Salary Cap

[Gronk]

Someone actually said something similar to this to me not long after Hayne left, that Parra had salary cap issues so Hayne left for a year (I didn;t believe it) - when all the conspiracy theories were thrown up about why he really left. I can't remember who said it and they prob had no credibility anyway...but interesting nonetheless.

So far fetched it's hysterical.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

exactly, Bart will try and blame 3p for all the ill's in the world but the fact is they knew our cap was f**ked last year but failed to rectify it. They didn't get us into this mess but failed to get us out of it as well. The only reason we were happy to see Hayne go was our cap was so f**ked. As BF said how much shit would we be in for this season if he was still here??? No wonder we never really bothered to replace him.

What exactly do you reckon they could have done to rectify the issue during the 2014 cap year? Yes, they could probably have avoided breaching the 2nd tier cap, or breaching it by less. A number of factors affecting our 2nd tier cap derive from initial overcommittment on the 1st tier cap.

Obviously we don't know all the facts, but if we had a heap of back-ended contracts maturing in 2014 that resulted in us being over the 2014 1st tier cap, what are your choices? Simply terminating contracts doesn't help. You can take some steps (such as moving players on and eating only part of their salary), but there's no magic bullet.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

What I don't understand yet is that if both the club and the NRL knew that we were in big trouble with the 2nd-tier cap, why something other than a a forfeit or fine couldn't be worked out. I suppose we'll know before too long though, so no point getting worked up about it.

 

[Noise]

But people on this forum told us we stopped doing back ended deals...

 

[Gronk]

Heard a merkin on ABC News24 this morning. Nuffy AFL girl asked him what was the Eels thing all about. He was it was about payment of fringe players because of injuries and suspensions, coupled with backending contracts etc.

If he scratch below the surface he said, this was more about the NRL getting their way in the Board Room as they have at Newcastle, Tigers and Titans. He said that this will be the model when licence agreements are up and the clubs sign quasi franchise agreements. Then the NRL will have the absolute say on how and when clubs wipe their arses.

 

[Gronk]

What exactly do you reckon they could have done to rectify the issue during the 2014 cap year? Yes, they could probably have avoided breaching the 2nd tier cap, or breaching it by less. A number of factors affecting our 2nd tier cap derive from initial overcommittment on the 1st tier cap.

Obviously we don't know all the facts, but if we had a heap of back-ended contracts maturing in 2014 that resulted in us being over the 2014 1st tier cap, what are your choices? Simply terminating contracts doesn't help. You can take some steps (such as moving players on and eating only part of their salary), but there's no magic bullet.

They had two choices field less competitive teams or mitigate their losses and field as strong a team as possible that only breaches the cap a little bit. They chose the latter.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Heard a merkin on ABC News24 this morning. Nuffy AFL girl asked him what was the Eels thing all about. He was it was about payment of fringe players because of injuries and suspensions, coupled with backending contracts etc.

If he scratch below the surface he said, this was more about the NRL getting their way in the Board Room as they have at Newcastle, Tigers and Titans. He said that this will be the model when licence agreements are up and the clubs sign quasi franchise agreements. Then the NRL will have the absolute say on how and when clubs wipe their arses.

They couldn't do much worse than we have done by ourselves Gronk.

 

[emjaycee]

They had two choices field less competitive teams or mitigate their losses and field as strong a team as possible that only breaches the cap a little bit. They chose the latter.

Choice 3 - forfeit the game

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Really can't see why everyone is getting so worked up for. It simply appears by all reports our cap was f**ked up to 2014 so the club basically did what they could to field a competitive team in 2014 by using the best available players in our squad. It appears the cap issues are behind us now and we are all good for the coming years.

 

[hineyrulz]

What exactly do you reckon they could have done to rectify the issue during the 2014 cap year? Yes, they could probably have avoided breaching the 2nd tier cap, or breaching it by less. A number of factors affecting our 2nd tier cap derive from initial overcommittment on the 1st tier cap.

Obviously we don't know all the facts, but if we had a heap of back-ended contracts maturing in 2014 that resulted in us being over the 2014 1st tier cap, what are your choices? Simply terminating contracts doesn't help. You can take some steps (such as moving players on and eating only part of their salary), but there's no magic bullet.

Not sure but if the NRL is so pissed off we did nothing about it after they warned us and we told them them we had a problem surely there was some dialogue between the NRL and the club in how we could avoid being so far over the cap???

Seward reckons their wasn't since we took it to the NRL but Smith said yesterday the club was warned multiple times and this was why the fine was so heavy with the possibility of stripped points. Someone is telling porkies, not sure who atm.

 

[emjaycee]

Really can't see why everyone is getting so worked up for. It simply appears by all reports our cap was f**ked up to 2014 so the club basically did what they could to field a competitive team in 2014 by using the best available players in our squad. It appears the cap issues are behind us now and we are all good for the coming years.

:thumb

 

[emjaycee]

Not sure but if the NRL is so pissed off we did nothing about it after they warned us and we told them them we had a problem surely there was some dialogue between the NRL and the club in how we could avoid being so far over the cap???

Seward reckons their wasn't since we took it to the NRL but Smith said yesterday the club was warned multiple times and this was why the fine was so heavy with the possibility of stripped points. Someone is telling porkies, not sure who atm.

I think Seward meant March 2015 when the final 2014 figures were completed and we took the full 2014 picture to the NRL. They then heard nothing back until yesterday.

We first reported the potential problem in July 2013 and then worked with the NRL on a weekly basis throughout season 2014 - unfortunately it seems they only provide 2 options. Play with what you have within the cap or breach. The end result is we breached.

Time to challenge the size of the fine and the detail of the preliminary breach notice so as to get it finalised, pay whatever is the final determination and move on.

 

[Gronk]

Really can't see why everyone is getting so worked up for. It simply appears by all reports our cap was f**ked up to 2014 so the club basically did what they could to field a competitive team in 2014 by using the best available players in our squad. It appears the cap issues are behind us now and we are all good for the coming years.

You just need to let merkins slip the boot in until it's out of their system I think.

Soon they will realize that it is history and that going forward we're in a good place. The fact that the NRL will be giving them front office structures should give fans even more confidence.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

They had two choices field less competitive teams or mitigate their losses and field as strong a team as possible that only breaches the cap a little bit. They chose the latter.

How many players have a salary of zero? Only choice would be to play U20 guys, but I'm not sure that even that would work if you are already approaching the 2nd tier cap early in the season. I guess if you actually had 17 first team players fit, you could play them out of position.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

But people on this forum told us we stopped doing back ended deals...

Theoretically, we might have (though I doubt it).

But, if deals were back ended in the past, we reach the $$$$ years now (or last year if that's your point.....). It's not that complicated. If we are agreeing to new back-ended contracts (on average) that will not have affected 2014 or 2015. That will suck 2016, 2017 etc.

 

[emjaycee]

How many players have a salary of zero? Only choice would be to play U20 guys, but I'm not sure that even that would work if you are already approaching the 2nd tier cap early in the season. I guess if you actually had 17 first team players fit, you could play them out of position.

Like Kenny Edwards at hooker... imagine having to do that!!

Oh wait...

 

[Twizzle]

Watching Sportsline tonight they said there are 58 pages of salary cap problems. Also Hayne going to Seatle on his own $15,000 trip which the NRL say should be under the cap.

His NRL salary cap or his NFL salary cap ?

Its issues like this that make the whole salary cap debate a mockery

 

[Chipmunk]

Yep, how bad a look would it be if you ran on with 16 players??? if they had been talking with the NRL why did we let it get to that stage???? Unless you are big face there is never a good time to pick Lasalo.

However, if the club had decided in one game to field 16 players in a match and said it was due to the salary cap that it would have got plenty of exposure in the media and it's likely the NRL would have started giving us a plenty of exemptions in the salary cap.

 

[Gronk]

However, if the club had decided in one game to field 16 players in a match and said it was due to the salary cap that it would have got plenty of exposure in the media and it's likely the NRL would have started giving us a plenty of exemptions in the salary cap.

Yeah but we would then have let down our fans and sponsors. Not to mention how we were trying to make the 8.

Our competitiveness cannot be used as a pawn simply because success on the field impacts on the gate, sponsors and membership.

 

[Chipmunk]

Yeah but we would then have let down our fans and sponsors. Not to mention how we were trying to make the 8.

Our competitiveness cannot be used as a pawn simply because success on the field impacts on the gate, sponsors and membership.

If we had announced in our Tuesday team list of only 15-16 players and it was due to salary cap restraints, the media would have been all over it in the papers on Wednesday and the NRL would've started to work with us and help us rectify the issue before the next match on the weekend.

We were never tactically smart during this entire process, I think inexperience of the board/administration/coaching staff probably didn't help us in our negotiations.