Rumours and Stuff

[Avenger]

My first porno was a video. Sent away from a picture magazine at 13 and used my bus pass as ID to collect.

You know Baywatch isn't real porn?

 

[Bazal]

Another germ taking it to the media. Smh

Yeah all those quotes from Peatsy are pretty damn out of line.....wait....

Managers will be managers. That said 450k is a pretty poor offer if true

 

[hindy111]

500k seems about fair.

 

[Agent0]

500k seems about fair.

Agree. Especially with so much scrutiny around all components of the cap these days. Clubs are neglegent if they aren't at a minimum looking at $$ per game they project an injury prone player to play.
Question . . . Using Peats as an example. Lets say we table a base offer of 350k per season. But include a 150k bonus if he plays over 20 games. Is that viable?

 

[Eelpout]

Agree. Especially with so much scrutiny around all components of the cap these days. Clubs are neglegent if they aren't at a minimum looking at $$ per game they project an injury prone player to play.
Question . . . Using Peats as an example. Lets say we table a base offer of 350k per season. But include a 150k bonus if he plays over 20 games. Is that viable?

It is possible but I wouldn't say it is viable. You would need to at the minimum be 150k under the cap if you did that. If he does play more than 20, great, he gets it. But if he doesn't, that cap space is essentially wasted. You would certainly better off splashing 450k if you didn't want to spend 500k and the extra could go towards someone else.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Question . . . Using Peats as an example. Lets say we table a base offer of 350k per season. But include a 150k bonus if he plays over 20 games. Is that viable?

It would be assessed against the cap based on the previous season, so for a contract starting in 2018, it would be based on appearances in 2017. Since he's already missed six games this year he would have to play every remaining game plus two finals matches to hit 20. Therefore a bonus based on playing 20 games wouldn't count under next year's cap at all even if Peats played 20+ games next year. For this reason I don't think the NRL would allow such a clause. However I don't think any player would agree to this clause either. It's very all-or-nothing. He plays 20 games and gets an extra $150k but if he plays 19 he gets f**k all. A better system is match payments. These affect the salary cap in the same way (i.e. based on payments in the previous year).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It is possible but I wouldn't say it is viable. You would need to at the minimum be 150k under the cap if you did that. If he does play more than 20, great, he gets it. But if he doesn't, that cap space is essentially wasted. You would certainly better off splashing 450k if you didn't want to spend 500k and the extra could go towards someone else.

This is incorrect. A player's cap value is known entirely before the season starts, even if he has match payments in his contract. The only time it changes is if the player signs a new contract.

 

[natheel]

Peats has missed 49 games in six and a half seasons. He is a proven injury risk. That is going to be reflected in the way clubs value him.

Tedesco has missed 51 games in the same amount of seasons but it hasn't stopped Tigers or Roosters forking out the cash. Didn't he sign for 1.4 mil a year

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Tedesco has missed 51 games in the same amount of seasons but it hasn't stopped Tigers or Roosters forking out the cash. Didn't he sign for 1.4 mil a year

Tedesco missed seven games last year, otherwise he hasn't missed a game since 2014. So he does appear to have left his injury woes behind him. Peats has consistently missed six or more games every year since 2012, including six already in 2017.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

This is incorrect. A player's cap value is known entirely before the season starts, even if he has match payments in his contract. The only time it changes is if the player signs a new contract.

Yeh, but if you sign a 2 year (or longer) deal, with such a clause, and let's say PEats doesn't play 20 games in 2017, but does play 20 games in 2018, it would be added to the cap expenditure in 2019. When a bonus is achieved but wasn't expected it is added to the following year's salary cap value for the player.

 

[Swiftstylez]

What ever happened to The Killers?

Their last album from 2012 was actually my favorite. They have recorded a new album scheduled for release this year and obviously Brandon has been doing some solo stuff.

They are probably the only band I like that filthy hipsters and indie kids like. They probably stopped listening after the first record anyway because they stopped being an "insider" band, so they couldn't virtue signal anymore.

 

[hineyrulz]

Peats has missed 49 games in six and a half seasons. He is a proven injury risk. That is going to be reflected in the way clubs value him.

And fair enough as well.

 

[hineyrulz]

Their last album from 2012 was actually my favorite. They have recorded a new album scheduled for release this year and obviously Brandon has been doing some solo stuff.

They are probably the only band I like that filthy hipsters and indie kids like. They probably stopped listening after the first record anyway because they stopped being an "insider" band, so they couldn't virtue signal anymore.

Sams town was a pretty good album as well.

 

[chiefy1]

Agree. Especially with so much scrutiny around all components of the cap these days. Clubs are neglegent if they aren't at a minimum looking at $$ per game they project an injury prone player to play.
Question . . . Using Peats as an example. Lets say we table a base offer of 350k per season. But include a 150k bonus if he plays over 20 games. Is that viable?

That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard and there's no chance any player would take up such a contract.

 

[hindy111]

That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard and there's no chance any player would take up such a contract.

Exactly. Its like asking someone if they hurt them self at work not to go on workers comp.

 

[Stagger eel]

That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard and there's no chance any player would take up such a contract.

Contracts like that actually exist out there... they're not common but they're still out there

 

[Soren Lorenson]

So any chance that was a softening up article so when he jumps off the bus he can say it was because they undervalued him and he had no choice but to leave and join the Eels

 

[RazorRam0n]

That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard and there's no chance any player would take up such a contract.

It's another example of a ratchet clause which is getting plenty of clubs into salary cap trouble ATM...

Works fine in soccer where there is no cap

 

[emjaycee]

Peats has missed 49 games in six and a half seasons. He is a proven injury risk. That is going to be reflected in the way clubs value him.

My sources tell me the problem is that Peats' manager is valuing him and trying to sell him AS a SoO quality hooker.

Problem is of course that Nathan HASN'T played SoO. He has been on the cusp for 3-4 years as the 'next NSW hooker' but has been injured too often for NSW selectors to take the risk that he will get through 3 x 80 mins of the toughest football in the world. Until he proves he is resilient enough he won't get picked for Origin.
And if Wallace gets the nod this time around, Peats' won't get into Origin IMO and therefore his price is too high.

I reckon Parra have valued him similarly to the Titans at $450k but his manager is playing hardball and wanting more.

 

[emjaycee]

So any chance that was a softening up article so when he jumps off the bus he can say it was because they undervalued him and he had no choice but to leave and join the Eels

Nope. I reckon we are valuing him about the same as the Titans.