Sam Burgess retires

[siv]

How did the infection get in there? It got in there during reconstruction surgery on the same shoulder that he previously busted and had reconstructed. It is a adverse outcome of reconstruction surgery, that wouldnt happen if he didnt bust the shoulder that he had previously busted.etc etc. etc.

Two ways of looking at it.

1. Its an adverse outcome of the reconstruction surgery as per my argument above, which is clearly an outcome of re-busting his previously reconstructed shoulder. In this case then clearly he cant get a medical retirement ($$$ of the cap) because it was a pre-existing injury.

2. The second way of looking at it, I think is the way you are looking at it, is that the infection specifically isnt a result of his previous shoulder injuries, that the infection itself is a seperate and new event. If you are making that argument then it is also not applicable for the medical retirement exemption because it didnt happen on the field during a specific game as per the NRL rules. If you then tie it back to the last game where he busted his shoulder, then you are then also tying it back to the old injury.

I will let doctors better qualified than you , me or the NRL decide that outcome

As a timeline

Contract was announced on 5th Sep 2018 prior to his October 2018 operation

So infection has occurred and diagnosed post signing his contract

You are trying to use the same argument that a player injured his weak left knee after returning from a right knee injury. Yes they are related injuries too

There should be NO argument that if a player is retired last season that he should no longer be included in any player 30+6 salary cap calculations for the up coming season

As per salary cap rules medical costs etc are also exempt from the player salary cap

 

[Tiger5150]

I will let doctors better qualified than you , me or the NRL decide that outcome

As a timeline

Contract was announced on 5th Sep 2018 prior to his October 2018 operation

So infection has occurred and diagnosed post signing his contract

Respectfully Siv, I think you just proved my point. YES the infection happened after his contract. The infection was a adverse outcome of the October 18 operation. The October 18 operation was after his contract and was a reconstruction operation of the same shoulder that he had reconstructed before his latest Contract. That is the whole point. It is an exacerbation of a previous injury. I dont think it is arguable that a reconstruction operation on a shoulder is unrelated to a previous reconstruction of the same shoulder.

You are trying to use the same argument that a player injured his weak left knee after returning from a right knee injury. Yes they are related injuries too

No that is not my argument at all. My argument is that a player who injures their left shoulder and requires a reconstruction after previously having his left shoulder injured and reconstructed, is a related injury, Im seriously struggling to see an argument that they arent related.

There should be NO argument that if a player is retired last season that he should no longer be included in any player 30+6 salary cap calculations for the up coming season

No argument.....except maybe the NRL rules.....Salary cap rules state that if a player is to be medically retired, they must have "had no similar injury or medical condition to that area of the body that either has or could reasonably be predicted medically to lead to a degenerative condition of that area of the body prior to signing his last NRL contract".

 

[Perth Red]

Seems to me that the NRL could make it very simple by changing the rules so that any player that is independently proven to be medically unfit to play any longer gets full contract payment and is removed from the cap, you know seeing as how they arent actually playing anymore! Would take away all the BS and make it black and white and no need for CEO or Commission involvement.

 

[THE CHAMP]

NRL is dammed if they allow this precedent, watch the flood gates open if its approved

Darius will be the Broncos kicking T boy for the next 10 years

He would still f**k that up

 

[Tiger5150]

Seems to me that the NRL could make it very simple by changing the rules so that any player that is independently proven to be medically unfit to play any longer gets full contract payment and is removed from the cap, you know seeing as how they arent actually playing anymore! Would take away all the BS and make it black and white and no need for CEO or Commission involvement.

Playing devils advocate here for you to explain one reason why not. Say there is a player, lets call this hypothetical player Kieran. Say Kieran plays for the Bulldogs and his contract is up. Bulldogs want to keep him and the Titans want him. Bulldogs know his knee is buggered but he probably has 2 years in him. Kieran wants to retire in two years so he can spend more time at the racecourse. Titans want him for a 2 year contract. Titans offer him $500K pa for 2 years. Bulldogs sign him for $300K for 4 years. Two years later, his knee is buggered, he cant play anymore, Kieran pockets $1.2M, $600K was on the Dogs salary cap and Titans were not trading on a level playing field.

That is exactly what would happen if it was open slather.

 

[simmo05]

Moronic thought process. You need to put your team bias aside

it’s absolutely laughable that you think Souths wanted to get rid of one of the worlds best players

So why didn't manly get dispensation for Matai or Stewart? Is that because manly, or the players in question, were not swallowing greenburgs sword?

 

[mave]

So why didn't manly get dispensation for Matai or Stewart? Is that because manly, or the players in question, were not swallowing greenburgs sword?

A little from column A
A little from column B
And add a sprinkle of consistency is over-rated.

 

[siv]

Playing devils advocate here for you to explain one reason why not. Say there is a player, lets call this hypothetical player Kieran. Say Kieran plays for the Bulldogs and his contract is up. Bulldogs want to keep him and the Titans want him. Bulldogs know his knee is buggered but he probably has 2 years in him. Kieran wants to retire in two years so he can spend more time at the racecourse. Titans want him for a 2 year contract. Titans offer him $500K pa for 2 years. Bulldogs sign him for $300K for 4 years. Two years later, his knee is buggered, he cant play anymore, Kieran pockets $1.2M, $600K was on the Dogs salary cap and Titans were not trading on a level playing field.

That is exactly what would happen if it was open slather.

Not sure whats the real issue

Here the Titans dodged a bullett - as he could have broken down 1 game into his contract

Doctor must medically retire him to get his insurance payout at the Dogs and there is a gamble on when this career ending event will occur. Be it 1 game in or at the end of 4 years. Doctors integrity will be in question if it actually occurred at the 2 year mark.

You wont be able to address that sort of issue as it currently occurs in every contract cycle

ALL players carry injuries. Not many career ending injuries are new when somone actually retires. Its usually a second or 3rd occurance

So the NRL clause is invalid in most injury related retirements

 

[siv]

No that is not my argument at all. My argument is that a player who injures their left shoulder and requires a reconstruction after previously having his left shoulder injured and reconstructed, is a related injury, Im seriously struggling to see an argument that they arent related

Your making a assumption that the infection was a result of the shoulder injury

The bacteria may have come from any other cut or graze that then flowed through the blood stream and lodged itself in a weak point in the body

Not that a shpulfer reconstruction is muscle based

While the infection is a bone infection

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

Sams misfortune, is Souffs misfortune. Much like Brett Stewart and Steve Matai's misfortune was Manly's misfortune.

.

Ben Andrew Matulino

 

[Tiger5150]

Not sure whats the real issue

The real issue in this hypothetical situation is that the Bulldogs sign a player for $1.2M with only $600K on the cap. its rorting the cap. That wouldnt be an issue? Coincidentally its my only issue with the Burgess & Inglis cases.

So the NRL clause is invalid in most injury related retirements

Not a problem, and in most cases the players payment is not excluded from the cap. Thats the rules. Seems they are not expected to apply to Souffs?

 

[Tiger5150]

Ben Andrew Matulino

Was medically retired under the NRL rules. Your point being?

In 2018 he played 23 of 25 games which is great resilience for a prop. In 2019 he played every game until round 14 in which suffered a career ending injury to his knee, in a single match at a single identifiable incident to a part of his body that had not previously been injured.

Thats how it works, thanks for identifying the contrast with S Burgess, who had multiple reconstructions on the same shoulder.

Coincidentally, he was paid out his entire contract value, and wont be making coffee for Madge for the next ten years.....see the difference?

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

Matulino stuffed his knee whilst at the Warriors but hey, you're happy to see that differently to Burgess. The NRL will decide

as to on going careers, Matulino has zero to offer the west tigers....unlike Burgess who is integral to Souths culture. If you seriously think that Burgess will be sitting around making coffee for the coach there’s no point really continuing the discussion with you

 

[siv]

The real issue in this hypothetical situation is that the Bulldogs sign a player for $1.2M with only $600K on the cap. its rorting the cap. That wouldnt be an issue?

If the NRL signed off on the contract - then no.

To have a doctor deliberately signoff on medical retirement on que to a pre planned retirement plan when he is ok to play is the issue.

 

[Tiger5150]

Matulino stuffed his knee whilst at the Warriors but hey, you're happy to see that differently to Burgess. The NRL will decide

It was the other knee.

as to on going careers, Matulino has zero to offer the west tigers....unlike Burgess who is integral to Souths culture. If you seriously think that Burgess will be sitting around making coffee for the coach there’s no point really continuing the discussion with you

Matulino also has zero to offer the Tigers....because we have already paid him his Contract money. Thats how it works when you are not trying the play the system. I agree with you that Burgess will not be making coffee, like GI, I actually dont expect he will have to do anything for the money.

You are also correct that there is no point continuing this discussion. If you cant see that what Souffsa re doing is at least a potential rort, we are done.

 

[simmo05]

Matulino stuffed his knee whilst at the Warriors but hey, you're happy to see that differently to Burgess. The NRL will decide

as to on going careers, Matulino has zero to offer the west tigers....unlike Burgess who is integral to Souths culture. If you seriously think that Burgess will be sitting around making coffee for the coach there’s no point really continuing the discussion with you

Was his other knee wasn't it?

 

[siv]

Was medically retired under the NRL rules. Your point being?

In 2018 he played 23 of 25 games which is great resilience for a prop. In 2019 he played every game until round 14 in which suffered a career ending injury to his knee, in a single match at a single identifiable incident to a part of his body that had not previously been injured.

Thats how it works, thanks for identifying the contrast with S Burgess, who had multiple reconstructions on the same shoulder.

Coincidentally, he was paid out his entire contract value, and wont be making coffee for Madge for the next ten years.....see the difference?

Shouldn't make a difference to the players 30+6 salary cap - is my point

When he retires he drops out of the players 30+6 salary cap

It becomes a medical insurance payout issue, either via insurance company or from the club self insuranced fund

If they payout becomes a football operations JOB. Then its included in the football operations cap

The issue seems to be when a club pays a players through a self insured fund account - which is made up from say all 30+6 players contributing say 5% of their wages

So this fund grows from funds that had been included from prior years 30+6 players salary caps funds

So lets say there is a $500k payout

It would be double dipped if we try and include it from future 30+6 players salary caps as well

 

[Tiger5150]

Shouldn't make a difference to the players 30+6 salary cap - is my point

When he retires he drops out of the players 30+6 salary cap

I totally understand your point and I also get the obvious logic that if a player cant play for you then why should that money count in the cap, but my point is that it is so open and prone to be rorted that there does need to be rules around it, and the NRL does have rules around it, and IMO Souffs are clearly rorting these rules.

It becomes a medical insurance payout issue, either via insurance company or from the club self insuranced fund

If they payout becomes a football operations JOB. Then its included in the football operations cap

The issue seems to be when a club pays a players through a self insured fund account - which is made up from say all 30+6 players contributing say 5% of their wages

So this fund grows from funds that had been included from prior years 30+6 players salary caps funds

So lets say there is a $500k payout

It would be double dipped if we try and include it from future 30+6 players salary caps as well

Where the payment from doesnt matter to anyone except the club and the insurance company. Player gets paid and so they should. Doesnt matter where the money comes from. It matters whether or not it counts in the cap.

It doesnt matter if they get a job and get paid that way, unless it is an obvious rort to get around the cap.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Darius Boyd is stinking it up at the Broncos. He is clearly on the declining slide of his career. Trouble is he has (I think) two more years to go on his Contract, so lets say thats worth $1.5M, So if tomorrow Darius says "You know what, I think Im done, my heart isnt in it any more, but I dont want that $1.5M, Brisbane has been good to me"...he leaves the roster, money comes off the cap and then he starts his job as motivational speaker for the Brisbane Broncos on $500K for the next 3 years. You have no problem with that?

 

[Perth Red]

Playing devils advocate here for you to explain one reason why not. Say there is a player, lets call this hypothetical player Kieran. Say Kieran plays for the Bulldogs and his contract is up. Bulldogs want to keep him and the Titans want him. Bulldogs know his knee is buggered but he probably has 2 years in him. Kieran wants to retire in two years so he can spend more time at the racecourse. Titans want him for a 2 year contract. Titans offer him $500K pa for 2 years. Bulldogs sign him for $300K for 4 years. Two years later, his knee is buggered, he cant play anymore, Kieran pockets $1.2M, $600K was on the Dogs salary cap and Titans were not trading on a level playing field.

That is exactly what would happen if it was open slather.

The thing stopping it would be the independent medical review. If his knee is genuinely screwed after two years then so be it, reality is when he signed the contract 2 years previously he or the club wouldn't know when it would stop him playing. So signing him to 4 years with an expectation he will only last 2 is a gamble and tbh clubs would only get away with it once or twice before the NRL smelt a rat and took much greater interest in their contract negotiations. I think we can over think things, might it get rorted? yes it might but that's why you have safeguards and review it after a couple of years to see how it is going. Id still rather take that risk to try it than continue with the dogs breakfast of a situation we have now that no one is happy about.

 

[Tiger5150]

The thing stopping it would be the independent medical review. If his knee is genuinely screwed after two years then so be it, reality is when he signed the contract 2 years previously he or the club wouldn't know when it would stop him playing. So signing him to 4 years with an expectation he will only last 2 is a gamble and tbh clubs would only get away with it once or twice before the NRL smelt a rat and took much greater interest in their contract negotiations. I think we can over think things, might it get rorted? yes it might but that's why you have safeguards and review it after a couple of years to see how it is going. Id still rather take that risk to try it than continue with the dogs breakfast of a situation we have now that no one is happy about.

You really think the NRL might smell a rat and step in? Souffs have just had two of the highest profile players sail off into the sunset, get paid without their money on the cap (yet to be determined with Burgess but we know the outcome) and the NRL has done nothing. I dont share your confidence that they would be capable. They have rules about it now and only use them when its easy/suits them.