Kingston's offer to pay to play

[Haynzy]

The NBA uses a salary cap but allow teams to go over the cap as long as they pay what they call a luxury tax (which is dollar for dollar of the amount over the cap). This tax is then distributed among the other teams in the league

hmmmmmmm I like the sound of that.

 

[84 Baby]

With the NBA system, our tax would realistically been imposed in these types of situations. You sign a no name for a year on match payments, that player does fantastic (a la Kingston), you want to sign him again - under the current system you couldn't (that helps even out the talent distribution but screws players like Kingston for having good years), but under the NBA, if you're willing to pay, in this case, an extra half of his value then you can sign him

 

[KaboobieGarfunkelShazam]

Actually I think the cap needs to be increased as well as bringing up the minimum salary for first graders.
You can't have one without the other.

It is completely ridiculous to expect the best players in the game to take 'unders' to play the game - guys like Hayne or Thurston could easily make 600k per year playing other codes, or in England.

The fact of the matter is that we've had more people through the turnstiles this year than EVER before, and clubs are actually all looking to sign up members now (good thing about the pokie tax I guess?) - revenue ought to be on the increase locally, and the NRL grants are sure to rise with the next TV deal.

A $5 million salary cap next season could easily be afforded by clubs ($3.25 million grant from the NRL - if the bears can drum up $1million in sponsorship per season, then surely clubs can too? That leaves ticket sales/ merchandise/ leagues club grants/ memberships etc).

Certain provisions and penalties then need to be put in place to allow clubs to exceed the cap under the right circumstances (to retain long serving players, or to sign new players at the minimum contract).

I've suggested all these things to the NRL before (in a proper document) - but they're just not interested...

It's a bit stupid when the players who make the game great don't seem to get fair recompense!

And IMO minimum salary should be $75k - it's far and away a popular enough sport for that!!!

Good to see someone thinking, and being proactive about it.

 

[parralysed]

i hav always rated kingston since his first game for the eels really hope he stays

 

[hineyrulz]

Amazing gesture by Kinga and Guru, gee i love this club

 

[yy_cheng]

hmmmmmmm I like the sound of that.

But that could phase out the poorer clubs as say souths could offer overs to anyone through Crowe.

It still might not work for Kingston as from a business perspective, you need to pay $100K to kingston. $50k in tax.

But if I need to pay $100K for Kingston, I might as well try my luck on having Mitchell, KK or even Humble play hooker instead.

 

[ElectricEel]

WOW!!:shock::shock::shock:

 

[84 Baby]

But that could phase out the poorer clubs as say souths could offer overs to anyone through Crowe.

It still might not work for Kingston as from a business perspective, you need to pay $100K to kingston. $50k in tax.

But if I need to pay $100K for Kingston, I might as well try my luck on having Mitchell, KK or even Humble play hooker instead.

What if you didn't have a Mitchell or Humble? What if Kingston wins the Churchill medal?

It'll work better after a few years. Like next year for us, we have a lot of players that Ando doesn't really want taking up a significant portion of the cap, but still wants Kingston, Lowrie & Robson, so he signs them up for next year, goes over the cap, pays the tax on the excess then can reorganise salaries post 2010 and he's kept those 3 players in the squad.

Obviously some teams can come in with bigger chequebooks, but rugby league isn't as profitable as the NBA so teams will still be constricted as to how much they can. You can't spend what you don't have. Poorer clubs will be still as likely to fold as they are now, only stupid teams will be phased out.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

can't each player give up $2k for him. It's only $1k after tax.

wonder what $2 million man thinks about this

I know everyone is having a whoop-do over this comment but I think it is fair enough.

HaHa signed a massive upgrade last time and proceeded to dish up sh*t in return. Thus, he was taking money he wasn't earning. In order to deal with such contracts (and let's include the likes of Inu in this group) we've had to do things like back-end Cayless' contract for next year.

This back-ending has led to what? Less money for the likes of Kinga, Robbo and Lowrie.

So HaHa is willing to take money for nothing but not willing to give a little in return when he can now afford it, especially to put food on the table for legends such as Kinga, Robbo and Lowrie who are busting their arses just as much as he is.

Oh, what's that? Not only did HaHa take an upgrade and proceed to produce very little, but now after about a dozen decent games he is willing to take another massive upgrade over a longer term? So, what, we're gonna be going through the same thing from 2011 onwards?

Ad before anyone wanks on about this - I've said this exact same thing WEEKS ago to the likes of Suity and mickdo at the LC. It's an attitude I've held for a while now and not just relating to HaHa, but also the likes of Inu, whilst the likes of Burt and Kinga take paycuts and the likes of Robbo are willing to sign on for small amounts just because they love the Club.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I serioulsy don't get why 2009 match payments count for our 2010 salary cap. Sounds like the way provisional tax works.

It's because you can't judge how much you will have to pay in match payments. If they were counted in this year's cap and we had a couple of injuries that forced those outside the top 17 to play a lot more than expected, we might end up over the cap without having done anything wrong. We'd still cop a fine for it.

So, they chuck it to next year and give us some time to jig things around a little in order to remain under next year's cap.

 

[ElectricEel]

I know everyone is having a whoop-do over this comment but I think it is fair enough.

HaHa signed a massive upgrade last time and proceeded to dish up sh*t in return. Thus, he was taking money he wasn't earning. In order to deal with such contracts (and let's include the likes of Inu in this group) we've had to do things like back-end Cayless' contract for next year.

This back-ending has led to what? Less money for the likes of Kinga, Robbo and Lowrie.

So HaHa is willing to take money for nothing but not willing to give a little in return when he can now afford it, especially to put food on the table for legends such as Kinga, Robbo and Lowrie who are busting their arses just as much as he is.

Oh, what's that? Not only did HaHa take an upgrade and proceed to produce very little, but now after about a dozen decent games he is willing to take another massive upgrade over a longer term? So, what, we're gonna be going through the same thing from 2011 onwards?

Ad before anyone wanks on about this - I've said this exact same thing WEEKS ago to the likes of Suity and mickdo at the LC. It's an attitude I've held for a while now and not just relating to HaHa, but also the likes of Inu, whilst the likes of Burt and Kinga take paycuts and the likes of Robbo are willing to sign on for small amounts just because they love the Club.

Yeah! Thats it! Thats the answer! Lets sack every player who loses form!

 

[mickdo]

Ad before anyone wanks on about this - I've said this exact same thing WEEKS ago to the likes of Suity and mickdo at the LC. It's an attitude I've held for a while now and not just relating to HaHa, but also the likes of Inu, whilst the likes of Burt and Kinga take paycuts and the likes of Robbo are willing to sign on for small amounts just because they love the Club.

I think your point is fair enough HJ, but I think Hayne has taken a hell of a lot less to stay with us than he could have got elsewhere. Yes, that's not the same as taking a paycut, but I'm sure he could have pushed Parra for a lot, lot more, and didn't. Not trying to paint him as a saint, but he is by no means the anti-christ either.

 

[Twizzle]

I think your point is fair enough HJ, but I think Hayne has taken a hell of a lot less to stay with us than he could have got elsewhere. Yes, that's not the same as taking a paycut, but I'm sure he could have pushed Parra for a lot, lot more, and didn't. Not trying to paint him as a saint, but he is by no means the anti-christ either.

that's a good point

IIRC he did take a pay cut in his last contract so that Inu could be re-signed

 

[mickdo]

It's because you can't judge how much you will have to pay in match payments. If they were counted in this year's cap and we had a couple of injuries that forced those outside the top 17 to play a lot more than expected, we might end up over the cap without having done anything wrong. We'd still cop a fine for it.

So, they chuck it to next year and give us some time to jig things around a little in order to remain under next year's cap.

And fair enough too. The system would be unworkable if you had to estimate how many matches every player would play each year. It just makes the following years very difficult when some lower ranked players unexpectedly play a full season.

 

[born an eel]

I actually don't think Hayne could have got much more out of us, he may have got more elsewhere but so could half the team.

The flaw is in the system not individuals, maybe players on base salaries could get a years grace or have their initial incentive payments taken out over several years even if they went to another club.

The idea of the rule is to stop clubs from abusing the base salary/incentive payment system.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Yeah! Thats it! Thats the answer! Lets sack every player who loses form!

I never said anything about sacking players. Never labelled anyone the anti-Christ, either.

But it's happened twice now - on the back of half a decent season, HaHa is expecting a payrise. The first time this happened, we were repaid with almost jack squat and it is now costing us. More to the point, it is costing the likes of Lowrie, Robson and Kingston - who absolutely love this Club and do not want to go anywhere.

Doesn't it seem fair that when you expect a payrise and give back little, that when the next time comes around you accept that and make amends?

And to suggest he did this and took less to stay with us is laughable. Word is $500k/season, which is what the Roosters were offering him. Is anyone seriously saying there were offers above this?

 

[yy_cheng]

What if you didn't have a Mitchell or Humble? What if Kingston wins the Churchill medal?

Thing is, we do. If we didn't, he would've already been given a contract and then we wouldn't be discussing this.

We are in this position probably due to Matt Keating.

Now if Matt was off contract this year, it would be a very interesting choice.

It'll work better after a few years. Like next year for us, we have a lot of players that Ando doesn't really want taking up a significant portion of the cap, but still wants Kingston, Lowrie & Robson, so he signs them up for next year, goes over the cap, pays the tax on the excess then can reorganise salaries post 2010 and he's kept those 3 players in the squad.

Obviously some teams can come in with bigger chequebooks, but rugby league isn't as profitable as the NBA so teams will still be constricted as to how much they can. You can't spend what you don't have. Poorer clubs will be still as likely to fold as they are now, only stupid teams will be phased out.

That's the hard part about juggling the salary cap.

Can't he get a wentworthville contract and then play him if we require him next year?

 

[yy_cheng]

I know everyone is having a whoop-do over this comment but I think it is fair enough.

HaHa signed a massive upgrade last time and proceeded to dish up sh*t in return. Thus, he was taking money he wasn't earning. In order to deal with such contracts (and let's include the likes of Inu in this group) we've had to do things like back-end Cayless' contract for next year.

This back-ending has led to what? Less money for the likes of Kinga, Robbo and Lowrie.

So HaHa is willing to take money for nothing but not willing to give a little in return when he can now afford it, especially to put food on the table for legends such as Kinga, Robbo and Lowrie who are busting their arses just as much as he is.

Oh, what's that? Not only did HaHa take an upgrade and proceed to produce very little, but now after about a dozen decent games he is willing to take another massive upgrade over a longer term? So, what, we're gonna be going through the same thing from 2011 onwards?

Ad before anyone wanks on about this - I've said this exact same thing WEEKS ago to the likes of Suity and mickdo at the LC. It's an attitude I've held for a while now and not just relating to HaHa, but also the likes of Inu, whilst the likes of Burt and Kinga take paycuts and the likes of Robbo are willing to sign on for small amounts just because they love the Club.

But hayne still won the dally m, LU awards, etc and we are in the grand final?

It's the law of averages.

So in the whole season so far, Hayne has played 10 games with an 8-9.5 performance.

Say his other 10 games he has played were between 5-7?

Average is probably an 8. That's not bad.


What you are also saying applies to the majority of the team : FINCH, Caylo, Lowrie, TT, Paulo, et
al.


I would only say, Hayne, Burt, Reddy, Hindy, Mateo, Fui, Mannah, JoeG has really earned their money.

Mortz, Robson, Kingston I think are a different story as they came in late.

 

[Raudonikis]

I think that comment is out of line.

Nothing outa line with Gronks comment..as was mentioned earlier if they all drop 2 grand they can keep him.

 

[Raudonikis]

Also HJs points are on the money.