Notional value

[Hooch]

Schubert is complete clown.

I'm amazed the Storm affair didn't have him squarely in the gun sights. Years of systemic rorting was exposed to him through an unsolicited confession.

Why on earth is an ex-player given a job that requires a professional auditor?

It demonstrates two things.

1. The salary cap is not seriously enforced.
2. The NRL is an amateur hour jobs for the boys operation.

 

[betcats]

Just throwing this out there but what if the rule was a players contract cannot rise from year to year more then say 30%(or whatever number) which would remove back ended conracts and do away with the need for notional values.

Clubs would not be able to manipulate the cap by heavily backending contracts but at the same time if a player genuinely wants to take a paycut to play with a club, he can.

Anyway I havent though about this much but its an idea.

 

[siv]

I dont really agree with what Schueey has done but say something like the following was to occur:

Say player A is fielding offers of 350-400 thousand dollars from a couple of clubs but signs with a club with not that much cap space for 150 thousand this season then 550 or 600 thousand the season after that.

I think thats manipulating the cap and think it shouldnt be allowed.

Yes but in the following year that will mean they will have a cap issue

Whats more interesting is if you sign say for 2 years in this arrangement $100k and $600k - then in Year 3 you resign him for $100 with $600k of 3rd party deals

 

[Loudstrat]

I asked this in another thread but is everyone going off a Daily Telegraph article which said they believed that the ARLC had set a notional value of $400k and wouldn't accept anything lower? Or is there another article with a quote from the ARLC that I missed.

Would not suprise me at all if it was plucked out of thin air.

If it is a made up figure, surely Schubert needs to clear the air and stwte what it actually is. Either him or the CEO...oh wait.........

Schubert is complete clown.

I'm amazed the Storm affair didn't have him squarely in the gun sights. Years of systemic rorting was exposed to him through an unsolicited confession.

Why on earth is an ex-player given a job that requires a professional auditor?

Because he is a professional auditor. He is a qualified accountant.

One thing that pisses me off is that people think ex footballers are all dribblers with the IQ of a pot plant.

Just throwing this out there but what if the rule was a players contract cannot rise from year to year more then say 30%(or whatever number) which would remove back ended conracts and do away with the need for notional values.

Clubs would not be able to manipulate the cap by heavily backending contracts but at the same time if a player genuinely wants to take a paycut to play with a club, he can.

Anyway I havent though about this much but its an idea.

Meaning DCE's new contract would have enabled him to afford a sandwich AND a drink? New players making a go of it in FG on peanuts would have to have more than 30% increase in salary.

 

[betcats]

If it is a made up figure, surely Schubert needs to clear the air and stwte what it actually is. Either him or the CEO...oh wait.........


Because he is a professional auditor. He is a qualified accountant.

One thing that pisses me off is that people think ex footballers are all dribblers with the IQ of a pot plant.



Meaning DCE's new contract would have enabled him to afford a sandwich AND a drink? New players making a go of it in FG on peanuts would have to have more than 30% increase in salary.

I just made up 30% I havent really put much thought into it, just throwing out an idea.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

My solution:

1. Tell them what the salary cap is (early enough so they can plan!)
2. Let them do what they want with salaries within that cap (with a few sensible rules about long term incentives, absolute minimum wage, third party deals etc)
3. POLICE THE f**kING THING PROPERLY!! With a team of auditors.

The problems with the cap are the same as the problems with the referees: leadership and structure. Do we really know if Schubert is the man for the job? I don't think we do, and that is because he has been in a no-win situation, just like the poor bloody refs. Sort out the way it should be run, then you can determine the best structure. Only then can you determine the best people for the job(s).

 

[eozsmiles]

Personally I don't like Parra, I don't like their
-Ball boy,
-Water boy's,
-Fans,
-Coaching staff,
-CEO,
-The entire administration,
I don't even like the name Parramatta, from grass roots to sponsors I don't like them but fmd they're getting screwed here. It's as if Schubert is making it up as he goes.

Didn't the Dragons sign Gaz for 50K? Did they change the rule ?

Gaz and the Saints are the reason Shubert has the whip out. People on this sight went mental when Gaz came back from a couple of years away in a different sport and signed a backender.

 

[ek999]

My solution:

1. Tell them what the salary cap is (early enough so they can plan!)
2. Let them do what they want with salaries within that cap (with a few sensible rules about long term incentives, absolute minimum wage, third party deals etc)
3. POLICE THE f**kING THING PROPERLY!! With a team of auditors.

The problems with the cap are the same as the problems with the referees: leadership and structure. Do we really know if Schubert is the man for the job? I don't think we do, and that is because he has been in a no-win situation, just like the poor bloody refs. Sort out the way it should be run, then you can determine the best structure. Only then can you determine the best people for the job(s).

I don't think people realise how easy it is to get around the salary cap purely because Schubert doesn't have the power to look at the players personal finances. All he can do is look at it from the club side.

It can be as simple as a club gets an invoice from a supplier. Club pays supplier. Supplier gets invoice from player for promotional work etc and supplier pays player. Player gets money outside the cap and Schubert is none the wiser.

If I was the ARLC I would agree to increase the salary cap to $6 million per year or whatever the players want but in return they can look at the players tax returns and financial records. Match the players financial records to the deals that are registered with the ARLC. Any extra sources of income outside the cap would be easy to pick up. The players should have nothing to hide from the ARLC because all third party deals have to approved anyway

 

[Hanscholo]

Notional value is to stop shit like parra are trying to pull atm. Its a good thing, not a bad one.

 

[Danish]

I can't think of many industries where a salary floor can be legally enforced on an employer, especially when the employee has agreed to less

Never heard of every blue collar job ever?

 

[Canard]

Or an award?

 

[B-Tron 3000]

Never heard of every blue collar job ever?

yeah but the salary floor is for the lowest paid jobs and is generally a set amount to stop people being rorted because there is a distinct power imbalance in the negotiations.

You think Izzy is in a situation where Parra are pressuring him to take a paycut and he needs a union to support him? He just left a million a year job, he doesn't need industrial protection.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

Notional value is to stop shit like parra are trying to pull atm. Its a good thing, not a bad one.

What exactly are they trying to pull?

Paying a player what he is willing to accept?? God forbid that a club isn't being rorted by a greedy player manager!!

I'm a Parra fan, but i actually think we'd get more value (on the field) from the Pommy forward we were after before this whole schemozzle started. But I also think the NRL have seriously put their foot in it with the way it has been handled.

 

[Canard]

Surely its a "myth" that Izzy is willing to accept $150K per year?

His contract is for 800K+ for 3 years, thats what he is willing to "accept".

 

[BranVan3000]

Never heard of every blue collar job ever?

or an award?

Not for individual employees, there is a difference between an industry standard and what happens on an individual basis

 

[firechild]

Exactly, an award is comparable to the NRL minimum wage of $55k.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

Surely its a "myth" that Izzy is willing to accept $150K per year?

His contract is for 800K+ for 3 years, thats what he is willing to "accept".

Sure, but I'm still yet to see one good reason why Parra shouldn't be allowed to split that wage over 3 years however they want.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Here's a crazy idea

Ban the backended contract

I wouldn't say ban it, but restrict it. For 2 year, 3 year, 4 year and 5 year deals have a set %age of the total contractual payment that the player must receive in each year. Say for a 2 year deal make it so the player must recieve at least 25% of the total payment in each year, so if they are to earn 600k over 2 years they must get at least 150k in both years.

 

[firechild]

You mentioned this in another thread I think. You said something along the lines of 25% on 2 year deals, 20% on 3 year, etc. using the 20% on a 3 year deal. The deal is apparantly worth $800k over 3 years, which would mean $160k per year minimum. Parra are trying to get away with 150k which is really not that far off that value. I think the amounts have to be closer than that, say 40% on a 2 year deal, 25% on 3 years, etc.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Here's a crazy idea

Ban the backended contract

What about the front ended contract? The rumours are that the Dragons have done this with quite a few players last season and next to free up funds for a buying spree in 2014. I don't see a problem with it myself.