Rumoured/Confirmed Signings and More Crap XVI

[Twizzle]

Or it simply cant police it that stringently.

 

[Chipmunk]

Or it simply cant police it that stringently.

I doubt it would have the resources, or more likely doesn't want to allocate the resources, to be able to police it like that.

 

[Twizzle]

Even if it had the resources, where do you draw the line ?

Auditing all the sponsors ?

 

[oldmancraigy]

The money would have to leave the Club though. If the NRL had oversight of all Clubs accounts they would be able to see that a payment was made to an organisation and be able to question what the payment was for.

At the present time the NRL has little control over the Clubs and essentially the Clubs agree to be part of the NRL. Until the NRL changes the set up where the Clubs are controlled by the NRL it makes it harder.

You could also have harsher penalties, like revoking NRL licences if you're serious.

If the NRL was responsible for paying all players centrally it would also limit the ability to rort the Cap. The Clubs could just say we want this guy to be paid this much and the NRL just pays the player that much. As the NRL grant essentially covers more than the Salary Cap, you could think they could just change the funding to the Clubs for this to actually work.

The NRL could demand ongoing access to players bank accounts.

If the NRL wanted to police the salary cap stringently it could. My guess it that it doesn't want to police it that stringently

Couldn't they do something crazy like rent a marquee.....
Or build the 'Oasis' project??

Certainly possible to rort the system through the leagues club accounts.

The simplest way would be the NRL having access to the players ATO submissions - would of course still be rortable, but they would at least have to feat getting themselves into trouble with the law.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The money would have to leave the Club though. If the NRL had oversight of all Clubs accounts they would be able to see that a payment was made to an organisation and be able to question what the payment was for.

Not necessarily. As I said above, the payment from the sponsor to the player would simply be in lieu of sponsorship money being paid to the club. So, if I was planning on rorting the system it might go like this:

1) Speak privately to third-party backer, agree to accept a lower disclosed sponsorship fee in return for an undisclosed (and unwritten) agreement to help out with player payments outside the cap. Or they may not be a formal sponsor at all....just some wealthy benefactor.
2) Player X is in negotiations to renew his contract
3) Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. In addition to the club's formal offer to the player, third-party offers the player a cash job /payment if they sign with the club [Exactly how the third-party accounts for this to their stakeholders is another question, but they may not have external stakeholders]
4) Player signs (or some other club does it better and he goes there).

 

[Chipmunk]

Not necessarily. As I said above, the payment from the sponsor to the player would simply be in lieu of sponsorship money being paid to the club. So, if I was planning on rorting the system it might go like this:

1) Speak privately to third-party backer, agree to accept a lower disclosed sponsorship fee in return for an undisclosed (and unwritten) agreement to help out with player payments outside the cap. Or they may not be a formal sponsor at all....just some wealthy benefactor.
2) Player X is in negotiations to renew his contract
3) Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. In addition to the club's formal offer to the player, third-party offers the player a cash job /payment if they sign with the club [Exactly how the third-party accounts for this to their stakeholders is another question, but they may not have external stakeholders]
4) Player signs (or some other club does it better and he goes there).

Isn't this exactly how third party agreements now work in reality?

I find it pointless to be honest that the Club is wanting sponsors, when they would be better off just getting them to sponsor the player, which at present is legal and not part of the salary cap.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Isn't this exactly how third party agreements now work in reality?

I find it pointless to be honest that the Club is wanting sponsors, when they would be better off just getting them to sponsor the player, which at present is legal and not part of the salary cap.

Not quite. The crucial difference under my (illegal) strategy is that the sponsorship payment(s) to the player is conditional on him playing for us.

If a club gets a 3rd party (sponsor) to pay a player to play for Parra, that is included in the cap.
From the NRL's FAQ http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

"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."

 

[Joshuatheeel]

An easy way to beat the cap is to get a rich supporter to play a game of golf with who ever you want to sign for $10k or $20k per hole to the winner. The supporter proceeds to lose each hole.

 

[84 Baby]

What 'front-end' checks might work? If (as Kent suggests many are) a rort is being effected through cash payments, without a contract in place, channelled through a third party.....how exactly are you going to detect that in advance? It's a tough ask.

My point wasn't that they haven't done their checks, it's that they don't have any to do in the first place. Surely after Oasis, Scum & all the fines they issue for 'minor' infringements every year, someone who is actually employed to administer the salary cap could have figured out how to effectively administer in at least the same financial year. Third-party sponsorship clearly doesn't work under the current salary cap rules, same goes with injury lists, 2nd tier & backending. Salary cap has also done nothing to improve talent spread (one of Kent's points). The only plausible excuse the NRL have to wait until the end of the season is that the cheating is so rife through the competition that the non-cheating teams are in the minority. But then that is hardly a positive in the NRL's favour to allow such a systemic issue to emerge. The NRL's only other get-outs are incompetence or indifference to the problem.

Then again maybe Paul Kent is full of shit

 

[MrT]

No. I posted the Cronin signing back when RLW broke it. Jesse has some great wraps on him and was a big steal from the Knights but he is no relation to Mick Cronin.

Stagger said we had snuck under the noses of another Sydney club and stolen a young second generation player (son of a famous player that is still involved in the game in some capacity) and that he might play NYC next year.

Ok cheers
Do we know what position he plays?

 

[hindy111]

Very interesting article.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/pau...old-coast-titans/story-e6frf3ou-1227014654020

Quite boring actually....... Sounds like you need a holiday Twizzle.Did I mention im officialy on one starting from now!

 

[Chipmunk]

Not quite. The crucial difference under my (illegal) strategy is that the sponsorship payment(s) to the player is conditional on him playing for us.

If a club gets a 3rd party (sponsor) to pay a player to play for Parra, that is included in the cap.
From the NRL's FAQ http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

"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."

Why can a Club not find a third party sponsor for a player and that third party sponsorship will only be paid if the player plays for a particular Club?

There is nothing in that wording above that prohibits this practice.

 

[Twizzle]

It can but its generally done by the players agent.

 

[Obscene Assassin]

Ok cheers
Do we know what position he plays?

Jesse Cronin plays prop.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Why can a Club not find a third party sponsor for a player and that third party sponsorship will only be paid if the player plays for a particular Club?

There is nothing in that wording above that prohibits this practice.

If you have an already contracted player, and you find a third party deal for them that requires nothing beyond the terms of their current contract....no problem.

If you do what you describe above with respect to a) a player not presently contracted to the club to induce them to join the club or b) to a player whose contract is expiring and the deal is conditional on them re-signing with the club, then you are 'acting on behalf of the club to secure the players services.'

 

[emjaycee]

Hypothetically, if I was a wealthy guy what is to stop me approaching Haynes manager while wearing my Parra jersey and say offering Hayne a part-time job in my local business with remuneration being a house in the area. I could choose to sack him from my company at any time (unfair dismissal laws being what they are) and perhaps hand him the deeds to the house in compensation... couldnt I?

 

[eloquentEEL]

So in summary, the salary cap can't be policed 100% and is a stupid system.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

So in summary, the salary cap can't be policed 100% and is a stupid system.

Sure, but no salary cap system can be policed 100% (if what you mean is whether everyone who breaches it gets caught).

It's far from a perfect system, but if anyone has any better ideas (and I don't mean 'let's not have a cap while the Eels are rich, but shit we need one when other clubs are better off') I'd like to hear them. Part of the problem is that the current salary cap rules reflect multiple purposes, including 1) evening out player talent, 2) helping clubs retain long-term players and 3) constraining overall expenditure on players.....and these aren't necessarily consistent with each other. It also should be remembered that a number of the breaches that occur each year are not part of systematic attempts to rort the cap by hiding payments.

If you could get the players agree to an internal draft, that would be as good a control as I can think of.....but it aint going to happen.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Anyone been watching much of the knights this year? Mason is off contract and is willing to leave the knights.

Could maybe be a cheap option for 2015, we could offer him a minimum contract with decent match payments.

 

[strider]

Anyone been watching much of the knights this year? Mason is off contract and is willing to leave the knights.

Could maybe be a cheap option for 2015, we could offer him a minimum contract with decent match payments.

do we need him?

i saw him on NRL360 last night - he's still the same arrogant knob he's always been. He seemed to want to stay in newcastle as long as they want him when their new coach is sorted .... but he reckons he has other offers open to him .... I assumed that means he wants newy to pay him decent coin or get decent coin elsewhere (or maybe that is a bluff)