Panthers sign Kingston from Eels

[strider]

find somewhere where the NRL have said they won't allow the players to take a cut

tbh I couldn't be f'ed .... thats what I believe the situation is - if you don't think that then, we'll agree to disagree

 

[Stagger eel]

tbh I couldn't be f'ed .... thats what I believe the situation is - if you don't think that then, we'll agree to disagree

geez strider what fun are ya?? :lol:

 

[strider]

\\\\/ :lol:

 

[oldmancraigy]

Some fiddling about would be necessary if the NRL were to allow Kinga to stay on the back of some pay cuts, and my feeling is that it's not as simple as just finding a spare $60K for him... we'd need to drop two $55K players from the 25 to keep Kinga on the $115K, which still leaves one salary cap position vacant but with no spare money.

Ok - it actually MUST be as simple as finding an extra $60k - or we're screwed.

Let me point out why:

Every team MUST have their top 25 paid players counting towards their salary cap.

Currently we have 24 guys under contract - with 1 spot left.
Allegedly the minimum salary is something like $50-55k - so if we do not have 55k under the cap to sign 1 more player, then we've busted it already and we're screwed.

If we've already broken the cap, then just sign Kinga for $115k - what's the difference? We've broken the cap as is, and it'll cost us 4 comp points.
If we are under the cap, then we MUST have $50-55k to spend on that last player. THEREFORE we need to find an extra $60k to make up a $110k salary - which is what we apparently need to give to Kingston.

 

[oldmancraigy]

As for Kinga, I think the with the his match payments loading to his next contract, clubs should be able to spread it out to a few years. IE, if Parra were to sign Kinga for 3 more years, we should be able to spread his loaded match payments over the full term of his contract. $55k base salary each year plus $20K each year for his 09 match payments, so its a $75K each year.

Sorry to keep saying this, but The issue is NOT his match payments - it's the bonuses that he was given

Match payments NEVER carry forwards into the next year - they are calculated for the current seasons cap based on the previous seasons number of games played - and only count IF a player signs a contract that includes match payment incentives (not compulsory).

I'm telling you, we can thank Hagan for signing Kingston to a stupid contract - why would he give him 'bonuses' instead of 'match payments'?? Absolutely absurd.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I am sorry to see Kev move on as he was very happy but as someone posted why would anyone sign a plauer to 55K plus bonuses, well the answer is that all econd tier contracts have this minimum plus 3k bonus all clubs pay it it is not unique. This is due to the players association negotiating this rgeiygh the enterprise bargaining agreement.

He will be a loss to the club and a good pickup for the Panthers, I am happy he secured another deal in the NRL.

3 questions:

- Got a link to show where all second tier contracts have "this minimum plus 3k bonus"?

- Are you SURE Kingston was part of our 2nd tier squad (hint: he wasn't)

- Even if you were right (and I really think you're not), then why on earth would anyone sign a player for 55k and incur "bonuses"?? Why not sign them to 56k and match payments??

Sorry mate - but you sound like a Rothfield article there (ie - made up stuff).

 

[strider]

actually, i was under the impression kinga was not part of our top 25 also ..... i seem to recall when he was signed, we were looking at him or nadira (sp?) as a 2nd tier cheapy ... same with robo .... but i would still think their bonuses/incentives for playing NRL would be used in the NRL cap the next season

re: match payments vs bonuses .... ossie is referring to kinga's as "match payments" in articles ... whether that is the case or not i don't know ...

"The boys are determined to do everything they can to keep Kevvy, but the NRL has ruledwe can't put him in the cap for under $115,000, which he earned this year because of his match payments,'' Osborne said.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1225785318873

its all very confusing tbh .... and unless someone finds a proper document to explain it all, I'm pretty much gonna give up trying to understand it :lol:

 

[parra-matters]

i'm thinking the same as you strider.

 

[oldmancraigy]

actually, i was under the impression kinga was not part of our top 25 also ..... i seem to recall when he was signed, we were looking at him or nadira (sp?) as a 2nd tier cheapy ... same with robo .... but i would still think their bonuses/incentives for playing NRL would be used in the NRL cap the next season

re: match payments vs bonuses .... ossie is referring to kinga's as "match payments" in articles ... whether that is the case or not i don't know ...



its all very confusing tbh .... and unless someone finds a proper document to explain it all, I'm pretty much gonna give up trying to understand it :lol:

Well - I've received assurance from the NRL that the match payments are NOT the issue with "any given player" - I tried asking a couple of times directly re: Kingston and got "I refuse to discuss a particular players circumstances" HOWEVER the issue is bonuses, and not match payments.

You can read the documentation (which I've been ASSURED is correct) on the NRL website.

The thing is that Kingston COULD have been given a "win bonus" (ie - $3k per win) and an "appearance bonus" - (ie, $1k per game) - which would total something like 58k (3x13wins and 1x19 appearances). Which you could forgive anyone for talking about as 'match payments' - but in strictly salary cap terms, they are bonuses and not match payments.
Either way - it's a geniused way to draw up a contract - why not just pay the fella $2.5k per game in match payments? then the carry forward issue isn't there.

On the top 25 - Kingston was in the NRL pre-season media guide as part of our top 25.
Again - possible they got that wrong, but more likely that the official documentation would have our top 25 correct (knowing (1) the actual salaries; and (2) receiving the list from the club).

 

[El Diablo]

Ok - it actually MUST be as simple as finding an extra $60k - or we're screwed.

Let me point out why:

Every team MUST have their top 25 paid players counting towards their salary cap.

Currently we have 24 guys under contract - with 1 spot left.
Allegedly the minimum salary is something like $50-55k - so if we do not have 55k under the cap to sign 1 more player, then we've busted it already and we're screwed.

If we've already broken the cap, then just sign Kinga for $115k - what's the difference? We've broken the cap as is, and it'll cost us 4 comp points.
If we are under the cap, then we MUST have $50-55k to spend on that last player. THEREFORE we need to find an extra $60k to make up a $110k salary - which is what we apparently need to give to Kingston.

where are you getting this from :crazy:

 

[bartman]

Every team MUST have their top 25 paid players counting towards their salary cap.

Currently we have 24 guys under contract - with 1 spot left.
Allegedly the minimum salary is something like $50-55k - so if we do not have 55k under the cap to sign 1 more player, then we've busted it already and we're screwed.

No, if we don;t have a spare $55K sitting around, we just count the highest guy from the Wenty squad as our 25th in the NRL Salary Cap. They would be on close to minimum NRL wage anyway (maybe 5K short), and would be receiving their money regardless (ie. wouldn't need us to find extra 55K).

That is what I'll predict will happen anyway, as we're bound to be sailing close to the line with our signings and with no other players having been released early (eg Oake, Hauraki). But clubs don't break the cap when they need to fill one more spot and don't have the money - they just move someone up with an existing contract from the feeder club squad, for NRL top 25 salary cap purposes.

 

[bartman]

If we are under the cap, then we MUST have $50-55k to spend on that last player. THEREFORE we need to find an extra $60k to make up a $110k salary - which is what we apparently need to give to Kingston.

This is where we are all getting mixed up I reckon... if we are under the cap it doesn't mean that we have to be $55K under the cap. That's why this stuff with Kingston isn't as simple as everyone wants it to be.

But I agree with you that we have to find an extra $60K on top of whatever change we have left under the NRL cap at the moment (probably less than $55K). We need more than 6 players to take a $10K cut to fit Kinga in... but if a player not in the coach's plans (like Oake or Hauraki) can find deals elsewhere and get released early, it'd be dead easy. That's just the way footy goes sometimes.

 

[born an eel]

](*,)Bart, we either have space in the cap or not, it's not the cash.
we need 25 spots at $50-55K min. if we do not have room for the 25 player @ $50K we break the cap, doesn't matter where he comes from.
](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)

 

[bartman]

I think it's two different issues, getting mixed up. There is more than one salary cap that applies to a club, and we operate more than just a top 25 NRL squad.

It's a balancing act between keeping our top 25 of say 38 contracted players under the NRL cap, keeping the remaining players inside the NSW Cup cap (or whatever rules apply to that comp to stop teams stacking their feeder team), while also having enough cash available as a club to afford the contracts for say 35-38 players.

Anyway, we will come under the cap using 25 of our 38 contracted players - that's a no brainer. The issue is Kingston can't be our final player taking up just $55K... like he and the club initially maybe thought.

So a lot of fiddling involved to make a $110K player fit in. And I'd imagine it would take some of our new contract signings (not the 6 players above varying their current contracts) to agree to back end their deals for the NRL to approve our recruitment efforts under the cap for 2010?

It was well documented that Tahu was being backended, I wouldn't be surprised if Poore and Shack are already in the same boat as well... so it maybe a case of not having the right cash available for the extra $60K, without breaking the NRL rules. A shame for all concerned, but would be easy if anyone had made an offer for Oake or Hauraki.

 

[strider]

can you have a guy in the NRL cap that has a slary under the NRL Minimum salary? ... doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of having a minimum salary?

if that were allowed then surely a bunch of teams would just have 5 or so players getting less than the minimum and then being able to pay others more .... tbh seems wrong to me

 

[oldmancraigy]

can you have a guy in the NRL cap that has a slary under the NRL Minimum salary? ... doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of having a minimum salary?

if that were allowed then surely a bunch of teams would just have 5 or so players getting less than the minimum and then being able to pay others more .... tbh seems wrong to me

Exactly!

Bartman - what you're proposing is highly illegal under salary cap laws!

The rules state that the club must have their top 25 players forming the $4.1million cap.

You can't have less than that, nor can you have more.

 

[oldmancraigy]

where are you getting this from :crazy:

Are you serious :shock: :shock: :shock:

How does it work?
The NRL Salary Cap for 2008 is $4.1m for the 25 highest paid players at each club. If each player was paid an equal amount, they would get about $160,000 each. Each club can exercise its discretion in relation to how much individual players are paid, providing that total payments do not exceed the $4.1m cap. In addition to the $4.1m Salary Cap for top 25 players, each club may spend up to an additional $350,000 on players outside the top 25 who play in the NRL competition.

http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

So it CLEARLY states that the top 25 paid players at each club form the 'salary cap'.

If we've got "nothing left" out of our $4.1m, and still have 1 roster spot to spare, then we have clearly broken the cap --> the 25th player will put us over.

Standard penalties over the last few seasons have been to deduct 4 competition points (a stupid penalty IMO - one that needs to be addressed asap).

 

[El Diablo]

how do you know we have nothing left ffs

has it occured to you they don't think Kingston is worth $115k a year?

 

[eel01s]

Obviously with the Keatings, Anthony Mitchell and now Jeff Robson, the Club feels they don't need Kinga, especially at $115k per year.

Yes it would have been nice to keep the majority of the grand final squad together, but unless other players come up with $60k in savings, he won't be staying.

 

[strider]

how do you know we have nothing left ffs

has it occured to you they don't think Kingston is worth $115k a year?

well from a $$$s point of view - they've already had to pay him $60K of that ... so as far as our club's accountants are concerned, it'll only cost them $55K next season regardless .... so I don't know why they'd care if the players took $60K in cuts because it would actually save the club $60K