Dragons Demand Salary Cap Meeting

[the_flight_of_the_magpie]

The Dragons are not happy that the Wests Tigers have been given a salary cap exemption, allowing Luke Brooks to play against St George this weekend.
The Wests Tigers yesterday wrote to NRL Salary Cap Auditor Ian Schubert asking for permission to breach the second tier salary cap by allowing the talented pair to play against St George-Illawarra Dragons at the Sydney Cricket Ground on Saturday.
Official Statement

The St George Illawarra Dragons have requested a meeting with the NRL to discuss the application of the Salary Cap rules after receiving notification from the NRL of their endorsement of a salary cap breach at another Club on Thursday.
The NRL formally advised the Club of their endorsement of the Wests Tigers application to breach their Second-Tier salary cap by playing two NYC players in the NRL Round 24 clash against the Dragons at the Sydney Cricket Ground, Moore Park on Saturday.
The NRL advised that this is not the first breach by the Wests Tigers and the reasons given were due to their “extremely high injury toll” and “less than anticipated success rate in the competition”.
NRL Salary Cap Auditor Ian Schubert informally phoned Dragons CEO Peter Doust on Wednesday to discuss the merits of flexibility within the salary cap rules before making reference to a specific example in relation to the Wests Tigers ahead of this weekend.
“The Dragons have for a number of years been an advocate for ‘flexibility’ with respect to certain rules of the salary cap and their interpretation and are pleased that the Management of the NRL are prepared to consider this in the move forward sense," said Doust.
"However, we believe that any such ‘discretion’ applied by the NRL needs to be appropriately and widely considered.
“It was not until the end of the telephone conversation that this specific issue relating to the Wests Tigers seeking to play an additional player this weekend was raised.
“We ourselves as a Club have been faced with similar circumstances throughout this year and have followed the rules of the salary cap and I will certainly be sharing these examples.
"I am also aware of other Clubs who have also faced similar circumstances and have also complied with the rules as setout by the NRL."
The Dragons have sought the meeting to seek further information surrounding this process as the Club believes the application of such discretion has been ill conceived.
“This circumstance, from the information with which we have been provided and from what we can see, is an issue of roster management, not injury management and the fact that both teams are not in contention for the Finals should not be a consideration.
“We have eight NRL Players on the sidelines ourselves and from where we sit, the decision reached doesn’t seem to be a very equitable.
"We have expressed our disappointment to the NRL, asked for more specifics and believe the specifics should be assessed more fully.
“It is clearly too late in relation to this weekend as they have already made their determination to allow the Wests Tigers to breach the Salary Cap rules, but I would still have asked for a meeting even if it didn’t impact our Club this weekend as we definitely want clarity and definition for the future.
"I think any Club CEO would be interested in understanding what all this means … we may even need to adjust our strategies in relation to recruitment and roster management moving forward off the back of a determinations such as this."


http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/sp...lary-cap-meeting-over-wests-tigers-exemption/

 

[BigRedV]

And rightly so. Just because a team is crap with crap recruitment shouldn't mean you get separate rules. Otherwise we and Parra should have had this from round 1! Knee jerk ruling to try and bolster a club sinking quicker than the sharks.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

The Dragons are happy with flexibility such as signing players on backended contracts and having them retire early but not for allowing two NYC players to play in a match that literally means nothing.

 

[Big Sam]

We're starting to go down the path of the VFL in having different rules for underperforming teams. Dangerous territory.

You must have the same rules for all 16 clubs, no matter the circumstances.

 

[Maximus]

The NRL advised that this is not the first breach by the Wests Tigers and the reasons given were due to their ?extremely high injury toll? and ?less than anticipated success rate in the competition?.

Lol they seriously gave that as a reason? :?

Surely the Eels should have been allowed to sign Folau if being shit is a good enough reason to cheat the cap?

 

[Saint Doc]

The Dragons are happy with flexibility such as signing players on backended contracts and having them retire early but not for allowing two NYC players to play in a match that literally means nothing.

I know you're only trolling/fishing, but ill answer this anyway.

It's simply not true.

When a player has a back ended deal, the player must be paid out so that they receive an average fee across the whole time.

Eg. Gaz contract

100k year one
200k year two
300k year three
400 k year four (for arguments sake)

Retires after 2 years.

Was paid 300k which is an average of 150k

Was on a contract worth 1,000,000 over 4 years, average 250k

Using those numbers, he must be paid 100k per year for the next two years and have it included under the salary cap.

Therefore punishing you in subsequent years.

As Dousty says, it's a "moveable feast".

 

[gallagher]

Old Dousty still not over the Moltzen saga?

 

[bellyache]

If the Tigers are allowed to do this it could hurt $ouff$ and the Cows in their finals run..

 

[Marshall_magic]

Lol they seriously gave that as a reason? :?

Surely the Eels should have been allowed to sign Folau if being shit is a good enough reason to cheat the cap?

Is Less than anticipated success basically a euphemism for "the game is a dead rubber?" I'd have no issue if they let a stack of Dragons' kids play this game too, it is essentially a battle for 14th and both teams have a ridiculous injury toll.

 

[Fat Krion]

I know you're only trolling/fishing, but ill answer this anyway.

It's simply not true.

When a player has a back ended deal, the player must be paid out so that they receive an average fee across the whole time.

Eg. Gaz contract

100k year one
200k year two
300k year three
400 k year four (for arguments sake)

Retires after 2 years.

Was paid 300k which is an average of 150k

Was on a contract worth 1,000,000 over 4 years, average 250k

Using those numbers, he must be paid 100k per year for the next two years and have it included under the salary cap.

Therefore punishing you in subsequent years.

As Dousty says, it's a "moveable feast".

Very conservative example, I'm sure Gaz's contract was far more lucrative.
He signed for 50k the first season when he returned from rugby.
That was a ridiculous situation. Having him retire was a rort when the deal was obviously back ended . Sure he would have been reimbursed in his capacity as an ambassador , just like Del....


The NRL wanted a Dragons victory and relaxed the rules, like they are for Souths this season.

 

[madunit]

Dragons are scared of a teenage halfback.

lol

 

[neutralsupporter]

I know you're only trolling/fishing, but ill answer this anyway.

It's simply not true.

When a player has a back ended deal, the player must be paid out so that they receive an average fee across the whole time.

Eg. Gaz contract

100k year one
200k year two
300k year three
400 k year four (for arguments sake)

Retires after 2 years.

Was paid 300k which is an average of 150k

Was on a contract worth 1,000,000 over 4 years, average 250k

Using those numbers, he must be paid 100k per year for the next two years and have it included under the salary cap.

Therefore punishing you in subsequent years.

As Dousty says, it's a "moveable feast".

You're a fkn idiot they said it wouldn't affect their cap at all at the time

 

[Front-Rower]

If the Tigers are allowed to do this it could hurt $ouff$ and the Cows in their finals run..

Umm no.

What the article conveniently left out (and Doust claims was never mentioned..yeah right) was the fact we could play these guys because we are playing opposition that are also out of the running for the finals.

http://www.weststigers.com.au/news-display/Special-permission-granted-for-talented-pair/82563

 

[DJShaksta]

Not a fan of either team but I'll say this - how is it the dragons fault the tigers signed a no talent hack like Anasta and have a heartless egomaniac like Benji on the books?
Allowing salary cap beaches cos they are underperforming is ridiculous.

 

[Maximus]

He signed for 50k the first season when he returned from rugby.

No he didn't. The NRL rejected that. He was signed for 130k for about 1/3 of the season.

 

[madunit]

Thats the only way tigers got exemption

 

[Saint Doc]

Very conservative example, I'm sure Gaz's contract was far more lucrative.
He signed for 50k the first season when he returned from rugby.
That was a ridiculous situation. Having him retire was a rort when the deal was obviously back ended . Sure he would have been reimbursed in his capacity as an ambassador , just like Del....


The NRL wanted a Dragons victory and relaxed the rules, like they are for Souths this season.

The numbers were not meant to be realistic. They were meant to be nice round numbers that added up to an even million so that school kids like neutralsupporter could understand the maths.

The point is that with a back ended deal, if you retire early, you must get paid so that the years you did play, you were paid the average yearly amount for your entire contract.

People think the salary cap is a year on year thing, but its not. Clubs are constantly doing things, like being under the cap one year, front loading contracts, so that they have more room to move in subsequent years, or ifn they're getting near the top and want to convert success to a premiership, they sign someone on a back ended deal.

Dogs in particular keep doing this. Up/down, up/down.

With regards to Gaz, it was ridiculous that saints had to do what they did. The NRL wouldn't register him because he wasn't signing on for his "market value". Which stinks, because the NRL stops players earning their market value all the time with an artificial salary cap (meaning players have to accept less than what a free market would pay them), but then don't allow the players to voluntarily accept less to play for their junior club.

Can't have it both ways

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Is Less than anticipated success basically a euphemism for "the game is a dead rubber?" I'd have no issue if they let a stack of Dragons' kids play this game too, it is essentially a battle for 14th and both teams have a ridiculous injury toll.

14th is ours merkin!

We always beat the Tigers home.

 

[carcharias]

Hilarious

Like two bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[maple_69]

The salary cap needs a total rethink.

The Penrith saga through out the second half of this year showed us that aspects of the salary cap don't make sense.
This case is another example of Schubert making it up as he goes along.

Fantastic to see Grant stating intentions to look at a number of other systems overseas and to really rebuild the salary cap because it is no longer effective in its current form in this market. First change that needs to be made is pissing of Schubert.