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

[cleary89]

If they give him 1m a year, plus any 3rd party deals he gets on top of that, they'd be incredibly dumb. He'd be making towards double the next highest paid player in the entire NRL, no player is worth that much, even GI. If they give him that much they won't be winning anything when they could wait a year and get at least 2 off contract stars for that money.

If he could get that much from a rival I'd say good luck to him and have no problem with him leaving.

Why? They are 1m under this year, they can't buy anyone else. Get him for 1 year for 1m.

Why wont they win? Their current team, plus him for the year. They could also wait a year, and get 2 stars next year with the money.

 

[Evenflow]

Storm situation is completely irrelevant. They won't keep him out of spite and be unable to compete for points for another year. Whatever happens with us they have to drop him or they will be in far worse crap than we'll ever be.

Geez you're a clueless deadsh*t on pretty much every level imaginable. IF the LOL@Souffs deal falls through do you honestly think that Inglis will stay with the Storm? Why the f**k would he want to stay with a club who clearly doesn't want a bar of him and chasing him for over $100k in leagl fees, not to mention a club he doesn't want to be with?

You seem to think that if the deal with LOL@Souffs don't go through he doesn't have any other option and will be a fait accompli he ends up at the Storm when the reality is given the bad blood between the two parties there's next to f**k all chance of that happening. There's as much chance of that as him going back to the Bronco's you numpty. None :lol:

If he doesn't play with LOL@Souffs he'll either go to the one or two other teams in the NRL that can afford him or it'll be au revoir to Greggy boy after he ships his arse off to France.

 

[BunniesMan]

So then we'd have to rename this thread: "Greg Inglis headed to South Sydney - players to be shed."

Or perhaps - "South Sydney have already sold out there soul to an NZ actor's consortium and will do anything to win a premiership so as to appease their glorious leader's ego".

How about the Storm, they could have dropped 2 of their big 4 and they wouldn't have had to drop any role players, but instead they insisted on keeping 3 so multiple other players got to go. And you know if we do sack a player making 100k and he cant find that kind of money anywhere else we have to makeup the difference, so it's not as if someone would have to go penniless.

And you're criticising our owner because he wants us to win a premiership? Isn't that why every team is in the comp?

 

[BunniesMan]

Geez you're a clueless deadsh*t on pretty much every level imaginable. IF the LOL@Souffs deal falls through do you honestly think that Inglis will stay with the Storm? Why the f**k would he want to stay with a club who clearly doesn't want a bar of him and chasing him for over $100k in leagl fees, not to mention a club he doesn't want to be with?

You seem to think that if the deal with LOL@Souffs don't go through he doesn't have any other option and will be a fait accompli he ends up at the Storm when the reality is given the bad blood between the two parties there's next to f**k all chance of that happening. There's as much chance of that as him going back to the Bronco's you numpty. None :lol:

If he doesn't play with LOL@Souffs he'll either go to the one or two other teams in the NRL that can afford him or it'll be au revoir to Greggy boy after he ships his arse off to France.

WTF are you on? I made every single one of the points in Bold. How about you reread what I wrote. I pretty much said exactly what you're saying. Someone else brought up him staying at the Storm and I said it won't happen.

 

[BunniesMan]

Why? They are 1m under this year, they can't buy anyone else. Get him for 1 year for 1m.

Why wont they win? Their current team, plus him for the year. They could also wait a year, and get 2 stars next year with the money.

A 3 year 1.8 million dollar deal is better than 1 year for 1m. I doubt he'd accept that, every footy player can be one blow away from a career ending injury, stars in their prime don't take 1 year deals.

 

[cleary89]

A 3 year .9m guaranteed plus .9m prob isn't better than 1m for 1 year, especially when he can go to French rugby or even souths if he loves them so much after they shed some players and he can get under the cap.

He's hardly in his prime either.

 

[BunniesMan]

A 3 year .9m guaranteed plus .9m prob isn't better than 1m for 1 year, especially when he can go to French rugby or even souths if he loves them so much after they shed some players and he can get under the cap.

He's hardly in his prime either.

You're not being logical. Years and the overall value of the contract are more important than a one off payment. Inglis (or any player) could be in a freak accident game 1 of next year and never play another game, they play a dangerous sport, of course they're going to get the maximum amount of money they can.

 

[Evenflow]

WTF are you on? I made every single one of the points in Bold. How about you reread what I wrote. I pretty much said exactly what you're saying. Someone else brought up him staying at the Storm and I said it won't happen.

My point being ou're trying to make out if the LOL@Souffs deal falls through that the Storm will be stuck with him and will be f**ked when it just won't happen. Once again, IF the LOL@Souffs deal falls through there is f**k all chance of him ending up at the Storm so it's absolutely pointless (just as 99% of the drivel you spout) to bring up possible scenarios of what it would do to the Storm if they were stuck with him. My point again is why even bring up that possibility when it's not going to happen? Geddit now numpty?

 

[cleary89]

You're not being logical. Years and the overall value of the contract are more important than a one off payment. Inglis (or any player) could be in a freak accident game 1 of next year and never play another game, they play a dangerous sport, of course they're going to get the maximum amount of money they can.

So you're saying if Parra offered him 2m over 5 years he would take that, becauses he's getting more money?

He's only guaranteed 900k with you guys over 3 years, hardly the maximum he can get.

Any one smart would take 1m for 1 year over 1.8 for 3.

 

[BunniesMan]

I'm not saying they can't in the sense that they are physically unable to do that. But imagine how Cam Smith and Slater and Cronk would take it to waste another year of their prime because of their team's stubborness. I can't imagine the Storm fans being happy to play another meaningless season for no good reason.

I can't imagine the team dynamic as a whole would be solid when the Storm squad has to release multiple solid role players on decent money who want to be there and replace them with minimum guys just to keep one player who clearly doesn't want to be there and who they are currently in a bitter legal issue with.

So is it possible? Yes, but it's possible for a plane to crash into my house and kill me before I finish typing this sentence, but I'm also very very very confident that won't happen.

There are just too many negatives for the Storm in following this path for it to be a possibility worth talking about. Regardless of what happens with Souths and Inglis, best or worst case scenario, every reasonable sign points to Inglis not being with the Storm in 2011.

My point being ou're trying to make out if the LOL@Souffs deal falls through that the Storm will be stuck with him and will be f**ked when it just won't happen. Once again, IF the LOL@Souffs deal falls through there is f**k all chance of him ending up at the Storm so it's absolutely pointless (just as 99% of the drivel you spout) to bring up possible scenarios of what it would do to the Storm if they were stuck with him. My point again is why even bring up that possibility when it's not going to happen? Geddit now numpty?

I beg to differ. I refer you to the bolded section of my post. I've been saying all along regardless of what happens with us, Inglis is very very very unlikely to be with the Storm for a number of different reasons. It's all a misunderstanding mate, you and I are actually in agreement. And see how I can reply to you without unnecessarily abusing you? Try doing the same, you'll feel better.

 

[mrpwnd]

1mill over 1 year > 900k over 3 years.
Not that anyone would bother paying a fat, useless wanderer that much anyway.

 

[Ziggy the God]

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

How can the Broncos have NRMA as a 3rd party when they are the major sponsor?

 

[Lossy]

How can the Broncos have NRMA as a 3rd party when they are the major sponsor?

Some count to the Broncos cap (NRMA) some don't (FOGS).

 

[Ziggy the God]

Some count to the Broncos cap (NRMA) some don't (FOGS).

Roy says:
However, while the Brisbane third-party deals were at arm's length from the club, the NRL believes Inglis's Rabbitohs sponsorships have been effectively guaranteed by Souths.

Broncos
Audi
Marquee Player Allowance
NRMA
Channel 9
FOGs


So NRMA, Channel 9 and FOGS have nothing to do with the Broncos? :lol:

I am not having a dig at them, they have structured the deal, we have done something similar and are being raked over the coals.

Come on Schubert, grow some balls you stupid merkin and make a call. Ban Inglis now so we can get on with showing up your bias you stupid cuarnt.

 

[Lossy]

Roy says:
However, while the Brisbane third-party deals were at arm's length from the club, the NRL believes Inglis's Rabbitohs sponsorships have been effectively guaranteed by Souths.

Broncos
Audi
Marquee Player Allowance
NRMA
Channel 9
FOGs


So NRMA, Channel 9 and FOGS have nothing to do with the Broncos? :lol:

I figured NRMA would be under the cap. Happy to be wrong.

From the NRL website

The top 10 players are allowed to earn up to a maximum extra $50,000 each from sponsorship leveraging but the total payments under these sponsorship leveraging agreements must not exceed $150,000 per club.

NRMA, Channel 9, and AUDI could come under that. How much are the sponsorships worth? What is the structure? Will Lockyer's AUDI come under the club's the 3 car allowance next year? Does Channel 9 operate as a separate entity to their sponsor, Channel 9 News? Are there any services rendered for this sponsorship which alter the arrangement?

FOGS have stated that their support is not Broncos specific. Whether people choose to believe that is another thing.

Lots of ways to slice it in any business, Ziggy. You know that. A tradesman keeping a cash job off the books. A manager putting a family dinner down as client expenses. Passing petrol vouchers to staff in lieu of a raise. Giving people who don't need it company phones.

Better believe that all clubs use the rules to the limit, and not a foot within it.

 

[Ziggy the God]

I am not arguing that rules are bent, but all I know is that these 3rd parties are too subjective, and they either need to be tightened or jettisoned.

Currently, to prove that they are at arms length is a joke, and if there are going to be probes on this front on my club, then it should happen on a wider scale.

 

[Lossy]

Currently, to prove that they are at arms length is a joke, and if there are going to be probes on this front on my club, then it should happen on a wider scale.

All Schubert can do is make a call based on what a club puts in front of him unless someone narcs.

More 'fans' - love the use of that in the article - need to email or write letters to Schubert then. Such deals seem to get a second look pronto as a result.

 

[Spot On]

Sorry to be ignorant here, but if Souths want Gregory that bad, and the deal needs to be transparent to all, can't they just offload a couple of players and pay him their salary. This really should not be this complex. Don't care about third party deals - not sure anyone here understands them anyway - this situation provides further evidence that the cap needs a complete overhaul beginning with simplicity, transparency and common sense as its starting point. A side bit - Gregory should pay for HIS legal costs. No-one else.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

How about the Storm, they could have dropped 2 of their big 4 and they wouldn't have had to drop any role players, but instead they insisted on keeping 3 so multiple other players got to go.

This is no longer about the storm.

And you're criticising our owner because he wants us to win a premiership? Isn't that why every team is in the comp?

I question the reasons why he wants to win a premiership - not for the glory of South Sydney but for the glory of himself. Sir Russ could have played the white knight and helped out souths financially in a quiet manner but he went the showboat route instead.

 

[Nemesis]

This is no longer about the storm.

I question the reasons why he wants to win a premiership - not for the glory of South Sydney but for the glory of himself. Sir Russ could have played the white knight and helped out souths financially in a quiet manner but he went the showboat route instead.

You must be a Telucrap journalist spinning that sh*t. Crowe was helping out Souths financially for years before he took a controlling interest in the management of the club. But it reached a point where he was asked to tip in more dosh and he said yes but only if he had control of the club's management, which was clearly incompetent.... much like yourself.