Aaron Woods

[nontime111]

cmon fellas this thread is getting WAAAY too intellectual and tuned in for a league site!! hehe

 

[nontime111]

I once had a guy ask me if I was a hologram? I said not that I know of. lol It is probably one of the best questions anyone has ever asked me. lol

the bizzare reality is, no one knows exactly who we even are! or what this place or realm even is...its the mystery of the thing that I love

im SO GLAD to be a DRAGONS FAN!! man my people......take a look at every other forum...only then youll understand

 

[Bests Golden Boots]

the bizzare reality is, no one knows exactly who we even are! or what this place or realm even is...its the mystery of the thing that I love

im SO GLAD to be a DRAGONS FAN!! man my people......take a look at every other forum...only then youll understand

I did once check the Souths one, but as didn’t need a free dentist or cheap wine casks, I never went back.

 

[giboz71]

But if you go with that logic you come to the situation that every year a team wins the comp only to get it stripped two years later.
My arguement is that by underpaying for players in the first years of their contracts, then over paying later, you are rorting the cap.
It’s like the previous Bulldogs, they had all their points stripped one year, the next year they win the comp with the exact same players, with a team that was artificially underpayed that year.

But you would only get stripped of the comp if you actually exceed the cap correct?

From my understanding, the Dogs haven’t broken any rules. Backended contracts are not illegal and clubs have been doing it for years. Robbie Farah had to leave the Tigers because of it and he was one of their favourite sons.

If the NRL made it illegal, fair enough your argument is fine but as long as it’s within the rules and clubs want to play it that way then that’s up to them.

There are clubs who haven’t won a comp in 20, 30 years in some cases. If a club like Parra or the Raiders could win a comp today, but had to go through 3 years of pain, most of their fans would take it.

 

[nontime111]

I did once check the Souths one, but as didn’t need a free dentist or cheap wine casks, I never went back.

I would have had to have had a shower!!!
also would have lost 40 points off my IQ and I dont have too many brain cells as it is so I dont like it when my intelligence is insulted hehe

 

[The Damo]

I would have had to have had a shower!!!
also would have lost 40 points off my IQ and I dont have too many brain cells as it is so I dont like it when my intelligence is insulted hehe

Well at least it’s not a hotbed of cultural Marxism...

 

[BennyV]

Don’t necessarily agree.

There is a salary cap that clubs need to abide by to ensure equity but clubs should have the freedom to manage it as they wish. And if they want to focus on winning a comp today as opposed to 5 years from now, that’s up to them.

Dogs are an example of trying to win a comp within a given window, it was obvious what Hasler was trying to pull off. On the other hand, you have clubs like Penrith and Newcastle with so called 5 year plans that were building up their roster to win in the future.

I don’t have a problem with either strategy as long as everybody stays within the rules.

The Dogs are an extreme example I agree and perhaps the NRL should have intervened to save them from 3 years of pain. But managing your own cap should be the clubs responsibliy and it you balls it up, then it’s on you.

But as I said, if Hasler won a comp within his given window, then I would have tipped my hat off to him. Some would argue it would have been worth the pain they are about to suffer.

That’s the problem - by all accounts, they haven’t stayed within the rules and haven’t managed their cap.

If signing 30 players puts a club over the cap for the current year, the NRL should not be registering the last of those contracts UNTIL the club is compliant.

In the same way, if a club signed has 25 players signed and the remaining 5 on minimum wage would blow the cap, some of those contracts shouldn’t be registered and the NRL should be monitoring that. Because the club will be breaking the cap for future years (recognising you need a roster of 30). Doesn’t matter if they intend on releasing players, because contractually those players can dig their heels in and collect their cheque, this putting that club over the cap.

Now, if the Dogs are just whinging because they can’t buy any DECENT players without exceeding the cap, that’s a different story. However, if it’s a case where maintaining their current contracts and filling their roster with minimum wage players will mean they exceed the cap, the NRL absolutely should have been monitoring that and refusing to register those contracts.

 

[TomRedVRiver]

So, back to the original topic.

If we do pick up Woods, it wouldn't be all doom and gloom. I mean sure.. He's a bit of a marshmallow. But if the Dogs are paying half his wage, it's a pretty solid pick-up for a former Australian rep.

He's a hell of a lot better than Latimore too.

8. Vaughan
9. McInnes
10. Vaughan
11. Frizell
12. Sims
13. De Belin

14. Ah Mau
15. Woods
16. Sele/Host/Leilua
17. Mann

I'd take that.

 

[Bests Golden Boots]

So, back to the original topic.

If we do pick up Woods, it wouldn't be all doom and gloom. I mean sure.. He's a bit of a marshmallow. But if the Dogs are paying half his wage, it's a pretty solid pick-up for a former Australian rep.

He's a hell of a lot better than Latimore too.

8. Vaughan
9. McInnes
10. Vaughan
11. Frizell
12. Sims
13. De Belin

14. Ah Mau
15. Woods
16. Sele/Host/Leilua
17. Mann

I'd take that.

Yeah, my original thoughts, if you can get him for 300 and the Dogs pay 500 you’d be mad not to, he’s straight up and down like Graham, but for that money, why not.

 

[ouryears]

But you would only get stripped of the comp if you actually exceed the cap correct?

From my understanding, the Dogs haven’t broken any rules. Backended contracts are not illegal and clubs have been doing it for years. Robbie Farah had to leave the Tigers because of it and he was one of their favourite sons.

If the NRL made it illegal, fair enough your argument is fine but as long as it’s within the rules and clubs want to play it that way then that’s up to them.

There are clubs who haven’t won a comp in 20, 30 years in some cases. If a club like Parra or the Raiders could win a comp today, but had to go through 3 years of pain, most of their fans would take it.

If it was challenged the ACCC would seem it illegal as directors have to act appropriately, in the best interests of its members, and in the best interests of the organisation.

Back ended contracts do none of that.

ACCC is very clear on directors and boards acting responsible and in the best interests.

 

[ouryears]

Yeah, my original thoughts, if you can get him for 300 and the Dogs pay 500 you’d be mad not to, he’s straight up and down like Graham, but for that money, why not.

But he is just soft, other better options will come along.

Guys, we want to win a comp, not a fairy floss eating competition.

 

[Bests Golden Boots]

But you would only get stripped of the comp if you actually exceed the cap correct?

From my understanding, the Dogs haven’t broken any rules. Backended contracts are not illegal and clubs have been doing it for years. Robbie Farah had to leave the Tigers because of it and he was one of their favourite sons.

If the NRL made it illegal, fair enough your argument is fine but as long as it’s within the rules and clubs want to play it that way then that’s up to them.

There are clubs who haven’t won a comp in 20, 30 years in some cases. If a club like Parra or the Raiders could win a comp today, but had to go through 3 years of pain, most of their fans would take it.

But as BennyV just pointed out, back ended contracts are registered contracts, the player does not have to leave, if he doesn’t leave you are over the cap, but on an NRL registered contract.
Now would the club have legal redress to say “well the NRL registered all these contracts, so they are legal and cap compliant”

Put it this way, 8 million or so cap, that’s 24 million dollars over three years, but you have players registered over that three years for 30 million, binding contracts, that’s over the cap.

 

[The Damo]

If it was challenged the ACCC would seem it illegal as directors have to act appropriately, in the best interests of its members, and in the best interests of the organisation.

Back ended contracts do none of that.

ACCC is very clear on directors and boards acting responsible and in the best interests.

Bahahahaha - corporate law enforcement in this country is a joke. You wanna bet anyone faces consequences at the commonwealth bank for enabling money laundering? They got fined $700 million, which is 7% of one years profit. They could’ve been fined under the law multiple trillions, but they weren’t and no director will cop the tiniest punishment.

 

[ouryears]

But you would only get stripped of the comp if you actually exceed the cap correct?

From my understanding, the Dogs haven’t broken any rules. Backended contracts are not illegal and clubs have been doing it for years. Robbie Farah had to leave the Tigers because of it and he was one of their favourite sons.

If the NRL made it illegal, fair enough your argument is fine but as long as it’s within the rules and clubs want to play it that way then that’s up to them.

There are clubs who haven’t won a comp in 20, 30 years in some cases. If a club like Parra or the Raiders could win a comp today, but had to go through 3 years of pain, most of their fans would take it.

I want a club I am proud of and that I respect.

It's a no from me.

Tom Cruise money ball no thanks giboz. You are a bad ass talking liking this mate.

 

[ouryears]

Bahahahaha - corporate law enforcement in this country is a joke. You wanna bet anyone faces consequences at the commonwealth bank for enabling money laundering? They got fined $700 million, which is 7% of one years profit. They could’ve been fined under the law multiple trillions, but they weren’t and no director will cop the tiniest punishment.

Yeah I agree mate.
The banks....Telstra....all the rip rip off franchise companies inc 7/11, mortgage choice just now, all the food ones that rip off their franchisees, electricity companies.....Sheeze the list is endless.

Time for a good old revolution.

 

[BennyV]

So, back to the original topic.

If we do pick up Woods, it wouldn't be all doom and gloom. I mean sure.. He's a bit of a marshmallow. But if the Dogs are paying half his wage, it's a pretty solid pick-up for a former Australian rep.

He's a hell of a lot better than Latimore too.

8. Vaughan
9. McInnes
10. Vaughan
11. Frizell
12. Sims
13. De Belin

14. Ah Mau
15. Woods
16. Sele/Host/Leilua
17. Mann

I'd take that.

I’d take that too, but we won’t get that. Ah Mau is allegedly gone and as much as Vaughan is a beast, he can’t do the work of 2 props!

I’m not against Woods if Dogs picked up some freight but with Ah Mau gone (by all reports) and Graham looking a bit shot this year, we do need someone else with some real impact too.

 

[BennyV]

I’d take that too, but we won’t get that. Ah Mau is allegedly gone and as much as Vaughan is a beast, he can’t do the work of 2 props!

I’m not against Woods if Dogs picked up some freight but with Ah Mau gone (by all reports) and Graham looking a bit shot this year, we do need someone else with some real impact too.

Actually I take this back. If we had Woods and Vaughan in the rotation, then Lawrie with another year under his belt may be in a position to take up a 4th spot in the prop rotation. In which case, we are in need of depth at prop. Some solid youngsters from other clubs. I’m not convinced Kerr will ever be an option, Sele and Host should be rotation options for lock and second row respectively (and exclusively) and with Graham continuing to get on, we need some back up.

Hell, we need that regardless of who fills the vacancy in our prop rotation.

 

[Old Timer]

Woods is a solid and professional prop at club level.
Other than the rep quality props he is probably in the top 15% or so.
If he is the likely target I would certainly like to understand the facts behind LAM going to the Warriors.
Was it money & contract length or was it family as for sure I would rather have kept LAM than get Woods?

 

[blacksafake]

So, back to the original topic.

If we do pick up Woods, it wouldn't be all doom and gloom. I mean sure.. He's a bit of a marshmallow. But if the Dogs are paying half his wage, it's a pretty solid pick-up for a former Australian rep.

He's a hell of a lot better than Latimore too.

8. Vaughan
9. McInnes
10. Vaughan
11. Frizell
12. Sims
13. De Belin

14. Ah Mau
15. Woods
16. Sele/Host/Leilua
17. Mann

I'd take that.

I know Vaughan is good but i'm sure he hasn't been cloned yet.lol

 

[saintzrule]

Bahahahaha - corporate law enforcement in this country is a joke. You wanna bet anyone faces consequences at the commonwealth bank for enabling money laundering? They got fined $700 million, which is 7% of one years profit. They could’ve been fined under the law multiple trillions, but they weren’t and no director will cop the tiniest punishment.

The fine came out of petty cash.