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

[muzby]

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.

it's called back ending a contract.. and it happens everywhere...

yes, gasnier got under his market value this year, but he is earning more over the next couple of years in compensation... hence why he arrives and we lose no-one, however next season we lose 2 international players (3 if you include priddis) plus 6 other players for a total of 9 players, and only get 3 average players in return...

inglis' contract is not backended, it was split evenly....



if souths administration have the same concept of finance and contracts as their fans, it's no wonder they are in the situation we see right now...

 

[Joker's Wild]

so we wait a few years to replace the profile of players leaving? Sounds like a plan!

Or we bend the rules for the few greedy pricks who think they are above the game and watch 4-5 lower profile players walk out the door because their club can no longer afford to pay them, all the while watching the comp get more and more 1 sided.

What a great alternative

 

[adamkungl]

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...

That's ridiculous. Players should be allowed to sign for below what they are worth if they would prefer one club over another. This whole situation is very messy and confusing. I don't know what the answer is.

 

[kbw]

But Adam, to an extent what PS is saying is true.
I agree with you some players will sign for a lesser amount to be at a club, Anasta is an example.
But if the amount being touted is significantly less it raises a red flag to the auditors so they will investigate it

 

[Liddell]

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...

But they got him for, you say 100-120 for half. Whats the difference?

 

[Perth Red]

the answer is to stop truning income away from the game and get a system that allows players to earn as much as they like/can whilst keeping some level of competition between clubs.

A points system, a marquee player system, a centralised payment through the NRL maybe. What we can't do is keep making it hard for companies to get involved in RL or drive our superstars out of the game.

 

[muzby]

the answer is to stop truning income away from the game and get a system that allows players to earn as much as they like/can whilst keeping some level of competition between clubs.

A points system, a marquee player system, a centralised payment through the NRL maybe. What we can't do is keep making it hard for companies to get involved in RL or drive our superstars out of the game.

the rules for 3rd party payments are very clear, it's not like it's hard to follow...

what makes it difficult is when someone (won't name names) tries to go around these rules to include a player in their side that they run into trouble..

once again, it's souffs problem, not the nrl...

if they had done the sums earlier and announced that they needed to chop a player before signing inglis, it would have been easier...

now, it's 3 months out from start of the compeetition and majority of clubs books are full, making it hard for you guys to offload anyone..

 

[BJP76A]

I hope he goes to AFL or Union cause he will be a massive failure at either.

The most dissapointing thing if Souff's dont get him will be that we wont see them waste their money and not make the top eight even with him playing for them. :lol:

 

[Mr Spock!]

What this saga further illustrates is

1) A need for an independent auditor without previous affiliations to other clubs. Let's be honest, Souths fans believed they got knocked back by an Easts auditor. If it was the other way around Easts fans would be angry as well. Whether it's true or not, the perception is there.

2) Further increase in the salary cap or third party deals. The income of our best players should at least be on a par with the best AFL players. (Gary Ablett - $9 million over 5 years) Look at the pay scale of the AFL in 2009. Would be interesting to compare with NRL.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/no-million-dollar-footy-stars/story-e6frf9jf-1225842755527


I find it hard to believe that some players are on $55 000. Teachers get more than that. The money is there if the NRL wants it.

 

[Perth Red]

Maybe the answer is to raise the salary cap and include more 3rd party payments. In theory that would mean a larger % of top players salaries could be paid for by external club sources leaving the club more $'s to pay the younger lesser known players?

I wonder if the NRL actually has an idea of what clubs can afford, what companies clubs could bring in, what $'s would be available externally etc Not usggesting open ended as not all clubs can bring in the same companies but maybe by doing it they would encourage all clubs to be looking harder.

 

[adamkungl]

1) A need for an independent auditor without previous affiliations to other clubs. Let's be honest, Souths fans believed they got knocked back by an Easts auditor. If it was the other way around Easts fans would be angry as well. Whether it's true or not, the perception is there.

That's because Souths fans are simpletons.

 

[Mr Spock!]

That's because Souths fans are simpletons.

A logical answer from a Rooster supporter. I rest my case.

 

[muzby]

1) A need for an independent auditor without previous affiliations to other clubs. Let's be honest, Souths fans believed they got knocked back by an Easts auditor. If it was the other way around Easts fans would be angry as well. Whether it's true or not, the perception is there.

that's because souths fans are simpletons...

 

[kbw]

the answer is to stop truning income away from the game and get a system that allows players to earn as much as they like/can whilst keeping some level of competition between clubs.

A points system, a marquee player system, a centralised payment through the NRL maybe. What we can't do is keep making it hard for companies to get involved in RL or drive our superstars out of the game.

The problem is some people all think there is a limitless supply of money to inject into the NRL, there isn't.
When people talk about the tv rights, its all well and good to say iot should be increased, but who pays, we do AND I AM SICK OF THE COST OF THINGS GOING UP.
The market for the NRL is quite small and next to non existant overseas. Its getting harder and harder for people in the UK to see any NRL.
In relation to the market and the markets of other sports NRL players are paid way too much. (as are some other sports atheletes)

 

[Perth Red]

so how do you explain AFL which has zero relevance overseas and an even smaller population to market to yet can bring in heaps more $'s at the player, club and code level?

 

[muzby]

so how do you explain AFL

that, my friend, is a bigger question than the meaning of life....

 

[BunniesMan]

Maybe the answer is to raise the salary cap and include more 3rd party payments. In theory that would mean a larger % of top players salaries could be paid for by external club sources leaving the club more $'s to pay the younger lesser known players?

I wonder if the NRL actually has an idea of what clubs can afford, what companies clubs could bring in, what $'s would be available externally etc Not usggesting open ended as not all clubs can bring in the same companies but maybe by doing it they would encourage all clubs to be looking harder.

From what I've heard the Sharks struggle to use all their capspace. So if that's how we limit ourselves, the cap won't be getting significantly raised.

The 3rd party rules should be relaxed. I'm not saying completely open ended. Strict rules need to be made sure real work is being done for the money etc etc, but if the rules were relaxed it would force clubs to look harder for more 3rd party sponsors. Which would mean our stars get paid as much as other stars and we're not a feeder league.

That's because Souths fans are simpletons.

You're a simpleton.

As if it wouldn't raise suspicions when it gets into the papers than an Easts stooge who is supposed to be independent is talking at an Easts function about how its a foregone conclusion before the decision is even announced. We're not surprised though. CEO is a news ltd stooge, cap auditor is a Easts stooge. Can't wait till we win the premiership and make Gallop cry on that stage.

 

[muzby]

Your a simpleton.

at least use the right variant of "you're"

 

[BunniesMan]

so how do you explain AFL which has zero relevance overseas and an even smaller population to market to yet can bring in heaps more $'s at the player, club and code level?

Well the clubs are rolling in it from memberships and crowds. Collingwood is aiming for 70,000 members. It averages close to 60,000 crowds. The rest aren't quite as big but still relatively huge. Even the Swans are at about 35k. That's why they can afford to support such a high salary cap.

Then you have the AFL, with the huge tv rights deal they negotiated they can afford to throw more than half a million a year at any league convert to top up their wage from their club and all just for "marketing". Plus they can afford to give the Suns and GWS a 20 million dollar a year marketing budget. Which is bigger than the entire annual turnover of some NRL clubs.

So the answer to your question in short is, crowds+memberships+tv deal. Hopefully we can keep improving the first 2 each year, and hopefully our management can negotiate the third properly (considering how they handled the Inglis situation, I'm not holding my breath).

 

[BunniesMan]

at least use the right variant of "you're"

I edited it fool. Besides they all sound the same :x