Sam Burgess retires

[Tiger5150]

It can be easily policed if the Will is there

Im sure you are right, after all the the salary cap is easily policed and is completely fair applied across the league......right?

 

[Perth Red]

If you cant see the way that would be rorted, you are not very imaginative.

anything can be rorted as we have seen numerous times by numerous clubs. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a policy.

 

[Perth Red]

But he's not due the money. He's paid $1.2m a year to play footy. If he's not playing footy he's not due the money.

Despite what Perth Red keeps going on about it could quite easily be rorted. Say Storm resign Cam Smith to a 2-year deal on $1m a year. Smith then uses any little injury that all footy players pick up every year to retire after 2020 and the Storm use the excuse 'at his age Smith can't physically play with this type of injury anymore' and all of a sudden Smith has played 1 year for $2m with only half of it counting towards the salary cap.

Even without deliberately cheating like that, clubs shouldn't be able to use extra years' money as an insurance of sorts for extra incentive to players. 'We want you for 4 years but if you get injured before your contract is up and want to retire don't worry you'll still get 4 years' salary regardless'

you really think storm are going to pay smith $2mill for one year? Lol. And let’s say they were stupid enough to, it’s only an issue if another club was offering him $1.5mill and he decided to stay for the $2mill, which they wouldn’t. Of course it can be rorted, as can TPA’s, as can paying players in jobs after retirement, as can paying spouses to work in the office, as can pretty much any aspect of the salary cap. It’s why the nrl has a $4million a year integrity unit. You can put safeguards in.

 

[Tiger5150]

anything can be rorted as we have seen numerous times by numerous clubs. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a policy.

Correct, with the salary cap a focal point of rorting. Why would it make sense to make it easier? Why would you introduce something that would make it easier to rort, harder to police, eroding trust with fans and increasing the disparity between clubs?

 

[Tiger5150]

you really think storm are going to pay smith $2mill for one year? Lol. And let’s say they were stupid enough to, it’s only an issue if another club was offering him $1.5mill and he decided to stay for the $2mill

Wow, you just made an argument and then in the next sentence made the case for what a stupid idea it was.

YES>>>THATS THE WHOLE POINT!!! Say Parra offer Smith $2.4M over two years, Melbourne counter it by offering him $3M over 3 years knowing he will only play for 2!!!! Under your regime, he would get MORE money for LESS money on the cap and prevent a fair transfer market. As you say your self....its an issue!

which they wouldn’t. Of course it can be rorted, as can TPA’s, as can paying players in jobs after retirement, as can paying spouses to work in the office, as can pretty much any aspect of the salary cap. It’s why the nrl has a $4million a year integrity unit. You can put safeguards in.

Man you are making a habit of proving you have no idea. Lets get this straight.....The NRL currently has a $4M a year integrity unit? You can put safeguards in? But it is currently being rorted by TPA's, jobs after retirement, spouse in offices etc? So please explain how adding a new way to blatantly cheat will make things better?

 

[Perth Red]

Correct, with the salary cap a focal point of rorting. Why would it make sense to make it easier? Why would you introduce something that would make it easier to rort, harder to police, eroding trust with fans and increasing the disparity between clubs?

to bring some semblance of equity to it, at the moment the CEO’s ”discretion” bit is leaving a far more bitter taste in the mouths of fans I’d suggest.

 

[Perth Red]

Wow, you just made an argument and then in the next sentence made the case for what a stupid idea it was.

YES>>>THATS THE WHOLE POINT!!! Say Parra offer Smith $2.4M over two years, Melbourne counter it by offering him $3M over 3 years knowing he will only play for 2!!!! Under your regime, he would get MORE money for LESS money on the cap and prevent a fair transfer market. As you say your self....its an issue!



Man you are making a habit of proving you have no idea. Lets get this straight.....The NRL currently has a $4M a year integrity unit? You can put safeguards in? But it is currently being rorted by TPA's, jobs after retirement, spouse in offices etc? So please explain how adding a new way to blatantly cheat will make things better?

calm down.
On point one that’s why you have safeguards such as an independent medical review. Access to medical records etc. nothing is totally safe from unethical behaviour, it’s why you have rules in the first place.

On point two, yes anything CAN be rorted, I didn’t say it was. we live with that risk in numerous elements of the cap and the nrl does its best to police and deter clubs from being unethical. Are you suggesting we should bin the cap altogether because some clubs have been found to be cheating it? Strange argument you are making.

 

[Springs09]

You said.......


and then you said.....


You dont see the contradiction there?



and if the insurance company dont pay due to pre-existing condition etc (Ive seen it reported as arthritis)? Souffs pays. Now do you see the issue?

There is no contradiction. If Sam retires he's not fulfilling his contract. If he wants to train and rehab for 3 years and doesn't make it on the field, he's still fulfilling his contract to work for Souths and the money will count on the salary cap, no problem.

If the insurance company doesn't pay, then no one pays. There is no issue. Souths can't pay him $3.6m for doing nothing and have it exempt from the cap. If Burgess wants to retire and can't get an insurance payout, then he goes and gets a regular job. If he wants the millions of dollars, either play, attempt to play or rob your club of $1.2m salary cap space for the next three seasons.

 

[Tiger5150]

There is no contradiction. If Sam retires he's not fulfilling his contract. If he wants to train and rehab for 3 years and doesn't make it on the field, he's still fulfilling his contract to work for Souths and the money will count on the salary cap, no problem.

Then why the hell would he retire? He will just rehab and do his best and get paid $2.4M. Burgess doest want to retire.....SOUFFS want him to retire because they are not going to get $ 2.4M value from him because he is busted. Why the hell would he retire and forego $2.4M? For the good of the club? I suppose you believe in Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the toothfairy and Greg Inglis gave up $1M to retire for the good of the club?

If the insurance company doesn't pay, then no one pays. There is no issue. Souths can't pay him $3.6m for doing nothing and have it exempt from the cap.

If the insurance company doesnt pay there is a MASSIVE issue, for Souffs. Burgess has a contract, a legal document. Souffs have to pay him and it will count on the cap. Watmough, Brett Stewart & Steve Matai wave hello.

If Burgess wants to retire and can't get an insurance payout, then he goes and gets a regular job. If he wants the millions of dollars, either play, attempt to play or rob your club of $1.2m salary cap space for the next three seasons.

.....and there is the contradiction you are looking for.

 

[Tiger5150]

to bring some semblance of equity to it, at the moment the CEO’s ”discretion” bit is leaving a far more bitter taste in the mouths of fans I’d suggest.

Its not at the CEO's discretion. If the club pays the money, it counts on the cap. End of story. Many precedents set. What you are suggesting goes against all the precedents and opens it up for discretion and rorting.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Its not at the CEO's discretion. If the club pays the money, it counts on the cap. End of story. Many precedents set. What you are suggesting goes against all the precedents and opens it up for discretion and rorting.

Yep, I mean Souths get GI's payout exempted from the salary cap whilst Manly had ones for Matai and Brett Stewart denied so Manly had to carry their payments in its salary cap.

 

[Tiger5150]

Yep, I mean Souths get GI's payout exempted from the salary cap whilst Manly had ones for Matai and Brett Stewart denied so Manly had to carry their payments in its salary cap.

Im not sure of your point Capt or is you are being sarcastic, but there was no CEO discretion involved.

Matai & Stewart got paid their full Contract money, by Manly (Insurance co didnt pay) and therefore it was in Manly's cap. The narrative of the Souffs fairy tale is that "for Greg so loved the Rabbitohs that he said he didnt want his last $1M" and supposedly didnt get paid the remainder of his contract, therefore it doesnt apply on Souffs cap. Coincidently an office job opened up for Inglis after his playing career.

There certainly was some CEO discretion involved in the different treatment of the office jobs of Inglis & Farah.

 

[Shire_seaeagle]

Wasn't the penalty because Manly knowingly went over the cap and had multiple back ended contracts?

The multiple back ended contracts were Mata & Snakes - repercussion of having to include in cap. As per Thorson1987 post Watmough was allowed to be medically retired yet the Nrl didn’t do the same for Snake & Matai. Brett had a few injuries later in career but wasn’t finished as Watmough was - with Matai he was clutching his right shouldvafter his first game yet played 200+ games for Manly and Kiwies both were much more legitimate then Watmough

Once again the clear double standards is ridiculous

 

[AnonymousLurker]

The multiple back ended contracts were Mata & Snakes - repercussion of having to include in cap. As per Thorson1987 post Watmough was allowed to be medically retired yet the Nrl didn’t do the same for Snake & Matai. Brett had a few injuries later in career but wasn’t finished as Watmough was - with Matai he was clutching his right shouldvafter his first game yet played 200+ games for Manly and Kiwies both were much more legitimate then Watmough

Once again the clear double standards is ridiculous

You realise the NRL only let watmough get medically retired as they boned parra that season in 2017. Parra were not actually over the cap in 2017, they were only over the cap when they applied the penalties for the previous years and used that as justification to strip the nines title from them.
They allowed him to be medically retired him to stop the embarrassment from the game .

further to GI just read they not even applying the wage he is earning next year to the cap at all , I thought the “Small wage “ he was being paid by Souths would still apply in the cap for the years he was still under contract

 

[Bandwagon]

Parra were eventually paid out by the insurance company for Watmough. ( at least a sizeable chunk of it anyways ) It was settled out of court, so the exact amount isn't on the public record.

It just took two years of legal action to get there.

If anyone want's a "precedent" for why it should not be dependent upon the insurance company's decision on a claim as to how a players payments for retirement from injury are treated, that there is a beauty.

If in that case the NRL had said no, Parra would have to wear Watmough's payments on their cap for the next two years because the insurance company denied their claim, What happens two years later when the insurance company concedes and pays them out? Do they get their cap space back retrospectively?

 

[t-ba]

They need an independent auditor to do it.

This shouldn't be difficult. Just get a firm from Ontario to do it or some shit.

Keep it independent of the insurance claims in and of itself as well.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Souths or more importantly Bennett know they wasted their money on Burgess and he lacks the ability to play 20+ games anymore due to constant injury and suspensions and want to free up money to sign the likes of Mitchell and Fafita. Even when he does play, his impact is limited and he is always giving away dumb penalties.

They hope by paying him the money for nothing, he will walk away and then pick up more money from fat media deals. That said with Greenberg being close mates with fatso Richardson, he is odds on to rubber stamp it.

I hate to quote myself but

https://www.triplem.com.au/story/ad...tt-s-influence-over-sam-burgess-future-150052

Newcastle Knights legend Adam MacDougall reckons Wayne Bennett has told Sam Burgess to retire from rugby league.

"Mad Dog" McDougall, host of Podcast One's Health Hacker joined Triple M's The Rush Hour with MG and went into detail around the inner-working of coach Wayne Bennett.

"Wayne Bennett is a ruthless coach, as great player as Sam Burgess has been, Wayne Bennett has alway been one of those coaches that taps his players a year or two earlier before they go. He's just found a reason to get rid of Sam Burgess," MacDougall told Triple M.

 

[Tiger5150]

Parra were eventually paid out by the insurance company for Watmough. ( at least a sizeable chunk of it anyways ) It was settled out of court, so the exact amount isn't on the public record.

It just took two years of legal action to get there.

If anyone want's a "precedent" for why it should not be dependent upon the insurance company's decision on a claim as to how a players payments for retirement from injury are treated, that there is a beauty.

If in that case the NRL had said no, Parra would have to wear Watmough's payments on their cap for the next two years because the insurance company denied their claim, What happens two years later when the insurance company concedes and pays them out? Do they get their cap space back retrospectively?

I wonder if Parra paid Watmough in those two years and sought reimbursement from the insurance company or if they didnt pay him and Watmough was waiting on the insurance company for payment?

This would be pretty significant in your explanation above in that if Parra didnt pay him, then no payment from the club, it cant come off the cap. If two years down the track the insurance company says no and then Parra have to pay him, then it would come off.

It is a very messy situation and a very hard way to manage the cap, but IMO I would rather that there be an impediment and deterent to this happening rather than further encouraging cap rorting.

 

[Bandwagon]

I wonder if Parra paid Watmough in those two years and sought reimbursement from the insurance company or if they didnt pay him and Watmough was waiting on the insurance company for payment?

This would be pretty significant in your explanation above in that if Parra didnt pay him, then no payment from the club, it cant come off the cap. If two years down the track the insurance company says no and then Parra have to pay him, then it would come off.

It is a very messy situation and a very hard way to manage the cap, but IMO I would rather that there be an impediment and deterent to this happening rather than further encouraging cap rorting.

As far as I'm aware, Parra paid him out, the NRL excluded it from the cap, and Parra took the insurer to court to recoup the money.

 

[Spot On]

I hate to quote myself but

https://www.triplem.com.au/story/ad...tt-s-influence-over-sam-burgess-future-150052

Newcastle Knights legend Adam MacDougall reckons Wayne Bennett has told Sam Burgess to retire from rugby league.

"Mad Dog" McDougall, host of Podcast One's Health Hacker joined Triple M's The Rush Hour with MG and went into detail around the inner-working of coach Wayne Bennett.

"Wayne Bennett is a ruthless coach, as great player as Sam Burgess has been, Wayne Bennett has alway been one of those coaches that taps his players a year or two earlier before they go. He's just found a reason to get rid of Sam Burgess," MacDougall told Triple M.

I reckon Bennett has had enough of his on field issues re missing games through suspension as well as his ill discipline through penalties when he does manage stay on the field this season.

The extent of the shoulder issue just helps make the gentle push a pretty solid shove.