Folau turns back on Eels to play rugby union

[oldmancraigy]

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

I'll disagree on that as well!

If Izzy wants to get paid $110k for his whole career, then that's on him. But his manager is getting screwed out of cash, so surely he'd be pushing for more, and Izzy might be screwing himself for the future, which I'm sure his manager would point out to him.


NRL should register it at $110k and spend the year parading him around the schools in GWS saying that League is awesome and AFL boring - just look who took a 10x paycut to play league!!!

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

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).

I guess part of my point is that the amount for which his 2013 labour will be compensated is not $110k. That may be the amount paid in cash, by the Eels in that year. But part of his cash salary for 2014/15 etc is, in substance, compensation for work done in 2013. If this was a one year deal, and he was dumb enough to take $110k for a year, with no guarantee (explicit or implicit) of income after that, I would 100% agree with you.

Again, I don't like the 400k amount that Shuey is using, but 110k defies credibility. A very simple test is to ask....if Izzy was offered to each club for a year, for 110k, no further committment, how many would say no?

 

[strider]

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.

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 don't think Izzy would just be getting $110K

whether 3rd party deals are legit or not would be virtually impossible to police .... the well connected clubs would get around it sooooooo easily

i think you'll find that is why maroubra is taking the piss

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Yep might as well abolish the cap.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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:

When's the last time you drove a car in Sydney? I'd rather catch the f**king train as well.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

When's the last time you drove a car in Sydney? I'd rather catch the f**king train as well.

Sounds like a line from a Seekers song.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I guess part of my point is that the amount for which his 2013 labour will be compensated is not $110k. That may be the amount paid in cash, by the Eels in that year. But part of his cash salary for 2014/15 etc is, in substance, compensation for work done in 2013. If this was a one year deal, and he was dumb enough to take $110k for a year, with no guarantee (explicit or implicit) of income after that, I would 100% agree with you.

Again, I don't like the 400k amount that Shuey is using, but 110k defies credibility. A very simple test is to ask....if Izzy was offered to each club for a year, for 110k, no further committment, how many would say no?

Yeah - I guess the point of the cap is to equalize the players FOOTBALL earnings from the footy clubs. Any 3rd party deals organized by the club go towards 'player salary' - but why should they be prevented from earning 'outside of their contract' with the club!

It's a fine line, and unfortunately it's a broken system also - see the NBA with big stars all now wanting to play on the same team to raise their sneaker contract money (which is on top of salary cap earnings).

 

[oldmancraigy]

Again, I don't like the 400k amount that Shuey is using, but 110k defies credibility. A very simple test is to ask....if Izzy was offered to each club for a year, for 110k, no further committment, how many would say no?

None would say no!

If Thurston were offered to every club for $600k, no further commitment, how many would say no?
I'm guessing almost every club would jump on it - does that make him an $800k against the cap kind of guy? $1.4mill?

You could make the point for an absolute host of underpaid workhorses in the NRL at the moment. Shaun Fensom (Canberra) is allegedly close to minimum salary. Who wouldn't take him for that money? But Schu isn't tagging them an extra $150k on the cap amount.

It's gotta be objective - but even then it's hard...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

None would say no!

If Thurston were offered to every club for $600k, no further commitment, how many would say no?

Any club that already has significant money tied up in the spine - that includes Melbourne, Parramatta, Manly and Wests.

Just signing a bloke because he's 'better than what you've got' is a stupid idea when the players already under contract need to be playing first grade to justify their salaries.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

None would say no!

If Thurston were offered to every club for $600k, no further commitment, how many would say no?
I'm guessing almost every club would jump on it - does that make him an $800k against the cap kind of guy? $1.4mill?

You could make the point for an absolute host of underpaid workhorses in the NRL at the moment. Shaun Fensom (Canberra) is allegedly close to minimum salary. Who wouldn't take him for that money? But Schu isn't tagging them an extra $150k on the cap amount.

It's gotta be objective - but even then it's hard...

OT but I do rate Shaun Fensom. He's not just a tackling machine but runs the bsll hard, has an offload, does a heap of decoy runs. I hope he stays injury free and the Blues give him a run next year.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Looks like we don't got dis

 

[TheRam]

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:

He was wearing another clubs pin on his suit lapel and on his way to the city.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Any club that already has significant money tied up in the spine - that includes Melbourne, Parramatta, Manly and Wests.

Just signing a bloke because he's 'better than what you've got' is a stupid idea when the players already under contract need to be playing first grade to justify their salaries.

For 110k? If a club could really sign Folau for a grand total of 110k they would be nuts not to, regardless of the quality of their spine. Best value 110k winger/centre in the comp. I agree that you don't simply sign a player b/c he's better than what you've got.....but nobody actually made that argument. If you can buy a superior player for 110k, who is undeniably 1st grade standard, it would be a no-brainer. If he costs 350k, then a lot of clubs would certainly think twice (or six times).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

For 110k? If a club could really sign Folau for a grand total of 110k they would be nuts not to, regardless of the quality of their spine. Best value 110k winger/centre in the comp. I agree that you don't simply sign a player b/c he's better than what you've got.....but nobody actually made that argument. If you can buy a superior player for 110k, who is undeniably 1st grade standard, it would be a no-brainer. If he costs 350k, then a lot of clubs would certainly think twice (or six times).

The hypothetical was Thurston for $600k.

Fullou for $110k is great value, true, but that's only for one year. In subsequent years he will supposedly be on a lot more, and while he might be objectively worth that much, he won't be worth it to us, given we already have Hayne and Hopoate.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

OT but I do rate Shaun Fensom. He's not just a tackling machine but runs the bsll hard, has an offload, does a heap of decoy runs. I hope he stays injury free and the Blues give him a run next year.

Yeah Fenson is bloody good player - would love to see him in the blue and gold . His team mate Joel Thompson is also slowly developing into a good player as well - thought the eels should had looked at him when his was off contract this year

 

[Maroubra Eel]

The hypothetical was Thurston for $600k.

Fullou for $110k is great value, true, but that's only for one year. In subsequent years he will supposedly be on a lot more, and while he might be objectively worth that much, he won't be worth it to us, given we already have Hayne and Hopoate.

I wonder if he would be on substantially more in future years?

 

[84 Baby]

Having had another thought over it, while I understand the idea behind restricting year to year variance in contracts, surely a large part of this issue comes because the NRL doesn't want teams stacking talent in particular years to make plays for premierships but risking long term player welfare to do so. But in this case, I believe we'd have the same premiership odds with or without Folau (subjectively biased I know) and forcing him to go play rugby, gridiron or whatever for a year before we can sign him represents even more risk to his long-term earnings potential (if that's what Schubert is worried about).

Then again I am still of the opinion that this is a political ploy to force the salary cap up, though why we aren't getting more assistance then from other clubs and media is strange

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The Schu would never allow it. Would he?

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Having had another thought over it, while I understand the idea behind restricting year to year variance in contracts, surely a large part of this issue comes because the NRL doesn't want teams stacking talent in particular years to make plays for premierships but risking long term player welfare to do so. But in this case, I believe we'd have the same premiership odds with or without Folau (subjectively biased I know) and forcing him to go play rugby, gridiron or whatever for a year before we can sign him represents even more risk to his long-term earnings potential (if that's what Schubert is worried about).

Then again I am still of the opinion that this is a political ploy to force the salary cap up, though why we aren't getting more assistance then from other clubs and media is strange

Probably because for 2013 there isn't alot for most other clubs to gain by having an increased salary cap. They have their squads sorted and don't necessarily need to buy anyone else, and on the other side of the fence, 99% of players have a contract for 2013 so they probably aren't going to benefit too much from an increase in the 2013 cap (excluding those with a "% of cap" contract, or those on the minimum $55k if that minimum increases). Sure it might allow players to resign long terms deals now, which include an upgrade for 2013 (hopefully Hayne), but in all reality an extra increas in 2013 (ie an increase on the agreed $5m) will only help the Eels (Folau) and Manly (resigning Snake).

 

[mickdo]

The Schu would never allow it. Would he?

Not wearing blue and gold anyway