What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,738
.

Exactly right. It took you much longer than i thought but i knew you'd get there eventually.
Unlike you I'm not braindead and I don't think our stars leaving has no negative consequences. Inglis, a superstar, who loves the game, who already has made the choice to choose our game over the much bigger bucks in other codes, and we still manage to f**k it up. That's going to make terrible headlines in the media as we become a national laughing stock.

If he is still an NRL player in 2011 it will be no thanks to the NRL itself and it will be Souths doing all the hard yards to save the NRL's balls despite them making it as difficult as possible.
 

muzby

Village Idiot
Staff member
Messages
45,973
That's going to make terrible headlines in the media as we become a national laughing stock.

got news for you.. people were laughing a long time before this incident..

If he is still an NRL player in 2011 it will be no thanks to the NRL itself and it will be Souths doing all the hard yards to save the NRL's balls despite them making it as difficult as possible.

they are following procedure. souths aren't..

every other club managed to get it right, so don't go blaming the nrl when the only outlier is souths..
 

Liddell

Juniors
Messages
2,175
the main point you are missing is as follows...

gasnier, whilst back ended, has the right proportion of his total salary counted as part of the salary cap...

inglis does not.

therein lies your issue.. it's not a case of doublestandards.. it's a case of whoever did up the contract stuffing up...

So what your saying is Gasnier will now be under the cap for roughly 550k over the next 2 years?
 

muzby

Village Idiot
Staff member
Messages
45,973
So what your saying is Gasnier will now be under the cap for roughly 550k over the next 2 years?

how much do you think he's on????

read my post again, i said right proportion of his income under the cap.. not the entire thing..
 

Matt23

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
16,495
If Inglis really want's to play for Souffs he'll lower his asking price...or he he can f**k off to AFL/Union, if he still wants to be a greedy f**ker.
 

Liddell

Juniors
Messages
2,175
If Inglis really want's to play for Souffs he'll lower his asking price...or he he can f**k off to AFL/Union, if he still wants to be a greedy f**ker.

Mate, he did, to $190 000, but thats when they brought the 'notional' value into it and would register him that low.
 

muzby

Village Idiot
Staff member
Messages
45,973
The bookies have us at $1.06 to keep him, let's hope that's right.

https://www.sportsbet.com.au/sports...itionPID/28922/RoundPID/28921/EventID/1659008


yes, because sportsbet have a habit of getting it right....... :sarcasm:

BOOMKAKER sportsbet.com.au conceded the second Test and the Ashes to the Poms and paid out more than $400,000 in bets on England - only for the visitors to collapse.
The odds on the Perth Test swung as dramatically as the fortunes of the game and the mood of sportsbet.com.au's CEO Matt Tripp.

At 2.16pm the Poms were $1.46 favourites - the Aussies were a $7.50 longshot - and Tripp was comfortable with an early pay-out, saying: "Unfortunately for Australian cricket fans the writing is on the wall and we cant see the Aussies coming back from here."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...e-stings-bookies/story-fn67wv6z-1225972902422
 

Joker's Wild

Coach
Messages
17,894
Think of the amazing talents that would still be in the comp if cutie, SBW, Izzy, Gower, Wing, etc didn't leave.... this is an absolute rubbish argument and I don't believe it gets used so often.

The comp goes on but it is certainly poorer for their absence.

lol Gower and Wing were over 30 when they left. Hardly bright young stars leaving the game.

Whats your alternative kungl? Give in to these primadonnas demands for massive payments? How about 2-3 of his team mates moving on the the ESL? These guys have great talents but they certainly not worth the price they are asking. There is always someone willing to take their place, always.


I would argue that we do indeed miss them. Tell me which winger, FB or 2nd row (Burgess aside) has come through with the same media and public profile of these 3 players last year? Everytime we lose a high profile star we lose a little more media interest and public awareness.

To name a couple off the top of my head:

Wingers - Akulia Uate, Daniel Vidot
FB - Josh Dugan
2nd Row - Simon Dwyer, Zeb Taia

These guys will only grow in stature over the years, pushing the code jumpers off into obscurity. It takes time to build profiles like Izzy and cutie had but make no mistake fellas, our junior systems are full of potential superstars.

No player, none, zip, bugger all, is bigger than the game.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,738
If Inglis really want's to play for Souffs he'll lower his asking price...or he he can f**k off to AFL/Union, if he still wants to be a greedy f**ker.
A post full of ignorance. The NRL has made it clear that beyond just the validity of the 3rd party deals, they have an issue with him playing just for 190k under the cap. They believe he is worth more and they wouldn't have allowed the contract to go through even if the 3rd party deals were 100% legit. So before you have a go at Inglis for being greedy, have a go at the NRL who are now saying players aren't even allowed to play for a discount if they want.

If Inglis was greedy, if money was his one and only priority he never would have bothered with the Broncos or Souths. He'd be an AFL or union player by now. The truth is he hasn't been paid in months, he is owed 200k+ by his 2010 club, his 2011 club isn't allowed to pay him yet. He has a mortgage. That is the only reasons he is even considering AFL. You have the usual NRL incompetence to thank for this situation.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
A post full of ignorance. The NRL has made it clear that beyond just the validity of the 3rd party deals, they have an issue with him playing just for 190k under the cap. They believe he is worth more and they wouldn't have allowed the contract to go through even if the 3rd party deals were 100% legit.

Is this true, or BunniesMan making sh*t up?
 

kbw

Bench
Messages
2,502
Its bs, bunnieboy is ignoring the truth, could it be sonic, thats his trademark.
The truth is its $190K plus 3rd party agreements and some of that 3rd party agreement has to be included in the salary cap.
Poor old $ouff$ do not want to play by the rules.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,738
Is this true, or BunniesMan making sh*t up?
http://leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=20252

Have a read of that article. Says much of what I'm saying.

What doesn't seem fair is this quote by Gallop in today's Herald: ''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.''

The argument is Inglis is being paid too little under the salary cap? So what! Where is the Player's rep in all this? Twiddling his thumbs no doubt…

I don't see how anyone has the right to tell a player he needs to be paid a certain amount of money. If Inglis wanted to play for free would the NRL block that?
That's the core of the NRL's problems over this. Inglis not getting what the NRL believes is his "market value" under the cap.

 

muzby

Village Idiot
Staff member
Messages
45,973
That's the core of the NRL's problems over this. Inglis not getting what the NRL believes is his "market value" under the cap.

no, you simpleton. the nrl does not believe the appropriate proportion of his total income is included in the cap. it has nothing to do with his market value..

he could be paid $200k per year, but if only $64k (same proportion, feel free to do the sums) was included in the cap, they'd reject that too..

don't blame the nrl for the mess you guys created...
 

Pierced Soul

First Grade
Messages
9,202
Exactly. Gasnier got 50k for half a season, excuse was that it's backended (as is Inglis's). Lockyer makes about 200-250k. No different to us wanting to give him 190k first year and then significantly more in the last 2 years. But noooooo, that's not good enough for the wise men running the show.

gasnier was on far more than 50K. if i recall the dragons wanted him in at 100-120 but the NRL refused which is why it took longer for gasnier to come back. I'll also point out the obvious that gasnier came back for half a season, the dragons didnt try and get him at $190k for the hole season...



Lockyer gets a hefty discount for his long service to the Broncos if I remember correctly.

thats right, he's been at the club for 15+ years but idiots seem to think inglis should get a discount for being around a third of that time

Because the NRL said so. In their "wise" judgement they don't want players taking a significant paycut to build a dynasty.

do you understand the salary cap and it's purpose?, by your logic soufs should pay all their players $1 a season and just top it up using third party payments from crowes hollywood buddies and this would be seen by you as good for the game


Is this true, or BunniesMan making sh*t up?

that part is correct. when players who are being paid a high amount suddenly agree to play for a significantly less amount the NRL will not allow this value under the cap. If you think about this logically it just leads to cheating and corruption. where this gets confusing is in the Kevin Kingston case a few years ago where he was on match payments (i think) for parra and ended up playing a lot of games, well next year parra wanted to keep him but cos he had played x amount of first grade games they couldnt keep him on the low wage even though he was happy staying on it. mind you kingston didnt have 400k worth of 3rd party deals organised for him...
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
70,537
so we wait a few years to replace the profile of players leaving? Sounds like a plan!

re Gasnier, ok lets say he is worth $300k a year. That means that this season he actually got paid $100k less than his worth. How did the NRL agree to that? Next season he will still be under his worth with the cap and no doubt $50k + of that worth is being topped up by 3rd party deals. Its not the decision that annoys fans (outside of Sth's) it is the inconsistency and the detriment it brings to the game through putting off comapnies wanting to put money in the game and fans getting disillusioned when they see teams/players being treat differently.
 

Joker's Wild

Coach
Messages
17,894
If they told GI that he couldnt have his 3rd party deals and only sign a $190 000 py contract do you think he would agree?

The problem is not the NRL saying he cant be registered under the cap for $190 000 full stop, the problem is that Souths want to get away with paying him, via 3rd party deals organised by them, over $500 000 but only have $190 000 registered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top