Parramatta Eels sign Josh Papalii for 2014

[oldmancraigy]

Fensom is on contract for next year and will be next off seasons problem, Williams, JT and Croker will need to be signed and upgraded, significantly, i do wonder if we keep Paps, if the club might have to surrender on Joel Thompson though...

But Joe Picker (unfortunately as i like him) is highly unlikely to be re-signed and if he is, it wont be an up-grade as his last contract was signed when he was starting, not playing reggies, it will probably be for less value if anything. White will be last priority on the list, he'll get what we got left or he'll head to ESL. TLL will need to lift his game in a rather large way to get a deal in line with his current money, let alone an upgrade.

All in all, money wont be the issue in keeping Papalii, we've got plenty of cap space for our #1 priority. The issue is our number and what we're willing to pay is not as high as yours. We are working on 3rd parties to rectify this so we dont have to go above our number cap wise.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not sure you understand how the rules work.

Papali has signed a contract with Parramatta, but this contract will not be registered with the NRL until after round 13. This is standard business practice with the NRL across the board, they simply do NOT register new contracts for anyone until round 13.

The rules give the right of retention to the incumbent club, and provided that they can supply a matching contract to the NRL before round 13, Papali can then choose to stay at the Raiders. However the Raiders are unable to offer him less money on the contract, nor have 3rd party deals supplementing his income, because he has already signed with Parramatta.

I think you're mistaken because you're thinking of situations like Cooper Cronks? He verbally agreed to a deal with the Gold Coast last year, but after the instability hit the club, he backed out of the deal to remain with Melbourne. However Cronk did not sign a contract, and so was not bound to be 'matched' by Melbourne (he could agree with them on whatever dodgy deal they concocted).


So, just to clear up the confusion here: Papali has officially signed a contract with Parramatta. That contract is with the NRL, but they wont ratify it until the end of round 13. For Canberra to turn things around, they first need to find the exact same amount of cash in their cap, and then have Papali agree to sign a contract to stay there.
Given that he's already agreed to come to Parramatta, that task itself is no easy feat, let alone finding the cash to keep him.

The guy is a heck of a talent, and it's natural for you to want to keep him; but as we've learnt here (the T-Rex situation) just because a player SAYS he wants to stay in no way means that he will be staying. All it means is that he's not leaving on bad terms.

 

[oldmancraigy]

It's very simple he's signed a contract so he knows where he's going. Lets not buckshot Raiders69. Papali signed a contract so he has an idea of where he is going.

There's only one party at fault here and that's not the Raiders or Parra. It's Papli and his management.

In the first to be dirty on our juniors leaving the club, hate it!

But what's even worse is someone not keeping their word once he agrees to a deal. If he reneges then he's got no respect. He's not a man. It all comes down to values.

Don't worry, he can't renege. He put pen to paper.

Not a verbal agreement, a signed contract.

We've made him feel special, Canberra have come chasing after being left for someone new. There is very little they can do to change the situation.

 

[eels81236]

The sooner players are actually actually contracted the NRL (with the club then leasing the player from the NRL the better).

 

[El Diablo]

you want to hear from Josh yet your club has banned him from talking to the media

if he wanted to stay why have they done that?

 

[Wiggy]

For Canberra to turn things around, they first need to find the exact same amount of cash in their cap, and then have Papali agree to sign a contract to stay there.

This is the first I have heard this. Do you have anything to back that up (I'm not saying your wrong, but that's not how it is being reported in Canberra by the media)

If you are right, then I honestly hope the Raiders don't find the money. 1.5 mil over three years is waaaaay too much money to throw at any second rower.

If he signs with the Raiders for that much, it will cost us 2-3 players in the next few years, and that's no good.

 

[Raider_69]

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not sure you understand how the rules work.

Papali has signed a contract with Parramatta, but this contract will not be registered with the NRL until after round 13. This is standard business practice with the NRL across the board, they simply do NOT register new contracts for anyone until round 13.

The rules give the right of retention to the incumbent club, and provided that they can supply a matching contract to the NRL before round 13, Papali can then choose to stay at the Raiders. However the Raiders are unable to offer him less money on the contract, nor have 3rd party deals supplementing his income, because he has already signed with Parramatta.

I think you're mistaken because you're thinking of situations like Cooper Cronks? He verbally agreed to a deal with the Gold Coast last year, but after the instability hit the club, he backed out of the deal to remain with Melbourne. However Cronk did not sign a contract, and so was not bound to be 'matched' by Melbourne (he could agree with them on whatever dodgy deal they concocted).


So, just to clear up the confusion here: Papali has officially signed a contract with Parramatta. That contract is with the NRL, but they wont ratify it until the end of round 13. For Canberra to turn things around, they first need to find the exact same amount of cash in their cap, and then have Papali agree to sign a contract to stay there.
Given that he's already agreed to come to Parramatta, that task itself is no easy feat, let alone finding the cash to keep him.

The guy is a heck of a talent, and it's natural for you to want to keep him; but as we've learnt here (the T-Rex situation) just because a player SAYS he wants to stay in no way means that he will be staying. All it means is that he's not leaving on bad terms.

That is the absolute first time ive ever heard of that. Im not saying your right or wrong, just that i've never heard of this stuff about how if we're to keep it it cant involve 3rd parties and it cant be under Parramatta's offer.
I wouldnt be surprised if the offer match was in play, and that we did indeed have to come up to a figure that is at least the match of parramatta's but id like to think the Raiders CEO and Board are across this issue a little more than you or i, and they are going full steam ahead with 3rd party deals to help retain him... So we'll see but the 3rd party stuff in particular sounds a bit outlandish to me.

 

[oldmancraigy]

This is the first I have heard this. Do you have anything to back that up (I'm not saying your wrong, but that's not how it is being reported in Canberra by the media)

If you are right, then I honestly hope the Raiders don't find the money. 1.5 mil over three years is waaaaay too much money to throw at any second rower.

If he signs with the Raiders for that much, it will cost us 2-3 players in the next few years, and that's no good.

Can you give me a good reason that you consider this to be incorrect???

The bloke has put pen to paper with Parramatta, and the ruling allows the 'incumbent' club to retain services at that rate if they come up with the cash and the agreement of the player.
You can call the NRL and ask them about it yourself (but make sure you talk about theoretical situations since they won't discuss real matters with you); they'll tell you how it works.

To be a tad facetious: I'm shocked the media (particularly in Canberra) would get it wrong :lol:

 

[The EELiminator]

Not trying to be rude, but I'm not sure you understand how the rules work.

Papali has signed a contract with Parramatta, but this contract will not be registered with the NRL until after round 13. This is standard business practice with the NRL across the board, they simply do NOT register new contracts for anyone until round 13.

The rules give the right of retention to the incumbent club, and provided that they can supply a matching contract to the NRL before round 13, Papali can then choose to stay at the Raiders. However the Raiders are unable to offer him less money on the contract, nor have 3rd party deals supplementing his income, because he has already signed with Parramatta.

I think you're mistaken because you're thinking of situations like Cooper Cronks? He verbally agreed to a deal with the Gold Coast last year, but after the instability hit the club, he backed out of the deal to remain with Melbourne. However Cronk did not sign a contract, and so was not bound to be 'matched' by Melbourne (he could agree with them on whatever dodgy deal they concocted).


So, just to clear up the confusion here: Papali has officially signed a contract with Parramatta. That contract is with the NRL, but they wont ratify it until the end of round 13. For Canberra to turn things around, they first need to find the exact same amount of cash in their cap, and then have Papali agree to sign a contract to stay there.
Given that he's already agreed to come to Parramatta, that task itself is no easy feat, let alone finding the cash to keep him.

The guy is a heck of a talent, and it's natural for you to want to keep him; but as we've learnt here (the T-Rex situation) just because a player SAYS he wants to stay in no way means that he will be staying. All it means is that he's not leaving on bad terms.

you would think the raiders ceo should know they can't include 3rd party payments in their new offer

maybe he meant they would be raising 3rd party money to pay other raiders players then use the cap money saved on josh (unless thats not allowed either)

 

[oldmancraigy]

That is the absolute first time ive ever heard of that. Im not saying your right or wrong, just that i've never heard of this stuff about how if we're to keep it it cant involve 3rd parties and it cant be under Parramatta's offer.
I wouldnt be surprised if the offer match was in play, and that we did indeed have to come up to a figure that is at least the match of parramatta's but id like to think the Raiders CEO and Board are across this issue a little more than you or i, and they are going full steam ahead with 3rd party deals to help retain him... So we'll see but the 3rd party stuff in particular sounds a bit outlandish to me.

Well - I only know about it because I looked into it all back in 2008 over the Tony Williams saga.

He signed with Manly for $150k. We had the chance to offer him the same deal, but chose to spend it on big guns Hauraki, Tautai and Oake :shock:


Rules are rules, and its more than likely your board know them, and know that most other people don't know them. So they're trying to make it look like they're doing everything in their power to keep him, while actually doing nothing at all. Then they can sit back and say they didn't get the sponsors rather than have to admit they made a 'budget choice' to sign other blokes with the cash.

Our brilliant CEO came out and said he chose to sign the three legends of league mentioned above - and doesn't he look like a genius as a result! Perhaps your board are a bit more savvy?

 

[natheel]

you want to hear from Josh yet your club has banned him from talking to the media

if he wanted to stay why have they done that?

This whole issue would be sorted if josh was able to say want he wanted to do!

 

[Raider_69]

You might be right mate, i dont know. Im laying those cards on the table right now. I have very little understanding of the intricacies of the salary cap. Maybe Furner is talking a lot of smoke to cover his arse, it certainly doesnt read that way, it reads very much as if this club is dead serious on retaining him and they'll use any means possible, and thats a vibe from top to bottom from David Furner, Don Furner, John McIntyre and our board.

And i guess it's my turn to not mean to be rude
You might be right, but for now, ill stake the reputation of Don Furner, CEO of the Canberra Raiders, who has worked with the salary cap for near a decade against that of LU's oldmancraigy any day. You might be right, and the Raiders might be blowing smoke up everyone's arse. But if they are, they've got one hell of a smoke machine.

For now my faith is in Don Furner to do the job he's been doing so well for the past 5 years and find a way to keep the kid we've developed since 15. It remains to be seen if he's good enough to pull this one out of the fire. If the mole has got accurate mail (there is a first time for everything) we'll know at the end of the week.

 

[oldmancraigy]

you would think the raiders ceo should know they can't include 3rd party payments in their new offer

maybe he meant they would be raising 3rd party money to pay other raiders players then use the cap money saved on josh (unless thats not allowed either)

Well, the club can't raise 3rd party payments for ANY player at the club outside of the 3 marquee players.

All third party agreements must be registered and approved beforehand. This is to ensure that they do not become a way for clubs or players to use sponsors or third parties to undermine the salary cap. There are provisions for club sponsors to enter into agreements with elite players and for details see the Marquee Player Allowance section.

The 'Marquee Player Allowance' has just been raised to (I think?) $550k - to be spent on a maximum of 3 players. The club can arrange sponsorship and exceed the cap by up to $550k (but not more than $190 on any one player) for their marquee signings.



In terms of other players earning individual sponsorships, that simply offsets the amount the club would otherwise pay.


EXAMPLE:

Hayne gets paid $600k this year. He makes $190k from the marquee amount, so hits the $5.1m salary cap at a cost of $400k. Of this $400k, the Eels have "fundraised" $50k from one of their sponsors.
You can 'fundraise' up to $300k this way, but it doesn't allow you to break the cap, it just saves the club some dough.
If Rexona approach Hayne and his manager to do an ad for them, then that's all sweet, as long as he doesn't wear club colours etc, he can earn $10b from Rexona, and none of it counts against the cap.



EXAMPLE 2:
Papali signs for the Eels at $350-500k per season.
The Raiders have until round 13 to convince him he'd rather play in Canberra, and then match the money.
They can't ask Rexona to match it, he could earn $600k from Rexona, but it can't help in matching the contract.
The can organise a marquee sponsor if they want, but they need to take a cap hit of $350-500k per season anyway.

The one possibility here is that Parramatta has made Papali a marquee player for 2014, in which case Canberra would need to match those marquee payments, and make him one of their 3 marquee players for that season also.
Maybe this is what's going on?

 

[El Diablo]

This whole issue would be sorted if josh was able to say want he wanted to do!

whih makes you wonder why the Raiders won't let him

 

[oldmancraigy]

You might be right mate, i dont know. Im laying those cards on the table right now. I have very little understanding of the intricacies of the salary cap. Maybe Furner is talking a lot of smoke to cover his arse, it certainly doesnt read that way, it reads very much as if this club is dead serious on retaining him and they'll use any means possible, and thats a vibe from top to bottom from David Furner, Don Furner, John McIntyre and our board.

And i guess it's my turn to not mean to be rude
You might be right, but for now, ill stake the reputation of Don Furner, CEO of the Canberra Raiders, who has worked with the salary cap for near a decade against that of LU's oldmancraigy any day. You might be right, and the Raiders might be blowing smoke up everyone's arse. But if they are, they've got one hell of a smoke machine.

For now my faith is in Don Furner to do the job he's been doing so well for the past 5 years and find a way to keep the kid we've developed since 15. It remains to be seen if he's good enough to pull this one out of the fire. If the mole has got accurate mail (there is a first time for everything) we'll know at the end of the week.

No offence taken! I'll be annoyed if I've got the wrong info on how the cap works. It's a beast I like to try and understand!

 

[Tony Bongo]

Why don't we do a deal with Hayne, and then get him to sign a deal with a rival club. Then at the last minute come R13 we sign him up. This would have the added benefit of stuffing up some other clubs recruiting and cap.

That's a great idea. I wish I had of thought of it.

 

[Raider_69]

whih makes you wonder why the Raiders won't let him

Already suggested a perfectly reasonably explaination for this. If he is indeed having 2nd thoughts. It makes sense for him not to comment because he doesnt know which way it's going to go and doesnt want to risk alienating either of his potential playing destinations. And the easiest excuse he can get to fob off media looking for a comment is a club induced media ban.

Which you dont realise might actually be good for the eels and their fans. The last thing they want to hear is the kid is holding out for more cash at the raiders only to have to crawl back to them and play the "Ohh i always wanted to be here" card if we can get the cash together.

If he's unsure where his future lies, silence is his best bet right now.

 

[Jake the snake]

What a mess.

 

[emjaycee]

The following needs to be considered and I think this is where Furner and the Raiders Board are looking:

Third Party Agreements

Third party agreements are payments made by companies directly to players. There is no restriction on the amount a player can earn through third party agreements where he is being paid for his own intellectual property, without the need to employ club logos or names and where the company involved is neither a club sponsor nor are they acting on behalf of a club to secure the player’s services. An example of this is a player promoting a brand or product, for example, Billy Slater and Australian Bananas.
Many players do have third party agreements that are outside the salary cap. Individual players have registered third party agreements totalling in excess of $7.5 million in 2011.
All third party agreements must be registered and approved beforehand. This is to ensure that they do not become a way for clubs or players to use sponsors or third parties to undermine the salary cap. There are provisions for club sponsors to enter into agreements with elite players and for details see the Marquee Player Allowance section.

<source: NRL Website>

However I think OMC is right in regard to the fact that because Josh has signed a contract with Parramatta, new 3rd party deals cannot now be used in enticing Papalii to stay in Canberra.

Being a one-team town, I think it will be more difficult for the Raiders to find a sponsor/3rd party for Papalii that meets these requirements and the press coverage about Papalii won't help them.

 

[oldmancraigy]

The following needs to be considered and I think this is where Furner and the Raiders Board are looking:


<source: NRL Website>

However I think OMC is right in regard to the fact that because Josh has signed a contract with Parramatta, new 3rd party deals cannot now be used in enticing Papalii to stay in Canberra.

Being a one-team town, I think it will be more difficult for the Raiders to find a sponsor/3rd party for Papalii that meets these requirements and the press coverage about Papalii won't help them.

[[I am correct]]

 

[El Diablo]

Already suggested a perfectly reasonably explaination for this. If he is indeed having 2nd thoughts. It makes sense for him not to comment because he doesnt know which way it's going to go and doesnt want to risk alienating either of his potential playing destinations. And the easiest excuse he can get to fob off media looking for a comment is a club induced media ban.

Which you dont realise might actually be good for the eels and their fans. The last thing they want to hear is the kid is holding out for more cash at the raiders only to have to crawl back to them and play the "Ohh i always wanted to be here" card if we can get the cash together.

If he's unsure where his future lies, silence is his best bet right now.

that makes no sense

why is Furner speaking on his behalf?

Josh has his own mouth and they won't let him use it