Rumours and Stuff

[Chipmunk]

I can understand the Bronocs not wanting to give the other clubs the capacity to spend like they do, they want to keep their unfair advantage of the ridiculous amount of TPAs that they have access to.

But they're still going to have those TPA's, whether the cap is $5million or $10million and the grant to clubs is tied at 130% of the Salary Cap, so it's not as if they make money out of it being a lower cap.

 

[amitropo]

What a mess this cap has become.
Let bulldogs sign woods and foran,
They can play for no points next year,
And every other team has same amount allocated to their cap for 2018 season to upgrade current players contracts or front load to make it fair

 

[Obscene Assassin]

What a mess this cap has become.
Let bulldogs sign woods and foran,
They can play for no points next year,
And every other team has same amount allocated to their cap for 2018 season to upgrade current players contracts or front load to make it fair

No thanks. That means they get off easy like the storm did, and the dogs in 2002. They need to lose players just like we had to, then the NRL needs to dick them around until late July next year to sort their cap out so that they can't sign anyone for 2019 either.

 

[Chipmunk]

No thanks. That means they get off easy like the storm did, and the dogs in 2002. They need to lose players just like we had to, then the NRL needs to dick them around until late July next year to sort their cap out so that they can't sign anyone for 2019 either.

If they just don't let them play for points next year until they get under the cap though, I think that would be fair. After all, that's really all they did to us last season. They might not get under the cap for the entire season though, but that's not any other teams problem.

 

[eel01s]

That's right. Any team over the cap needs to shed players to be cap compliant and play for points, just like we did.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Your salary expenditure in any given year doesn't just affect that year's squad, due to front and back ending of contracts. So letting a team be over the cap in one year can benefit future years, or have benefitted preceding years.

 

[parra-matters]

Didn't watch the video, did you?

The Dragons CEO was at the lunch...

lol dragons owe the NRL about $4mil they won't vote against them. He just wanted a free feed.

 

[strider]

Interestingly enough apparently the Broncos and the Storm don't want the salary cap to increase.

Brown paper bags dont go on the cap

 

[Twizzle]

But they're still going to have those TPA's, whether the cap is $5million or $10million and the grant to clubs is tied at 130% of the Salary Cap, so it's not as if they make money out of it being a lower cap.

yeh, but currently they allegedly have $3mill, a third of the cap

if it goes up to say over 10mill their TPAs are then less than a third of the cap, so they have an advantage if it stays where it is

 

[hindy111]

If they just don't let them play for points next year until they get under the cap though, I think that would be fair. After all, that's really all they did to us last season. They might not get under the cap for the entire season though, but that's not any other teams problem.

But its not fair to the teams who had to play them while they had a team over the cap.
Just like the teams who where beaten by us while over the cap. They where potentially robbed 2 points.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

They all would've lost anyway.

 

[The EELiminator]

No thanks. That means they get off easy like the storm did, and the dogs in 2002. They need to lose players just like we had to, then the NRL needs to dick them around until late July next year to sort their cap out so that they can't sign anyone for 2019 either.

let them go spin the wheel of punishment every week like we had to last year
here's another fine! and another one! and another one!

 

[hindy111]

15 other clubs should make them sweat it out then take advantage of situation.

 

[hindy111]

The way I see it is the big clubs wont want any players bar the good ones like Klemmer while the weaker clubs wont want to help the dogs out.
Sure Grahemes worth 400k and Morris boys be fine for 200k. Even Mbye for 400k would be ok for weaker clubs.
But why help your opposition?

 

[84 Baby]

yeah well they will need 12 out of the 16 teams to agree.
I can't see the tigers, Dragons, Titans or Knights voting for it, I doubt that we would even vote for it.
They might get 6-8 vote for it but can't see them getting 12.

Actually I think you'll find they only need 4 clubs to disagree with the NRLs salary cap. 12 of the clubs need to approve any proposed cap

 

[The EELiminator]

Sure Grahemes worth 400k and Morris boys be fine for 200k. Even Mbye for 400k would be ok for weaker clubs.
But why help your opposition?

because you wouldn't be paying that not for the first year anyway

the dogs will be paying most of their salary to get rid of them so why not rummage around in the bargain bin you might pick up a cheapie

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The way I see it is the big clubs wont want any players bar the good ones like Klemmer while the weaker clubs wont want to help the dogs out.
Sure Grahemes worth 400k and Morris boys be fine for 200k. Even Mbye for 400k would be ok for weaker clubs.
But why help your opposition?

If two or more clubs want a player, even if it's Graham or Mbye, then they will push his price up, reducing how much the Dogs have to pay out.

 

[Gronk]

Bwhahaha

 

[Avenger]

Talk about players regressing. What about this slug? About to equal an unwanted NRL record.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ted-season-without-a-try-20170815-gxwk1i.html

 

[Stevie]

I feel like St George are too scared to just tell Mundine "mate, just f**k off you wouldn't finish a contact session".