Salary cap its own worst enemy in sorry Inglis saga

[skeepe]

Galeforce, nowhere does the article you've posted back up your assertions.

 

[Loudstrat]

But that's exactly the point. The article doesn't rubbish the ruling, rather it rubbishes the rule.........

Who cares how the third party arrangement came into play? Why does it matter, as long as that deal is;

a) a sponsorship of the player and not the club; and
b) is a reasonable remuneration for services rendered outside the player's duties with the club (in other words, it's not FOR him playing for that club).

The Cameron Smith debacle mid last year is a better example of this travesty....the bloke goes on Fox and provides a service, for which he ought be remunerated........

The NRL holds that agreement to be salary cap inclusive........

That is wrong....Melbourne doesn't benefit by Smith going on Fox, and the argument may be that News is colluding because they own both entities, but seriously.........one doesn't necessarily follow the other....despite the possibility otherwise....If the agreement is fair in terms of the work performed, then it ought be exempt......

And that is far easier to work out than a player's notional value......

Rubish. Smith's Poxtel contract was the thing that blew this case open, because Melbourne organised it through The Antichrist - John Ribot. I don't recall anyone from Newcastle organising Joey's gig with the Packers.

Besides, Joey was the codes best player ever, not just a fat gimp with a fend who doesn't know where he grew up.

AFL isn't the point of this thread but oh well, I'll bite. Geelong's time is over. We're in Collingwood's era.

As for their competitiveness. Souths haven't won in 40 years. Sharks have never won in their 44 year history. If the Magpies and Bears were still here they'd be 60 and 90 years without a premiership. And then you have the broncos with 6 in 20 years.

Holes in your brain. Wests won in 2005. Brisbane only won 5 - they bought the other and rigged it so they only played Cronulla in the GF.

Some of the AFL's premiership less streaks look bad simply because they have more foundation teams still going.

Point is, just like in the NRL, the AFL will have it's outliers, but generally speaking the competition is competitive. And they manage to have that while still bending the cap occasionally for the sake of the game. As we should.

Then if we bend it for Souffs, why not bend it for Melbourne?

 

[BunniesMan]

Then if we bend it for Souffs, why not bend it for Melbourne?

There's a difference between "gently bend" and "break into many tiny pieces with a 2 by 4".

Also, if it were upto me, and the rules how I wanted them to be, Melbourne wouldn't have been breaking the rules. It sh*ts me that a club can be penalised for keeping the players it brought up and developed.

As I said earlier, I like Gould's idea where clubs are entitled to spend as much as they like keeping their side together, but have to come back below the cap again to buy players from other teams. It rewards success by giving well managed teams with good player development a chance to build a dynasty naturally and organically, but it also removes the high flyers out of the running for free agents so the Sharks and Raiders and Knights of the comp have a shot and getting good buys.

 

[whats up doc]

What are your thoughts on how a cap that was based on the club's performance in the last season? That way, the wooden spooners would get a higher cap and leeway allowing them to stay competitive. Or maybe based on an average of their performance in the last 3 seasons or so (so that we can minimise the effects of backending contracts etc)?

 

[BunniesMan]

Looks like that in spite of all the NRL incompetence we've witnessed, we just might not lose Inglis. But it's only because Inglis love rugby league, nothing more and nothing less.

THE prospect of rugby league star Greg Inglis joining Essendon seems even more far-fetched now than it had before the former Melbourne Storm premiership star met Bombers' coach James Hird on Wednesday.

Gainey was reported to have said: ''He was flattered to hear Hird thinks he could make the grade in AFL, but he's not going anywhere - he's staying in rugby league. There's no way he wants to return to Melbourne to live. Make of that what you wish.'

Good to know he hates Melbourne, like any normal person would.

Inglis appears more likely now to find his way to South Sydney, after confirmation yesterday that young Rabbitohs player Beau Champion is considering a move elsewhere, which would enable the club to squeeze Inglis into its salary cap.

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-leag...deal-with-inglis-wont-fly-20101223-196ko.html

If this article is true, it looks like Souths has saved the NRL's arse despite the NRL's best effort to bend over for anyone in the vicinity.

 

[Galeforce]

Skeepe and Drake
the excerpts in the articles re Gasnier contract identify total package including third party. This is the very issue jumped on Crowe's mentioning of a package including third party for Inglis. everyone knows what the Inglis third party deals are , can you advise what the Gasnier third party deals are which make up the $1.4-1.8m deal Gasnier is on? that is my point , the scrutiny on detail on Gasnier versus Inglis have not been consistently reviewed and decided on by the NRL.
You have not provided any articles that support that this investigation was done in same manner by NRL.

 

[BIKER_DRAGON]

The cap is crap

 

[kbw]

Sorry I don't see the NRL questioning any sponsors motives, what I see is the NRLK questioning how the sponsorship was being used to fund Inglis and how the RULES were not applied correctly by Souths.

END OF STORY

 

[Loudstrat]

No it's not. It's just patched up from all the wounds and attacks it has suffered. IMHO it is one of the NRL's greatest assets, and losing the odd greedy player is better than seeing premierships go to the highest bidder. Wests, Newcastle, Penrith and possibly Saints would never have won premierships without a cap.