Panthers sign Kingston from Eels

[oldmancraigy]

how do you know we have nothing left ffs

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

i never said we had nothing left - i was trying to make the point that we have at least 55k under the cap - which was to answer the allegations that 6 players taking 10k paycuts wouldn't help sign Kingston for 115k.

Clearly it would (55k + 60k = 115k).

 

[El Diablo]

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

this is where i think you're wrong

i think that was offered by those players so he could stay at the minimum wage which he would be happy to do

they may have another player ready to fill his roll on that wage

i seriously doubt we are over the cap as oldmancraigy is assuming juat because of Kinston

 

[born an eel]

:bdh:

 

[JoeyJoJo83]

I'm confused. :?

 

[El Diablo]

reading this may make t clear if i'm interpreting it correctly

http://www.penrithstar.com.au/news/...nalist-to-sign-with-the-panthers/1649576.aspx

Parramatta grand finalist to sign with the Panthers
BY JOHN MACDONALD
14/10/2009 3:46:00 PM
KEVIN Kingston will sign a one-year contract with the Penrith Panthers this week.

Kingston yesterday confirmed all chance of remaining at Parramatta had gone.

``It's imminent and it's nice to be wanted, Penrith are a very strong club,'' said the Cronulla reject who became a key member of Parramatta's romantic run to the NRL grand final this season.

``Parramatta tried every avenue to keep me and I was blown away by the support I received,'' he said of other Eels' offers to drop payments so Parramatta could fit him under the salary cap.

``But Ian Schubert said no,'' he said of the NRL's auditing officer and his assessing of Kingston as a $110,000-a-season man.

Kingston said he wouldn't be receiving that but a base $50,000 contract at Penrith because of their own salary-cap problems.

The father of a one-year-old son, 26-year-old Kingston said although his nominal value might now be high it wouldn't be reflected in his wallet, and his wife would still have to work.

Still, Kingston said he couldn't be disappointed with how things have panned out.

``I couldn't have imagined this season in my wildest dreams,'' he said.

``It was pretty special and it was a privilege to be part of such a great team.''

Penrith coach Matthew Elliott said Kingston's arrival would be ``a massive positive''.

``He buzzed them up a bit when he came on in the second half and he has that grand-final experienc now,'' he said of Kinsgton's Parramatta form.

Elliott said Kingston's departure from a club he wanted to stay at was nothing new under the salary cap.

``That's the nature of the modern terrain,'' he said. ``We can't throw a wedge of money at him.''

Penrith have lost hooker Paul Aiton to Cronulla but Elliott said he hadn't given any thought yet to Kingston as starting hooker or bench impact player, as he was with Parramatta.

Elliott said he had much faith in 20-year-old hooker Masada Iosefa.

The Kingston case has led to Rugby League Players Association chief executive David Garnsey labelling the salary cap's application as ``unfair''.

so it seems even though he'll only be paid $50,000 the NRL will still value him @ $110,000 under the cap

so taking the pay cuts would effectively achieve nothing.

 

[bartman]

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.

I wasn't proposing that we have a player under $55K in the NRL top 25, nor was I proposing that we can make do with 24...? Mustn't have worded it clearly.

All I'm saying is the top guys outside the NRL top 25 are probably on 55K as well, or say 50K, and we'd need to just give them a 5K top-up on their existing contract to make them number 25. That's a lot different to finding 55K - if we don't have that spare cash handy (which I suspect we don't, without further back-ending which may not be possible).

To make that clearer... just because we have our 25th highest paid player spot "free" doesn't mean we have 55K still free. We might have 5K free, with which we can upgrade someone like say Mitchell Algood from say 50K to the minimum 55K to take up that 25th roster spot legally.

 

[Ike E Bear]

reading this may make t clear if i'm interpreting it correctly

http://www.penrithstar.com.au/news/...nalist-to-sign-with-the-panthers/1649576.aspx



so it seems even though he'll only be paid $50,000 the NRL will still value him @ $110,000 under the cap

so taking the pay cuts would effectively achieve nothing.

I understand this point, but it only follows if the pay cuts the players take is not reflected in their own valuations under the salary cap.

I.E. If Grothe is getting $10,000 less a year, should his value under the salary cap be $10,000 less than it is currently?

If "yes", then the cuts would be freeing up cap space as well as actual dollars.

That said, I can live with it if the answer is "no" since that can potentially lead to rorting (not that I think it would be a rort in the Kingston situation), BUT ...

WTF is going on in Melbourne in terms of Brett Finch's valuation under the salary cap?!?!?

Is he currently valued at the $200,000+ that he should be for the salary cap? I doubt that the Storm had $200,000 of their salary cap free this year to bring him on board and I doubt they would have it next year to retain him.

This is one aspect of this whole issue that smells a bit, in my opinion. I have no problem with us losing players because we have recruited players ... but where's the frakkin' consistency?

:crazy:

Edit - And what about the Bulldogs? Should players be counted under the salary cap based on their "value" (however the heck that's assessed) or on what they are actually getting paid? Were Patten and Ryan worth $0 this year for the sake of the salary cap?

I guess at least this is in the past (albeit recent), but the Finch example is from this year and next.

 

[forward pass]

Can someone explain to me what is to stop Grothe, Cayless etc from taking 20k paycuts to their contracts, that extra amount going to Kinga to pay him up to the $110k.

And then the Kinga pays each of them out of his own pocket - the amount they reduced their contracts by - until he is left with 55k - or whatever the amount is????

 

[mickdo]

So did the $110k valuation apply to Penrith as well?

 

[El Diablo]

So did the $110k valuation apply to Penrith as well?

i believe that is what the article says. his manager has also said it in the past http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26127539-23214,00.html

. "If he signs on for $50,000 and gets match payments then he will automatically be included in the cap at $110,000. It is just ridiculous."

"What happens is if you have a player on a $50,000 contract and $3000 a game in match payments, he will go into the cap this year at $50,000," Panthers coach Matt Elliott explained.

"But if he is on the same deal next year, and he has played 10 games this year, then he goes into the salary cap at $50,000, plus the $30,000 he got during the year in match payments, plus another $30,000 because they think he will play another 10. So he is on $50,000, but his salary cap value becomes $110,000.

 

[strider]

reading this may make t clear if i'm interpreting it correctly

http://www.penrithstar.com.au/news/...nalist-to-sign-with-the-panthers/1649576.aspx



so it seems even though he'll only be paid $50,000 the NRL will still value him @ $110,000 under the cap

so taking the pay cuts would effectively achieve nothing.

ummmm ... I hate to be a stick in the mud - but ... no

that changes nothing to what I think the situation is - infact it enforces it :lol:

 

[El Diablo]

how so?

they would be taking a cut for money that would not be spent

 

[strider]

I understand this point, but it only follows if the pay cuts the players take is not reflected in their own valuations under the salary cap.

I.E. If Grothe is getting $10,000 less a year, should his value under the salary cap be $10,000 less than it is currently?

If "yes", then the cuts would be freeing up cap space as well as actual dollars.

That said, I can live with it if the answer is "no" since that can potentially lead to rorting (not that I think it would be a rort in the Kingston situation), BUT ...

WTF is going on in Melbourne in terms of Brett Finch's valuation under the salary cap?!?!?

Is he currently valued at the $200,000+ that he should be for the salary cap? I doubt that the Storm had $200,000 of their salary cap free this year to bring him on board and I doubt they would have it next year to retain him.

This is one aspect of this whole issue that smells a bit, in my opinion. I have no problem with us losing players because we have recruited players ... but where's the frakkin' consistency?

:crazy:

Edit - And what about the Bulldogs? Should players be counted under the salary cap based on their "value" (however the heck that's assessed) or on what they are actually getting paid? Were Patten and Ryan worth $0 this year for the sake of the salary cap?

I guess at least this is in the past (albeit recent), but the Finch example is from this year and next.

The way I understand it - the the value in 2010 = [base salary in 2010] + [incentive/bonus/whatever payments based on 2009]

so - in terms of Finch, I would imagine he would not have earned a single $1 of incentive/bonus money in 2009 - so his value for melbourne's cap in 2010 is just his base salary for 2010, which maybe be some minimum amount of $50K

in 2010 he could then also get paid incentives ontop of his base 2010 salary - BUT that amount won't count on melbourne's cap until 2011 IF and ONLY IF he is at melbourne in 2011 .... if he leaves to go overseas in 2011, the incentives/bonuses earnt in 2010 will never go against any salary cap

 

[strider]

how so?

they would be taking a cut for money that would not be spent

once and for all - in the simplest terms I can find - here is my understanding

1) lets say parra only has $50K left under the cap for 2010
2) kinga must be valued at $110K = base salary 2010 of $50K + $60K incentives from 2009 ... note: he already has the $60K in his pocket - its pretend money for cap purposes
3) so if players were allowed to take pay cuts, and those pay cuts meant the amount we have spent decreases - then $60K paycuts would mean $110K available under the cap
4) result = kinga now fits


YES - this may NOT be the case ... our staff MAY not want kinga and may want to spend the remaining cap room on someone else ..... if thats the case then YES, it is all irrelevant

 

[strider]

Can someone explain to me what is to stop Grothe, Cayless etc from taking 20k paycuts to their contracts, that extra amount going to Kinga to pay him up to the $110k.

And then the Kinga pays each of them out of his own pocket - the amount they reduced their contracts by - until he is left with 55k - or whatever the amount is????

lets say they take paycuts and its allowed to fit kinga under the cap

Kinga WILL NOT get paid $110K ... he will only get paid $50K .... he got the $60K this past season

so if he then paid them back the amounts, he is paying them the money he got last season ... so he only ends up with $50K from 2009 and $50K from 2010 ... so he effectively loses all his incentive payments from 2009

now he said he was ok with doing that at one point ... but you have to wonder - if there is an option for penrith to fit him and he keeps the $60K he already earnt, then it'd be hard to give it up just to stay at parra ... at the end of the day playing footy is just their job and income source - might be nice to stay at parra, but might be nice to keep the money too

 

[bartman]

once and for all - in the simplest terms I can find - here is my understanding

1) lets say parra only has $50K left under the cap for 2010
2) kinga must be valued at $110K = base salary 2010 of $50K + $60K incentives from 2009 ... note: he already has the $60K in his pocket - its pretend money for cap purposes
3) so if players were allowed to take pay cuts, and those pay cuts meant the amount we have spent decreases - then $60K paycuts would mean $110K available under the cap
4) result = kinga now fits


YES - this may NOT be the case ... our staff MAY not want kinga and may want to spend the remaining cap room on someone else ..... if thats the case then YES, it is all irrelevant

I reckon all of that sounds right... except that I'm not sure we have the $50K (or $55K) spare cash sitting around? In which case the 6 players x $10K each may not be enough to meet Kingston's evaluation - unless someone like Oake or Hauraki get an offer from elsewhere and drop out of our top 25? Then in the NRL's eyes we would have the right cash spare - and more importantly the cap valuation space spare - for Kinga (plus one other player valued at $55K) to be part of our top 25.

Failing that plan coming off, I can just see us using whatever cash we have spare (say $30K) to top up a contract of one of the Wenty guys to become $55K and be our "player 25". Otherwise we'd still be in the player market trying to grab someone who is yet to sign pronto for the $55K, to "fill" that "last spot".

 

[Ike E Bear]

The way I understand it - the the value in 2010 = [base salary in 2010] + [incentive/bonus/whatever payments based on 2009]

so - in terms of Finch, I would imagine he would not have earned a single $1 of incentive/bonus money in 2009 - so his value for melbourne's cap in 2010 is just his base salary for 2010, which maybe be some minimum amount of $50K

in 2010 he could then also get paid incentives ontop of his base 2010 salary - BUT that amount won't count on melbourne's cap until 2011 IF and ONLY IF he is at melbourne in 2011 .... if he leaves to go overseas in 2011, the incentives/bonuses earnt in 2010 will never go against any salary cap

So, money paid to Finch by Parramatta is of no value to the cap?

I'm telling you, it stinks of inconsistency.

Finch was paid by the Eels and then given a minimum level contract with Melbourne, which means he was theoretically paid twice ... but supposedly valued at the minimum level for the salary cap.

It's nice to get special treatment.

 

[parra-matters]

it's not special treatment, Kinga has to have $60,000 added to next year as there were match payments above any contract he had for 2009, it is always the case that the match payments get added to the next year. It was put in place so if you had a lot of injuires and had to call on players outside the top 25 then you wouldn't go over the salary cap that year but would have to allow for it the next, it should only be that club if the players goes to another club bad luck but the club he earnt the match payments at should have it in thier 2010 cap.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I reckon all of that sounds right... except that I'm not sure we have the $50K (or $55K) spare cash sitting around? In which case the 6 players x $10K each may not be enough to meet Kingston's evaluation - unless someone like Oake or Hauraki get an offer from elsewhere and drop out of our top 25? Then in the NRL's eyes we would have the right cash spare - and more importantly the cap valuation space spare - for Kinga (plus one other player valued at $55K) to be part of our top 25.

Failing that plan coming off, I can just see us using whatever cash we have spare (say $30K) to top up a contract of one of the Wenty guys to become $55K and be our "player 25". Otherwise we'd still be in the player market trying to grab someone who is yet to sign pronto for the $55K, to "fill" that "last spot".

Bartman....

we've GOT to have the $50-55k spare under the cap or there's already trouble.

If there was only $30k spare, then bringing a Wenty player up to $55k would still count as 55k towards the NRL salary cap.

Currently there must be 'nothing' in that 25th roster spot space, and it needs to be filled by 'something'.
The lowest amount 'something' can equal is $50-55k.
Therefore we must have 50-55k spare under the cap.

[Wenty players don't count towards the NRL cap, they count towards the Wenty cap - you can't have them count $35k towards the Wenty cap and $20k towards the NRL cap - it's not viable in the current system]

[unless you're suggesting the club is in fact, broke - in which case your argument holds. However I think the Eels are FAR from broke, so that's pointless ]

 

[oldmancraigy]

So, money paid to Finch by Parramatta is of no value to the cap?

I'm telling you, it stinks of inconsistency.

Finch was paid by the Eels and then given a minimum level contract with Melbourne, which means he was theoretically paid twice ... but supposedly valued at the minimum level for the salary cap.

It's nice to get special treatment.

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.