TheRam
Coach
- Messages
- 13,690
Please Ram... Please be telling the truth.![]()
Well I'm definitely telling the truth, now lets just hope that this guy is right or not just craping on to me.
Please Ram... Please be telling the truth.![]()
Well I'm definitely telling the truth, now lets just hope that this guy is right or not just craping on to me.
"pretty soon" = just before the football club AGM and elections.
Not to mention numbers 4,5,6 and 7.
Or is there another team in Parramatta that I'm unaware of?
The whole scenario is total crap. I'm still confused as to how Schubert has the right to tell a club how much a player is worth?
Well, as you know, I agree that he shouldn't be slated at $400k in his first year, but I think the fact that we are trying to say he's worth $110k makes it pretty clear why there has to be some test of reasonableness in the rules. There is no way in hell that Parra believe that Izzy is 'worth' just $110k for a season.
agree with everything but the last point.I dont think parra are saying he is 'worth' $110k, they are saying he will be getting paid $110k. If a player is willing to be paid less than he is worth to play for a team, why should the NRL be able to stop that? Granted he might be paid the difference the next year, but once again, why should the NRL be able to stop that?
So not only can the NRL put an artificial limit on how much someone can earn, they can also put a minimum on how much a specific player can earn which is almost 8 times its minimum wage!
If izzy wanted to play this year for a meat pie and coke, thats up to him and no one elses business. If parra want to pay him 1 mil next year and its within the cap then that is also no one business.
All in all the salary cap is illegal! How can an organisation tell you how much money you can earn in your second job? E.g. Hindys book.
that, provided the third party stuff fits under the rules, but also the loading of contracts. if we load a deal in year one to give us cap relief then by law of averages it will have the opposite effect in later years. it's the individual club's problem and responsibility to manage the cap in that way.Yeah I can't see why we can't pay players whatever we want under the cap, and then just fix them up with 3rd party deals. Seems perfectly reasonable.
that, provided the third party stuff fits under the rules, but also the loading of contracts. if we load a deal in year one to give us cap relief then by law of averages it will have the opposite effect in later years. it's the individual club's problem and responsibility to manage the cap in that way.
so if we were to sign folau to $110k in 2013, then $800k for each of 2014 and 15, then we'd be making sacrifices to balance the cap in those later years to accommodate.
i like your train of thought. if you run in the next election you have my vote.Nah just keep him on $110K for every year.
Same with Hayne. Put him under the cap for $100K too, and just fix him up with 3rd party payments.
Then we will have plenty for JT, Cronk, Farah, Hoppa who will all be on $110K too.
No problem.
I dont think parra are saying he is 'worth' $110k, they are saying he will be getting paid $110k. If a player is willing to be paid less than he is worth to play for a team, why should the NRL be able to stop that? Granted he might be paid the difference the next year, but once again, why should the NRL be able to stop that?
So not only can the NRL put an artificial limit on how much someone can earn, they can also put a minimum on how much a specific player can earn which is almost 8 times its minimum wage!
If izzy wanted to play this year for a meat pie and coke, thats up to him and no one elses business. If parra want to pay him 1 mil next year and its within the cap then that is also no one business.
All in all the salary cap is illegal! How can an organisation tell you how much money you can earn in your second job? E.g. Hindys book.
First, I was respoding to a quote that used the term 'worth'.
Second, the salary cap is not 'illegal' (at present).
Third, the salary cap does not tell anyone how much money they can earn in their second job. It is a simply a requirement that players (via their managers) report all contracts to the NRL. That a) doesn't mean that the $$ will necessarily count towards the salary cap and b) doesn't mean that the player can't earn that money (even if the $$ do count). It just means that the $$$ involved may be counted towards the club's salary cap. Nobody has told Hindy how much he is allowed to earn from his book. His management 'forgot' to inform the NRL of that contract, and now we are paying the price for that.
I'm not quite sure where to post this so I will put it in the rumors thread too, But for what it's worth -
Literally I just bumped into a certain someone who is right up there in the Parra club on the way home while waiting at the train station on the way home and asked him point blank -
.
Ram - not trying to be facetious but why would somone right up there in the club be catching a train home with the masses? Wouldn't they be at least driving a car? :sarcasm:
Well, as you know, I agree that he shouldn't be slated at $400k in his first year, but I think the fact that we are trying to say he's worth $110k makes it pretty clear why there has to be some test of reasonableness in the rules. There is no way in hell that Parra believe that Izzy is 'worth' just $110k for a season.
Notwithstanding the above, I'm not averse to the league making well considered (and consistently applied) exceptions in cases where a player enters the market after teams have established their rosters for the (2013) season. Where an allowance is made, the club that benefits should be made to settle up on the amount of the special concession in the following season (even if the player retires etc). They could even make it so that the payback in the second year was slightly greater than the concession in the first year to discourage opportunistic fiddling of this.