying 2017 cap with 25 players ~ $284k mean vs 2018 reported cap of $8.84M over 30 players ~ $294k mean. Given the revenue increase, it should be more.As of 2018 the top 30 players will be included in the NRL salary cap, this would be part of the increase before they have even resigned any players.
What should they have budgeted for?
Every club has players to retain and recruitment to do.
I reckon Contra is a con. Take the cash, what are Fox going to do, not advertise the footy?A lot of these things are already in place though, its kind of like contra in the TV rights deal, included so you can boast about a higher figure. I am surprised about the NRL including them in the cap though as it means that the NRL has to pay 130% of these items.
Six tackles with Gus podcast addressed this saying 2017 cap with 25 players ~ $284k mean vs 2018 reported cap of $8.84M over 30 players ~ $294k mean. Given the revenue increase, it should be more.
He had a clue how to run a business. That's why Rupert didn't want him in Rugby League.we wouldn't be in this fiasco if Davey Boy Smith was still in charge