Greg Inglis headed to South Sydney - no players to be shed

[The 18th Man]

Souths are going to blow out to where they should be in the premiership betting market.

 

[skeepe]

When I get punched in the face by some fool because his girlfriend had sex with me, do I think about how it shows how "awesome" I am, or do I think about how much my broken nose hurts.

Your analogy fails completely. For a start, you have placed yourself in the place of the AFL rather than the NRL as the one who has taken what "belongs" (for want of a better word) to someone else. It all goes spectacularly downhill from there.

Your post is the height of ignorance. If he cared about money he'd have gone to AFL or Union directly from the Storm, he never would have bothered with Broncos or Souths. The guy hasn't been paid in months. The Storm owe him more than 200k, we can't pay him yet, he has a mortgage to pay. I'd completely understand if he goes to AFL and the only people to blame would be NRL management, not Inglis.

Actually, no. Inglis would share some of the blame for not even considering the fact that there are other clubs out there with the space to sign him, but the most blame would lie squarely at the feet of Shane Richardson and South Sydney for failing to comply with the easily understood rules of 3rd party player payments.

 

[BunniesMan]

But wasn't that the issue? They said his notional value is 500k and they wont register him for anything less?

Bingo. Even if we deleted all the 3rd party payments and only gave him 190k and he agreed to that, the NRL wouldn't accept that.

Actually, no. Inglis would share some of the blame for not even considering the fact that there are other clubs out there with the space to sign him, but the most blame would lie squarely at the feet of Shane Richardson and South Sydney for failing to comply with the easily understood rules of 3rd party player payments.

The problems are not Souths fault. You do know the NRL's issues don't end with the 3rd party part of the equation? Even if they didn't exist they wouldn't accept him being under the cap for just 190k. That's their biggest problem. They have it in their head that they can give players a certain value and noone is allowed to pay them LESS than that. Beyond ridiculous.

Still, the Rabbitohs are doing their best to keep him in league. Which is the best thing for the game (even if some people don't realise). Hopefully, we can drop a player, sign Inglis and AFL doesn't get another NRL star.

 

[Liddell]

Souths are going to blow out to where they should be in the premiership betting market.

Even with Inglis we should be at least double what we are now.

 

[Pierced Soul]

no other workplace has salary caps or restrain of trade restrictions... its like your company telling you you cant earn more then this much or work a second job on the weekend

bus drivers dont have salary caps

I've asked this elsewhere, but am keen to get answer.

Is there anything stopping the Bunnies from offering someone like Wesser, or even Crocker, an attractive off-field role as an inducement to retire?

I understand that there's issues if clubs are allowed to pay a player less than his market value and then "top it up" with such a deal, ala the alleged Robbie Kearns rort, but this would be different (although I don't know if it is possible to treat it differently under the rules).

I'm wondering if there are any "cap experts" out there who know the answer to this question.

i dont actually think this would be under the cap as they're not registered to play. in the same way coaching staff, support staff and admin/management aren't under any cap neither would a player who "retires". if midway through the season the player wants to make a comeback i imagine the nrl would not register the contract unless its at the full amount of what was previously agreed

The list (as everyone already knows) is endless. Falou, SBW, Wing, Gaz (even though he is back).

firstly the list isnt endless. could you make another decent team or two out of who's left? probably. but i hardly see luke dorn or michael withers challenging for rep honours anytime soon, hell of a lot of players have returned (mogg, carlaw, meyers, ryles, mcguire, sailor, tuquri, rogers, tahu, tronc, eastwood,lyon, riddell) and more are constantly rumoured or trying to get out of their contracts (King, Orford, berrigan).

I dont like that they go but the fact is a lot of the ones going to SL go for a pension cos tehy cant get as much money here cos they're not worth the money SL wants to pay. p.s. interesting article today about changes to the UKs tax system which will affect the number of exports to SL). throwing ridiculous amounts of money at players past their prime to keep them in the nrl is stupid.

the only people to blame would be NRL management, not Inglis.

if he hadnt reneged on the APPROVED broncos deal he'd be getting paid....what part of this do you fail to understand? the ONLY person to blame for this is Inglis himself for walking away from a guaranteed deal cos crowe and mundine told him they could give him more

 

[Ziggy the God]

Looks to me like Inglis has left it too late to go to Union or AFL, and unless the Eels can come up with some 3rd parties, then tyhere is only really one option.

He has to go back to the Storm, and they have to honour his contract.

It is that simple.

 

[Pierced Soul]

Hopefully, we can drop a player, sign Inglis and AFL doesn't get another NRL star.

so if soufs "drop" another player who goes to say yawnion and becomes a star this is the best thing for the game? you don't care that any potential you player you cut to fit inglis in may go on to "make millions in advertising" for another code?

 

[drake]

When I get punched in the face by some fool because his girlfriend had sex with me, do I think about how it shows how "awesome" I am, or do I think about how much my broken nose hurts.

As a fanatical Rabbitohs person, wouldn't you take the guy to court and cry that you're the people's hero, even though you had screwed someone else's woman?

As Skeepe said, your analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be to say that the NRL had raised a child to adulthood, then the AFL adopt said adult and tell everyone what an awesome family they are.

The funniest part of your failed analogy is you putting yourself in the hypothetical shoes of a grass cutting scumbag and failing to make a relevant point.

 

[carcharias]

Watching souths is like watching one of those dumb arse bogans who win the lotto.

It will end in tears.

They somehow get the best player in the game to agree to play for them but fug it up by not following the rules.
The NRL even said they'd help them make it all legal....but souths knew better.

 

[johns_reds]

I don't want to see Inglis leave league and i don’t think he will, as much as AFL claim they want to sign him they also have cap issues, I doubt someone over there has a spare 500k in their cap. If the AFL let a club have a concession on signing Inglis the rest of the AFL clubs would cry foul and rightly so.


Inglis has options with parramatta but doesn't want to consider them, I think you'll find by Monday morning some poor soul from Souths will be let go and the club will put on a happy front, the only problem is some of the players will be pissed off.

 

[Ziggy the God]

if he hadnt reneged on the APPROVED broncos deal he'd be getting paid....what part of this do you fail to understand? the ONLY person to blame for this is Inglis himself for walking away from a guaranteed deal cos crowe and mundine told him they could give him more

Hang on.

The NRL has subsequently come out and said that they had rejected some of the Bronco's third party deals. This was one of the reasons that they are trying to justify blocking ours.

The Broncos would probably have also needed to shuffle their cap to accomodate him.

So it comes down to the fact that the Storm had him on overs, as was Smith, Slater and Cronk, and now no one can fit him in so late into the year.

 

[Liddell]

Actually, no. Inglis would share some of the blame for not even considering the fact that there are other clubs out there with the space to sign him, but the most blame would lie squarely at the feet of Shane Richardson and South Sydney for failing to comply with the easily understood rules of 3rd party player payments.

Bit harsh.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...220-1936k.html

Gallop, however, defended the decision, insisting the Rabbitohs were using third-party deals in a way they were not designed to be; to lower the portion of the contract included in the salary cap rather than giving the player a top-up to his market value.

He said the principle of third-party deals was designed to increase a player's earning capacity.

''The third-party deals in Greg's case, however, were not being used to gain extra money,'' Gallop said. ''They were being used to reduce - below the current market value - what Greg was being paid by Souths to sign.''



Doesn't seem very black and white to me, while i agree that what Gallop said is fair, isn't that what the Broncos are doing with Lockyer? Not sure about Gasnier but surely it was very similar this year to get him on the books.

 

[babyg]

Why don't Souths and Inglis just drop a couple of third party deals, sign him and then give some new ones. Then it can't be seen as an inducement. If sponsors are lining up as Souths then it is little risk for Inglis to do it.

 

[muzby]

bus drivers dont have salary caps

show me a bus driver who earns $600k...

 

[Liddell]

Why don't Souths and Inglis just drop a couple of third party deals, sign him and then give some new ones. Then it can't be seen as an inducement. If sponsors are lining up as Souths then it is little risk for Inglis to do it.

Because we only have a reported 190k in the cap and the NRL wont have him sign for that.

 

[drake]

Because we only have a reported 190k in the cap and the NRL wont have him sign for that.

Then what are your management doing trying to sign one of the top 5 players in the league with only that much space? No one in the Rugby League world would find it easy to believe that this guy would accept that kind of cash.

 

[Pierced Soul]

The NRL has subsequently come out and said that they had rejected some of the Bronco's third party deals. This was one of the reasons that they are trying to justify blocking ours.

The Broncos would probably have also needed to shuffle their cap to accomodate him.

So it comes down to the fact that the Storm had him on overs, as was Smith, Slater and Cronk, and now no one can fit him in so late into the year.

yes some deals may have been rejected and they probably argued over his notional value but they had it all sorted at the end when he walked away.... the broncos deal wasnt done in 2 days like the souths one seemed to be.

as for shuffling the cap, the broncos lost folau this year and lost hunt last year, yes we picked up hannant in return but that isnt going to cost the same amount as what hunt and folau were on. added to that the broncos fielded the youngest backline in the nrl and all these kids are on peanuts atm

show me a bus driver who earns $600k...

dunno you'd have to ask glass jaw mundine and $bw, it was their argument

 

[Ziggy the God]

Then what are your management doing trying to sign one of the top 5 players in the league with only that much space? No one in the Rugby League world would find it easy to believe that this guy would accept that kind of cash.

That is $190k for the coming year, the rest is backloaded.

 

[BunniesMan]

if he hadnt reneged on the APPROVED broncos deal he'd be getting paid....what part of this do you fail to understand? the ONLY person to blame for this is Inglis himself for walking away from a guaranteed deal cos crowe and mundine told him they could give him more

The deal wasn't approved. It didn't even get to that stage because Inglis hadn't agreed to or signed anything yet. If it wasn't raining that day and the planes were flying and he got to Brisbane and signed, we'd have found out if it got approved.

Looks to me like Inglis has left it too late to go to Union or AFL, and unless the Eels can come up with some 3rd parties, then tyhere is only really one option.

He has to go back to the Storm, and they have to honour his contract.

It is that simple.

Don't think the Storm or their fans realise that they are still in a potentially difficult position. If we can't drop a player and can't keep him then there is a strong chance he stays with Melbourne. Then they are the ones who have to drop players and hope someone takes them and that it creates enough room, or they get no points in 2011. It's in the Storm's best interest for someone to pick up Lowe or Champion or Crocker.

so if soufs "drop" another player who goes to say yawnion and becomes a star this is the best thing for the game? you don't care that any potential you player you cut to fit inglis in may go on to "make millions in advertising" for another code?

The odds of that happening? Superstars aren't common, that's why they're called "superstars". The odds of Souths dropping a player that goes on to become a superstar are incredibly low. But Inglis is already a superstar, big difference.

I don't want to see Inglis leave league and i don’t think he will, as much as AFL claim they want to sign him they also have cap issues, I doubt someone over there has a spare 500k in their cap. If the AFL let a club have a concession on signing Inglis the rest of the AFL clubs would cry foul and rightly so.

The AFL are nowhere near as stubborn and inflexible as the NRL. The clubs might not have that much room, but they'd only pay a couple hundred k and the AFL would make that into about a million a year like they did with Folau and Hunt. It would come under "marketing expenses".

GWS and the Gold Coast Suns are only paying about a third of Folau and Hunt's annual wage.

Inglis has options with parramatta but doesn't want to consider them, I think you'll find by Monday morning some poor soul from Souths will be let go and the club will put on a happy front, the only problem is some of the players will be pissed off.

The first part of that is the most likely scenario. As for the 2nd half, I'm optimistic that the club will handle it the right way behind the scenes so it doesn't cause locker room issues. And even if their are some issues, they'll dissapear when we start winning in 2011.

Bit harsh.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...220-1936k.html

Gallop, however, defended the decision, insisting the Rabbitohs were using third-party deals in a way they were not designed to be; to lower the portion of the contract included in the salary cap rather than giving the player a top-up to his market value.

He said the principle of third-party deals was designed to increase a player's earning capacity.

''The third-party deals in Greg's case, however, were not being used to gain extra money,'' Gallop said. ''They were being used to reduce - below the current market value - what Greg was being paid by Souths to sign.''



Doesn't seem very black and white to me, while i agree that what Gallop said is fair, isn't that what the Broncos are doing with Lockyer? Not sure about Gasnier but surely it was very similar this year to get him on the books.

Exactly. That's the issue, it's not just the 3rd party deals themselves, but the idiots in the NRL who make these decisions think he's not valued enough under the cap. The system is completely inflexible and unreasonable.

Why don't Souths and Inglis just drop a couple of third party deals, sign him and then give some new ones. Then it can't be seen as an inducement. If sponsors are lining up as Souths then it is little risk for Inglis to do it.

We can't just drop the deals. Even if we dropped all of them the NRL wouldn't accept it because they have a problem with him getting just 190k under the cap. They feel he's being undervalued. Even though Lockyer only gets about 200k under the cap.

 

[boxhead]

Bingo. Even if we deleted all the 3rd party payments and only gave him 190k and he agreed to that, the NRL wouldn't accept that.

The problems are not Souths fault. You do know the NRL's issues don't end with the 3rd party part of the equation? Even if they didn't exist they wouldn't accept him being under the cap for just 190k. That's their biggest problem. They have it in their head that they can give players a certain value and noone is allowed to pay them LESS than that. Beyond ridiculous.

Still, the Rabbitohs are doing their best to keep him in league. Which is the best thing for the game (even if some people don't realise). Hopefully, we can drop a player, sign Inglis and AFL doesn't get another NRL star.

Mate, if Souths could only fit him under the cap for $190,000, the Eels would definitely be able to fit him under the cap for around $500,000.
The only thing deterring the Eels from trying to sign him is because they believe the Souths deal will go through. Lord knows they won't try their butts off.