Raiders fury at Kiwi rorts - Wiki lured by 'illegal' offer?

[skeepe]

Love the sugar coated version of their cap rort the Raider fans give. :lol:

If it is so "sugar coated" why don't you tell us the real story since you are obviously in the know (even though you would have been about 5 years old at the time).

 

[Balmain_Boy]

I would think it is because we are in a position now where we a limiting the amount of teams that can play in the NRL yet we have other locations knocking on the door to have a team also. Some of these teams have millionaires behind them yet are knocked back. This creates a incentive for teams to manage themselves well in order to be able to participate in the NRL. At the moement there is no incientive for teams to promote themselves whilst the NRL holds them back to the worst performing ones. Loss of opportunity. It may well be time for natural attrition.

You think it would be good for league if clubs like the Tigers, Souths, Sea Eagles (a few years ago), Raiders and Knights were allowed to die? Besides I think the incentive to manage themselves well is to win a premiership.

You're a Roosters' fan right?

 

[skeepe]

Why would the Raiders die? A fairly recent report had us in the top 3 clubs financially. We'll do alright... but I know what you mean. The Knights almost hit the wall last year with the current salary cap... if it were increased earlier as the vultures from the Roosters and Saints wanted then we may have been facing a 2006 competition with only 14 teams.

Hell even 13 because a higher cap would almost surely have killed Manly off before they were privatised.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

I didn't realise that was the case. If it's right (not doubting you), tht's great news. I just chose from the clubs who opposed a salary cap increase, which was the majority. It's blatant self interest from the fans who advocate it.

We would have been fked as well. We could afford to spend about 2.9 million last year.

Maybe we should make a minimum number of juniors a prerequisite. After all it will encourage good management of each club's juniors won't it?

 

[I Bleed Green]

The Raiders are in the top 3 clubs financially, because we have the backing of about 8 leagues clubs throughout Canberra (that's not an exaggeration). It's just a shame that we suck. :|

 

[The Colonel]

There was no guarantee they would earn the bonuses, but it was a risky thing to do, and obviously, it didn't work out for them.

Whilst there is no guarantee it is still an incentive....

 

[douglasallen91]

We had to shed players big time in 1992 as well, think the Warriors will do that?

are these internationals, state of origin player good enough for you: stacey jones, ali lauitiiti, vinnie anderson, francis meli, henry faafili, iafeta palea'asina, pj marsh. probably missed a few thats off the top of my head.

 

[douglasallen91]

Originally Posted by OVP
Excuse me, but what the hell is wrong with guaranteeing a player a job after he retires ? What the hell has that to do with player payments and why should it even matter to the salary cap ? Are the NRL saying you cant be employed at a club after you retire ? What right do they possibly have to do that ? I think its high time the Salary Crap was challenged in court ...




I totally agree in part with scrapping the salary cap... in favour of a points system. It has just been ratified in our local comp and appears to look to be equitable in theory. An example would be;

A current international = 20 points (if club junior then 16 points)
ex-international = 18 points (club junior then 14 points)
state of oringin rep = 16 points (club jnr=12points)
former SOO rep = 14 pots (club jnr = 10 pts)
city/coutry = 12 pts (club jnr = 8 pts)
first grade level = 10 points (club jnr = 6 pts)
entry level = 8 points (local jnr 4 points)

Each clubs squad has a budget of say 200 points for the entire squad. Money doesn't come into the equation this way and those clubs who spend beyond their means go down the gurgler, with no sympathy. This way what they get paid is irrelevant both now and in the future and there can be no grey areas such as second tier breaches etc. When a contract is lodged, points are accrued and when the limit is reached its time to start shedding players. Say a Joey Johns went on the market, his value to each club is exactly the same points wise but how much could he make shopping around. Player wins, club is no worse off and NRL wins as there can't be any rorting...its black and white. There is the added bonus of discounts for locally produced juniors.

that way the warriors would be over the limit anyway with all the kiwis they have and broncos would also be over

 

[douglasallen91]

Fair enough players should be able to be offered work after they retire. The problem is when the job is 300k a year to change the lightbulbs in the club gym.

150k for an assistant coach seems fair enough doesn't it.

 

[Raider Ultra]

Is that the job that's written on the contract?

 

[douglasallen91]

Is that the job that's written on the contract?

just putting pieces of info together, 1 said a 150,000k job afterwards and the other said it was a assistant coach position.

its not like they wouldn't want wiki as an assistant coach. raiders, warriors and the kiwis would all die to have wiki as defense coach.

 

[douglasallen91]

if he wasn't at the warriors he would be lost to the esl.

 

[Raider Ultra]

No he wouldn't, he'd be at the Raiders. He was going to stay here until he got the ridiculous offer, that was from all accounts, close to twice the Raiders offer.

 

[douglasallen91]

No he wouldn't, he'd be at the Raiders. He was going to stay here until he got the ridiculous offer, that was from all accounts, close to twice the Raiders offer.

wigan had a bigger offer than we did on the table, wiki wanted to come home like he should have in 95.

Warriors chase Ruben Wiki


Canberra is facing an international tug-of-war for the services of their forward leader Ruben Wiki. Wiki, off contract at the end of the NRL season and keen to weigh up his options once the anti-tampering deadline expires at midnight on Wednesday, is in the sights of the struggling New Zealand Warriors and English giants Wigan.

The 31-year-old also has a lucrative three-year deal on the table from the Raiders but will reserve his decision until he has had the opportunity to test his worth on the open market.

Wiki's manager Jim Banaghan revealed he had held "fruitful" discussions with Wigan boss Maurice Lindsay - in Australia for the third State of Origin game.

And across the Tasman, the Warriors went public with their interest in the Kiwi test enforcer.

"I have had a long and fruitful discussion with Maurice," Banaghan said.

"Maurice is exceptionally interested in Ruben."

Wiki is expected to be one of the game's most coveted players when the player market hots up on Thursday. Despite his age, he remains one of the most feared players in rugby league.

That's prompted the Warriors to table their interest.

"We are interested in a player of the calibre of Ruben Wiki, who can get us going forward," Warriors chief executive Mick Watson said.

The Warriors have also expressed an interest in Cronulla hardman Chris Beattie, who has been given permission to test the market.

Watson also revealed the club was keen on English prop Stuart Fielden, although the Bradford forward has a heavy price tag.

"We have a couple of ideas," Watson said.

"We'll wait and see."

source:http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/454218/433487

 

[Chips]

Wiki had incredible Pride in Canberra, i dont see that same pride for the Warriors...he is still strong and pulls off some bopper hits but its not the same

 

[Chips]

You needed to cheat to get him dude, He is a Raiders legend not a Warriors legend, if all was fair we may have kept him

 

[edabomb]

Warriors should be docked 5 points a season for the next 2 or 3 IMO. It's not enough to just punish them for one season, we all saw with the Bulldogs they went on to win the comp 2 years later with the majority of the squad that was signed under dodgy business practise.

 

[douglasallen91]

You needed to cheat to get him dude, He is a Raiders legend not a Warriors legend, if all was fair we may have kept him

bro he is a warriors legend even before he played for them, a raiders legend and is a kiwi legend to the max.

 

[dubby]

bro he is a warriors legend even before he played for them, a raiders legend and is a kiwi legend to the max.

Don't "bro" us you pakeha! Muss never was, and never will be a Warriors legend. NZ legend, yes, Warriors, no.

Just how the hell can you justify him as a warriors legend after 2 years?

 

[jed]

Excuse me, but what the hell is wrong with guaranteeing a player a job after he retires ? What the hell has that to do with player payments and why should it even matter to the salary cap ? Are the NRL saying you cant be employed at a club after you retire ? What right do they possibly have to do that ? I think its high time the Salary Crap was challenged in court ...

Considering the question seems to have been ignored, the reason future promises are included in the cap is that otherwise teams could say "We'll sign you for $200K for 3 years, and then pay you $300K for the next 3 years", making the deal worth $1.5M, whilst only declaring $600K of it.

No-one is saying clubs can't employ their former players (many do), but all the promises made in the players contract must be counted in the cap, otherwise these "under the table payments" would continue.