What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Knights eye Asotasi

Frederick

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
27,623
Which is why I've been carrying on about the TV deal for 2013 which will give all the other clubs a more financial clout to compete with the big guns.
Ffs, the big guns will have that extra financial clout too, as well as all their third party deals, and players will be expecting more money. It won't give us an advantage at all. Is it that hard to understand?
 

macavity

Referee
Messages
20,629
Serc - the TV deal won't give us any parity or competitive advantage, it will just inflate wages across the board - think of it in terms of purchasing power. The TV deal won't change our relative purchasing power against than those clubs who can legally rort the cap.

It is like getting a pay-rise in an inflationary economy - if you get a 5% payrise, and inflation is running at 6%, you actually have less purchasing power than last year - you can spend more money, but you will get less for it.
 

B-dos

Referee
Messages
28,165
There is nothing wrong with having an opinion (again an opinion that I loosely agree with on this occasion), but spamming that opinion over and over again every day is annoying and clutters up the forum with noise.

over and over? take a deep breath serc.

and i was responding directly to macaviy's '$ouths' comment

it was entirely relevant to the discussion.

theres a term for guys like you who police the forums isnt there?


More TV money will increase the club grant such that it is much closer to where it should be relative to other codes and other league comps around the world.

Yes it will increase payments proportionally across the board, but it will push the top players salaries much closer to what their equivalents in other competitions are getting. This will result in the NRL keeping more of the best players, and the current emphasis on the handful of clubs that have access to extraordinary amounts of 3rd party payments will be lesser. This is because the demand for the top 10 players in the game won't be as strong, as the new top 20 or so will be similar in quality.

agreed. it will help keep our best players in the game. but it will do nothing for the weaker clubs to build a stronger roster as the playing field remains the same

and it will only matter if we expect the other codes player payments to stop rising. this is rather unlikely
 

Serc

First Grade
Messages
6,902
lol Serco getting owned in this thread

I am a bit hahaha

Anyway ok...lets say the thoughts I've shared so far are either wrong or more minor than I think they are. The other dimension of the increased cap/NRL grant is that the current effect of the cap thinning the playing talent (rather than distributing more evenly) should be slowly reversed.

There should be more players of rep quality or fringe rep quality in the NRL to share around as a result. Yes everyone's $$$ will go up, but given that the money flying around will be much closer to where it should be, we should see a decrease in the 'player drain' we have currently.

The point of me saying this? Is that there will be more quality players to go around so there will be less demand on each individual player as they come up (so less emphasis on the haves and have nots). Of course we won't see magical results in the first year, but it is a number of steps in the right direction.

over and over? take a deep breath serc.

and i was responding directly to macaviy's '$ouths' comment

it was entirely relevant to the discussion.

Yes fair enough you were responding to him, but also yes, believe it or not you have repeated the same thing a number of times:

if only their management would take a silly philosophical interpretation of the rules like we do we might have a chance

great to see our CEO would rather leave the club at a disadvantage then compromise his own ridiculous 'philosophical' take on the rules

given burraston refuses to run our club according to the rules due to his ridiculous 'philosophical' interpretation of them

So moving on...

theres a term for guys like you who police the forums isnt there?

That would be the term 'forum copping'...but I'm not picking on you for starting threads when there's already one there, or spelling mistakes/grammar etc etc. This is a little different...I'd say the term for your sort of repeated themes/agendas/opinions might be something like 'Karmawaving' :p though you're certainly not quite in his ballpark just yet.
 
Last edited:

otori

Juniors
Messages
1,456
Common sense prevails and the nrl has reacted. Haha slammingsam you still wanna explain how rusty plans to fight inglis in?
 

slammingsam

Juniors
Messages
833
Yeah pretty simply.. We have x amount of money free under the cap and the remainder of his deal will be taken by 3rd party sponsors who have nothing to do with the club etc so it is all good to go.

He will be playing in Round 1 for Souths.
 

perverse

Referee
Messages
26,645
Yeah pretty simply.. We have x amount of money free under the cap and the remainder of his deal will be taken by 3rd party sponsors who have nothing to do with the club etc so it is all good to go.

He will be playing in Round 1 for Souths.
clearly your knowledge of the salary cap is quite scant. if he is guarenteed income from a 3rd party to play for Souths, then it comes under the salary cap, regardless of who the cash is coming from.

3rd party sponsorships are fine - but if the income is guarenteed in his contract and the sponsorship falls through and/or disappears then the club is contractually obligated to pay the gap in the players income from their own pocket, thus the income is counted under the cap.

this is the reason Gasnier was forced out of the Dragons. he was under the impression his Channel 9 sponsorship was guarenteed income under the cap, but when the deal fell through the dragons put up their hands and said tough luck, it's not guarenteed income.

i will repeat once more... this is for guarenteed sponsorship income. something tells me that Greg isn't dumb enough to sign a contract for $190k guarenteed a year, with over 2/3rds of his contract not guarenteed for the length of his contract.
 

Rudderriffic

Juniors
Messages
359
Common sense prevails and the nrl has reacted. Haha slammingsam you still wanna explain how rusty plans to fight inglis in?


sp07.jpg
 

otori

Juniors
Messages
1,456
Yeah pretty simply.. We have x amount of money free under the cap and the remainder of his deal will be taken by 3rd party sponsors who have nothing to do with the club etc so it is all good to go.

He will be playing in Round 1 for Souths.

Have you read what Gallop has said? The NRL is going to find it highly suspicious that Inglis is on $190K guaranteed a year as Perverse has spelled out. If Rusty has organised any of the third party stuff, they count under the cap.

I like Souths and usually support them after the Knights but this attitude is ridiculous. It's Craig Wing all over again. He's still contracted to the Storm and none of this sh*t is worked out.
 

Nuffy

Bench
Messages
4,075
For the record, we signed up Aku on a 4 year deal at the end of 09...before he really broke out onto the scene this year. So he wouldn't be on much dough (maybe up to $150k max?) and will continue to be on the cheap until the end of 2013 :D



This is more or less the answer right here - teams like the Broncos and Souths (and others, Bulldogs are probably one as well given their purchases this year) can legally be significantly over the cap with all these 3rd party deals. Which is why I've been carrying on about the TV deal for 2013 which will give all the other clubs a more financial clout to compete with the big guns.

No it won't, it will allow the clubs to cover their cap by the TV deal BUT it will still mean clubs with big 3rd party pools will continue to outbid everyone else.
 

Serc

First Grade
Messages
6,902
aaaaaand obviously neither of you bothered to read my post after those (fair) points were mentioned.
 
Messages
3,813
Serc the way i understand it is that in short if a player alone negotiates a 3rd party deal it does not towards the cap. If the club or manager does then it counts towards the cap. It is this exact reason why Schubert got suss over Cam Smith's fox deal and the rest as we know is history. Smith had dumped Jim Banaghan as his manager and as i recall Ribot was suspected to have done the negotiating. In other words Schubert was wondering how Smith out of the blue acted alone in negotiating a hundred grand deal with no legal representation. It was the crumb that got him digging in the first place. Managers are generally the ones who make sure all contracts are legal and valid.
 

RABK

Referee
Messages
20,694
NRL says no to Inglis, so sudden player sale looms


SOUTH SYDNEY face the prospect of shedding players to accommodate Greg Inglis after the NRL blocked his proposed move to Redfern.
In a scathing assessment of the Rabbitohs' handling of the transfer saga, the NRL has insisted the full value of a number of Inglis's third-party agreements be covered by the salary cap. The Sun-Herald understands four contracts were scrutinised by cap auditor Ian Schubert:
❏ A $100,000 deal revolving around Aboriginal welfare with the NSW Health Department;
Advertisement: Story continues below
❏ A $50,000 deal with ANZ Stadium;
❏ A $25,000 deal with WA Spit Roast;
❏ A $25,000 deal with an inner-city car dealership.
All of them raised red flags at league headquarters.
Despite being warned not to make announcements until the NRL scrutinised the contracts, Souths co-owner Russell Crowe boasted about the $1.8 million deal to an audience of millions on US television's Tonight Show with Jay Leno last month.
Schubert found deals submitted as ''arm's length'' third-party agreements were in fact drafted by the club and, in some cases, revised with the sponsor without the involvement of Inglis's manager, Allan Gainey. The contracts were also in place before a playing contract was signed.
Souths issued a brief statement yesterday expressing their disappointment with the decision and their desire to keep Inglis in league.
Their best chance of pushing the deal through is to offload at least one of their star players, something Souths CEO Shane Richardson initially vowed not to do. It is understood some of the club's biggest names are on heavily back-ended deals next year, with Roy Asotasi on $450,000, Michael Crocker $300,000 and John Sutton $400,000. Beau Champion was recently shopped to Parramatta but they baulked at his asking price. The Eels are more interested in another Souths centre, Taioalo ''Junior'' Vaivai. Utility Jamie Simpson and fullback Rhys Wesser (about $160,000) could be other options to be released.
Given that Inglis only became a free agent as a result of the Storm salary cap debacle, the NRL has taken its time considering the issue. Yet Souths pressed the league for a speedy determination - although some legal documents were only made available on Friday afternoon - prompting yesterday's announcement.
''Given the circumstances under which Greg became available to South Sydney, nobody can have been under any doubt about the importance of ensuring his contract complied with the cap,'' said NRL chief executive David Gallop.
''The NRL had already required the Broncos to include third-party agreements within their calculation of the contract value and was insisting legal fees also be included when those negotiations ceased. South Sydney had been advised to have all proposed offers reviewed by the NRL before making any commitments.
"They chose not to do so, and it has taken some time to access all details of the agreements.
"It is unfortunate for Greg that he is in the middle of a difficult situation, and I assured him this week that these issues do not reflect on him but that they are matters for clubs in assessing the offers that they make.
''He is one of the game's most highly valued players, and we have assured him of that in no uncertain terms. That said, the cap has to apply fairly to all clubs, and one club cannot be allowed to do what others were prevented from doing. The rules on third-party deals are clear.
"We have worked with clubs and players by substantially increasing the amount that sponsors can pay players through the $300,000 marquee player allowance in 2011 but without rules on third-party agreements there would be no point in having a salary cap system."
The Sun-Herald revealed earlier this month that Souths might attempt to resolve the impasse by legally challenging the existence of the salary cap, with their chairman, Nick Pappas, likely to lead the charge.
The only NRL club with enough money left under the cap for Inglis is Parramatta, although it is unclear if coach Stephen Kearney, who worked with Inglis at the Storm, is interested.
Inglis, who reneged on an agreement with Brisbane, is still no closer to finding a home for next season.
The NRL's decision also clouds the future of New Zealand hooker Issac Luke, who was poised to extend his contract until the end of 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-sudden-player-sale-looms-20101218-1918z.html



Because this fire was already burning in this thread, here is some more fuel.
 

roopy

Referee
Messages
27,980
I think the only player we need is another firstgrade experienced hooker now. Mark Riddell would be good if we could get him to give the roosters the flick.
 

KempoKnight

Juniors
Messages
512
I think the only player we need is another firstgrade experienced hooker now. Mark Riddell would be good if we could get him to give the roosters the flick.

De Gois.
Hilder.
Gidley.

We do not in any way need another hooker. Look at George Ndaira, played about 6 games for us and he was with us for what 2-3 years?

I think what we should look at doing next is signing Houston obviously and look at signing another Prop. If no good props become available backend as many high paid players contracts as possible and save up to spend hard in 2012, Id like us to look into a few of the players in England, mainly their forwards, some of them really look the goods and Burgess and Ellis have definatly proven that their is talent over there.
 

perverse

Referee
Messages
26,645
i'm happy for us to shut up shop for the year after we get House back and get Snowy in 2012.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
12,001
Another hooker? Really?

We probably need another Centre, Front Rower and Half before we need another hooker...
 

Latest posts

Top