Burgess's transfer fee is a salary cap rort

[Fein]

It would be a salary cap rort if Burgess were to have had his contract with Bradford front-loaded, walked away with the money from his contract at Bradford, which Souths reimbursed to Bradford and/or Souths then paid him a small salary to play for us.

But that isn't the case.

Burgess is on a healthy contract at Souths, fully included in the salary cap. He hasn't walked away from Bradford with more than he earnt by playing there and therefore we have made no additional payment in cash or kind to lure Sam Burgess into signing or staying. The Fuifui Moimoi case at the moment is because the Eels paid for a gratuity that could be seen as a reason for Fuifui to want to extend his association with the club - hence it is under the cap. Souths have not done anything along those lines for Sam Burgess they have simply compensated the Bradford club for allowing him to break his contract. It happens all the time in the NRL but NRL clubs do not ask for such compensation.

The only truth to what you say is that if 5 clubs were in the running for Burgess and only Souths had the money to pay the transfer fee they would have the advantage but that is an advantage afforded by sound management and aligning ourselves with passionate supporters/owners who are willing to contribute to the sucess of the club... not an advantage that can be questioned under fairness as all clubs have the same playing ground on which to succeed

Exactly right.

 

[Johns Magic]

Why would a transfer fee be counted under the salary cap? It is not paid to the player. It is not part of anyones salary. It is an amount given to another club as compensation for them allowing a player to be released before his contract has expired. Burgess would have signed for Souths a year later anyway.

Look, I see exactly where you're coming from, and to be honest I don't really care about the matter or think it's a big deal.

But I'd be pretty willing to bet that if Souths had just come in and offered Burgess 350K to play with them, Bradford would have upped their bid to 600 or 700k and he would have been far more likely to stay in the ESL.

By paying off their closest competitor, it essentially secured his signature for Souths, probably at a discounted salary because he wasn't having a cashed-up Bradford contract dangled in front of his eyes. This is something the poorer clubs cannot afford to do, and thus give Souths an artificial financial advantage.

If Souths have the ability to pay a transfer fee and other clubs negotiating for the contract do not then why should Souths be penalised? Souths have operated within the laws of the game and other clubs had exactly the same opportunity.

Did you honestly think this through?

What do you think clubs like the Roosters were saying when the salary cap idea was first brought up. Probably "If the Roosters have the ability to pay a player three times what any other club can then why should we be penalised? It's our money, we should be able to do what we want with it. If the other clubs had the money then they would have exactly the same opportunity".

The point is other clubs don't have the money. That is why the salary cap is in place, to give them an equal opportunity. And paying off rival clubs to eliminate the competition for players' signatures gives the rich clubs a salary cap advantage.

Bradford would not have just let Burgess go if Crowe hadn't paid them a motza to do so. This made it possible to sign him, something the poorer clubs never had the chance to do.

Souths having more money here made it an unlevel playing field. Obviously it's not currently against NRL rules, probably because it's just about the first time it's ever happened here. But if Souths end up signing half a side of contracted young English stars(massive hypothetical, don't expect this at all) by paying out their ESL clubs, there's no way the NRL wouldn't look into it.

 

[Dogmatix]

There are not many players in the English team you would want to sign apart from Burgess so I doubt any NRL club is going to start signing heaps of young English stars using transfer fees

If Burgess had failed in the games vs Australia no one would be saying a thing. Souths signed Burgess before his full potential was obvious to the rest of the clubs in the NRL. That is smart recruitment by Souths

 

[Newcastlerabbit]

There are not many players in the English team you would want to sign apart from Burgess so I doubt any NRL club is going to start signing heaps of young English stars using transfer fees

If Burgess had failed in the games vs Australia no one would be saying a thing. Souths signed Burgess before his full potential was obvious to the rest of the clubs in the NRL. That is smart recruitment by Souths

Burgess has been in the news for over 2 years now.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

But I'd be pretty willing to bet that if Souths had just come in and offered Burgess 350K to play with them, Bradford would have upped their bid to 600 or 700k and he would have been far more likely to stay in the ESL.

By paying off their closest competitor, it essentially secured his signature for Souths, probably at a discounted salary because he wasn't having a cashed-up Bradford contract dangled in front of his eyes. This is something the poorer clubs cannot afford to do, and thus give Souths an artificial financial advantage.

He signed on for less than his original contract with Bradford to play with Souths. Other Super League clubs were dangling a carrot in front of him at the same time and he knocked them back as well. He originally signed a three year deal with Souths starting from 2011 and Souths were able to negotiate a release including transfer fee so that he could come over a year earlier. Bradford never took their offer of more money off the table.

Souths made him an offer equal or better to other clubs in the NRL and secured his signature. Then they paid Bradford to allow him to come one year earlier.

Did you honestly think this through?

What do you think clubs like the Roosters were saying when the salary cap idea was first brought up. Probably "If the Roosters have the ability to pay a player three times what any other club can then why should we be penalised? It's our money, we should be able to do what we want with it. If the other clubs had the money then they would have exactly the same opportunity".

The point is other clubs don't have the money. That is why the salary cap is in place, to give them an equal opportunity. And paying off rival clubs to eliminate the competition for players' signatures gives the rich clubs a salary cap advantage.

Bradford would not have just let Burgess go if Crowe hadn't paid them a motza to do so. This made it possible to sign him, something the poorer clubs never had the chance to do.

Souths having more money here made it an unlevel playing field. Obviously it's not currently against NRL rules, probably because it's just about the first time it's ever happened here. But if Souths end up signing half a side of contracted young English stars(massive hypothetical, don't expect this at all) by paying out their ESL clubs, there's no way the NRL wouldn't look into it.

This is not the first time that Transfer fees have been paid. It happens in the ESL all the time and while it may supply some competitive advantage to clubs who can afford to pay it, the fact of the matter is that this is a fairly unique situation. Burgess has taken a significant pay cut to test himself in the NRL. He is earning something like $350k here where he could quite easily earn something more like $500k - $750k in the ESL. The payment of a transfer fee does not sweeten the deal at all for Burgess. He is essentially taking a paycut a year earlier tbh. What it does do is provide some compensation for Bradford who, are allowing a player to follow his dream by releasing him a year early at the detriment of their squad strength.

If a club terminates a contract early on a player, they generally agree to some compensation for the player. If the roles are reversed, then surely the club should be eligible for some compensation. I think you will find that transfer fees will soon become a regular part of the NRL and not just something we come across once in a blue moon when dealing with the ESL.

 

[Johns Magic]

He signed on for less than his original contract with Bradford to play with Souths. Other Super League clubs were dangling a carrot in front of him at the same time and he knocked them back as well.

From all reports I've read, the only reason Burgess would ever have left Bradford was to test himself in the NRL. I don't think other ESL clubs were really a consideration for him. He had no interest in them regardless of what(little) more money they might be able to offer him.

He originally signed a three year deal with Souths starting from 2011 and Souths were able to negotiate a release including transfer fee so that he could come over a year earlier. Bradford never took their offer of more money off the table.

But they sure were happy not to up the offer after receiving a big fat cheque from Russell Crowe. They would have fought much harder for his signature and offered him more money otherwise.

Souths made him an offer equal or better to other clubs in the NRL and secured his signature. Then they paid Bradford to allow him to come one year earlier.

That's a fair point. However no NRL club would consider signing a player two years in advance unless they thought they could get him sooner than that. I think it's a bit naive to think that Souths originally only planned to get him in 2011.

This is not the first time that Transfer fees have been paid. It happens in the ESL all the time and while it may supply some competitive advantage to clubs who can afford to pay it, the fact of the matter is that this is a fairly unique situation. Burgess has taken a significant pay cut to test himself in the NRL. He is earning something like $350k here where he could quite easily earn something more like $500k - $750k in the ESL. The payment of a transfer fee does not sweeten the deal at all for Burgess. He is essentially taking a paycut a year earlier tbh. What it does do is provide some compensation for Bradford who, are allowing a player to follow his dream by releasing him a year early at the detriment of their squad strength.

If a club terminates a contract early on a player, they generally agree to some compensation for the player. If the roles are reversed, then surely the club should be eligible for some compensation. I think you will find that transfer fees will soon become a regular part of the NRL and not just something we come across once in a blue moon when dealing with the ESL.

But this transfer fee is not "compensation" in the way you're talking about it. You're not just giving it to the CEO of Bradford for being a nice bloke and letting Burgess go. He's not a waiter at a restaurant. You're trying to imply Souths are supplying some form of charity out of the goodness of their hearts after the event.

Instead, it is directly benefitting Bradford in a huge way financially. And while it's not sweetening the deal Burgess gets at Souths in terms of money, it's definitely increasing Bradford's incentive to let him go and thus the amount they are willing to offer him. This makes Souths' deal sweeter in comparison.

Souths are only counting Burgess as 350K under the salary cap. 350K which any club could afford. But in reality they are paying 850K to get him, something that the poorer clubs can't do.

For the record, well done to Souths and Crowe on this. I wish the Knights had signed him, he's a gun. But then again, we couldn't afford to.

 

[Dave Q]

The other guys are jealous that their clubs lacked the skill, expertise and cashola to bring the best player in the world to their club.

The way our pack is developing, Roy Asotasi may not even rate a start.

We got our man, these days, we usually do.

 

[Ziggy the God]

the nrl referred johns to nine, it was then up to fordham to negotiate a 3rd party sponsorship deal. the deal had to be independent of john's negotiations with the knights.

gasnier did the same. all above table. every player has an opportunity to approach nine, without being directly referred by the club or guaranteed income.

looks like you don't understand the difference, and just want to have a go at the knights/johns.

bullsh*t.

The Knights and the Saints had an unfair advantage because the same was not offered to every other club to sign a marquee.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

From all reports I've read, the only reason Burgess would ever have left Bradford was to test himself in the NRL. I don't think other ESL clubs were really a consideration for him. He had no interest in them regardless of what(little) more money they might be able to offer him.

There were other interested parties. Including Superleague and NRL teams

But they sure were happy not to up the offer after receiving a big fat cheque from Russell Crowe. They would have fought much harder for his signature and offered him more money otherwise.

The deal was done with Souths for 2011 before there was any talk of 2010 or compensation for Bradford. The transfer fee had no direct result on what was offered to Burgess by either Souths or Bradford. A number of weeks before the deal was announced I was lucky enough to speak to Richo about it after he had shown a video of Burgess at a post match function for Souths members. He said that Burgess was signed for 2011 but they were working on a deal to get him here a year earlier.

But this transfer fee is not "compensation" in the way you're talking about it. You're not just giving it to the CEO of Bradford for being a nice bloke and letting Burgess go. He's not a waiter at a restaurant. You're trying to imply Souths are supplying some form of charity out of the goodness of their hearts after the event.

Not implying that at all. Burgess was considering two deals, he took the one on offer from Souths. Souths then asked if he could come over a year earlier. Bradford agreed to release him on the basis that they receive suitable compensation for their loss.

Instead, it is directly benefitting Bradford in a huge way financially. And while it's not sweetening the deal Burgess gets at Souths in terms of money, it's definitely increasing Bradford's incentive to let him go and thus the amount they are willing to offer him. This makes Souths' deal sweeter in comparison.

Bradford were very smart about it. They knew that they could let him go in 2011 for nothing or let him go a year earlier and receive some compensation.

Souths are only counting Burgess as 350K under the salary cap. 350K which any club could afford. But in reality they are paying 850K to get him, something that the poorer clubs can't do.

Agreed however the argument is whether this should count under the salary cap and as it is not being paid either directly or indirectly to Sam Burgess then the answer is no. There is no specific law against Transfer fees paid in this manner and any NRL team has the option to do the same thing under the laws of the game.

No one complained when French Rugby Union paid the Bulldogs a transfer fee to secure Sonny Bill Williams. The Dogs then went on a signing spree with their transfer money and available cap space. Whats the difference here?

For the record, well done to Souths and Crowe on this. I wish the Knights had signed him, he's a gun. But then again, we couldn't afford to.

To be honest, I think its a great result for everyone involved. Including fans of other NRL teams. So often we see blokes going the other way so its good to see a few good ones coming over here to test themselves. It creates publicity and interest and more positive talk about the game which can only be a good thing.

 

[Craig Johnston]

bullsh*t.

The Knights and the Saints had an unfair advantage because the same was not offered to every other club to sign a marquee.

every club DOES have the same opportunity to approach 9. 9 then has the choice to decide wether or not they are interested in the player, and what terms. as evidenced in gasnier's deal, the arrangement is not guaranteed by 9 and definitiely unguaranteed by the club (dragons).

you really have no idea dude

 

[Craig Johnston]

Agreed however the argument is whether this should count under the salary cap and as it is not being paid either directly or indirectly to Sam Burgess then the answer is no. There is no specific law against Transfer fees paid in this manner and any NRL team has the option to do the same thing under the laws of the game.

fees being paid directly to the player is not the sole criteria of the salary cap, never has been never will be. as i pointed out with kingston for eg, his "nominal value" for 2010 he will not receive.

No one complained when French Rugby Union paid the Bulldogs a transfer fee to secure Sonny Bill Williams. The Dogs then went on a signing spree with their transfer money and available cap space. Whats the difference here?

:lol: mate that's a joke isn't it? how does the money the bulldogs RECEIVE count against their salary cap? didn't think that one through did you? or do you mean french rugby? if they have a salary cap, they can do whatever they want with it, we're talking about the nrl's salary cap.

To be honest, I think its a great result for everyone involved. Including fans of other NRL teams. So often we see blokes going the other way so its good to see a few good ones coming over here to test themselves. It creates publicity and interest and more positive talk about the game which can only be a good thing

i agree with the sentiment, nice heartstring pull but no cigar, a rort is a rort. buying esl players via transfer fee isn't exclusive to english players. this precedent opens the door for richer clubs to "buy back" aussie stars with money other clubs can't afford.

i certainly understand why bunnies fans want to get away with it while they can, but this is a deadset rort imo.

 

[Fein]

every club DOES have the same opportunity to approach 9. 9 then has the choice to decide wether or not they are interested in the player, and what terms. as evidenced in gasnier's deal, the arrangement is not guaranteed by 9 and definitiely unguaranteed by the club (dragons).

you really have no idea dude

You're a dickhead buddy.

Your own argument is destroyed by that post!!! :lol::lol:

 

[Craig Johnston]

You're a dickhead buddy.

Your own argument is destroyed by that post!!! :lol::lol:

howso? besides waving some poms poms around mate, you've contributed zip to the discussion.

and you're a mod? :lol: deadset

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

i certainly understand why bunnies fans want to get away with it while they can, but this is a deadset rort imo.

Do you understand what a rort is? Because what happened with Sam Burgess, Souths and Bradford is/was not a rort.

You might not like it, but paying a transfer fee is not dishonest, it is not a scam, it is not fraudulent, it is not cheating or any other synonym that you want to apply to the meaning of the word 'rort'.

Is it unfair to poorer clubs that can't afford it? Yes. But I have no sympathy for poorer clubs. We were the poorest of the poor only a few short years ago and no one gave a sh*t about us then.

 

[Fein]

howso? besides waving some poms poms around mate, you've contributed zip to the discussion.

and you're a mod? deadset

I'm not here to educate mugs.

Deadset!! :lol::lol:

 

[Craig Johnston]

I'm not here to educate mugs.

Deadset!! :lol::lol:

imitation is the highest form of flattery as they say.

add another one to your zip contribution total.

 

[Dave Q]

I'm not here to educate mugs.

Deadset!! :lol::lol:

:lol: Give me my pom poms back!

 

[Dave Q]

Do you understand what a rort is? Because what happened with Sam Burgess, Souths and Bradford is/was not a rort.

You might not like it, but paying a transfer fee is not dishonest, it is not a scam, it is not fraudulent, it is not cheating or any other synonym that you want to apply to the meaning of the word 'rort'.

Is it unfair to poorer clubs that can't afford it? Yes. But I have no sympathy for poorer clubs. We were the poorest of the poor only a few short years ago and no one gave a sh*t about us then.

Yes.

Unlike other clubs, there was no NRL mega-cash handouts for Souths either.

Everything weve achieved, weve had to work pretty hard for, weve done it ourselves.

And we have helped other clubs and even the NRL behind the scenes.

But the job of establishing OUR ERA is just beginning.

 

[Mattyoh]

Craig, your initial point about the transfer fee being unfair for poorer clubs is fair enough. I have to agree. Everypoint you've made since has been pure dribble.

It does feel good to finally be a fugger, rather than the ones getting fugged.

Dave Q is right. Finally a true dawn.

 

[Fein]

imitation is the highest form of flattery as they say.

add another one to your zip contribution total.

Buddy, the only one here who is imitating a dickhead is you.

You are centre stage.

Your audience are laughing at you, not with you.

Keep going.

The show must go on. :lol::lol::lol: