Clubs up in arms over Inglis transfer

[Raiders_Premiers]

He needs to lose weight, he's heading down the Owen Craigie path

 

[myanonymoususername]

News's head of corporate affairs, Greg Baxter, said last night the release would be ''very detailed'', adding: ''We received the report in the past week, and we've been checking a few things with our lawyers. A few more things will be checked tomorrow, and it is increasingly likely that we'll call a media conference on Tuesday.''
He added: ''There are no plans by News to hold anything back, unless there is something we can't release because there would be legal consequences to us doing so.
''The report can't be released in its original form, because it is legally privileged, but there will be an extensive written summary distributed to the media.''

I bet the "legally privileged" bits are the ones that paint News in a bad light or point the finger of blame at the players. The bits that they will happily release are those that highlight the villainy of Brian Waldron, Matt Hanson and the independent directors.

 

[perverse]

i think there's only 2 or 3 clubs i could see still having enough cap space to get Inglis at anything close to what he is getting now - Brisbane, Newcastle and maybe the Warriors. Brisbane have blooded a whole heap of blokes this year, and would have a bit of breathing room... and the Knights would still have quite a hefty chunk of cap free assuming they don't re-sign Cross and Simpson (which they likely won't - they are both on rep dollars). i've heard that the Warriors have been operating well under the cap... but i can't back it up with anything beyond speculation.

the Knights could probably afford to pay him the most, but it will be a cold day in hell when Inglis comes to Newcastle given the Joey racism thing, so i would say Inglis will end up a Bronco if he isn't playing for the Storm next year. the Broncos rumours make a lot of sense. before the racism thing i would have backed the Knights to make a genuine play for him... but now i can only see the Broncos being in the race.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Geez, given his missus is getting a decent job in Brisbane, I can understand why he would take a lesser amount to play in Brisbane. I agree that his contract should probably become null and void, though it's only one season where this "top up" would occur and other clubs have been forced to do as much when offloading players, it's just the club he is going to has caused so much trouble, if it was the Bulldogs or your own club, would everyone be as up in arms?

Anyway, the Storm need to lose one of those 4 premium players to be able to field a decent team around the remaining guys, and really I would prefer if all 4 remain in the NRL, rather than be forced to go elsewhere, be it ESL or another code.

As for the salary cap implications, the salary cap is a dud, it needs to be fixed.

 

[perverse]

well... given that the Broncos have pulled out of the running for Inglis you would have to assume he will stay in Melbourne.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Yep, because losing another quality player (perhaps the most talented) to another competition is a-okay.

Gotta say I will definitely miss watching Greg Inglis if he goes to another code or country. Just like I've missed seeing SBW play since he left.

Undoubtedly the most naturally gifted back and forward I've ever seen.

No it isnt ok but Im not prepared to bend the rules to keep him here either given other players, Lockyer for example, have taken lesser contracts to stay in this great code of ours.

He certainly is a wonderful RL talent but he isnt ireplaceable either.

The integrity of the competition is not worth 1 player alone

 

[hellteam]

well... given that the Broncos have pulled out of the running for Inglis you would have to assume he will stay in Melbourne.

We also "pulled out" of the running to sign Ben Hannant a few weeks before we did.... wouldn't be reading too much into it.

 

[bfoord]

It's up to Mel to sort out who they want, sign those players and whoever is left out finds a new club, the same way all other players do.

merely transferring a player to another club without regard to the rules of the comp is unfair and stupid. Say Manly lose Matai and another and have 450K to spend, they want inglis but because Brisbane have been allowed to just have him, they have no hope.

It's up to the clubs if they want to put a large chunk of the cap on one player, you make your choice and take your chances.

If Brisbane want him, lose some players (Thaiday) and bid on the open market with everyone else. You don't have a god given right to players. or have 4 big contracts, Hannant, Thaiday, Inlgis, Lockyer, 2 high - mid level Hodges and Wallace and 19 guys made up of Timmah, El Diablo, Perth Red, etc.

Brisbane haven't been allowed to just have him... his manager has said that Inglis has no interest in playing for a Sydney club and the only reason he wanted a release to go to Brisbane is because that is where his fiance works. No other NRL club would be in the running anyway... the Storm will have to lose players sooner or later they have already released 1 player to the Bulldogs...

morons :roll:

 

[Talanexor]

I thought Melbourne would release Slater first, seeing as how they have Widdop in NSW Cup who is more than capable of replacing him.

Of the 4 big name players they have, Slater is the only one who the Storm could replace tomorrow and not affect the side too greatly.

Storm will never let Smith or Cronk go. Out of Slater and Inglis, Slater is the least versatile and most replaceable. Inglis can play anywhere in the backline 1-6, whereas Slater is a specialist fullback.

I'd happily let Bowen and LOD go if it meant bringing Slater back to NQ.

 

[hellteam]

Storm will never let Smith or Cronk go. Out of Slater and Inglis, Slater is the least versatile and most replaceable. Inglis can play anywhere in the backline 1-6, whereas Slater is a specialist fullback.

I'd happily let Bowen and LOD go if it meant bringing Slater back to NQ.

Slater is their star player though, pretty much the face of rugby league in Melbourne. They wouldn't want to lose him.

 

[Hugh Mungus]

Maybe because some of us have been following this game for over 35 years and are sick of this c**p. Players come and go. Rugby league will not die because a few overpaid superstars went looking elsewhere and to skew our competition so rich clubs can be even more successful and denying other clubs by blatantly manipulating the salary cap makes fans who aren't Broncos cynical of the whole system. That's more of a threat to the game.

Disagree with your statements on two fronts. The Broncos have been excellent for the game - even Ken Arthurson admits that the Broncos was one of the best things he did. And secondly, in your 35 years when did AFL and Union start to be serious threats to our top players?

 

[Stormsally]

I know that people here hate hearing about how AFL do things - but - when the storm sh*t hit the fan, Eddie had Demitrou on MMM saying that when AFL had the salary cap issues with Carlton they came up with an agreement with the Players Association allowing for pretty much anything goes in relation to third party deals in return for the ability for the AFL to view players tax returns etc. They also had a salary cap amnesty that the NRL couldn't afford to after the stand it has taken with Melbourne.

I'm just saying that the NRL are saying we are already doing all we can in terms of salary cap is sh*t. They need to be pro-active.

From now on any player movement is going to raise suspicion with the 'fans'.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/league-not-the-only-game-to-rort-salary-cap-20100428-tsgj.html

 

[Nerd]

I'm in the exact same boat. I do not want to see Inglis go to the Broncos, they already have so much bloody talent stockpiled there - however I'd take it anyday of the week over him going to the UK or another code.

By stockpiled do you mean juniors which they developed?

 

[BLKOUT!]

Yep. And it applies to all clubs, broncos included.

Put it this way, if the roosters can persuade a dozen high profile union players to join their ranks, and that leads to two roosters premierships, id cop it.

The bonus to the game itself would far outweigh anything else.

Yeah but Skeepe would probably shoot himself.

 

[Jason Maher]

Well I just heard on the news he knocked them back. Not that I would ahve minded. The Broncos have a massive advantage in terms of their junior base, and if they want to pay overs for established stars, then that simply means some of their young guns will be moving out when they have to start paying them a bit more, which will obviosuly whichever clubs have the money at the time to pick up a Broncos-developed young gun. It certainly benefitted us to pick up Boyd when the Broncos shelled out big for Folau (though I admit the Bennett factor certainly helped in this instance).

To be bluntly honest, looking at the quality of some of the players they have coming through, the Broncos will be much better served in the long run by not getting Inglis and having the money to retain some more of their young blokes instead. Which means I would have been happier to hear Inglis had signed for them.

 

[Burwood]

Where did this $650,000 value come from? Is that his first contract value? Or his second? Or possibly even his third or fourth? If it is anything other than the contract that has been lodged with the NRL I don't think that clubs should even entertain the idea of signing him for that much.

 

[BDH]

By stockpiled do you mean juniors which they developed?

Yes he does. Fans from Sydney clubs struggle to understand why players may not want to go to a team; where there is poor junior development, 9 teams in the same geographical area all struggling for a stagnate fanbase, and where half the clubs in said geographical location are constantly fending off rumours of their economic demise.

I don't understand how anyone could doubt Broncos ability to afford the $450k for GI.

Of our current roster;
Hoffman, Glenn, Winterstein, Yow Yeh, Gillett, Ben Hunt, Andrew McCullough, Corey Norman and Josh Macguire are all either Broncos Under 20's or debuted in NRL for Broncos after being selected from another Under 20's squad, and therefore would be on limited coin.

Te'O, Anderson, Kemp, Kenny were all not rookies, but also not established players and signed for average deals (especially Kenny, Kemp and Anderson). Sims and Setu are gone for 2010.

Wallace hasn't had a contract upgrade since the one after he was selected for NSW Origin and still remains on the $300k-ish mark. So Lockyer, Thaiday, Hannant and Hodges are the only "big coin" players in the current Broncos roster.

It's very feasible to think Broncos have $450k lying around, especially when you look at the talent that has left in the last 3 seasons.

 

[Knightmare]

Who couldn't see this coming :sarcasm: This is just a right pocket, left pocket switch from News to protect their investments... Add on the $250K Sally Robinson will collect to answer phones and it will be business as usual.

At least next time she can claim she was hit in the eye by a flying telephone.

 

[Big Pete]

Jason, the Broncos have already secured the majority of their juniors for at least another two seasons. They still have 400K or so floating about, I reckon it would be a huge gain to attract Inglis.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying and in the past signing players outside of the club has hurt the club but in this instance it would ultimately prove to be a positive.

 

[God-King Dean]

$650,000-per-season contract.

I don't care how good he is, no centre is worth more than 1/8th of a team's salary cap.