Greg Inglis announces retirement from rugby league

[Albert Rosenfeld]

Greg Inglis was already being overshadowed by Latrell Mitchell even before Greg retired.

Latrell Mitchell is one of the greatest centres who ever lived.

 

[Mr Spock!]

I’m sorry, I blame myself. This is clearly beyond your comprehension. I apologize, really.

Obviously over your head because it's why watmough's contract didn't count.

 

[Mr Spock!]

Definitely. Manly were made to do it x 2 players last year - why shouldn't $ouffs be made to do the same with GI?

Manly had two players with heavily backended contracts.

Nothing remotely similar.

 

[Mr Spock!]

Not if they allow this current rort, a precedent is set.

With Watmough.

The silence about that was deafening.

 

[Mr Spock!]

he has a Contract to play which is under the Salary Cap.

What is to stop Roosters signing Cooper Cronk next year for a 4 year Contract for $5M and then at the end of next year they all say, you know what I retire?

He has a contract which he isn't honouring. Ridiculous that money not paid to a non player would count towards the cap.

As for Cronk he could just stay on their books and get the rest of his 5 million. That sounds like a well run club.

 

[Mr Spock!]

So Souths should be covering $1.5 mill in the cap for two years for a guy who is never playing again?

Yeah to make the jealous clowns happy.

Not to mention to a guy who isn't getting the rest of his money.

 

[Mr Spock!]

You mean to say, that a club with an underperforming, highly paid player, wouldn’t find creative ways to get him off their books?

Say it ain’t so!

I wasn't aware players were so happy to just give up big money contracts.

 

[Mr Spock!]

In relation to the Manly and Watmough cases

"Under the NRL rules, a club will be granted an exemption from the salary cap if it is able to prove a player has been forced into retirement by a one-off injury."

That's Snowden, Watmough and Inglis.

Stewart and Matai were rejected because their heavily backended contracts were paid out and they weren't one off injuries. Unluckily for them the NRL doctor was their old club doctor and knew their histories.

 

[slamminsam246]

In relation to the Manly and Watmough cases

"Under the NRL rules, a club will be granted an exemption from the salary cap if it is able to prove a player has been forced into retirement by a one-off injury."

That's Snowden, Watmough and Inglis.

Stewart and Matai were rejected because their heavily backended contracts were paid out and they weren't one off injuries. Unluckily for them the NRL doctor was their old club doctor and knew their histories.

"This is no retirement due to mental illness or injuries or anything," he said.

"I just think it is time and the right decision for myself and I have been contemplating it for a while now." - Greg Inglis @ retirement announcement.

 

[mave]

In relation to the Manly and Watmough cases

"Under the NRL rules, a club will be granted an exemption from the salary cap if it is able to prove a player has been forced into retirement by a one-off injury."

That's Snowden, Watmough and Inglis.

Stewart and Matai were rejected because their heavily backended contracts were paid out and they weren't one off injuries. Unluckily for them the NRL doctor was their old club doctor and knew their histories.

The old club doctor must have lost his historical file on Watmough though.

 

[slamminsam246]

Manly had two players with heavily backended contracts.

Nothing remotely similar.

How does being backended change anything? A contract is a contract. I'm sure if Manly were allowed/told that if they ripped up the contracts and gave Matai n Stewart cushy, high paying, bs made-up jobs as incentive to agree to bail - they all would have. Everyone wins.

Double standards continue. It's BS!

 

[Vic Mackey]

Obviously over your head because it's why watmough's contract didn't count.

Show me where I have mentioned Watmough once?

Watmough was medically retired and paid out by insurance. Of course that doesn’t go on the cap. Greg is fine and retiring cause he’s fat. They are totally diffferent.

Are you intentionally trying to look stupid?

 

[AlwaysGreen]

I don't know why souffs fans want hand relief - it'll just go to topping up the Burgi bros contracts.

 

[jack coburn]

Why is anyone surprised. Souths have favours done for them for a 100 odd years . And now with a multi billionaire and Hollywood star owning why would things change. Move on nothing to see here.

 

[BranVan3000]

Show me where I have mentioned Watmough once?

Watmough was medically retired and paid out by insurance. Of course that doesn’t go on the cap. Greg is fine and retiring cause he’s fat. They are totally diffferent.

Are you intentionally trying to look stupid?

Key word is retiring. If they pay him 1.5 million now it’s as relevant to the team we field as if they paid Reggie rabbit 1.5 million

 

[BranVan3000]

he has a Contract to play which is under the Salary Cap.

What is to stop Roosters signing Cooper Cronk next year for a 4 year Contract for $5M and then at the end of next year they all say, you know what I retire?

These are businesses that run on lean profit margins. Why would any club intentionally sign a long term deal with the intention of it never being fulfilled and then having their bottom line scraped for all the following years?

 

[firechild]

So Souths should be covering $1.5 mill in the cap for two years for a guy who is never playing again?

Yes. Manly had to pay for Matai and Stewart in seasons where they didn't step on the field. Why not Souffs?

 

[Surely]

He has a contract which he isn't honouring. Ridiculous that money not paid to a non player would count towards the cap.

As for Cronk he could just stay on their books and get the rest of his 5 million. That sounds like a well run club.

The risk you take when you throw big money for long contracts

It’s probably what got Souths the player in the first place.

 

[firechild]

Manly had two players with heavily backended contracts.

Nothing remotely similar.

So what the NRL should have done is said the proportionate amount outstanding on the contract was exempted under the cap (i.e. if it was a $1.5mill over 3 year contract, exclude $500k per year) meaning if the last year was worth $700k then $200k would still count. But they counted the entire amount. If the NRL had worked with Manly to produce a fair outcome (i.e. reasonable exclusions from the cap but nothing that would give Manly an unfair advantage) then you might have an argument but you're just talking shit to support your own agenda driven argument.

 

[myrrh ken]

I saw this question commented elsewhere, but if you had to clone 13 of one player through history, which player would you choose?

I don't any team of clones beating a team of Greg Inglis clones. He could play anywhere comfortably, he's just been the most lethal at centre/fullback.

A train of prime Haynes would come close.