Hayne walking out on Titans.

[Showtime]

Blues worst in series by far went missing for sharks most of the season not dissimilar.

Knows how to leach onto good sides never won a Dally m international footballer etc etc

I remember him being a big part of the roosters and sharks premiership winning sides. Certainly wouldn't call him a cancer on a teams culture like I would Hayne.

 

[RazorRam0n]

I remember him being a big part of the roosters and sharks premiership winning sides. Certainly wouldn't call him a cancer on a teams culture like I would Hayne.

Teams? You mean titans one season, much like sharks last season.

No different

 

[T-Boon]

I remember him being a big part of the roosters and sharks premiership winning sides.

He wasn't irrelevant to the Roosters premiership but he was hardly crucial. SBW was the guy. Pearce and Jennings were also influential.
Maloney did good BBQ for the team. He is a burden in defence but otherwise the sort of RL clown team mates can't hate.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The NRL got rid of that. The previous salary cap auditor tried to bring it in but realised the clubs didn't like it. In fact Parra were the only club hurt by it when Izzy was rejected.
Didn't the Roosters sign Ferguson for about $20?

it was such a dumb rule...

If a guy was willing to take less money because he wanted to play for THAT club, the NRL said "no".

They were actively discouraging loyalty.

 

[Saxon]

Serious question

If he was on a current $1.2mil contract, why has the NRL allowed another club to sign him for $500k?

I thought they wouldn’t register players for less then their real value?

Or is that only in the case of certain clubs?

Just look at his 2017 performance for the Titans. If you base his value solely on that, 500K is overs for him.

 

[Vic Mackey]

The NRL got rid of that. The previous salary cap auditor tried to bring it in but realised the clubs didn't like it. In fact Parra were the only club hurt by it when Izzy was rejected.
Didn't the Roosters sign Ferguson for about $20?

it was such a dumb rule...

If a guy was willing to take less money because he wanted to play for THAT club, the NRL said "no".

They were actively discouraging loyalty.

Not really, it was stopping rotting the cap. For instance the roosters sign sonny bill on $200kpa and then a third party called ‘Uncle Nicks Paper Bags Inc’ pays him $1mil a year.

 

[Bandwagon]

It's f**kin' irrelevant any way, Hayne's value aint nowhere near 1.2 million ATM, any fans here who think it's a rort stick their hands up and say they'd be happy for Hayne to sign at their club for 1.2 million.

I'm stoked at Parra signing him at the reported 500k, I'd be f**kin' rope-able if we paid 1.2 mil.

 

[Vee]

Keep believing that buddy

Sounds like you have inside knowledge otherwise, do share.

At least he brings success wherever he goes.

NSW?

 

[Exsilium]

Hayne leaves GC, gets called out for being shit all year, glad he's gone etc.

Hayne signs a contract worth considerably less, fans complain.

The guy isnt worth 300k based on last years form. If he does well with Parramatta he might just get another decent contract. If not, hes scrap.

 

[mave]

Not really, it was stopping rotting the cap. For instance the roosters sign sonny bill on $200kpa and then a third party called ‘Uncle Nicks Paper Bags Inc’ pays him $1mil a year.

It fked Glenn Stewart and his loyalty, if I recall correctly.
He was prepared to stay for x, but the NRL wouldn't register it.

Anyway, different rules for some, at different times.
It is the Greenburg way.

 

[OldPanther]

It fked Glenn Stewart and his loyalty, if I recall correctly.
He was prepared to stay for x, but the NRL wouldn't register it.

Anyway, different rules for some, at different times.
It is the Greenburg way.

The problem is, if you can sign people on whatever unders you feel like than the point of the salary cap is gone.

 

[hineyrulz]

The problem is, if you can sign people on whatever unders you feel like than the point of the salary cap is gone.

Hello Brisbane Broncos.

Still hasn’t helped them the last decade

 

[OldPanther]

Hello Brisbane Broncos.

Still hasn’t helped them the last decade

Haha.

Look at Maloney and his big mouth. Talks casually about illegal TPAs as if everyone does it and the NRL doesn't bat an eye. At the least Penrith should have been looked at. At worst every club.

 

[SBD82]

The problem is, if you can sign people on whatever unders you feel like than the point of the salary cap is gone.

That's only if you believe that the point of the cap is to even the comp. i don't believe that's the case.

When it came in, I remember that the point of the cap was to ensure that clubs didn't overspend and go broke trying to keep up with the money clubs. The evening of the comp was just a fortunate byproduct.

Players playing for less to go to a certain club actually assists clubs to not go broke, and is therefore entirely consistent with the the point of the cap.

 

[OldPanther]

That's only if you believe that the point of the cap is to even the comp. i don't believe that's the case.

When it came in, I remember that the point of the cap was to ensure that clubs didn't overspend and go broke trying to keep up with the money clubs. The evening of the comp was just a fortunate byproduct.

Players playing for less to go to a certain club actually assists clubs to not go broke, and is therefore entirely consistent with the the point of the cap.

Clubs also have to pay players an amount around or over their market value. So for example hayne is worth between $500k - $600k you can pay him $1.2m but not $200k. Combine this with the minimum cap spend (obviously aren't too worried about spending by forcing clubs to pay x amount of the cap) and you can see clear steps to stop teams stockpiling all the best talent, especially when combined with the salary cap itself.

 

[mave]

The problem is, if you can sign people on whatever unders you feel like than the point of the salary cap is gone.

The point of the salary cap is to stop clubs from overspending and going broke , is it not?

Signing players on unders, especially loyal 1 club players, should be absolutely allowed.

It was good enough for Darren Lockyer to get away with it for his last contract.

 

[THE CHAMP]

He was awesome in game one. One of the best on field.

Same in game 2. Just for the wrong side.

 

[OldPanther]

The point of the salary cap is to stop clubs from overspending and going broke , is it not?

Signing players on unders, especially loyal 1 club players, should be absolutely allowed.

It was good enough for Darren Lockyer to get away with it for his last contract.

See my other comment:

Clubs also have to pay players an amount around or over their market value. So for example hayne is worth between $500k - $600k you can pay him $1.2m but not $200k. Combine this with the minimum cap spend (obviously aren't too worried about spending by forcing clubs to pay x amount of the cap) and you can see clear steps to stop teams stockpiling all the best talent, especially when combined with the salary cap itself.

Also realise that I personally think the long service allowance is not good enough and should be made larger. Loyalty should be rewarded.

 

[SBD82]

Clubs also have to pay players an amount around or over their market value. So for example hayne is worth between $500k - $600k you can pay him $1.2m but not $200k. Combine this with the minimum cap spend (obviously aren't too worried about spending by forcing clubs to pay x amount of the cap) and you can see clear steps to stop teams stockpiling all the best talent, especially when combined with the salary cap itself.

That seems like a rule that was randomly introduced and died pretty quickly.

In the example of Hayne, It's hard to sift through all of the media reports to figure out the truth of the situation, but I would say that if it's true that his heart is in parramatta, being his junior club that developed him and he may feel a sense of loyalty to the place, money shouldn't necessarily be a big factor. I've got no problem with him returning to play for them for whatever amount the club and Hayne agree on.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

The point of the salary cap is to stop clubs from overspending and going broke , is it not?

Signing players on unders, especially loyal 1 club players, should be absolutely allowed.

It was good enough for Darren Lockyer to get away with it for his last contract.

Being able to sign players on unders wouldn’t change the problem. They had changed those rules I thought after Storms salary cap cheating. They tried the Lockyer deal with inglis but were knocked back. Even if x player is on $200k but worth $1mil the 3rd party would have to cover $800k. And if the 3rd party doesn’t pay? Who foots the bill? The club. Titans don’t have the luxury of the 3rd parties that roosters have.
Roosters could go out and buy the best of the best and pay them all $300k on the salary cap and the $60bil sheik can pay the 3rd parties. Is that fair?