Panthers sign Kingston from Eels

[El Diablo]

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

the pay cuts they take are no point. it doesn't go to anyone

better off spending the money than pretending to

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.

why do you keep assuming there is nothing :?

they probably have a player to fill Kingstons place signed up at half the price

 

[bartman]

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.

I know OMC, I'm sure we have that one 55K space left open atm, until we upgrade a Wenty player and deal with it that way. I'm talking about the fiddling we'd need to do, in order to sign someone/anyone new to the 25th spot... taking into account our commitments under the Wenty cap as well etc, and maybe an NRL limit on backending?

If we had 55K spare cash for a(n extra) player, and could still backend other new contracts coming into effect in 2010 to reflect Kinga's valuation, then I'm sure the NRL wouldn't have a problem registering it. Not all 6 of the players offering to take cuts are on new 2010 contracts able to be backended when registered (in the NRL's eyes), so that offer alone wouldn't satisfy the NRL we are sufficiently under the cap, and hasn't.

I'm not saying we're broke as a club, just saying that I don't think we're getting a raw deal by the NRL over this. It's extremely complicated last minute type of stuff re keeping Kinga, and I think we'll find that we've backended other contracts as much as we can already to afford the final 55K space under the NRL rules.

We've failed to attract offers elsewhere for surplus players that do count in the 25 (Oake and Hauraki), and that's been the undoing in being able to register Kinga, as opposed to registering a Wenty player say Allgood (with a spare say 20K cash on hand) to get him up to the 55K NRL min. If Oake or Hauraki were to be signed elsewhere we suddenly may have say 80K cap space which we can play around with to somehow satisfy the NRL valuations and rules about this stuff.

 

[bartman]

I know I've waffled there (again), but how does this description sound?

Current state of play:
NRL cap space remaining = $55K, 25th spot
Earmarked/saved for Kinga.

NRL valuation of Kinga is $115K = not possible unless someone else leaves or has their NRL valuation reduced.

The only way I think for someone's NRL valuation to be reduced is backending newly registered contracts, so the NRL can see their "perceived" value being met in later years if not in 2010. It is reasonable that this needs to be done by the club when first registering new contracts, so could only apply to players who have signed, or re-signed for season 2010, to fit Kinga's 2010 value in. That's the space I don't think we have any room left to move in...

But, if Oake or Hauraki were to take an offer from elsewhere, their (let's guess) 80K and spot in the top 25 comes out of reckoning.

Hypothetical state of play:
Salary cap space left = $55K plus $80 = $135K, 24th and 25th spot free

Kinga can take a spot for $115K as per NRL valutaion (even though he'd only receive $55K in 2010), which leaves $20K remaining for one spot.

That spells trouble, but the $35K gap would be more likely to be manageable with further backending to allow us to upgrade someone to fill the last spot than currently trying to find the $65K gap is. Again, I think the only pay cuts that the NRL can approve need to come from players signing or re-signing new contracts to be registered for the 2010 season... so the six players pledging a combined 60K cut might not be the "right" players to gain NRL approval for the arrangement.

When the NRL approved the Dogs post-breach arrangements and situations like Finch's, then it is likely those clubs had enough backending space/contracts to play with for the following year - I think as a club we are not broke, but we may have used too much backending already with 2010 signings and re-signings to sign Kinga?

 

[mickdo]

the pay cuts they take are no point. it doesn't go to anyone

better off spending the money than pretending to

Yes it would, it would free cap space needed for Kinga :roll:

 

[El Diablo]

Yes it would, it would free cap space needed for Kinga :roll:

it would free space but the money wouldn't go to him if he signs for $55k

the other players would be losing money that goes nowhere. it doesn't go to them and it doesn't go to Kingston

 

[strider]

re: Barty ....

So now you think we do have 55K available?

the NRL allowed the dogs to change hard base salaries into incentive deals which pushed their value to following years until ultimately the player left/retired and the incentives never counted .... I know that is what I read at the time .... they allowed them to restructure existing fixed salaries so they could still technically fit under the cap .... i think the NRL was scared to make them lose a player cos of all the "oh don't hurt the fans and players" hype that went on .... to me they let them get away with cheating - and they subsequently won a GF soon after with pretty much the same playing staff

ElD is saying they aren't denying us that now - maybe the club just doesn't want kinga

I get the feeling they are denying us that .... maybe the NRL don't want it to happen anymore??? - and I guess I could understand if they are trying to tighten such things - I just wonder if they are being consistant .... then again, maybe ElD is right??? maybe the club isn't fussed about keeping him

 

[mickdo]

it would free space but the money wouldn't go to him if he signs for $55k

the other players would be losing money that goes nowhere. it doesn't go to them and it doesn't go to Kingston

So? It keeps him at the club

 

[strider]

it would free space but the money wouldn't go to him if he signs for $55k

the other players would be losing money that goes nowhere. it doesn't go to them and it doesn't go to Kingston

yeah .... so? that is what they were chosing .... the club would be happy - they save $60K

 

[El Diablo]

So now you think we do have 55K available?

we could have more. i've never said we didn't have room

the NRL allowed the dogs to change hard base salaries into incentive deals which pushed their value to following years until ultimately the player left/retired and the incentives never counted .... I know that is what I read at the time .... they allowed them to restructure existing fixed salaries so they could still technically fit under the cap .... i think the NRL was scared to make them lose a player cos of all the "oh don't hurt the fans and players" hype that went on .... to me they let them get away with cheating - and they subsequently won a GF soon after with pretty much the same playing staff

this is what the Dogs did http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/21/1095651326466.html

ElD is saying they aren't denying us that now - maybe the club just doesn't want kinga

i can't find a quote anywhere saying they won't allow the players to take a cut so why would assume they won't let them?

I get the feeling they are denying us that .... maybe the NRL don't want it to happen anymore??? - and I guess I could understand if they are trying to tighten such things - I just wonder if they are being consistant .... then again, maybe ElD is right??? maybe the club isn't fussed about keeping him

what are you basing this feeling on?

 

[El Diablo]

yeah .... so? that is what they were chosing .... the club would be happy - they save $60K

how do you know the club would be happy?

the pay cut talks have come from the players, not the club

 

[strider]

how do you know the club would be happy?

the pay cut talks have come from the players, not the club

I'm sure the club wouldn't be happy to SAVE $60K :roll:

 

[mickdo]

how do you know the club would be happy?

the pay cut talks have come from the players, not the club

You're just going round in circles dude :lol:

 

[strider]

this is what the Dogs did http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/21/1095651326466.html

i can't find a quote anywhere saying they won't allow the players to take a cut so why would assume they won't let them?

what are you basing this feeling on?

yeah - that article basically says they let them change their contracts .... that doesn't even have any details about the actual first time when they got caught cheating - that is a subsequent restructure of existing contracts

yeah - i thought I had seen an article saying the NRL wouldn't allow it - but maybe I haven't seen a direct quote .... just the way the articles are oriented - but maybe thats just journalism??? .... but I do get teh feeling ossie is saying they want to keep him, so I find it hard to understand why the club would be opposed to saving $60K while keeping him :?

 

[El Diablo]

I'm sure the club wouldn't be happy to SAVE $60K :roll:

i'm sure the club would prefer to spend to the salary cap

 

[bartman]

re: Barty ....

So now you think we do have 55K available?

Perhaps...? We must have $55K "space" available in the top 25, by definition. But trying to juggle a smaller amount of cash and space to fit one Wenty guy in the 25 is easier than juggling the $65K space and contract cash (to backend) that we'd need to find to fit Kinga in presently.

the NRL allowed the dogs to change hard base salaries into incentive deals which pushed their value to following years until ultimately the player left/retired and the incentives never counted .... I know that is what I read at the time .... they allowed them to restructure existing fixed salaries so they could still technically fit under the cap .... i think the NRL was scared to make them lose a player cos of all the "oh don't hurt the fans and players" hype that went on .... to me they let them get away with cheating - and they subsequently won a GF soon after with pretty much the same playing staff

I'll take your word for that... maybe the incentive deals are seen by the NRL as different to the cuts being offered by 6 of our guys? Incentive deals being something that would have come back and bit the club the year after they were in place (which it did to the Dogs who then started shedding players), in the same way last year's incentive deal for Kinga is biting us for 2010.

ElD is saying they aren't denying us that now - maybe the club just doesn't want kinga

I get the feeling they are denying us that .... maybe the NRL don't want it to happen anymore??? - and I guess I could understand if they are trying to tighten such things - I just wonder if they are being consistant .... then again, maybe ElD is right??? maybe the club isn't fussed about keeping him

Maybe, that is one possibility. But you'd expect at this stage the club would just come out and say "we've looked into it and unfortunately we can't make it happen, shame but good luck Kinga" if that was the case, rather than string it out. I just reckon it's really complex to fit everyone in the cap due to the contracts in place before Osborne, plus the signings we've announced after.

We only expected to be able to keep one of Robson or Kinga unless someone left, and some of us excpected we would lose another contracted player due to the Tahu signing and the cap (even though Osborne said it technically didn't have to happen). Kinga would be on top of that, and I guess it's too tight a squeeze, without being able to ship Oake or Weller.

 

[El Diablo]

yeah - that article basically says they let them change their contracts .... that doesn't even have any details about the actual first time when they got caught cheating - that is a subsequent restructure of existing contracts

yeah - i thought I had seen an article saying the NRL wouldn't allow it - but maybe I haven't seen a direct quote .... just the way the articles are oriented - but maybe thats just journalism??? .... but I do get teh feeling ossie is saying they want to keep him, so I find it hard to understand why the club would be opposed to saving $60K while keeping him :?

the only quote i can find from anyone is Ossie saying the NRL wouldn't let the club sign him for $55k

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...p-kevin-kingston/story-e6freye0-1225785318873

'' Osborne said. "Kevin was happy to stay for only $55,000 - the minimum salary - but the NRL won't allow it. We think it's wrong.''

 

[strider]

i'm sure the club would prefer to spend to the salary cap

they would ... it'll just take $60K less actually outlay to achieve it

50K to kinga or 55K'ish to someone else - what's it matter? ... the players only offered to try and make an extra $60K room under the cap to fit their mate, not someone else

 

[forward pass]

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

That was my point Strides. If he is 'valued' at 110k then you may as well pay him that - or else you are wasting cap space.

He then pays back the other players personally. It doesn't cost the club any more, and everyone earns what they want.

 

[strider]

That was my point Strides. If he is 'valued' at 110k then you may as well pay him that - or else you are wasting cap space.

He then pays back the other players personally. It doesn't cost the club any more, and everyone earns what they want.

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

 

[born an eel]

That was my point Strides. If he is 'valued' at 110k then you may as well pay him that - or else you are wasting cap space.

He then pays back the other players personally. It doesn't cost the club any more, and everyone earns what they want.

the players receiving the top up from Kinga are then obliged to tell Schubert of the money and it will count as cap money again.

You will have to think of a more devious method to repay the players that can never be traced back to them.