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

[Canard]

Essentially Souths can have Greg Inglis, but they have to free up salary cap space to do so.

I don't see what the issue is with this?

 

[Joker's Wild]

There is no issue with them doing that (well, except the fact that no club is willing to sign any of their players this late in the game) but this is not what Souths are trying to do. They want GI plus keep all of their current players.

 

[muzby]

Essentially Souths can have Greg Inglis, but they have to free up salary cap space to do so.

I don't see what the issue is with this?

nobody told rusty of this fact 6 weeks ago..

 

[muzby]

. They want GI plus keep all of their current players.

so they want to have their cake, and eat it too..?


this is the perfect club for greg then.. he likes cake..

 

[Galeforce]

one excerpt from Brisbane Times today.

shows the joke the NRL is becoming and instead of protecting the game , the opposite is occurring i.e. best player essentially forced to walk and third parties shifting money to AFL and focus on the NRL management shambles instead of positive focus on players and promoters. Souths were going to announce deal with Star City , appears to be on the backburner now, WHAT a PROMOTIONAL WASTE

unedited excerpt
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.
''Greg is our number one preference, but the other one is definitely an alternative.'' Byrne said the Inglis deal was ''purely through Greg and Allan Gainey'', and that ''Souths weren't really involved''. ''Whether he played for Souths wasn't of any great concern to us,'' he said. ''I rang Souths to get Allan's number, so I could discuss with him whether he was coming to Sydney. I thought it was pretty straightforward. I've got a business, and we sponsor Danny Green, we've got an involvement with the Perth Wildcats and the World Sailing Championships. I thought this was a great opportunity to add to them. But with none of those organisations have we had to go through the scrutiny that we have in this instance

 

[big country]

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).

lol - brisbane HAVE had the Aus side since 1988 - and yes, all under the cap

 

[Canard]

They certainly used to field some side like that but the last 2 or so years they are fielding some fairly inexperienced squads, and at least had to lose someone of the stature of Folau to even contemplate signing Inglis, whereas Souths want to lose no-one.

 

[franklin2323]

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)

:lol::lol::lol:

Please I can pay a whole Panthers players wage if I want. However it would come out of the cap.

GI has options. Wait for Souths to sort it out. Go to 1 of about 3 that could afford him or go elsewhere. EVERY player that has left has been 1 of the highest paid in their respective clubs.

Given players these days start in their early teens. they by the time they hit 24 may of won a comp, Played SOO and might want a change. Given NRL players get 1 month off a year have prob 10 years in the game might want to change.

Hmm did we not smash every record. in terms of crowds. TV ratings even merchandise. Doesn't seem like we are missing them.

While your on you tube type in Burgess on Bell. or Dwyer on Warea-Hargraves as just 2 off the top of my head better then $BW's efforts

 

[Fien]

Have no fear, Souths Fans, I have it on GOOD AUTHORITY that Greg's contract will be approved by the NRL. All of the St Merge & Fowl Chooks haters can rack off as Greg will be at Souths in 2011 with NO PLAYERS RELEASED.

The NRL are trying to make an example of Souths because we made them look foolish for kicking us out years ago. Stand united Souths fans, we are the pride of the League, and that makes the NRL angry!

 

[Liddell]

Have no fear, Souths Fans, I have it on GOOD AUTHORITY that Greg's contract will be approved by the NRL. All of the St Merge & Fowl Chooks haters can rack off as Greg will be at Souths in 2011 with NO PLAYERS RELEASED.

The NRL are trying to make an example of Souths because we made them look foolish for kicking us out years ago. Stand united Souths fans, we are the pride of the League, and that makes the NRL angry!

10 posts maybe, but now its just sad.

 

[big country]

They certainly used to field some side like that but the last 2 or so years they are fielding some fairly inexperienced squads, and at least had to lose someone of the stature of Folau to even contemplate signing Inglis, whereas Souths want to lose no-one.

i thought folau left purely for the dosh which no NRL club could match anyway, and that left some space for inglis

 

[Canard]

i thought folau left purely for the dosh which no NRL club could match anyway, and that left some space for inglis

Isnt that what I typed? Cause thats what I meant.

Souths want to sign one of the games biggest stars and part with nothing.

 

[big country]

Isnt that what I typed? Cause thats what I meant.

Souths want to sign one of the games biggest stars and part with nothing.

no, you made it sound like poor brisbane had to say bye bye to Folau to make room for Inglis when in fact he just left cos he was offered $1mil per year with GWS..........if burgess is offered $1mil per year when his contract is up he will say bye bye to us also.........my point is NO ONE said bye bye to Brisbane until now - and that fact is getting up the noses of some people ;-)

 

[johns_reds]

no, you made it sound like poor brisbane had to say bye bye to Folau to make room for Inglis when in fact he just left cos he was offered $1mil per year with GWS..........if burgess is offered $1mil per year when his contract is up he will say bye bye to us also.........my point is NO ONE said bye bye to Brisbane until now - and that fact is getting up the noses of some people ;-)

no one has said bye bye to broncos? falou, hunt, tuquri, sailor to name a few of the big names, no other club have suffered as much as us, souths can't get one player and they cry foul and want to bring down the nrl, it has been happening to us for years.

 

[TeZbIaN]

no one has said bye bye to broncos? falou, hunt, tuquri, sailor to name a few of the big names, no other club has suffered as much as us, souths can't get one player and they cry foul and want to bring down the nrl, it has been happening to us for years.

And where did each one of them go, and what does it look like the NRL are trying to do with Inglis?

 

[muzby]

Souths want to sign one of the games biggest stars and part with nothing.

someone should start a thread on that topic..

 

[Canard]

no, you made it sound like poor brisbane had to say bye bye to Folau to make room for Inglis when in fact he just left cos he was offered $1mil per year with GWS..........if burgess is offered $1mil per year when his contract is up he will say bye bye to us also.........my point is NO ONE said bye bye to Brisbane until now - and that fact is getting up the noses of some people ;-)

Thats reading a LOT into my statement that they had to "lose" Folau! And for the record as a Cowboys fan I don't give a toss about Broncos scum.

The method of how you shed salary cap is irrelvant to this topic though isn't it. At least Brisbane was shedding cap, Souths are claiming to not have to.

 

[big country]

someone should start a thread on that topic..

:lol:

 

[big country]

The method of how you shed salary cap is irrelvant to this topic though isn't it. At least Brisbane was shedding cap, Souths are claiming to not have to.

again you make it sound like brisbane was FORCED to shed cap space to table an offer to Inglis when in fact Folau couldnt believe his luck with the GSW offer and just left and they found themselves with space - if souths can table an offer to Inglis that's their perogative and good management - the issue now is what constitutes a 3rd party agreement cos all these potential sponsors are coming forward telling us they have no linkage to the club but would like a piece of the player but the NRL are telling them to go jump?

 

[bottle]

John Byrne added he was ''astounded'' that his company's commitment to Inglis's deal was ordered by the NRL to be included in Souths' cap.

Why would he care? It's South's problem, not his or his company's. He can still give GI the money, and GI can still represent his mob as arranged. The NRL aren't saying this can't happen, there is no restraint of trade issue here. The NRL are simply indicating to South's, a party which has agreed to the current salary cap rules I presume, how these funds are to be accounted for in their records. The NRL hasn't said to a single sponsor involved (or at least it isn't reported as such) 'We don't want your money'. They haven't said to GI 'You can't take that money'. They have however said to South's 'This is how it needs to be accounted for under the rules'. Now the sponsors are coming out in unison 'astounded' at something that is of little relevance to them. Hmm, Denmark and rotten come to mind.