Enough said

[antonius]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuffy
The NRL would value it at market rates and deduct it from the clubs cap, just like they do with cars etc for players.

The NRL would value it? Really? They are experts in property as well?. Just like cars, they are given under sponsorships for extremely cheap thus you see tigers players driving around in Protons (maybe not Benji)...

Remember Matt Parsons?? we copped a salary cap fine because he was using (I think it was Ken Conways) car. It certainly wasn't valued at $1

 

[Stranger]

I do remember Matt Parsons, it wasn't because we didn't value it, it was because we never declared it if memory serves me correct.

 

[antonius]

We were deemed to have rourted the cap because Parso was getting the use of a car. I can assure you that you cannot give a player a $30,000 car, and value it at a $1 value for salary cap purposes.

 

[Stranger]

Yes, use of the car and they didn't declare so.

This is the reason that Anasta's contract at the roosters is only around 280k. Remember who a big sponsor of the roosters was? Mr.Aussie John.

 

[antonius]

Like I said before. You cannot give players cars, houses etc, and value them at $1 when declaring them. Sh!t if that were allowed Russell Crowe would go out and buy the best 25 players in the game, and give them all a suitcase with a cheque stuck under the lid and tell Ian Schubert the suitcase was worth a dollar.

 

[Stranger]

Its hard to value $400,000 at $1 don't you think?

 

[macavity]

stranger, you are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Nuffy]

Stranger, you're now taking the piss aren't you?

 

[Nuffy]

The NRL reserves the right to value players contracts at what they call a reasonable level, thus a club can't sign A Johns for say 100,000. The NRL sees that as a rort and would value it at say 400,000 or whatever a marquee player is bracketed at.

So theres not a single hope in hell that a club could package a car at $ 1 and get away with it. Bear in mind, using your formula, a club for $100 of cap, could offer 3,000,000 worth of benefits to players. If that was the case, why wouldn't some of the more successful clubs be brimming with quality players.

As Tony said, Crowe could stack South with marquee players and still be under the cap.

 

[Nuffy]

Stranger

The NRL reserves the right to value players contracts at what they call a reasonable level, thus a club can't sign A Johns for say 100,000. The NRL sees that as a rort and would value it at say 400,000 or whatever a marquee player is bracketed at.

So theres not a single hope in hell that a club could package a car at $ 1 and get away with it. Bear in mind, using your formula, a club for $100 of cap, could offer 3,000,000 worth of benefits to players. If that was the case, why wouldn't some of the more successful clubs be brimming with quality players.

As Tony said, Crowe could stack South with marquee players and still be under the cap.

I'm afraid your argument just doesn't make sense.