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!

Folau turns back on Eels to play rugby union

born an eel

Bench
Messages
3,882
Sorry mate - playing the game for 70 mins doesn't cut the bickies under the new Sticky regime.

I give you an A for originality but your execution let you down. I'm sorry, but I'll have to keep the beer ;-)
come on Lads,
what good is an "A", can't drink that,
it's about as useful as a Suity post.
 
Messages
11,677
I'm sure it will, but not this time around.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/where-is-our-pay-rise/story-e6frexnr-1226522355567

HUNDREDS of players are being short-changed in their monthly wages thanks to delays in finalising the NRL's new salary cap. As negotiations drag unresolved toward Christmas, The Daily Telegraph can reveal minimum wage players and those with salary cap increase clauses are out of pocket.
Rugby league's 2013 financial year began on November 1 but most clubs were forced to calculate the first month's wages on last year's figures because the next cap is still to be confirmed.
Base players started pre-season training on the minimum salary of $55,000, which was expected to rise to at least $65,000 on October 31 under the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
At the opposite end of the scale, stars with salary cap increase clauses cannot enjoy the benefit because clubs remain in the dark over how much extra to pay them.

And the stalemate is likely to extend well into December, with the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA) and NRL still at loggerheads over the salary cap.
The NRL is insistent next year's cap will only be $4.6 million, plus a $400,000 exemption for marquee and long-serving players.
Sources close to the negotiations say the NRL does not want to lift the cap beyond $6.5 million over the course of the new broadcast deal, which extends until 2017.
Tim Mannah, Ben Creagh, Steve Turner and Robbie Farah have all been personally involved in the talks, but their presence has thus far failed to bring any joy.
"It's not a negotiation that can be fixed overnight," Creagh said. "It's the first time in a long time that we can negotiate at the same time as the TV deal.
"There's been a lot of meetings and I know a lot of players are being patient. It could take a while yet."
The RLPA wants the cap to rise to as much as $9 million in 2017, illustrating the enormous gulf between the parties.
Former Roosters CEO Steve Noyce has now been drafted into the negotiations as an independent consultant, while Wayne Pearce has been asked to report back to the ALRC.
The players have not and are highly unlikely to entertain a strike, but could boycott other NRL commitments should they not achieve a reasonable pay rise.
"The first offer the NRL came back to us with was actually a lower percentage of what we're currently getting from the game's revenue," one senior player said.
"That's unacceptable and we've rejected it. In the past the RLPA has rolled over, but no one is backing down this time."
The proposed $800,000 rise in next year's salary cap represents a 16 per cent increase in player payments.

OK, it's a Josh Massoud "article", which means it's pretty much worthless.

However, it's the only thing I can find atm that gives any real figure.

If it's true, and it jumps by $10k, then the figures become even worse and $250k = $400k becomes even less realistic (if it ever had any realism, that is).

Sorry, Poupou, but you are even further away from being right than you usually are.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
88,786
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/where-is-our-pay-rise/story-e6frexnr-1226522355567



OK, it's a Josh Massoud "article", which means it's pretty much worthless.

However, it's the only thing I can find atm that gives any real figure.

If it's true, and it jumps by $10k, then the figures become even worse and $250k = $400k becomes even less realistic (if it ever had any realism, that is).

Sorry, Poupou, but you are even further away from being right than you usually are.

It seems, HJ, that you are overlooking a lot of the factors that will determine how much of a raise a player on $250k will get. You have conceded the higher earners will get the bigger increase, but your extrapolation seems to start and finish with the proposed rise in the minimum salary, which is far from done and dusted - the second tier 'stars' like Mannah and Creagh are the ones who will lose out with a rise in the minimum salary. Interestingly these are the same ones negotiating on behalf of the players' association.

Supposing there's a $10k rise in the minimum salary, how much extra do you think blokes currently on $65k will be worth?
 
Messages
11,677
It seems, HJ, that you are overlooking a lot of the factors that will determine how much of a raise a player on $250k will get. You have conceded the higher earners will get the bigger increase, but your extrapolation seems to start and finish with the proposed rise in the minimum salary, which is far from done and dusted - the second tier 'stars' like Mannah and Creagh are the ones who will lose out with a rise in the minimum salary. Interestingly these are the same ones negotiating on behalf of the players' association.

But the second tier stars are the ones on $250k - the likes of Creagh and Mannah would be on around this, if not more - so how are they losing out if they go from $250k to $400k?

Unless of course you're trying to put forth another ridiculous notion that St. George's captain (and possibly our next captain) are on less than $250k, and not in the top 5 players at their clubs?

Supposing there's a $10k rise in the minimum salary, how much extra do you think blokes currently on $65k will be worth?
Maybe $5k?

Let's see...

$500k to $800k for the marquee;
$350k to $500k for #2;
5 minimum wage equals another $50k.

$500k out of the $800k (or so the article says, I thought it was $900k) gone.

That leaves $300k to be split between the other 18 players.

If you take my proposed $250k to $320k for 3 players (numbers 3, 4 and 5) then you're left with $90k for 15 players @ $6k each.

Under your ridiculous assumptions the top 5 eat up the entire cap. Stupid.



You're now just gonna say "No one else will get an increase" because it's the only way you can fudge the numbers but to propose that only the top 5 will get a bump (with the bottom 5 being forced up) is pure nonsense.

The only figures that make sense are mine. Yours are the typical bullshit that spews out of your ignorant mouth every day.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
88,786
But the second tier stars are the ones on $250k - the likes of Creagh and Mannah would be on around this, if not more - so how are they losing out if they go from $250k to $400k?

Because they might get only $375k if the players on minimum salary also get a raise.

Unless of course you're trying to put forth another ridiculous notion that St. George's captain (and possibly our next captain) are on less than $250k, and not in the top 5 players at their clubs?

No I reckon Mannah and Creagh are both on about $250k.

Maybe $5k?

Pfft. Why would the market value them any higher just because the players earning less than them suddenly have their contracts arbitrarily upgraded?

There are players currently on $55k who are only on that much because the NRL's rules say they must be. Some of them might only be on $30k or less if the market had its way, but the existence of minimum salary (for the top 25 earners at each club) means that some players' salaries are artificially inflated.

It doesn't mean those players are worth $55k just because they are getting paid that much. And it doesn't mean they will be worth $65k if the minimum salary is increased to that amount.

Therefore a player currently on $65k is probably worth about that much. If the minimum salary is increased to $65k it won't increase the value of the player already on $65k, and in fact will reduce the amount of money (actually salary cap space) available to give him an upgrade.

Let's see...

$500k to $800k for the marquee;
$350k to $500k for #2;
5 minimum wage equals another $50k.

$500k out of the $800k (or so the article says, I thought it was $900k) gone.

That leaves $300k to be split between the other 18 players.

Most of the other 18 players will get f**k all extra. This is my point. The only players getting extra will be the ones in most demand (e.g. Hayne, Hopoate, most halfbacks). Guys like Mannah and Creagh (fringe Origin players outside the spine positions) only just fit into that category. Clubs will probably have 3 or 4 blokes at that level of demand.

If you take my proposed $250k to $320k for 3 players (numbers 3, 4 and 5) then you're left with $90k for 15 players @ $6k each.

Plough that $90k back into the top five and you have my position. I also don't think there will be a rise in the minimum unless there is a bigger rise in the salary cap.

Under your ridiculous assumptions the top 5 eat up the entire cap. Stupid.

You're stupid!!! :shock:

You're now just gonna say "No one else will get an increase" because it's the only way you can fudge the numbers but to propose that only the top 5 will get a bump (with the bottom 5 being forced up) is pure nonsense.

The only figures that make sense are mine. Yours are the typical bullshit that spews out of your ignorant mouth every day.

Mate you've got no idea how supply and demand work. Unless you can put your ideology to the side you have no place discussing market value.
 
Last edited:

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
88,786
A $65K player and a $30K player aren't both going to get paid $65K. That's rubbish.

They will, because the rules now say you have to pay a $30k player at least $55k. If the minimum increases clubs will then have to pay them even more. Over time there will be an adjustment, but a player worth $65k isn't going to get any more straight up just because he is now earning the league minimum.
 

attamarrap

Juniors
Messages
2,438
If this was any other club in the Nrl they would bending over backwards to let izzy in but because it is us it may not happen sad imo
 

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,783
I don't understand why people think a cap increase will be proportionate to everyone in the top 25?
Of course it won't be. You're only arguing for the sake of arguing against Pou! He's right, so just give up!

If you need an example, go check out the salary caps for American sports. They're much higher, but there's still an imbalance - the star players command the biggest chunk, and squads are rounded out by having minimum salary guys. If you get paid big dollars and you're not a star, you have what is known as a "poison pill" contract (ie, you're useless).
 
Top