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

[cleary89]

It's backended, he gets 500k a year the next 2 years I think. And surely the burden of proof lies with the NRL, they should have to have some solid evidence to decline a contract. And from the waffle Gallop has given us the last couple days, I don't think they have much of that.

Take off the tin foil hat and come back when you have some proof. Stop posting on what you think, because its obvious you're a dumb sh*t.

And about holding talks in person with no record, well every single club could do that with every single player they buy. We'll never know.

As for the stat decs, if I recall correctly, at the time they were being talked about in the media, the NRL asked for stat decs saying the deals were legit and within the rules. And I know in an article just after they were submitted Richo talking about how he was now very confident that it would all go through well. So I'd say they were solid.

Richo also said they could sign GI for 190k with no players shed, how did that work out? Please stop believing Richo, he's already proven how incompetent he is. The sooner you stop believing, the sooner we can stop calling you a troll. Believing in Richo is like believing in Santa, you might get some presents, but you know in the end its going to cost you.

 

[whats up doc]

Seriously, wtf is up with this thread? Almost 3000 posts

 

[RWB]

It's backended, he gets 500k a year the next 2 years I think. And surely the burden of proof lies with the NRL, they should have to have some solid evidence to decline a contract. And from the waffle Gallop has given us the last couple days, I don't think they have much of that.

And about holding talks in person with no record, well every single club could do that with every single player they buy. We'll never know.

As for the stat decs, if I recall correctly, at the time they were being talked about in the media, the NRL asked for stat decs saying the deals were legit and within the rules. And I know in an article just after they were submitted Richo talking about how he was now very confident that it would all go through well. So I'd say they were solid.

You 'thinking' something doesn't exactly put you in the strongest position for you to be calling for people to lose their jobs.

The NRL and Schubert have all the facts, I agree they haven't been the most transparent but why would they risk damaging such a large organisation and their reputations if there's nothing wrong with the deal? The question can be asked both ways, it's certainly not evidence though...

 

[BunniesMan]

Take off the tin foil hat and come back when you have some proof. Stop posting on what you think, because its obvious you're a dumb sh*t.

What tin foil hat? My proof is 4 sponsors saying statutory declarations, and 3 of them going on record claiming they dealth with Inglis and his manager directly. That's a lot more than what the NRL has.

Richo also said they could sign GI for 190k with no players shed, how did that work out? Please stop believing Richo, he's already proven how incompetent he is. The sooner you stop believing, the sooner we can stop calling you a troll. Believing in Richo is like believing in Santa, you might get some presents, but you know in the end its going to cost you

I find it hilarious that someone who obviously tries to troll with about 90% of his posts has the nerve to call me a troll.

 

[BunniesMan]

You 'thinking' something doesn't exactly put you in the strongest position for you to be calling for people to lose their jobs.

The NRL and Schubert have all the facts, I agree they haven't been the most transparent but why would they risk damaging such a large organisation and their reputations if there's nothing wrong with the deal? The question can be asked both ways, it's certainly not evidence though...

They should show their evidence. With their decision they've made serious accusations about Souths management and the sponsors involved, surely those parties have the right to be innocent until proven guilty, and surely the NRL could tell us clearly how they came to their positions. I don't think that's asking for too much.

offtopic - cleary89, like RWB you're also a roosters fan aren't you? Well try being more like him too, he can have a discussion and debate without quickly turning into a douchebag troll. Try being like that. And the troll pic, sig and location don't help your cause either.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

So it's easier to believe 3 different companies have gone on public record, all telling the same lie, and signed stat decs (which can carry a jail term if they are misleading) saying the same thing. That's easier to believe than believing the NRL auditor has made a deliberate or honest mistake in one decision? The same auditor who was clueless for years over the Storm scandal brewing under his nose?

Is he supposed to go to peoples homes to search for second, third, fourth contracts? Organisations systematicaly rorting the cap to the scale of the 04 Bulldogs and Melbourne just will not be caught without a tip off.

You really can't be surprised that 6 months after the Melbourne saga Schubert and co have come down hard on any deal let alone one where a marquee player walks away from a verbal agreement to join another club where they want to fit him under the cap for half of his value. Let it go for a few weeks and see things pan out.

 

[Jason_(Is_our_King)_Smith]

The terrible handling of this Inglis issue just gets worse and worse...

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...oins-fight-to-keep-inglis-20101221-194hh.html

John Byrne, of The Food 2U Group, was willing to offer up $50,000 a season to top up the Test and Origin star's contract with the Rabbitohs, but he told the Herald he would investigate a deal with the AFL unless the stand-off over the three-year Souths deal was sorted out.
He added he was ''astounded'' that his company's commitment to Inglis's deal was ordered by the NRL to be included in Souths' cap. ''We saw Greg as an opportunity to get involved in rugby league in Sydney, but with this other club [GWS] coming to town, Israel [Folau] definitely strikes a chord,'' Byrne said.

Is there any other code in the world more badly managed than rugby league?

 

[Alex28]

Also in that article is that he is living with Shane Richardson at the moment. Hope he is paying board otherwise a cost for accommodation should be added to his contract under the salary cap as well!

This all completely serves Inglis right. Play by the rules of the game or piss off somewhere else.

 

[Evenflow]

Is there any other code in the world more badly managed than rugby league?

Yes. It's called the A League.

 

[The 18th Man]

Good point. With so much speculation out there, odds so low are really surprising. They clearly know something the rest of us don't because $1.06 is basically a certainty. They just want to make a few bucks from the Essendon headlines.

There would be a reason for it, no agency is offering odds like that without knowledge confirming he is staying at the Bunnies. They don't lay $1.06 or the other attractive betting options on a gut feel . It's just a matter of time before this mess is sorted and normality resumes for all involved.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

I don't wish to come across as uppity, but the integrity of the sport is the most important thing, and the current South squad plus Inglis would have such strength in depth it would be obvious that they aren't under the cap, and comparing them with say the Sharks' squad, well people outside the game will be given an easy pop at R.League for obviously not having an even playing field.

I would love to see a Melbourne v South GF, but only if they are playing within the rules to a reasonable level.

As you can tell, I'm not knowledgeable on the salary cap rules, and quite honestly, I can't be bothered to read up on them, but with what happened with the Storm, the NRL aren't going to risk anything going wrong with the cap this coming season obviously.

 

[Pierced Soul]

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.

it is ridiculous but it's intended really to stop a club paying a player massively below market value like soufs are trying to do and finding some abckdoor way of paying them. the NRL is flexible however and a good case was john skandalis last year who hadnt intended to play first grade but when injuries occured the tigers spoke to the NRL about what they could do about allowing him to play again without blowing out the cap. but if it's a marquee player wnating to play for peanuts....

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

nah the 100-120 was what they WANTED to have him graded at, the NRL forced it up, not sure the exact amount but it was closer to 200k from what i read, again this is 200 for a player playing half a season who's been out of the game for 2 years (and it showed), not a player at their peak (or was at his peak before he discovered fast food)

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.

firstly what people believe will happen (and i concur) is that simply raising the cap or the third party payments such as you're suggetsing is that the elite will just get more money. if a club like say NQ is negotiating with JT do they chuck an extra at JT to get him to stay or do they give it to a fringe first grader? the idea of a minimum wage is emant to offset this but i dunno whetehr it works in practice.

Secondly the clubs (esp sydney ones) are financially struggling as it is. I've ehard Greg Alexander who's on the pantehrs board state the panthers can't afford a massive increas ein the salary cap cos the money isnt there. now this is a club with the pantehrs leagues club behind them, a massive junior base and he's syaing they cant do it

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.

thats not how we limit it. its a limit agreed to by a majority of clubs. others spend to their limit but face financial difficulties. there's no point syaing we'll increaese it by a million and then have a 2 team comp.

2 things, they are able to yield a higher return from their market and I am not totally convinced they have a smaller market, and infact they have a much larger active market (in members). I do think RL is a better sport though.

lets be honest, the AFL is almost a truly NATIONAL sport. they have the SA and WA markets whereas we have the east coast. their memberships and attendences dwarf ours and their income is a lot greater, hence why they can afford more. is it a better game? f**k no

Latest nonsense rumour has him back in broncos colours.

I really hope we don't... surely not?

i hope thtas just an internet rumour. though i'd be happy to be at any club other than soufs just to see bunniesman turn his manlove into hate

 

[big country]

I don't wish to come across as uppity, but the integrity of the sport is the most important thing, and the current South squad plus Inglis would have such strength in depth it would be obvious that they aren't under the cap, and comparing them with say the Sharks' squad, well people outside the game will be given an easy pop at R.League for obviously not having an even playing field.

I would love to see a Melbourne v South GF, but only if they are playing within the rules to a reasonable level.

As you can tell, I'm not knowledgeable on the salary cap rules, and quite honestly, I can't be bothered to read up on them, but with what happened with the Storm, the NRL aren't going to risk anything going wrong with the cap this coming season obviously.

mate have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years? Have a look at our playing squad from the 90's and compare them to the likes of the broncos/roosters/bulldogs at that time - we didnt stand a chance........now that we can secure top line talent peoples noses are out of joint - well i say them, F-YOU!!!

 

[Pierced Soul]

The salary cap should be $8mill + $1mill allowed in 3rd party payments, the NRL IC should be paying for jnr development, toyota cup sides, travel and accommodation etc etc A club with an income of $15million should be able to afford $8million for players and clubs that can't rasie $15mill a year shouldn't be in the top league in the country, imo.

great idea we'll have a 2 team comp every year

Why do you keep responding? Everyone is just winding you up now.

no we're not we're genuinely interested in his devotion to the ridiculous statments he keeps making

You know, just because the NRL said Souths did the wrong thing, doesn't make it true. There's 2 different sponsors going on public record saying they did the right thing the right way. So explain to me again what we did wrong?
.

just cos soufs say they're telling the truth doesnt make it true....i'll also state that the melb directors signed stat decs every year saying they werent doing anything dodgy and i imagine a few years ago the dogs directors would have done the same thing

Seriously, wtf is up with this thread? Almost 3000 posts

yeah but 2000 are from BM

They should show their evidence. With their decision they've made serious accusations about Souths management and the sponsors involved, surely those parties have the right to be innocent until proven guilty, and surely the NRL could tell us clearly how they came to their positions. I don't think that's asking for too much.

.

it's not a court of law, the NRL doenst have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. it sup to soufs to prove they're doing the right thing not the other way around

I don't wish to come across as uppity, but the integrity of the sport is the most important thing, and the current South squad plus Inglis would have such strength in depth it would be obvious that they aren't under the cap, and comparing them with say the Sharks' squad, well people outside the game will be given an easy pop at R.League for obviously not having an even playing field.

I would love to see a Melbourne v South GF, but only if they are playing within the rules to a reasonable level.

As you can tell, I'm not knowledgeable on the salary cap rules, and quite honestly, I can't be bothered to read up on them, but with what happened with the Storm, the NRL aren't going to risk anything going wrong with the cap this coming season obviously.

don't you try and bring commonsense into this thread

 

[joshreading]

Actually I would say that the NRL need be wary. It only takes one of these companies to claim a restraint of trade due to the decision of the NRL and the third party stuff will all fall in a heap. Any company has a right to pay whoever they want what ever they want especially as the company has no legal contract binding them with the NRL and its by-laws.

If the company says that the contract is given independent of the Club then (and have been willing to sign stat decs) then the onus will be on the NRL to prove otherwise.

Despite GI being a pain, this whole rubbish around Third Party deals needs to be fixed. Plenty of companies want to throw money at NRL players BUT WE STOP THEM.

'we will do better off without these players, there's always another coming through' - I for one have not seen another SBW, have you? Look up big hits on youtube and half are SBW. (and yes we need 'villains' and 'heros' in the comp. players you love to hate are good for the game)

 

[big country]

Actually I would say that the NRL need be wary. It only takes one of these companies to claim a restraint of trade due to the decision of the NRL and the third party stuff will all fall in a heap. Any company has a right to pay whoever they want what ever they want especially as the company has no legal contract binding them with the NRL and its by-laws.

If the company says that the contract is given independent of the Club then (and have been willing to sign stat decs) then the onus will be on the NRL to prove otherwise.

Despite GI being a pain, this whole rubbish around Third Party deals needs to be fixed. Plenty of companies want to throw money at NRL players BUT WE STOP THEM.

'we will do better off without these players, there's always another coming through' - I for one have not seen another SBW, have you? Look up big hits on youtube and half are SBW. (and yes we need 'villains' and 'heros' in the comp. players you love to hate are good for the game)

exactly - we're treading into very dangerous territory here where any independent player sponsorship is not allowed - something unheard of in any professional sport - but hey, who ever said RL has been run professionally :lol:

 

[muzby]

'we will do better off without these players, there's always another coming through' - I for one have not seen another SBW, have you? Look up big hits on youtube and half are SBW. (and yes we need 'villains' and 'heros' in the comp. players you love to hate are good for the game)

actually, i can think of many great shots this year, most better than anything sbw did..

dwyer on maria hargraves is a cracker... and that bloke mose someone from the roosters sent jarrod saffy back to the 1980s with a few he pulled off against the dragons..

and there's always burgess on moi moi from 2008.. one of the best i've ever seen...


sbw was too busy living his own hype..

 

[Loudstrat]

I don't wish to come across as uppity, but the integrity of the sport is the most important thing, and the current South squad plus Inglis would have such strength in depth it would be obvious that they aren't under the cap, and comparing them with say the Sharks' squad, well people outside the game will be given an easy pop at R.League for obviously not having an even playing field.

I would love to see a Melbourne v South GF, but only if they are playing within the rules to a reasonable level.

As you can tell, I'm not knowledgeable on the salary cap rules, and quite honestly, I can't be bothered to read up on them, but with what happened with the Storm, the NRL aren't going to risk anything going wrong with the cap this coming season obviously.

Who the f*ck is SOUTH?

This thread is about SOUTHS

Inglis isgetting his just desserts, as is Gainey. Still, isn't Heather only on a $250k contract? As much as Inglis deserved to get hammered over his conduct, this is a double standard, and Souths were onlyplaying by the standards that already exist in the NRL.

 

[Canard]

Actually I would say that the NRL need be wary. It only takes one of these companies to claim a restraint of trade due to the decision of the NRL and the third party stuff will all fall in a heap. Any company has a right to pay whoever they want what ever they want especially as the company has no legal contract binding them with the NRL and its by-laws.

If the company says that the contract is given independent of the Club then (and have been willing to sign stat decs) then the onus will be on the NRL to prove otherwise.

Despite GI being a pain, this whole rubbish around Third Party deals needs to be fixed. Plenty of companies want to throw money at NRL players BUT WE STOP THEM.

'we will do better off without these players, there's always another coming through' - I for one have not seen another SBW, have you? Look up big hits on youtube and half are SBW. (and yes we need 'villains' and 'heros' in the comp. players you love to hate are good for the game)

They aren't being stopped from giving the money to GI, its Souths issue in balancing there salary cap.

If unlimited third party deals where the go Brisbane would have the Australian side all on $50K a year (under the salary cap).

 

[Joker's Wild]

'we will do better off without these players, there's always another coming through' - I for one have not seen another SBW, have you? Look up big hits on youtube and half are SBW. (and yes we need 'villains' and 'heros' in the comp. players you love to hate are good for the game)

Im not sure who you are quoting here but I havnt seen anyone say that we would be better off without them.

I want all our stars to stay here but I would not be willing to comprimise the integrity of our game or our comp just to accomodate what is essentially a money grab.

I was dirty when Joey took the game to ransom back in the mid '00s and the extra strain it put on the Knights cap meant they had to sell off a decent chunk of their team to keep him on the books. Souths are trying to have their cake and eat it too.