NRL to help the Bulldogs

[Lowdown]

I wonder if the NRL would be so helpful to the Storm when Inglis comes off contract?

Let's hope so...we're one of those cattle lining up now the gate is open...

 

[OVP]

NRL showing again how to put the cat amongst the pigeons, and get everyone arguing amongst themselves and not focusing on the actual game...FFS.

Surely they have to understand the basic principle of consistency? Once you open that gate, its impossible to shut. And now this gate is swinging in the breeze and the cattle is just lining up...

If you are going to have a salary cap...then f**king enforce the damn thing, without exception. If Johns wants to go to Union...they should have f**king let him go ruin whats left of his career. If the Dogs are worried about SBW, then stiff sh*t. This entire competition hinges on the premise of fairness and equality. Once those principles are tarnished, the NRL might as well pack up and leave town...and allow some professionals to run the game.

when are you people going to FINALLY understand it ? The Salary Crap is totally ILLEGAL on ALL LEVELS. When the NRL choose to help finance one or two players to enable their clubs to afford them, then maybe we should ALL think of raising it to 5 million or just scrap it all together. IT will only be an uneven playing ground for a small amount of time. Look at Souths ... the clubs are smarter than the rest of you idiots who love this boring Salary Crap.

 

[McCrud]

I wonder if the NRL would be so helpful to the Storm when Inglis comes off contract?

The problem that the NRL has is that if it 'helps' the News Ltd. owned teams (Storm, Broncos, Cowboys) it will be seen as a a rather juicy conflict-of-interest.

The NRL should be consistent in all situations - they shouldn't be allowed to bend the rules to keep Johns but conversely let Lote and Wendell walk away from the code. The obvious double-standard is what riles people up.

 

[Inferno]

You can't feel sorry for the Dogs, it is fairly obvious they would have asked the NRL to step in.

Either way it is a stupid precedent. Why not force every single player than to accept the highest off they receive regardless of what they want to do. Now that would be interesting.

 

[mattyg]

Lets say that SBW signed a deal $400,000 per year for 5 years...Bulldogs look at the team who signs his books, realise we offered him more however he signed for less at another team. Starts to look a bit dodgey to our team. We could consider taking the NRL to court to fight the cap, which will wipe out the whole idea of a salary cap since it is illegal on so many levels. IMO the NRL are just protecting there own best interests, however to me it shows that they have little confidence in the idea of a cap.

 

[Charlie124]

Oh I get it. You're calling me racist because I said you had one kiwi confused with another, as they all look the same. Nice try, but no .

It seems you obviously don't "get it" at all, in fact you probably couldnt have missed my point by a bigger margin. I wasnt suggesting youre racist at all, that thought didnt even cross my mind. The "which one is which again :roll: " was an obvious (not for you it seems) sarcastic comment, meaning of course im not confusing SBW with Benji, its not like theyre even similar enough to be easily confused. SBW is a giant who plays for the Dogs and Benji is a puny weed who plays for the Tigers.

No, you're thinking of Bunji. If you think you were thinking about SBW, then I think you're a f**king moron .

No, im thinking of SBW like i said the first time, if you think you can tell other people what theyre thinking, you sir are the moron. And if you think id care what a moron such as yourself thinks of me...youre sadly mistaken.

 

[fridge]

Lets say that SBW signed a deal $400,000 per year for 5 years...Bulldogs look at the team who signs his books, realise we offered him more however he signed for less at another team. Starts to look a bit dodgey to our team. We could consider taking the NRL to court to fight the cap, which will wipe out the whole idea of a salary cap since it is illegal on so many levels. IMO the NRL are just protecting there own best interests, however to me it shows that they have little confidence in the idea of a cap.

sorry mate, i dont get your point.

every player should have the right to choose which club they go to and for how much. if we apply the logic that a player must sign with the highest bidder, then notions such as loyalty and freedom of choice are thrown out the window. rich teams who will be able to utilise the full extent of the cap will gain a massive advantage over smaller market teams by stealing all of their best players.

what use would investing in club infrastructure be? no club would want to invest money into junior development. they'd probably rather save that money and use it to ensure they are the highest bidder of another team's up and coming star.

i think many of you are making assumptions here without all the information.

firstly, we do not know the nature of the alleged proposed deal.

secondly, channel 9 is not exactly an authoritative source, reporters are not lawyers.

thirdly, the NRL did not necessarily say it will never register a contract for SBW under $500K. it said it will not register it at this stage. the same thing happened with steve turner's contract when there was a dispute between the titans and the storm. the NRL's position was that they would not register the contract until the dispute as to whether the titans had a valid contract with turner was resolved. maybe there is an issue here we don't know about.

fourthly, we have no idea about the legal arrangements that exist between nrl clubs and the NRL. the documents that give rise to these legal arrangements will likely contain a clause giving the NRL discretion in relation to registering player contracts. the clubs probably have signed an agreement with the NRL stating they will not field any unregistered players or they will be penalised. given david gallop's legal background, I would say there is a very high likelihood that the NRL used its powers well within its rights.

 

[Rotten Rooster]

Is that Legal??

The whole cap system is illegal, I reckon if on player took it to court the whole system would be dismantled.

 

[nqboy]

How come they didnt help the Roosters out with Fittler?

I'd have a problem assisting a team who didn't produce a star to keep him.

 

[nqboy]

when are you people going to FINALLY understand it ? The Salary Crap is totally ILLEGAL on ALL LEVELS. When the NRL choose to help finance one or two players to enable their clubs to afford them, then maybe we should ALL think of raising it to 5 million or just scrap it all together. IT will only be an uneven playing ground for a small amount of time. Look at Souths ... the clubs are smarter than the rest of you idiots who love this boring Salary Crap.

Thank you Phool Gould.

 

[Stagger eel]

The whole cap system is illegal, I reckon if on player took it to court the whole system would be dismantled.

well, if it is why can't the roosters take it to court themselves and fund the legal battle, they seem to have enough dosh to it?

 

[BWNB]

SBW isnt even worth $500 000!

 

[Johns Magic]

Since when do the Dogs abide to the salary cap anyway?

 

[mattyg]

Since when do the Dogs abide to the salary cap anyway?

since we got caught...

 

[nqboy]

Yeah, it's, like, a new policy they have.

 

[Nathan B]

Yeah, it's, like, a new policy they have.

As for the other 15 teams... who knows, right?

 

[Danish]

I'd have a problem assisting a team who didn't produce a star to keep him.

How about Crossy then?

Or Mini when his contract comes up.... or eventually Pierce (been at the club since similiar age to SBW).


Either way its a rubbish decision. Any player should be allowed to choose their club regardless of how the deal is structured. If the dogs are too hopeless to organise 3rd party deals then why should those clubs with enough nous to line up such arrangements be punished??

 

[mattyg]

ummm...your only allowed a certain amount in 3rd party deals with the 3rd party a club sponsor. Any other 3rd party deals which don't count under the cap come from external companies not affilated in any way with the club. So whats your point Danish about us being too lazy to line up deals? Any club who does arrange for 3rd party must comply with the 3rd party section of the salary cap, which IIRC is 50k in deals for 3rd parties affilated with the club. Companies not linked with the club can pay players whatever they like for promotional work i think, however it isn't up to the club to arrange these deals, as im 99% sure the club is in breach of the cap if they do this.

 

[Rocco]

ummm...your only allowed a certain amount in 3rd party deals with the 3rd party a club sponsor. Any other 3rd party deals which don't count under the cap come from external companies not affilated in any way with the club. So whats your point Danish about us being too lazy to line up deals? Any club who does arrange for 3rd party must comply with the 3rd party section of the salary cap, which IIRC is 50k in deals for 3rd parties affilated with the club. Companies not linked with the club can pay players whatever they like for promotional work i think, however it isn't up to the club to arrange these deals, as im 99% sure the club is in breach of the cap if they do this.

actually tard danish is right and your wrong and you have always been wrong.

 

[mattyg]

actually tard danish is right and your wrong and you have always been wrong.

well i'm definately not wrong in saying that you are a complete utter f****** and 100% of the LU community would agree with me.