oldmancraigy
Coach
- Messages
- 11,779
i thought the NRL had an explicit thing in place to stop players getting paid disproportionate amounts from year to year .... wonder how much he got in 2012 if he is only technically getting 100K in 2013
They do have a thing in place to stop players getting 'significant variation' between years.
Unfortunately it isn't a set amount, and therefore up to Schu's interpretation, and so a totally crap rule.
[I bet Brandy is wrong though]
I bet the Roosters paid the Warriors enough money to pay Maloney out in full. [This money from Roosters to Warriors would've been a 'donation' and so not seen in salary cap monies]. Maloney would've then signed as big a 1 season contract with the Roosters as he could, and then signed a new deal at seasons end for the lesser amount (ie, $100k).
Since the only thing that needs to be lodged at the NRL is the actual contract, all the negotiating could've been documented and attested by lawyers so that Maloney was bound to pay the Roosters back the money if he reneged and didn't sign up at seasons end.