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

[big country]

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.

you're missing the point - sure they can just give GI the money, but i wonder what their potential return would be if GI left RL and became a ten pin bowls player or darts? GI's best return for them will be in RL and in their local business area. They have a business interest and want to maximise their return - they wont give the money away for free but the NRL are telling them to spend their money elsewhere...........Am I missing something here?

 

[Ike E Bear]

I think Souths would happily part with a couple of players to secure Inglis.

Part of the problem is that Souths have paid overs for a lot of players in the past. This was a symptom of the fact that Souths were undeniably strugglers ... and that the salary cap wasn't really working for them for many, many years.

Even after privatisation, it was always going to take a while for such a club to become competitive - both on the field and in the player recruitment market.

If the goal is to distribute talent, then you'd think Souths is a fair place for a player like Inglis to go.

Comparing the 2010 Bunnies and Roosters ...

Wesser - Minnichello
Merritt - Perrett
Champion - Kenny-Dowall
Best - Linnett
Talanoa - Graham
Sutton - Carney
Sandow - Pearce
Asotasi - Ryles
Luke - Friend
Stuart - Waerea-Hargreaves
Burgess - Myles
Taylor - M Aubusson
B Lowe - Anasta

Geddes - Nu'uausala
McPherson - Kennedy
Crocker - Masoe
Clark - J Aubusson

With the exception of Luke and Burgess, I don't think many objective observers would rate Rabbitohs over Roosters in 2010.

Take out Best and put in Inglis ... does it dramatically alter the equation?

You could go through the same process with most other clubs and we see that the Bunnies aren't a Brisbane of old (and they will be again, don't worry, sooner rather than later with Hannant coming home and their rookies now blooded) or a Melbourne or even a Bulldogs.

This is a team trying to go from a "B" at best to hopefully an "A" ... it's not an "A" team trying to upgrade itself to an "A+++".

The salary cap really shouldn't be stopping this in a perfect world. If it was a points cap (completely separated from money), I think you'd find that the Rabbitohs could easily accommodate Inglis.

The Rabbitohs need to work within the rules, but I think it's fair to say the rules are pretty murky and COULD be viewed as being inconsistently applied.

I hope the whole mess gets worked out sooner rather than later. The squabbling between traditional enemy supporters is just boring.

 

[newyboy]

you're missing the point - sure they can just give GI the money, but i wonder what their potential return would be if GI left RL and became a ten pin bowls player or darts? GI's best return for them will be in RL and in their local business area. They have a business interest and want to maximise their return - they wont give the money away for free but the NRL are telling them to spend their money elsewhere...........Am I missing something here?

I think sponsors are missing the point, i would not buy something because Greg Inglis was endorsing it.

Sam Burgess on the other hand, i would by something he was associated with.

 

[bottle]

but the NRL are telling them to spend their money elsewhere...........Am I missing something here?

Yes, the fact that the NRL aren't telling them anything. The NRL aren't dealing with or talking to the sponsors at all. They're talking to Souths and Souths only. The tendency to keep blaming the NRL is misdirected. The rules exist, Souths are a party to the agreement, it's up to Souths to adhere to them. The NRL have indicated how this can be done, that is by including the relevant amount under the cap. This done, GI plays for Souths, the sponsors get their man, and all is rosy with the world. The ball is in the Souths' court, simply do the right thing and the game carries on. It is certainly not up to the sponsors to dictate to the game how it should manage it's salary cap.

 

[muzby]

Sam Burgess on the other hand, i would by something he was associated with.

even if he was promoting an album from TOFOG?

 

[big country]

I think Souths would happily part with a couple of players to secure Inglis.

Part of the problem is that Souths have paid overs for a lot of players in the past. This was a symptom of the fact that Souths were undeniably strugglers ... and that the salary cap wasn't really working for them for many, many years.

Even after privatisation, it was always going to take a while for such a club to become competitive - both on the field and in the player recruitment market.

If the goal is to distribute talent, then you'd think Souths is a fair place for a player like Inglis to go.

Comparing the 2010 Bunnies and Roosters ...

Wesser - Minnichello
Merritt - Perrett
Champion - Kenny-Dowall
Best - Linnett
Talanoa - Graham
Sutton - Carney
Sandow - Pearce
Asotasi - Ryles
Luke - Friend
Stuart - Waerea-Hargreaves
Burgess - Myles
Taylor - M Aubusson
B Lowe - Anasta

Geddes - Nu'uausala
McPherson - Kennedy
Crocker - Masoe
Clark - J Aubusson

With the exception of Luke and Burgess, I don't think many objective observers would rate Rabbitohs over Roosters in 2010.

Take out Best and put in Inglis ... does it dramatically alter the equation?

You could go through the same process with most other clubs and we see that the Bunnies aren't a Brisbane of old (and they will be again, don't worry, sooner rather than later with Hannant coming home and their rookies now blooded) or a Melbourne or even a Bulldogs.

This is a team trying to go from a "B" at best to hopefully an "A" ... it's not an "A" team trying to upgrade itself to an "A+++".

The salary cap really shouldn't be stopping this in a perfect world. If it was a points cap (completely separated from money), I think you'd find that the Rabbitohs could easily accommodate Inglis.

The Rabbitohs need to work within the rules, but I think it's fair to say the rules are pretty murky and COULD be viewed as being inconsistently applied.

I hope the whole mess gets worked out sooner rather than later. The squabbling between traditional enemy supporters is just boring.

i dont want to dig up old ground but I believe that had we had that full squad on deck for most of 2010 it would have been a potential premiership threat, but that didnt happen - roosters had most of their squad for 2010 and went on to the GF - we played that exact roosters squad and only lost due to a penalty.......long gone are the days where we pay overs for players

 

[The 18th Man]

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!

:lol: Good to know we have members posting on "GOOD AUTHORITY" once it's made known that bookies are offering a measily $1.06 for him to stay at Souths for 2011 and beyond that.

Welcome to yesterday.

 

[muzby]

i dont want to dig up old ground but I believe that had we had that full squad on deck for most of 2010 it would have been a potential premiership threat, but that didnt happen - roosters had most of their squad for 2010 and went on to the GF

you are claiming lack of depth hurt your side?

what will removing 3 players to include one do for your depth?

 

[Ike E Bear]

i dont want to dig up old ground but I believe that had we had that full squad on deck for most of 2010 it would have been a potential premiership threat, but that didnt happen - roosters had most of their squad for 2010 and went on to the GF - we played that exact roosters squad and only lost due to a penalty.......long gone are the days where we pay overs for players

Hey, I agree that the Bunnies were footsweeped by injury in 2010. No doubt about it.

I'm not talking about the team, though, but rather the individual players.

If you look at the Dragons, they are not a particularly awe-inspiring team of individuals. No salary cap is going to stop a well-coached and committed football side (not ruined by injury) from being better than those that aren't and nor should it.

But in terms of distributing talent, I'm saying that the Bunnies could do with another quality player or two, rather than being dragged back to the pack.

If they had to lose Luke to accommodate Inglis, that's just stupid. They'd plummet to near the bottom of the ladder without Luke regardless of Inglis.

Keep in mind a "fixed" Melbourne team still has Slater, Smith and Cronk in it.

A fair and reasonable Roosters team has Carney, Pearce and Anasta in it.

There's nothing wrong with a Broncos team with Lockyer, Hodges and Thaiday (plus they had Folau and Wallace .... and they were a "weakened" outfit in 2010) ... and Hannant's coming.

So what's so wrong with a Rabbitohs team with Luke, Inglis and Burgess?

Would that be unfairly "stacked" against a Tigers team with Marshall, Farah and Ellis?

As for paying overs ... I don't think those days are "long gone". I think they are "recently gone" and there's still a lingering hangover. While I expect Roy to come good in 2011, I don't think any other club would pick up the full value of his contract if the Bunnies did try to off-load him. Same with Crocker, only moreso. Best was on good money, but didn't really deliver on that value.

 

[gUt]

There once was a player called Greg
Who was caught with a boat in his shed
From the Storm he was punted
Then the Broncos he merkined
Now for pennies he is forced to beg

 

[Godz Illa]

i dont want to dig up old ground but I believe that had we had that full squad on deck for most of 2010 it would have been a potential premiership threat

:lol::lol::lol:
Every team thinks they are a potential premiership threat

long gone are the days where we pay overs for players

 

[RWB]

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.

It's based largely on the fact that AFL is an unrealistic option, few idiots will chuck money on it and that's all they're looking for imo.

 

[Eels Dude]

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.

No, they don't have to tell you. All they have to do is tell the club the reasons why and the club would have been made aware of the reasons in full whereas we've just just heard tidbits from an NRL statement and media speculation.

 

[RWB]

I think Souths would happily part with a couple of players to secure Inglis.

Part of the problem is that Souths have paid overs for a lot of players in the past. This was a symptom of the fact that Souths were undeniably strugglers ... and that the salary cap wasn't really working for them for many, many years.

Even after privatisation, it was always going to take a while for such a club to become competitive - both on the field and in the player recruitment market.

If the goal is to distribute talent, then you'd think Souths is a fair place for a player like Inglis to go.

Comparing the 2010 Bunnies and Roosters ...

Wesser - Minnichello
Merritt - Perrett
Champion - Kenny-Dowall
Best - Linnett
Talanoa - Graham
Sutton - Carney
Sandow - Pearce
Asotasi - Ryles
Luke - Friend
Stuart - Waerea-Hargreaves
Burgess - Myles
Taylor - M Aubusson
B Lowe - Anasta

Geddes - Nu'uausala
McPherson - Kennedy
Crocker - Masoe
Clark - J Aubusson

With the exception of Luke and Burgess, I don't think many objective observers would rate Rabbitohs over Roosters in 2010.

Take out Best and put in Inglis ... does it dramatically alter the equation?

You could go through the same process with most other clubs and we see that the Bunnies aren't a Brisbane of old (and they will be again, don't worry, sooner rather than later with Hannant coming home and their rookies now blooded) or a Melbourne or even a Bulldogs.

This is a team trying to go from a "B" at best to hopefully an "A" ... it's not an "A" team trying to upgrade itself to an "A+++".

The salary cap really shouldn't be stopping this in a perfect world. If it was a points cap (completely separated from money), I think you'd find that the Rabbitohs could easily accommodate Inglis.

The Rabbitohs need to work within the rules, but I think it's fair to say the rules are pretty murky and COULD be viewed as being inconsistently applied.

I hope the whole mess gets worked out sooner rather than later. The squabbling between traditional enemy supporters is just boring.

Got to be the worst way to compare teams. Reminds me of high school days or something.

We can do something in the big games which Souths can't... defend. Not to mention we actually have a decent set of halves.

Just search avg missed tackles and you'll see Souths have 2 in the top 5. That's HUGE, and they're full time players. Souths have too many liabilities right across the park. Defence wins you the big games... people should stop ignoring that.

On a side note the fact that Soward comes in as the Dragons worst at #105 is freakish, just shows why they were so hard to beat this year.

 

[RWB]

i dont want to dig up old ground but I believe that had we had that full squad on deck for most of 2010 it would have been a potential premiership threat, but that didnt happen - roosters had most of their squad for 2010 and went on to the GF - we played that exact roosters squad and only lost due to a penalty.......long gone are the days where we pay overs for players

Just forgot about Round 1 too?

 

[big country]

Got to be the worst way to compare teams. Reminds me of high school days or something.

We can do something in the big games which Souths can't... defend. Not to mention we actually have a decent set of halves.

Just search avg missed tackles and you'll see Souths have 2 in the top 5. That's HUGE, and they're full time players. Souths have too many liabilities right across the park. Defence wins you the big games... people should stop ignoring that.

On a side note the fact that Soward comes in as the Dragons worst at #105 is freakish, just shows why they were so hard to beat this year.

lol, yeah we saw what happened on GF day in regards to defence;-)

 

[RWB]

No, they don't have to tell you. All they have to do is tell the club the reasons why and the club would have been made aware of the reasons in full whereas we've just just heard tidbits from an NRL statement and media speculation.

Spot on, I'm waiting for more facts to come out before I go off too early about crap the NRL is administrated these days. Few people might have egg on their face as I believe there may have also been an issue with the back ending of the deal.

 

[RWB]

lol, yeah we saw what happened on GF day in regards to defence;-)

Did we not?

Dragons despite all our possession kept us to two tries in the first half. They were just in another league to the rest of the comp this year.

How does the saying go? A champion team not a team of champions... could you use a better analysis of Dragons to Souths?

 

[big country]

"We can do something in the big games which Souths can't... defend. Not to mention we actually have a decent set of halves."

that's got to go down in history a one of the best quotes i've ever heard (32-8):lol:

 

[Goddo]

Who cares? Let inglis play there.

The Rabbitohs are cursed anyway. If they get Inglis he will probably snap his leg round 1.