Eels Salary Cap MK IV

[strider]

ohhhhhhhhh

 

[Stagger eel]

Was he the holder of the Special Condition after "Vidal the Hairdresser" decided to step down from PDRL to try and get the "Bowl of Italian Food" back in?

That's it...

Clear as mud

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Love ya work Baz.

Cheers mate. I'll forget who's who by tomorrow.

 

[Stagger eel]

Cheers mate. I'll forget who's who by tomorrow.

There'll be a Refresher course by emjayce at 7pm tomorrow night...

 

[phantom eel]

Funny stuff .

 

[hineyrulz]

Nah he was gone prior to mid 2015 I'm sure emjayce will confirm that...

The restauranteur was also known as the used car salesman on another website

And also a former St George fan, you think it could be correct with the way this clown has helped bring the club to it's knees.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

You posted it yourself, phantom:

- The Parramatta Eels will be docked all competition points accumulated so far this season while their team was in breach of the salary cap. The club will be able to begin accruing points as soon as it makes the necessary changes to comply with the 2016 cap.

These are the NRL's words, not mine.

So, if backdating Watmough's contract gets us under all by itself, then we were compliant from Feb. 12, which means all our points are valid and we get them back.

Also, if some TPA's can be validated (and thus removed from the cap) this assists us further with retrospective compliance.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

You posted it yourself, phantom:



These are the NRL's words, not mine.

So, if backdating Watmough's contract gets us under all by itself, then we were compliant from Feb. 12, which means all our points are valid and we get them back.

Also, if some TPA's can be validated (and thus removed from the cap) this assists us further with retrospective compliance.

No it doesn't necessarily. That is certainly what they said in press conference, but the press conference is not the breach notice. There's no reason why they can't levy the same (12 point) penalty for whatever reason they like (e.g. systematic cheating of the cap.....if that is the final decision). Frankly, a 12 point penalty for just half of the things in the preliminary findings is getting off light. If the false / overcooked invoices thing is substantiated we are just a big a bunch of cheats as the Storm and the Dogs were.

 

[hybrideel]

Just a thought on this salary cap TPA thing. Do you think it would work if rather than limit TPA's which apparently Brian Canavan seems to think we need http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/brian-canavan-believes-nrl-should-consider-capping-thirdparty-agreements-20160521-gp0lbo.html

That we put a lower limit on what players can be included in the cap for. It would be hard to work out the right figure but it would stop certain clubs with access to massive numbers of TPA's from getting all the best talent while still allowing the top players their big money deals. For example (and i'm pulling figures out of my arse here, i know they are correct but it really isn't relevant)
JT current deal is $500K cap and $500K TPA
Under player value option NRL say JT needs to be in cap for $750K. So his deal could either be
$750K cap and $250K TPA allowing the other $250K to go to another player, or
$750K cap and $500K TPA giving him bigger amount

 

[yy_cheng]

Just a thought on this salary cap TPA thing. Do you think it would work if rather than limit TPA's which apparently Brian Canavan seems to think we need http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/brian-canavan-believes-nrl-should-consider-capping-thirdparty-agreements-20160521-gp0lbo.html

That we put a lower limit on what players can be included in the cap for. It would be hard to work out the right figure but it would stop certain clubs with access to massive numbers of TPA's from getting all the best talent while still allowing the top players their big money deals. For example (and i'm pulling figures out of my arse here, i know they are correct but it really isn't relevant)
JT current deal is $500K cap and $500K TPA
Under player value option NRL say JT needs to be in cap for $750K. So his deal could either be
$750K cap and $250K TPA allowing the other $250K to go to another player, or
$750K cap and $500K TPA giving him bigger amount

That's been bandied around on the radio stations except that they use a point system.

Essentially, they can be paid whatever they want up to the cap + tpa but you can have

x amount of Class 1 players
y amount of Class 2 players
z amount of Class 3 players

or each players is rated points and the sum of the points cannot be over a limit.

The issue is who rates them and is rating them fair.


Or put back in a draft system. Where they are offered to the lower teams first.

 

[hybrideel]

I don't really like the idea of a draft system. It's not really fair on the players being told where they have to go. At least with my option or the points system they only get told which ones they can't go to by who is currently on the rosters

 

[yy_cheng]

I don't really like the idea of a draft system. It's not really fair on the players being told where they have to go. At least with my option or the points system they only get told which ones they can't go to by who is currently on the rosters

NFL, NHL and AFL all use it. It actually helps players stay in their own team.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

NFL, NHL and AFL all use it. It actually helps players stay in their own team.

Well.....they're all very different draft systems.

The NFL drafts, for example, apply largely to rookies. Most players out of contract can basically go wherever they like. A system like that wouldn't make a lot of difference here. The AFL draft also largely affects rookies / young players.

The viability of a draft system hinges on the PA agreeing to it up front, otherwise it an open and shut restraint of trade. Even if the PA agree, one or two senior players might still challenge it. I quite liked the old 'internal draft' system (combined with a salary cap)....it actually made the amount players said they were signing for credible....but the courts didn't like it.

 

[Twizzle]

NFL, NHL and AFL all use it. It actually helps players stay in their own team.

It actually prevents players from playing in their own club, they have to play where they are told to go in the AFL, they have no say in it and have to play where they are told for their first 4 years, then they are a free agent

 

[phantom eel]

You posted it yourself, phantom:



These are the NRL's words, not mine.

In breach of the cap doesn't mean the cap amount... being in breach of cap processes means that you will be in breach of the cap also.

There's a whole thread about it that emjaycee started, but I think we'e already had this same discussion in there?

So, if backdating Watmough's contract gets us under all by itself, then we were compliant from Feb. 12, which means all our points are valid and we get them back.

Also, if some TPA's can be validated (and thus removed from the cap) this assists us further with retrospective compliance.

No it doesn't. Breaching the cap (and our penalty for it) isn't just about the cap amount. Not if we can't successfully argue that we didn't breach any cap processes - which quite clearly it seems we did.

 

[^b0ss^]

I think clubs that turn out the Jrns would lose out.If all rookies were on the market,whats the point of investing in them early if there going into a draft.

Teams like the roosters and storm would do even less with there jrns i reckon.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

No, phantom, what we have seen from the NRL, so far (and, yes, we haven't seen the breach notice so we're only going on limited info) is that we can play for points once cap compliant.

We know what this means because we were allowed to do it last Friday - it means dollars (in regards to points).

As such, retrospectivity makes us compliant since February 11, if we can achieve it.

 

[Gronk]

No, phantom, what we have seen from the NRL, so far (and, yes, we haven't seen the breach notice so we're only going on limited info) is that we can play for points once cap compliant.

We know what this means because we were allowed to do it last Friday - it means dollars (in regards to points).

As such, retrospectivity makes us compliant since February 11, if we can achieve it.

I think you're basing your whole position on a few comments by Greenberg saying that we can play for points when we get compliant.

The penalties imposed are separate and would apply notwithstanding if ior when we got under in 2017. Or even if we were 100% under all year.

 

[ash411]

No, phantom, what we have seen from the NRL, so far (and, yes, we haven't seen the breach notice so we're only going on limited info) is that we can play for points once cap compliant.

We know what this means because we were allowed to do it last Friday - it means dollars (in regards to points).

As such, retrospectivity makes us compliant since February 11, if we can achieve it.

I know you really don't want to hear this HJ, but there is no way in hell the NRL will back date Watmough's retirement to before he handed in the paperwork.

I'm pretty sure Greenberg has said that at some point, because the question was asked of him, and he said the retirement (and subsequent cap reduction) would take effect from the time he lodged the paperwork with the NRL.

I get that it's the magic bullet that gets our points back (in theory) which makes me think that they won't do it. They want us to take a points penalty, and to be honest, we should get one.

We may be able to argue for a reduction, but even that is unlikely.

 

[strider]

I think we've got buckleys of getting points back .... best we could do is prove we havent done half of what they claim and stick most of it on greenburgs buddy - then show our proof to the media and hope they see some value in a story of how hardly done by we've been