King Sonny Bill may return to the NRL... Which club should he join?

[mave]

Look, Manly lost G. Stewart, and Parra couldn't sign I.Folau under the market value made up rule. Tigers got screwed as well, from memory.

Now the made up rule is being re-made up so the Roosters can sign SBW.

Seems legit, and its great to see clubs treated with consistency.

 

[aqua_duck]

ha

Wasn't even referring to you mate but if you see yourself as not being sensible who am I to dispute that.

 

[Quicksilver]

Wasn't even referring to you mate but if you see yourself as not being sensible who am I to dispute that.

I know you weren’t.

But the other bloke has been engaging with you in a reasonable and fair manner.

I don’t think statements like yours help move the discussion forward.

 

[aqua_duck]

Look, Manly lost G. Stewart, and Parra couldn't sign I.Folau under the market value made up rule. Tigers got screwed as well, from memory.

Now the made up rule is being re-made up so the Roosters can sign SBW.

Seems legit, and its great to see clubs treated with consistency.

Not sure what Glenn Stewart has to do with this but the Folau situation was completely different, Folau was necessarily taking a pay cut but they tried to structure the deal in a way that meant he was paid about 90% of his salary in the 2nd year of the contract.

 

[aqua_duck]

I know you weren’t.

But the other bloke has been engaging with you in a reasonable and fair manner.

I don’t think statements like yours help move the discussion forward.

Let's just agree to disagree

 

[mave]

Not sure what Glenn Stewart has to do with this but the Folau situation was completely different, Folau was necessarily taking a pay cut but they tried to structure the deal in a way that meant he was paid about 90% of his salary in the 2nd year of the contract.

Stewart was the first, to my knowledge, to have this made-up market value rule imposed on his contract negotiations.

So if Folau was going to have 90% of his deal in year 2, and the NRL knocked it back for that reason, why are some clubs able to have rules bent to suit, whilst others are not.

 

[Game_Breaker]

You are.

You are literally arguing that there are some clubs that would be willing to pay more thus his market value should be more than what the roosters are paying him.

It is pretty clear at this stage that you don't really care what the valuation is as long as it is more than the roosters have in the cap.

No, I’m saying the NRL valuation is too low

 

[Game_Breaker]

You used the words "side step", and implied it was illegal. Hence next time you decide to correct my literacy and comprehension skills I suggest you have your own in order first.

Oh and what was I saying? I think you are demonstrating it

Yes, sidestep because it’s been ignored multiple times by posters on here after I bring it up
Next time use a dictionary if you don’t know what words mean

 

[Captain Apollo]

Yes, sidestep because it’s been ignored multiple times by posters on here after I bring it up
Next time use a dictionary if you don’t know what words mean

Yeah, ok whatever chump. My late Mother always told me to never argue with idiots. I should have followed that advice.

 

[Game_Breaker]

Yeah, ok whatever chump. My late Mother always told me to never argue with idiots. I should have followed that advice.

Buddy, don’t pretend you’re on a high horse then call me names because your “dispensation” argument turned out to be rubbish

 

[aqua_duck]

Stewart was the first, to my knowledge, to have this made-up market value rule imposed on his contract negotiations.

So if Folau was going to have 90% of his deal in year 2, and the NRL knocked it back for that reason, why are some clubs able to have rules bent to suit, whilst others are not.

I've read over a dozen articles regarding Glenn Stewart and not one of them has mentioned market value being applied, happy to be proven wrong if you can find a source. With Folau the situation is completely different, SBW is agreeing to the monetary value of the contract, eels were going to structure a deal which would've given them a massive advantage in year 1, by the way the NRL never said they couldn't sign Folau but rather he had to be recorded against the cap for at least $400k which I'd argue was way under market value for a 23 year old Israel Folau.
If the roosters or storm had tried to sign Folau using the same backloading tactic the eels tried everyone would've been applauding the NRL

 

[BadnMean]

It's a weird year. I've got no problem with the signing in that context- Raiders were allowed to bring Rapana back from Japanese union since covid meant there was no comp on over there.

The issue is going to be now that V'landys is making exceptions left right & centre for SBW & teenage kids like Suuali- how is he going to put the genie back in the bottle?

If he intends to be a long term CEO, how will he ever maintain or call for consistency when all the rules are up for grabs? Almost as if he doesn't intend to be a long term NRL CEO.

 

[aqua_duck]

It's a weird year. I've got no problem with the signing in that context- Raiders were allowed to bring Rapana back from Japanese union since covid meant there was no comp on over there.

The issue is going to be now that V'landys is making exceptions left right & centre for SBW & teenage kids like Suuali- how is he going to put the genie back in the bottle?

If he intends to be a long term CEO, how will he ever maintain or call for consistency when all the rules are up for grabs? Almost as if he doesn't intend to be a long term NRL CEO.

Well he's not actually the CEO.....
Has he actually made a decision regarding Suualii?
I personally don't think they should give Suualii an exemption as it's not just about semantics but player welfare, the SBW exemption is a technicality that you can cite the unprecdented current situation as a reason why an exemption was given but the Suualii situation has nothing to do with the current circumstances

 

[unforgiven]

My mistake, the valuation should’ve been even higher than that, from your article:

There would be at least half a dozen clubs saying if we are going to pro-rata it to just the final four games, we could have valued him and paid him $200 or $250k for those final four games. There are clubs that have still got that much still left in their cap.

That is pure speculation though, as was the $400k reported valuation.

 

[unforgiven]

What new nonsense have you come up with now?

His current contract for the same sport which is still valid should not be ignored just because it’s inconvenient for you.

It tell us exactly how much he’s valued at in a similar market
DCE, RTS or Tedesco wouldn’t be able to command that money if they tested the market, that tells us something.

Do you even know what you’re arguing for anymore?




Who said anything about maximum?
Your strawman are getting worse

It is not a similar market though because his contract in the Super League wasn't subject to a Salary Cap, you can not compare the two.

 

[unforgiven]

No, that isn’t my logic at all. But there should be a process and a review period with pre-warning so that everyone can adjust and compete on an even footing. I’m not a fan of the Ad hoc in this regard.

Rugby League has always been Ad hoc with its rules, that is how we evolved and why we are not sitting here discussing Rugby Union.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Buddy, don’t pretend you’re on a high horse then call me names because your “dispensation” argument turned out to be rubbish

 

[Game_Breaker]

It is not a similar market though because his contract in the Super League wasn't subject to a Salary Cap, you can not compare the two.

It’s the same sport and his contract is indicative of how much overseas clubs value him
The NRL is willing to break their own rules to bring him here

Who’s the highest paid player in the NRL today? DCE, Tedesco, RTS?

None will command the same rate in that market, so that’s why we shouldn’t just ignore his current contract.

That is pure speculation though, as was the $400k reported valuation.

His current contract makes it well informed speculation

 

[Quicksilver]

Rugby League has always been Ad hoc with its rules, that is how we evolved and why we are not sitting here discussing Rugby Union.

well in that case let’s just send out two teams of 13 players without rules. Or 11 players, or 6 players, or 3 teams...

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to at least do most things over the off-season and with reasonable warning to parties about what the rules are going to be.

It’s just good governance.

There were a few things that needed to be done on the fly this year due to covid. This really wasn’t one of them though.

 

[Quicksilver]

It is not a similar market though because his contract in the Super League wasn't subject to a Salary Cap, you can not compare the two.

it is relevant though because he’s being paid 5x the amount of the top tier players in this comp. (the best comp in the world no less)

That unquestionably puts him in the top tier.

You don’t go paying a nuffy 5 x the rate of the best player(s) in the game.

you can argue that he wouldn’t get 5 million here, that is fair. However it’s not reasonable to say that he wouldn’t be in the top tier of players if he was offered at auction on the open market.