Panthers sign Kingston from Eels

[forward pass]

you can't pay him that ... you already paid him most of that .... you try and pay him that now (as a base salary) and his value will actually be 110K + 60K = 170K ... and it will cost teh club 60K more .... his cap value is 110K for the priviledge of having him last season

Gees Strides - maybe you should be doing Schuberts job. This is way too complicated for me.

 

[Ike E Bear]

Actually, I think it's not inconsistent at all.
It's very consistent.

Finch counts as $300k towards the Parramatta cap for 2009. And because we negotiated a release, he counts for nothing towards our 2010, 2011 cap (phew).

Melbourne signed him for $50k, so he counts for $50k towards the Melbourne 2009 cap.
They could probably have offered him whatever 'bonuses' they wanted if they didn't plan to sign him again for 2010.

Players should ALWAYS count against the cap of the team that paid them. So, because someone was crazy enough to give Finch $350k per season, that's what he should count against our cap until we can find a way to be rid of him.

Thankfully we did, and spent the money elsewhere in 2010,11.

So, how much of the Storm's salary cap will Finch be taking up next year?

 

[bartman]

Whatever they've agreed to pay him for 2010?

 

[The Colonel]

Whatever they've agreed to pay him for 2010?

Shouldn't he be valued at his market value like Kingston is?

 

[El Diablo]

Shouldn't he be valued at his market value like Kingston is?

only if he was on match payments like Kingston

 

[Ike E Bear]

only if he was on match payments like Kingston

Then that's the thing that doesn't make sense.

Eels players aren't allowed to cop a pay cut to keep Kingston, but the Storm enjoys the benefit of paying Finch massive unders.

To me, that just doesn't seem consistent at all.

 

[Suitman]

Then that's the thing that doesn't make sense.

Eels players aren't allowed to cop a pay cut to keep Kingston, but the Storm enjoys the benefit of paying Finch massive unders.

To me, that just doesn't seem consistent at all.

It is if Finch is prepared to accept massive unders.

Suity

 

[El Diablo]

Then that's the thing that doesn't make sense.

Eels players aren't allowed to cop a pay cut to keep Kingston, but the Storm enjoys the benefit of paying Finch massive unders.

To me, that just doesn't seem consistent at all.

I have still not read that anywhere

we benefited getting Joe G from Souths as they paid most of his salary at first

 

[mickdo]

It is if Finch is prepared to accept massive unders.

Just as Kingston is willing to accept unders

 

[bartman]

Except Melbourne had room left to move in offering unders to Finch when they re-signed him... seems we're just out of room to move to accomodate Kinga's value in the final spot with our cap.

It's easier to find that room when you've got a few spots left to fill, than it is when you've got one $55K spot and have to fit a $115K player into it. Hence if one top 25 player leaves early (Oake, Hauraki, and if rumours persist Grothe) then it'd be a piece of cake to fit Kinga in the cap.

 

[El Diablo]

i think Finch and Kinston were on different contracts this year and that's why he is worth more next year

 

[oldmancraigy]

So, how much of the Storm's salary cap will Finch be taking up next year?

Has he signed with them for next year?

If so, for what amount?

And, that is how much he'll count?

This isn't really too hard Ike - I feel like you're swimming against the tide on this one...

The Finch scenario is perfectly acceptable salary cap wise. The only way it would NOT be is if Finch didn't count against our cap at all for THIS year (2009) - that'd be unfair.

I don't see the similarity at ALL in the Finch/ Kingston scenarios?

One scenario involves a player signing for minimum salary (Finch)

The other scenario involves a player signing for minimum salary plus bonuses (Kingston)

Bonuses are a geniused part of any contract, and ought not to be included - shame on whoever signed him.

The only bonuses that should ever be included should be for rep honours (ie - if you play SoO then you get an extra $20k).

The problem is not with the NRL on the Finch/ Kingston comparison, it's with "Vunderkoach" , or whoever made the idiotic decision to sign Kingston to "bonuses" instead of "match payments" (Kingston played 6 games for the Sharkies in 2008, so under a match payment system would have cost very little in 2009, and these would not have hamstrung his re-signing for 2010).

 

[born an eel]

Has he signed with them for next year?

If so, for what amount?

And, that is how much he'll count?

This isn't really too hard Ike - I feel like you're swimming against the tide on this one...

The Finch scenario is perfectly acceptable salary cap wise. The only way it would NOT be is if Finch didn't count against our cap at all for THIS year (2009) - that'd be unfair.

I don't see the similarity at ALL in the Finch/ Kingston scenarios?

One scenario involves a player signing for minimum salary (Finch)

The other scenario involves a player signing for minimum salary plus bonuses (Kingston)

Bonuses are a geniused part of any contract, and ought not to be included - shame on whoever signed him.

The only bonuses that should ever be included should be for rep honours (ie - if you play SoO then you get an extra $20k).

The problem is not with the NRL on the Finch/ Kingston comparison, it's with "Vunderkoach" , or whoever made the idiotic decision to sign Kingston to "bonuses" instead of "match payments" (Kingston played 6 games for the Sharkies in 2008, so under a match payment system would have cost very little in 2009, and these would not have hamstrung his re-signing for 2010).

why should a club pay a bonus to a player for making SOO?

The club will loose this player for a match.
We may have to pay his replacement a "match payment".
He may get injured playing for someone else and we still have to pay him.
He gets additional pay from the NSWRL.
When he negotiates his next contract it will recognise the fact he is a rep player.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

As much I would like to keep Kingston, do we really need him. Wayne Bennett made the Broncos because he made the hard decisions on players. Really we are pretty will served for hookers next year;

Keating - can play 80 minutes
Kris Keating - can play hooker
Robson - can play hooker
Mitchell - from what I have seen, could be our no. 1 hooker in 2-3 years
The other hooker playing reserves, I think Stagger eel had a wrap on him, forget his name
Our Toyota cup hooker , I think Daniel Someone - he goes alright to.

So plenty of options.

Also the ruling on Kingston by the NRL is fair. If the rule wasn't around, what would stop a side by signing a good quality NRL player like Zeb Taia or Chris Houston or Trent Barret etc on a $50,000 contract with match bonus of $10000 per game, meaning they could earn approx $300,000 per year but only $50,000 being included in the cap.

 

[hasman]

As much I would like to keep Kingston, do we really need him. Wayne Bennett made the Broncos because he made the hard decisions on players. Really we are pretty will served for hookers next year;

Keating - can play 80 minutes
Kris Keating - can play hooker
Robson - can play hooker
Mitchell - from what I have seen, could be our no. 1 hooker in 2-3 years
The other hooker playing reserves, I think Stagger eel had a wrap on him, forget his name
Our Toyota cup hooker , I think Daniel Someone - he goes alright to.

So plenty of options.

Also the ruling on Kingston by the NRL is fair. If the rule wasn't around, what would stop a side by signing a good quality NRL player like Zeb Taia or Chris Houston or Trent Barret etc on a $50,000 contract with match bonus of $10000 per game, meaning they could earn approx $300,000 per year but only $50,000 being included in the cap.

 

[strider]

...

Also the ruling on Kingston by the NRL is fair. If the rule wasn't around, what would stop a side by signing a good quality NRL player like Zeb Taia or Chris Houston or Trent Barret etc on a $50,000 contract with match bonus of $10000 per game, meaning they could earn approx $300,000 per year but only $50,000 being included in the cap.

I DON'T think anyone is saying that bonuses should NEVER count towards the cap ... of course they should .... just a question of when/how .... and whether other players can adjust existing contracts to help a team make cap room

 

[born an eel]

It is actually the case now where you can use a player and never have the true cost show up on your cap. If we don't sign Kinga, his payments never get counted against us.
This is also used when a player is going to retire and not play on the following year.

Is this fair?

 

[strider]

It is actually the case now where you can use a player and never have the true cost show up on your cap. If we don't sign Kinga, his payments never get counted against us.
This is also used when a player is going to retire and not play on the following year.

Is this fair?

well yeah - this has been an issue for MANY years .... you can get an older player on a 1 yr deal, who will then retire or go overseas - and his incentives will never count against your cap

its not new - its been this way forever and all teams know and can make use of it

 

[born an eel]

and is easy to fix.

All you need to do is make all payments accountable to the team.

If a player leaves after a incentive year, you spread it over the next 3 years.
If a player has a contract or signs a further contract the payments can be spread across this.

 

[strider]

I dunno - its a hard thing to make rules about really .... it can be tough for teams to manage salaries under a "hard" cap system when you get injuries and have to call up players