What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Eels Salary Cap MK IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joshuatheeel

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
19,611
NRL tells Parramatta Eels they must shed Anthony Watmough and another player

The NRL has refused to budge on a demand that Parramatta slash $575,000 from their player roster to play for points against South Sydney on Friday, leaving the Eels having to shed one more player on at least $250,000 a year, as well as Anthony Watmough and the already departed Ryan Morgan.

On an eventful day on two fronts for the club, an injunction order was lifted in the NSW Supreme Court, leaving Eels chairman Steve Sharp, chief executive John Boulous, head of football Daniel Anderson, deputy chairman Tom Issa and director Peter Serrao suspended and limited to basic duties at the club. While the dropping of that order was negotiated by the barrister for the five men, Arthur Moses, SC, and NRL lawyers – with an agreement hurriedly scribbled on a piece of A4 paper – there were further talks on Monday at Moore Park as Ian Schubert, the Eels' representative in salary cap talks with League Central, met with cap auditor Jamie L'Oste-Brown.

"The club's very confident we can get to where we need to be for this weekend," said Schubert, himself a former NRL salary cap auditor. "We've got a little bit of homework to do, throw some numbers up in the air and see what happens."

Advertisement
Significant turn of events: Anthony Watmough of the Parramatta Eels walks up the tunnel after an injury playing against ...
Significant turn of events: Anthony Watmough of the Parramatta Eels walks up the tunnel after an injury playing against the Canterbury Bulldogs.Photo: Mark Kolbe
Schubert, after doing his own calculations, had endeavoured to have the NRL relax its position significantly on how much the club needed to shed to be competitive against Souths.

However, L'Oste-Brown is understood to have stood firm and reiterated the requirement for the Eels to reduce player spending by $575,000 to be eligible to play for points at Pirtek Stadium on Friday. The NRL is expected to approve the career-ending injury application made by the Eels about Watmough and backdate his cap exemption to include about half his $900,000 salary, which is propped up by third-party agreements. The exit of Morgan to Melbourne allows Parramatta to include about half his $140,000 contract, leaving the club to erase $55,000 from its roster.

They also have to promote three new players into their top-25 squad on the minimum wage – which for the remainder of the season is about $40,000 – meaning the figure they must urgently shave from their roster is increased to about $175,000. That would appear to effectively leave them having to shed one more player who is on at least $350,000 because only half of that wage would be taken off the salary cap but it is believed they are working towards lowering that figure to a player in the $250,000-$300,000 range by backdating payments elsewhere.

Schubert is understood to be tossing around several options but it is unlikely the club would let Junior Paulo go immediately to Canberra, who have signed the prop to a two-year deal from next season and are keen to have him straight away. Paulo is believed to be on about $180,000 at the Eels.

Rival teams remain sceptical about the removal of a large chunk of Watmough's deal from the Eels' cap, believing it sets a dangerous precedent. However, that scenario is set to be given the green light with Parramatta to pay out his contract and wait to be reimbursed after filing an insurance claim.

Parramatta board members were, meanwhile, meeting on Monday after an agreement was reached between the NRL and lawyers for Sharp, Boulous, Anderson, Issa and Serrao for the injunction against the suspensions to be dissolved in court.

A hearing date before Justice Stevenson was set down for May 31. The NRL agreed not to stop the five performing their fiduciary and statutory duties under the Corporations Act while they are suspended, as well as assisting with the club's response to its show-cause notice, but any points accrued by the team in coming weeks could be later stripped if the officials continue to be involved beyond that.

Moses SC admitted there were "grave allegations" against his clients, who are facing deregistration, but claimed they had not been given satisfactory notice before being suspended when the NRL handed down its sanctions last Tuesday. "One would have thought they would have been afforded procedural fairness before their reputations were slandered or impacted," he said.

Parramatta and the officials have until June 3 to respond to the breach notice. A final determination on their penalty is expected in mid-June.

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/le...mough-and-another-player-20160509-goq56y.html

I reckon the NRL is now being influenced by outside factors.
 

Joshuatheeel

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
19,611
Schuberts smugness, comments and body language still makes me think 'he's got dis' or else there's no possible away of achieving this in such a short space of time unless we're prepared to hand over 1 of our blue chips to a rival club on a silver platter, in which case it's goodbye junior!

Either way what a messy and unforgivable situation to be in.

Aparently junior is only on $180k so I doubt that would help.

Unless Ian has a secret plan, looking at that SMH article, I reckon we could be stuffed!!
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,993
If Jnr is on 180k, it only frees up around 50k ( 1/2 x 180k - 1/2 x 80k replacement )

Although there is the possibility I guess of the player whom then gets promoted into the top 25 having the wages already contracted being taken into consideration as the increase would not be the full 40k, but the difference between minimum wage and whatever they've already been contracted for. If that's the case, it would also apply to whomever replaces Watmough and super Morgs in our squad.

Anyone able to confirm or deny that would be the case? I suppose it would depend upon whether our cap limit included more than just our top 25?
 

84 Baby

Referee
Messages
28,303
What if we pay Morgan an extra $15k? That'd bring his total payments from us for the year up to minimum wage, therefore we wouldn't to pay someone else the $42k? That'd be half the deficit, then just resign Norman and backend $25k from this year. As far as I'm aware the cap is made up of the top 25 players you pay for year, does it really matter if they end up at another club midway through contract?
 

Joshuatheeel

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
19,611
Just offer one year extensions to a combination of Mannah / Edwards / Manu / Mr T / Gutherson which includes a $50/60k reduction for this year ( but made up in following years )
 

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,397
WHY does half their season salary count?????

Stupidest system ever. If they count on that basis, then we are UNDER the cap for this season, but im danger of breaking it unless some players are shed.

You can't double dip and say that the cap is a total number based on full season contracts and penalize someone on that basis, but then turn around and say 'half of it is counting against your cap'.....

If half does, then we haven't (yet) broken the cap....
 
Messages
13,874
WHY does half their season salary count?????

Stupidest system ever. If they count on that basis, then we are UNDER the cap for this season, but im danger of breaking it unless some players are shed.

You can't double dip and say that the cap is a total number based on full season contracts and penalize someone on that basis, but then turn around and say 'half of it is counting against your cap'.....

If half does, then we haven't (yet) broken the cap....
If they told us we had to shed that Much in January it would have been too easy, they just wanted to make it difficult for us.
 
Last edited:

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,993
WHY does half their season salary count?????

Stupidest system ever. If they count on that basis, then we are UNDER the cap for this season, but im danger of breaking it unless some players are shed.

You can't double dip and say that the cap is a total number based on full season contracts and penalize someone on that basis, but then turn around and say 'half of it is counting against your cap'.....

If half does, then we haven't (yet) broken the cap....

The half relates to the discount we get, because being halfway through the contract year we have already paid half of the contract to whomever we shed.

If Jnr's on 180K, we've already paid him 90k, that can't just disappear. Similarly, who ever replaces him if on minimum wage of 80k, then it's only 40k because we are only contracting them for half of the contract year.

The breach is for an estimate of our full year expenditure as the NRL rules it to be. The flipside is of course that we are 570k over for the whole year, which means we need to shed 1,140,000 worth of players based upon a full years contract in order to be able to reduce our payments over the half year by that 570k.

So Watmough at say 800k, Super Morgs at say 170k, gives us 970k on a full year basis, leaving us needing to shed another 270k worth of contracted players on a full years basis.
 
Messages
19,173
WHY does half their season salary count?????

Stupidest system ever. If they count on that basis, then we are UNDER the cap for this season, but im danger of breaking it unless some players are shed.

You can't double dip and say that the cap is a total number based on full season contracts and penalize someone on that basis, but then turn around and say 'half of it is counting against your cap'.....

If half does, then we haven't (yet) broken the cap....

Half the season counts because we've paid them half a season of wages. If a player leaves half-way through the season, the cap expenditure includes half of their wages, and half of the wages of whoever comes into the Top 25. What's the problem with that? It's not inconsistent with the requirement that, at any given point in time during the season, you are not supposed to have a set of contracted players that, if the contracts run their course, would put you over the cap. It is simply a description of how payments are treated when players leave mid-season.
 

IFR33K

Coach
Messages
17,043
Let's hope mjc's mail is correct and shoebox is leaving it till today to announce it to the NRL. If he is correct, it will def throw a cat amongst the pigeons for them.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,993
Which is why we are f**ked well and truly without Watmough's retirement. We'd need to shed that 1.14 million worth of players, plus at least another 80k for each player that replaces them, if say to do that we shed four players, that'd mean getting rid of 1.46 million worth of talent, at a time when the other clubs would screw us on contract value, leaving us likely paying a significant amount for them in future years.

I'd hazard a guess that's why there are rumblings regards Watmough's retirement sorting our cap for the most part, the vultures were likely ready to circle, and pick what they could from our half dead carcass.
 

eel01s

Bench
Messages
3,269
So are we being screwed on Watmough? Most of us thought if his salary was backdated we'd be sweet. Is he not on the amount we thought he was?

Also what happened to Schuey's calculations? He was confident the NRL had overestimated the $570k figure. This could turn out to form a large part of the clubs response to the breach notice.
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,312
Which is why we are f**ked well and truly without Watmough's retirement. We'd need to shed that 1.14 million worth of players, plus at least another 80k for each player that replaces them, if say to do that we shed four players, that'd mean getting rid of 1.46 million worth of talent, at a time when the other clubs would screw us on contract value, leaving us likely paying a significant amount for them in future years.

I'd hazard a guess that's why there are rumblings regards Watmough's retirement sorting our cap for the most part, the vultures were likely ready to circle, and pick what they could from our half dead carcass.

If they don't take Watmough off the cap then I'd say we will just say "OK, see you next year".

To be honest that's what I would do in any case. They're going to save themselves a whole lot of heart ache when the NRL decides their not going to be allowed in the Final Series no matter what.
 
Last edited:

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,312
So are we being screwed on Watmough? Most of us thought if his salary was backdated we'd be sweet. Is he not on the amount we thought he was?

Also what happened to Schuey's calculations? He was confident the NRL had overestimated the $570k figure. This could turn out to form a large part of the clubs response to the breach notice.

The NRL wouldn't budge on the $570k, even if they're figures are false, because it would have caused embarrassment to them. In exactly the same way that they will never reduce the penalty deduction of a all our points earnt this season.

I would imagine Schubert probably tried to demonstrate that some of these TPA's were obtained legitimately, possibly even with no knowledge of the club (organised by the Manager themselves), but they have determined that it's a one-in-all-in for the TPA's at this point. Until the Club can provide it's response by 3 June, then the NRL probably has no choice but to maintain the breach notice as is.

Again, extending the breach notice timeframe to 3 June instead of yesterday appears to be a strategic move by the NRL.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,874
We don't really know it's all here say really. I'm sure at a later stage we find out.
On Schubert, he can only account what the club gives him to look at, the club May have not given him everything. They have been hiding stuff for a while.
 

Abacus

Juniors
Messages
2,093
I think there is some confusion in the media reports regarding replacement of say Paulo should he be released. The cap is your Top 25 player payments.
If Paulo is on $180k, and he's already been paid half then his cap value for the year would be $90k. If $90k means he is one of the Top 25 paid players in the club, then there is no reason for a "replacement" in the Top 25.
It would make management of the 2nd tier interesting however where exemptions can be applied for as necessary.
Should be the same with Watmough.
 
Last edited:

woddy

Juniors
Messages
731
So are we being screwed on Watmough? Most of us thought if his salary was backdated we'd be sweet. Is he not on the amount we thought he was?

Also what happened to [COLOR=[B]Schuey's calculations[/B]? He was confident the NRL had overestimated the $570k figure. This could turn out to form a large part of the clubs response to the breach notice.

This could be why he is smug about us being right to play for points on friday. Who knows :sarcasm:
 

84 Baby

Referee
Messages
28,303
I think there is some confusion in the media reports regarding replacement of say Paulo should he be released. The cap is your Top 25 player payments.
If Paulo is on $180k, and he's already been paid half then his cap value for the year would be $90k. If $90k means he is one of the Top 25 paid players in the club, then there is no reason for a "replacement" in the Top 25.
It would make management of the 2nd tier interesting however where exemptions can be applied for as necessary.
Should be the same with Watmough.
That's what I thought. Pretty sure it was reported couple of years ago we had 21 players in our top 25 because we were paying 4 players to play elsewhere and we're evidently paying more than min wage for them to do so
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top