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

[gallagher]

Gee what a credible source Roy Masters is basing his article on. A random fan... that's stooping to new lows.

Its Schubert's probe that is based on the email from the fan not Masters article.

For a wanker like you that tries to prove a point by saying 'look at the stats' then cant provide the stats, its a bit rich having a dig at a respected journalist dont you think?

 

[RWB]

Which raises the question why didn't the Broncos deals follow Inglis to Redfern?

Journos ask questions like that and a whole heap of premierships from almost every single club would be stripped since the caps inception.

If they're Brisbane based businesses then fair enough, it's more than an adequate reason. It can never be proven as fact unless you've got some hard evidence you're hiding?? Journos asking questions wont do sh*t...

Although I tend to agree with what you're alluding to.

edit: never mind just realised you were quoting an article.

 

[boxhead]

If the NRL was happy to accept the third party deals he had with the Broncos that didn't follow him to Souths, then they should accept ours, if they don't all of a sudden we see where the talk came from about Souths taking the NRL to court.

Probably because Brisbane's deal would have fit under the cap ;-)

If the article is true in saying that they will reject the offer if significantly less than $300K is valued on the cap, then the article later stating he will only be on $190K under the cap seems to signify the NRL will block the deal??
Of course, that's if this article is correct.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I think judging by NSW woes we really need to do everything to retain stars in the game.

I have no issue with 3rd party agreements. Short career - let the players cash up. They ruin their bodies for our pleasure.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-gets-tough-on-inglis-deal-20101203-18jsx.html

Did I read this article correctly - it was a souths fan that contacted the NRL concerned with the deal? I'll put my house on it that it wasn't bunniesfool.

The validity of some of old Roy's articles is a bit sketchy these days seeing he writes and investigates them from the comfort of his Melbourne loungeroom.

 

[siv]

Gee what pulling power of articles to do with RL and Souths

122 pages so far in this thread - so far

What the whole episode does say is that the nRL definition of what is a 3rd Party deal needs to be improved

Interpetation of what is and what is not a 3rd Party payments - is a major blight on the game i nAustralia - where a company could pay $2 mil for a player to work for them - but then there is NOTHING to stop the NRL deeming it to be inside the Salary Cap. Using $ rather than points as a basis for Salary Cap, while ok in concept has proven unworkable because of 3rd Party agreements in practice

Players should be encouraged - not discouraged from working or finding employment opportunities outside of their day to day football lives. Either modelling like or working in real estate etc

NRL needs to understand that ALL players basically retire at age 30 - and need to be using the period between 20-30 to ALSO prepare for that - rather than trying to start from scratch at age 35 and failing as so many others have done in the past. EVEN if it means they need to use the RL ability to get a foot in the door in a casual or part time job role that is highly paid.

I suggest they we put a factor in such as the 3rd Party deal must have a "timesheet" where the employer must signoff that hours have been worked. Or advertising audit presented (when endorsing products). Eg set something like a 20hr timesheet per month per sponsor minimum limit and 4 ads per month minimum limit. The player manager then submits this to the FC as evidence on a monthly basis on the 1st of the month (might as well earn their 10% !!)

I think club jersey / logo should not impact the above guideline - as displaying RL coulours is a way of free RL advertising in return

If a player does "nothing" or does not meet the above minimum criteria to gain their 3rd Party arrangement then I am happy for the NRL to declare it as "club sponsorship"

 

[DC_fan]

If the NRL was happy to accept the third party deals he had with the Broncos that didn't follow him to Souths, then they should accept ours, if they don't all of a sudden we see where the talk came from about Souths taking the NRL to court.

Had it got to the stage where the NRL saw any of the details concerning the Inglis/Broncos deal?

 

[adamkungl]

Wait...so you can use third party deals to help sign a player....but you can't guarantee the third party deals because then they come under the salary cap? What a mess.

 

[BunniesMan]

Probably because Brisbane's deal would have fit under the cap ;-)

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with their cap, but the third party payments he managed to get while it looked like he'd play for them.

As for them fitting under the cap, you know they have Lockyer under the cap for $250k? The rest is "3rd" party payments.

If the article is true in saying that they will reject the offer if significantly less than $300K is valued on the cap, then the article later stating he will only be on $190K under the cap seems to signify the NRL will block the deal??
Of course, that's if this article is correct.

The last number I read is he'd be under the cap for $220k in his first year.

As for if this is true and if they block the deal. We would take them to court, Inglis would be a temporary Rabbitohs player while the case happened, we would then win the case and embarass the joke that the NRL has become. And prove that yet again, for the 2nd time in 10 years, they've treated certain clubs unfairly and favoured other clubs.

Why do I think we'd win? Because a decade ago we won a much tougher and much harder to win case against these same people (NRL and News ltd) and I'm confident that Souths, and Nick Pappas especially, would only take them to court if they felt it was a case they were going to win.

Had it got to the stage where the NRL saw any of the details concerning the Inglis/Broncos deal?

Irrelevant. The fact that he hasn't got the same 3rd party deals with us that he had with them, proves those 3rd party deals with Brisbane were illegitimate (the exact same thing we are being accused of). If the NRL was fair they'd investigate that and reprimand the Broncos appropriately because they clearly breached the rules.

Wait...so you can use third party deals to help sign a player....but you can't guarantee the third party deals because then they come under the salary cap? What a mess.

It is a mess. I think it's ridiculous that there are so many restrictions and limits to what a player can earn outside of his club. The NRL, if they knew what they were doing, should be supporting that instead of putting as many obstacles as they can in the way.

Players should be able to make as much money as they can from 3rd parties, it would help them with their transition to their post playing careers. Too many face hardship because they spent their teens and 20s (when the rest of us are getting skills and experience) in an insular world with few skills that translate to other fields.

 

[Big Pete]

Depends on what Souths are trying to count as third party deals.

The Broncos had...

Audi
Marquee Player Allowance
NRMA
Channel 9
FOGs

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...-with-580000-moneygoround-20100810-11y5y.html

 

[Smiley]

Irrelevant. The fact that he hasn't got the same 3rd party deals with us that he had with them, proves those 3rd party deals with Brisbane were illegitimate (the exact same thing we are being accused of). If the NRL was fair they'd investigate that and reprimand the Broncos appropriately because they clearly breached the rules.

Why would Brisbane companies want to continue to sponsor Inglis if he's playing in Sydney?

Maybe some 3rd party saw what Inglis did and decided it would be better if their company weren't associated with him.

I thought that any deals that Greg obtains through the help of Souths (mining guy in WA) must be included under their cap but if his manager gets out there and organises deals on the behalf of Greg then they don't get included in the cap.

 

[stormbati]

Wait...so you can use third party deals to help sign a player....but you can't guarantee the third party deals because then they come under the salary cap? What a mess.

Yep, I think this is why Gasnier left, why the Storm were so much over the cap.
Players can get screwed big time here.

 

[BunniesMan]

Why would Brisbane companies want to continue to sponsor Inglis if he's playing in Sydney?

Maybe some 3rd party saw what Inglis did and decided it would be better if their company weren't associated with him.

I thought that any deals that Greg obtains through the help of Souths (mining guy in WA) must be included under their cap but if his manager gets out there and organises deals on the behalf of Greg then they don't get included in the cap.

Veteran player manager Wayne Beavis has taken over negotiations on behalf of Inglis while his regular agent, Allan Gainey, is on leave.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-gets-tough-on-inglis-deal-20101203-18jsx.html

So now he's negotiated those deals with a completely different agent from the one who negotiated with Souths. Which makes the link between Souths and the 3rd party deals even fainter.

And this from the same link:

One of Inglis's projected third-party sponsors is $50,000 from ANZ Stadium, venue of Souths' home games: Crowe recently narrated a Ben Hur spectacular for ANZ Stadium: ANZ Stadium is managed by a company owned by AFL chairman, Mike Fitzpatrick; AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou announced recently his code would not be pursuing Inglis if his deal with Souths collapsed.

WTF are they trying to say here? Somehow a deal he has with ANZ stadium is dodgy? A deal he has with an entity managed by an AFL stooge? So the bloody manager of a place that has a deal with Inglis couldn't get Inglis to his own code. But somehow because Crowe narrated a sh*thouse play there then thats obviously a sign they are corrupt for us.

And here's another link to an article that breaks the contract down and compares Inglis's deal to the deal Lockyer and Gasnier got.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...000-with-thirdparty-deals-20101125-1894n.html

Inglis will play for Souths in 2011. Either they approve it as they should or we take them to court and beat them in a court of law yet again.

 

[RWB]

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-gets-tough-on-inglis-deal-20101203-18jsx.html

So now he's negotiated those deals with a completely different agent from the one who negotiated with Souths. Which makes the link between Souths and the 3rd party deals even fainter.

:lol::lol::lol:

Biggest laugh in this thread, honestly you're the one of the daftest people on here.

 

[Talons]

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with their cap, but the third party payments he managed to get while it looked like he'd play for them.

As for them fitting under the cap, you know they have Lockyer under the cap for $250k? The rest is "3rd" party payments.


The last number I read is he'd be under the cap for $220k in his first year.

As for if this is true and if they block the deal. We would take them to court, Inglis would be a temporary Rabbitohs player while the case happened, we would then win the case and embarass the joke that the NRL has become. And prove that yet again, for the 2nd time in 10 years, they've treated certain clubs unfairly and favoured other clubs.

Why do I think we'd win? Because a decade ago we won a much tougher and much harder to win case against these same people (NRL and News ltd) and I'm confident that Souths, and Nick Pappas especially, would only take them to court if they felt it was a case they were going to win.


Irrelevant. The fact that he hasn't got the same 3rd party deals with us that he had with them, proves those 3rd party deals with Brisbane were illegitimate (the exact same thing we are being accused of). If the NRL was fair they'd investigate that and reprimand the Broncos appropriately because they clearly breached the rules.

It is a mess. I think it's ridiculous that there are so many restrictions and limits to what a player can earn outside of his club. The NRL, if they knew what they were doing, should be supporting that instead of putting as many obstacles as they can in the way.

Players should be able to make as much money as they can from 3rd parties, it would help them with their transition to their post playing careers. Too many face hardship because they spent their teens and 20s (when the rest of us are getting skills and experience) in an insular world with few skills that translate to other fields.

I have not idea of the legalities involved but would imagine that GI would not be a temporary Rabbitoh's player until the NRL officially ratified his contract.

 

[BunniesMan]

I have not idea of the legalities involved but would imagine that GI would not be a temporary Rabbitoh's player until the NRL officially ratified his contract.

While it's disputed in court he would have to be allowed to play. You can't keep an employer from working while his or her status is being argued in a court of law. If Souths lost he would be lost to the club and anything we won with him would be deleted from history, like the Storm plus the fines and things. And that's another reason I think Souths' case is so strong if the NRL blocks this, the consequences of losing this case would potentially be severe, and they would not pursue it if it wasn't a very winnable case.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I have not idea of the legalities involved but would imagine that GI would not be a temporary Rabbitoh's player until the NRL officially ratified his contract.

Battle of injunctions. Equity would decide that one - strongly influenced by the prima facie likely decision in the main case.

But yeah - often the players end up sidelined.

 

[badav]

Irrelevant. The fact that he hasn't got the same 3rd party deals with us that he had with them, proves those 3rd party deals with Brisbane were illegitimate (the exact same thing we are being accused of). If the NRL was fair they'd investigate that and reprimand the Broncos appropriately because they clearly breached the rules.

So your really dumb enough to believe that all his sponsors are going to follow him no matter where he goes after he unilaterally failed to uphold a deal with no reasonable explanation provided in legible english?

Take FOGS as your first example. The f**k would they sponsor him if he's playing for South Sydney. They made it clear it was a sponsorship offer open if he was playing for the Bronco's or Titan's.

The only thing it proves is that your an idiot.

 

[Mickyd39]

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-gets-tough-on-inglis-deal-20101203-18jsx.html

So now he's negotiated those deals with a completely different agent from the one who negotiated with Souths. Which makes the link between Souths and the 3rd party deals even fainter.

And this from the same link:



WTF are they trying to say here? Somehow a deal he has with ANZ stadium is dodgy? A deal he has with an entity managed by an AFL stooge? So the bloody manager of a place that has a deal with Inglis couldn't get Inglis to his own code. But somehow because Crowe narrated a sh*thouse play there then thats obviously a sign they are corrupt for us.

And here's another link to an article that breaks the contract down and compares Inglis's deal to the deal Lockyer and Gasnier got.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...000-with-thirdparty-deals-20101125-1894n.html

Inglis will play for Souths in 2011. Either they approve it as they should or we take them to court and beat them in a court of law yet again.

How do you know that souffs will take the NRL to court if the deal gets knocked back?

If souffs do take the NRL to court maybe more shady souffs( cough, Burgess, cough) deals will be revealed.

 

[El Diablo]

Inglis will play for Souths in 2011. Either they approve it as they should or we take them to court and beat them in a court of law yet again.

you lost last time you went to court http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588433703.html