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 III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Swiftstylez

Bench
Messages
2,858
Lol

Don't worry, mate - you can pick up where he left off!

But you're a good egg, mate.

You confuse me sometimes, but you're a good egg.

Thank you.

You are a testament to the Eels fan base.
May the club we both love one day morph from the Titanic to Godzilla and rise from depths of the ocean.
 

parramaniac2516

Juniors
Messages
622
When did Greenburg say that the board members must stand down for us to earn points . I didn't see that in the announcement this morning. Has he said that on nrl360 or on another program?
 

Jaegerex

Juniors
Messages
1,258
If we were over $570k and watmough is on 600-850k and hasn't played a game, we have been playing under the cap all season

Nope, your top 25 are counted, not only players that play. Cowboys have only had 19 players used so far this year, yet will still have 6 other players counted in their cap.
So Watmough not playing doesn't change a thing, he is one of the 25 highest paid players at the club and therefore counts to the total.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
151,719
we could pay him $200 million.
If he hasn't been on the field, how have we had an advantage?

its not about any perceived advantage, its all about who has been paid what

we breached the cap when were closer to the bottom of the ladder than the top
 

MrT

Juniors
Messages
2,497
Nope, your top 25 are counted, not only players that play. Cowboys have only had 19 players used so far this year, yet will still have 6 other players counted in their cap.
So Watmough not playing doesn't change a thing, he is one of the 25 highest paid players at the club and therefore counts to the total.

yes I know it's counted in the cap, but can any team that's played us in 9 rounds say we have had an unfair advantage?

PLEEAAASEEEEEEE
 

parramaniac2516

Juniors
Messages
622
Nope, your top 25 are counted, not only players that play. Cowboys have only had 19 players used so far this year, yet will still have 6 other players counted in their cap.
So Watmough not playing doesn't change a thing, he is one of the 25 highest paid players at the club and therefore counts to the total.

I don't think Mr T is saying that we are not over the cap. However it was said that the success we have had is as a result of the cheating. An arguement could be made that watmough has not played a game so the success cannot be a result of the illegally assembled team because watmough has not contributed a thing this year. Doesn't change the fact we are over the cap.
 

ek999

First Grade
Messages
6,977
yes I know it's counted in the cap, but can any team that's played us in 9 rounds say we have had an unfair advantage?

PLEEAAASEEEEEEE

Yes. Bulldogs haven't had Brett Morris available all year so you played with a higher salary cap yet the same number of players available
 
Messages
19,236
yes I know it's counted in the cap, but can any team that's played us in 9 rounds say we have had an unfair advantage?

PLEEAAASEEEEEEE

By signing more rep-level players on high wages you give yourself more cover against injury problems. Other clubs could fairly argue that the quality of the backup for Watmough that we have been able to afford is greater than it should have been.

When you assemble a squad, you know that some of them are going to be injured for a significant proportion of the season. The fact that a bloke gets injured doesn't mean that his club gets no advantage by having signed him with some amount (apparently) illegally outside the cap.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
151,719
Well can he do that? That was never part of the original announcement and was a court decision that the 5 people got their jobs back. Not that I'm agreeing they should of but it's a court decision.

they were granted a stay, that doesn't mean the original decision was reversed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top