Ricko's pay cut & the Roosters' push for Cap concessions

[melon....]

did a quick look on the NRL site

http://www.nrl.com/about/salarycap.cfm?page=5

2. The Long Serving Player or Veterans' Allowance.
This allowance has existed since the 2003 season. The allowance provides an exemption of up to $100,000 for each Club if they have a player or players that have been at their Club for ten years since they first played grade for their Club. For the Storm, Cowboys and Warriors the player must have been at the Club since its inception.

it looks like the Club can split the $100,000 between more than one 10+ year player.

In other words its not worth anything. If a club has 2 or 3 10 year players, then its worth jack shite. Only designed to be partially acceptable for one player. The NRL obviously has a problem promoting loyalty. Players like Ricketson, and other long service dudes, should be exempt full stop.

 

[gregstar]

Who gave you internet access? Get back in the kitchen and make me my breakfast.

:lol:

 

[Grantwhy]

If the Roosters have signed Ricketson for a $100,000 one year contract then he probably is exempt.

 

[The Observer]

Why do Easts want to help other clubs??

You just dont get it do you??

You're not very clever, are you? If Roosters want to add to/increase current cap exemptions, then it would be wise to convince the other 14 clubs that its in their interests, and thus with all the clubs on board, the partnership will follow.

 

[Southern Rooster]

Today Luke Ricketson has accepted a new contract with Roosters on the proviso that he does not play rep football and that he gets less money. This has been justified by his 'lacklustre' performance htis year as opposed to previous years and the depth at the club. It seems like a poor way to treat an accomplished, loyal player.

This week the club has asked the NRL to give them concessions based on the high cost of living in the Eastern Suburbs; the NRL and the other clubs refused to give their support for that request.

Meanwhile, each NRL clubs is ONLY allowed to give a maximum concession $100,000 to one player that has played First Grade at the club for 10 years (long service).

The following question is for Roosters fans is this. Why don't the Roosters ask for:
a) an increase in the concession from 100,000 to 2-300,000?

and/or

b) an increase in the number of players that can claim the 10 year exemption (e.g. from 1 player to 2 to 5 players)?

I imagine that other clubs would be more willing to grant this concession. Roosters are one of the clubs (besides young clubs Storm, Cowboys, Warriors) that could least benefit from this. To put it another way, other clubs could benefit from this much more.

We'd have a few we could use for that in about 4 years.

Minichiello (6 yrs currently)
Fitzgibbon (5 yrs currently)
Flannery (5 yrs currently)
Crocker (5 yrs currently)
Cross (7 yrs currently)
Ricketson (12 yrs currently)

 

[The Observer]

Southern Rooster, that's a good thing. What I was saying was that if the Roosters applied to increase the The Long Serving Player or Veterans' Allowance, then other clubs might be willing to support it (at least more so than the recent living expense claim) because they wouldn't feel that the club has any advantage over other clubs (with the possible exemption of Melbourne, and I'd support Melbourne's claim for a Relocation expense).

 

[Southern Rooster]

Southern Rooster, that's a good thing. What I was saying was that if the Roosters applied to increase the The Long Serving Player or Veterans' Allowance, then other clubs might be willing to support it (at least more so than the recent living expense claim) because they wouldn't feel that the club has any advantage over other clubs (with the possible exemption of Melbourne, and I'd support Melbourne's claim for a Relocation expense).

I agree with that. It is a perfect compromise. Teams with a good junior base aren't affected as they will be able to keep hold of long term players. Clubs like the Roosters who need to recruit due to a smaller junior base aren't disadvantaged either as they will be able to get dispensation for kids that have stayed there after being recruited as kids.

 

[gregstar]

Why don't the roosters relocate to a better junior base!!!

 

[The Observer]

gregstar, if anything, Roosters could claim back back some of the junior clubs which actually lie in the Eastern Suburbs e.g. those in Randwick and Coogee, maybe Maroubra. One poster has suggested that Souths poached those clubs in the 1950s when they were strong and dominated the NSWRL board.

 

[gregstar]

But if it is unlikely to be reversed now, why not relocate to an area which has heaps of juniors and steal a march on new franchises starting up?

 

[STSAE]

Why do Easts want to help other clubs??

You just dont get it do you??

You're not very clever, are you? If Roosters want to add to/increase current cap exemptions, then it would be wise to convince the other 14 clubs that its in their interests, and thus with all the clubs on board, the partnership will follow.

I didnt say I was clever but you are showing me you are not.

You said this "I imagine that other clubs would be more willing to grant this concession. Roosters are one of the clubs (besides young clubs Storm, Cowboys, Warriors) that could least benefit from this. To put it another way, other clubs could benefit from this much more"

Why would Easts try to get a concession thru that is going to help other clubs and not themselves??
Is thats clever??
No idiot.

:lol: :lol:

 

[drake]

gregstar, if anything, Roosters could claim back back some of the junior clubs which actually lie in the Eastern Suburbs e.g. those in Randwick and Coogee, maybe Maroubra. One poster has suggested that Souths poached those clubs in the 1950s when they were strong and dominated the NSWRL board.

Dude I grew up in that area, and most fans there would rather be under a vat of boiling oil than under someone besides Souths, especially in Maroubra.

But other than that, applying for an extension of the veteran exemption can only help the game, as all teams will benefit at some stage.
The facty that Easts are standing alone and making demands is what arcs everyone up. If they worked with the other clubs to acheive beneficial terms for everyone, who would complain?
Also, because I know there are morons who will say "We Roosters don't care about the other clubs, the fans, we're hardcore, blah, blah", the roosters can only acheive these things with the blessing of the NRL, the other clubs, and most importantly, the fans. We are the customer base, without us, nobody gets paid.

 

[Chook]

Our plan is to keep Ricko's salary low, then when he retires next year, if/when we have an injury crisis within the club in 2006 we can bring him out of retirement for $100 bucks a game :roll:

Chook.

 

[Chook]

Late breaking news......

The Roosters have just re-signed Shillington

You may not have heard of him.

He caused a bit of a stir when they first signed him as a Jersey Flegg player for $100K.

No idea how much he has signed for this time.

Cue the usual suspect supporters :"Much less"

I see your club has just poached the two Armit brothers from Parra? Don't you have any juniors of your own?

Chook.

 

[STSAE]

Our plan is to keep Ricko's salary low, then when he retires next year, if/when we have an injury crisis within the club in 2006 we can bring him out of retirement for $100 bucks a game :roll:

Chook.

Its that new cap dispensation, you know the one the Broncos got, The IkinGreenSmith rule.

:lol: :lol:

 

[Grantwhy]

Our plan is to keep Ricko's salary low, then when he retires next year, if/when we have an injury crisis within the club in 2006 we can bring him out of retirement for $100 bucks a game :roll:

Chook.

Its that new cap dispensation, you know the one the Broncos got, The IkinGreenSmith rule.

:lol: :lol:

So, how much do you think Ikin, Green or Smith are worth (per game?)

Gee, i don't think any of them are contracted for next year - all the NRL clubs must of really tried hard to sign them ..... didn't they?

 

[Chook]

Our plan is to keep Ricko's salary low, then when he retires next year, if/when we have an injury crisis within the club in 2006 we can bring him out of retirement for $100 bucks a game :roll:

Chook.

Its that new cap dispensation, you know the one the Broncos got, The IkinGreenSmith rule.

:lol: :lol:

So, how much do you think Ikin, Green or Smith are worth (per game?)

Gee, i don't think any of them are contracted for next year - all the NRL clubs must of really tried hard to sign them ..... didn't they?

Neither is Fittler contracted to any club for next year, but I can just imagine the howls of discontent should we bring him back next year during an injury crisis at $100 a game, can't you?

I mean he'll be retired, an ex SOO player, the precedent has been set!

Chook.

 

[The Mighty Panther]

Ricko will be receiving renumeration other ways.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Gold Fibro Man!! Pure Gold!!!

He'll probably get a nice "packed lunch" from Uncle Nick before each game next season!!

 

[borat]

I didnt say I was clever but you are showing me you are not.

You said this "I imagine that other clubs would be more willing to grant this concession. Roosters are one of the clubs (besides young clubs Storm, Cowboys, Warriors) that could least benefit from this. To put it another way, other clubs could benefit from this much more"

Why would Easts try to get a concession thru that is going to help other clubs and not themselves??
Is thats clever??
No idiot.

:lol: :lol:

Why would the Roosters least benefit from this? Southern Rooster has already pointed out the number of current players that have been at the Roosters for 5-7 years. When their contracts are up for renewal it would surely help negotiations for the club to say well you sign this contract and your garuanteed this upgrade at 10 years. As far as I can see the Roosters team has been fairly stable for the last few years, more so than other sides and would benefit greatly from this.

 

[melon....]

I didnt say I was clever but you are showing me you are not.

You said this "I imagine that other clubs would be more willing to grant this concession. Roosters are one of the clubs (besides young clubs Storm, Cowboys, Warriors) that could least benefit from this. To put it another way, other clubs could benefit from this much more"

Why would Easts try to get a concession thru that is going to help other clubs and not themselves??
Is thats clever??
No idiot.

:lol: :lol:

Why would the Roosters least benefit from this? Southern Rooster has already pointed out the number of current players that have been at the Roosters for 5-7 years. When their contracts are up for renewal it would surely help negotiations for the club to say well you sign this contract and your garuanteed this upgrade at 10 years. As far as I can see the Roosters team has been fairly stable for the last few years, more so than other sides and would benefit greatly from this.

The stability has been credited to good coaching and management. It has nothing to do with the NRL.