Folau turns back on Eels to play rugby union

[TheRam]

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.

 

[TheRam]

Hope you're right ram

Me too.

 

[Matty Bhoy]

Well I'm definitely telling the truth, now lets just hope that this guy is right or not just craping on to me.

Fingers crossed!!

 

[Tyler Durden]

"pretty soon" = just before the football club AGM and elections.

 

[Utey]

"pretty soon" = just before the football club AGM and elections.

Yep, me thinks this is being used as a political move so when it happens, it's still fresh in everyone's mind. It'll happen.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

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.

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.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Any word on the street today about this merkin, merkins?

 

[byrner]

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.

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.

 

[spiderdan]

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.

agree with everything but the last point.

entry to the nrl was by invitation prior to the commission being set up. not sure what the conditions are now. but basically the cap and the rules associated with it were agreed to by the member clubs. the stupid part of the cap from my point of view is that a club can be told what the minimum value of a player under the cap is. imagine if someone like hayne said he loved the eels so much he'd be willing to play for only $250k a year and the nrl telling us we'd have to still register him at double that. i seem to recall a few years back steve menzies playing for peanuts in his last year at manly on some abnormally low amount that he was worth well more than.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

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.

 

[spiderdan]

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.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

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.

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.

 

[spiderdan]

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 like your train of thought. if you run in the next election you have my vote.

 

[broncos2010]

I think if the eels sign Folau it will hurt you guys in the long term.

Because to much of the cap will be spend on the backs so lets say Hayne,Sandow,Hoppa,Folau.

That is a large part of the cap gone you would imagine on 4 players and all outside backs.
That would mean parra will not be able to fix the problems that hurt them the most hooker and some good match winning 2nd rowers.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

I can sorta of see why the nrl has concerns agreeing to allow izzy to sign for 110k a year (I reckon the player should be able to sign for what they agree with). But consideration should be given to the overall contract value , if izzy, thurston, Hayne, benji, slater and others signed for 330k over three years yes that is concerning and requires investigation by the nrl. But in izzy case the 110k is for the first year with the following years (I am assuming) his contract more then reflecting his market value in addition to making up for receiving 110k in the first year.

Nrl should also give consideration izzy is a marque player return to the nrl which occurred very late in the year when most clubs were close to finalising their squads. The eels aren't trying to cheat the cap. Do you reckon afl would make room if Hayne wanted to change codes or union if thurston wanted to go to the dark side or soccer now with the possible signing of beckham

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

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.

 

[byrner]

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.

Barry I was also using your words as a quote, to get my point accross about how the NRL are using their opinion of someones value to determine how much they are 'worth' under the cap. I wasn't directly responding to you.

In terms of the salary cap being illegal, I should have had the prefix of 'in my opinion'. However,I do see the need for the cap. 1 it prevents clubs from over spending and becoming insolvent and 2 it artificially keeps the competition competitive. I personally believe there should be a soft cap where you can pay what you can afford.

The cap does in affect tell someone how much they can earn in a second job. If the NRL decide that my second job should come under the cap, then I am limited to how much I can earn otherwise my team will be fined for being over the cap.

In terms of teams volunteering to be in the NRL and therefore agreeing to abide by the rules of the cap. What other alternative do they have? I guess a group of them could band together and start their own competition! But we know what the result was the last two times that occured.
1- Super League broke away from the ARL
And
2- Rugby League broke away from Rugby union.
The entire premise of rugby leagues creation was for its players to earn money. Why do we feel the need to go away from this?

Sorry for getting off topic.

 

[Far Canal]

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:

 

[oldmancraigy]

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:

So what you're saying is you don't think he spoke to Spags?

Well, that's most likely a granted at the train station! HOWEVER there is every reason to believe that other members of the club could be seen catching public transport for any number of reasons.

I don't think I've ever seen Ram make stuff up? It would be very strange for him to have made up such a story - and you'd think he'd know that the train station thing isn't as plausible as many other scenarios he could've dreamed up!

 

[oldmancraigy]

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.

I'm going to disagree on this one!

The only person being hurt by getting paid $110k next season is Israel Folau. If he's decided that he will forego bigger earnings to play in a preferred situation, with his mates, then the NRL shouldn't have the right to tell the club how much to 'value' him at under the salary cap.

Some might ask the question: so what's to stop the QLD origin team banding together and taking paycuts to all play on the same team?
Well, nothing would be - except for the lure of the mighty dollar.
In the end, these blokes only have about 10 years to make their cash, if they play a couple of years for a pittance, it's their retirement that suffers. And before you suggest it'd be easy for a high profile player to get a job someplace, let me present the case of Kenny, Brett (and a host of others).


I guess what I'm trying to say is that the system is too subjectively geared towards the Schu. It needs to be objective so that everyone is on the same field, and we don't have a scenario at one club where players can't take paycuts to accommodate the resigning of a team-mate (Parra, Kingston) and a few months later another club IS allowed to take paycuts to accommodate the resigning of a team-mate (Melbourne, team).