Sam Burgess retires

[Wily Ole Dog]

It’s simple really.

if Sam retires the money he is due should not be included in next years cap. It’s hardly the clubs fault the poor bastard got injured

 

[Perth Red]

It’s simple really.

if Sam retires the money he is due should not be included in next years cap. It’s hardly the clubs fault the poor bastard got injured

agree. Just cut out the discretion bs and make it a rule that if a player has to retire on medical grounds he gets his contract paid out and it doesn’t count on cap. If that’s from an insurance or club paying is up to the cub to manage.
I dont believe a) a club would be stupid enough and b) the nrl wouldn’t smell a rat if they tried to lodge a 5 year multi million $ contract with them for a 30/31 year old

you could have some protections like independent medical review, player can’t sign a professional sport contract during the original contract duration once retired or club is charged relevant amount on cap etc

 

[Tiger5150]

agree. Just cut out the discretion bs and make it a rule that if a player has to retire on medical grounds he gets his contract paid out and it doesn’t count on cap. If that’s from an insurance or club paying is up to the cub to manage.
I dont believe a) a club would be stupid enough and b) the nrl wouldn’t smell a rat if they tried to lodge a 5 year multi million $ contract with them for a 30/31 year old

you could have some protections like independent medical review, player can’t sign a professional sport contract during the original contract duration once retired or club is charged relevant amount on cap etc

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

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

It can be easily policed if the Will is there

 

[Springs09]

It’s simple really.

if Sam retires the money he is due should not be included in next years cap. It’s hardly the clubs fault the poor bastard got injured

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'

 

[myrrh ken]

so just deduct any actuals that have been paid above the pro rata pay.

 

[nick87]

You guys are absolutely kidding yourselves if you don’t think clubs would exploit this type of thing
Of course they would, and any club serious about winning premierships should

 

[LineBall]

Makes you wonder why any club would put an older player with a history of injuries on any long term contract.

 

[Tiger5150]

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.

No he isnt. He has a contract for $3.6M over three years massive difference. What you are talking about is a 1 year contract. Say at the end of his last contract Souths offer his $ 1.2M for 1 year and <insert opposition club with otherwise equal opportunites> say we will offer you $3.6M over 3 years. Guess who he signs for? Burgess will also have made life decisions based on his Contracted money. He is entitled to the money. He doesnt need to retire, he could have surgery etc and sit in rehab for 2 years and collect. Common sense prevails and if he will never be able to play, that is where the insurance comes in.

NRL is a brutal sport where players are paid to belt and be belted. No one is going to agree to a contract whereby they forego payment due to injury and they shouldnt.

 

[oinkoink]

If I'm correctI think Manly are still paying ( or just finished last year) Stewart & Matai's contract and were forced by Greenberg to include them under the cap. It has actually taken a large chunk of Manly's salary cap space last few years.

100% they will find some technicality to give Burgess the money and Bunnies the cap space ala Greg Inglis.

Disgraceful double standard!!

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

 

[thorson1987]

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

Yet Parra were allowed to medically retire Watmough (to get back under the cap to play for points again) when he had f**ked knees before he left Manly.

 

[thorson1987]

He didn't want to leave so we offered him a role to get extra money after he retired, it was an inducement to leave the club and should have been included in the cap! The club then didn't disclose the offer in his release paperwork to the NRL, which they are required to do. When asked about the contract we told the NRL the contract had been misplaced.

Wasn't an issue aswell that the club went to the NRL for special dispensation to get some of his contract off the cap citing that he was poison at the club and they had to get rid of him?

 

[Bandwagon]

If the NRL just make it carte blanche that an injured player gets paid out cap exempt, all that would lead to is long contracts for players with no intent for them to be filled. Effectively removing the risk of injury that needs to be calculated into any contract offer completely.

 

[Springs09]

No he isnt. He has a contract for $3.6M over three years massive difference. What you are talking about is a 1 year contract. Say at the end of his last contract Souths offer his $ 1.2M for 1 year and <insert opposition club with otherwise equal opportunites> say we will offer you $3.6M over 3 years. Guess who he signs for? Burgess will also have made life decisions based on his Contracted money. He is entitled to the money. He doesnt need to retire, he could have surgery etc and sit in rehab for 2 years and collect. Common sense prevails and if he will never be able to play, that is where the insurance comes in.

NRL is a brutal sport where players are paid to belt and be belted. No one is going to agree to a contract whereby they forego payment due to injury and they shouldnt.

He is not entitled to the money if he is not fulfilling his contract, just like Souths aren't entitled to his services if they aren't fulfilling their part of the contract.

And in bold, yes, he could do all that. Go ahead. He'd still be contracted and it would still count towards the cap, like it should if he's getting paid $1.2m a year.

If he retires and makes an insurance claim, that's perfectly fine. Souths won't be paying him then.

 

[unforgiven]

Wasn't an issue aswell that the club went to the NRL for special dispensation to get some of his contract off the cap citing that he was poison at the club and they had to get rid of him?

Yes they did, I don't know if it was through stupidity or planning but the Tigers put themselves in a place to be punished and were.

 

[Tiger5150]

You said.......

He is not entitled to the money if he is not fulfilling his contract, just like Souths aren't entitled to his services if they aren't fulfilling their part of the contract.

and then you said.....

And in bold, yes, he could do all that. Go ahead. He'd still be contracted and it would still count towards the cap, like it should if he's getting paid $1.2m a year.

You dont see the contradiction there?

If he retires and makes an insurance claim, that's perfectly fine. Souths won't be paying him then.

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?

 

[nick87]

It's simple. You sign a contract with a player, thats on your books.
If a player has to medically retire, then you can go and recoup that money from an insurance policy if you have one, and that'll help your bottom dollar, but this code operates on a HARD cap. It must be maintained.

Exemptions should be looked at a case by case basis, and the bar should be basically set at the Alex McKInnon level. If you suffer an injury that has that kind of impact, we can all agree that the player should be paid out in full, supported for the rest of their life and the club not be stiched up with the cap bill... but for ongoing/accumulative, degenerative, debilitating injuries... na man, that's on you. You signed the deal knowing the physical toll this game takes on these players

Pay Sam his money, recoup it from an insurance policy if you have one and deal with the cap ramificaitons of your mismanagement/gamble.

 

[Tiger5150]

Lets put my knowledge of the NRL & Greenbergs consistency to the test.

At the moment the Tigers have a claim into the NRL for a medical retirement of Ben Matulino for his knee. They claim it happened since his contract signing, in a single incident and will prevent him from playing again. Very similar to Souffs claim with Sam.

IMO there is some grey in both claims. Some reports that Matulino had a dodgy knee prior to coming to the Tigers and Burgess had shoulder surgery prior to his last contract.

My bet is Souffs get their claim approved, Burgess gets to medically retire, gets his money and it comes off the cap whilst the Tigers get rejected.

Does anyone think it will be any different?

 

[mave]

Does anyone think it will be any different?

When Toddles said that consistency is over-rated, I truly think he meant it.

The guy is clearly clueless to what the punters actually want/think.

 

[lynx000]

Lets put my knowledge of the NRL & Greenbergs consistency to the test.

At the moment the Tigers have a claim into the NRL for a medical retirement of Ben Matulino for his knee. They claim it happened since his contract signing, in a single incident and will prevent him from playing again. Very similar to Souffs claim with Sam.

IMO there is some grey in both claims. Some reports that Matulino had a dodgy knee prior to coming to the Tigers and Burgess had shoulder surgery prior to his last contract.

My bet is Souffs get their claim approved, Burgess gets to medically retire, gets his money and it comes off the cap whilst the Tigers get rejected.

Does anyone think it will be any different?

You will probably be right, but in each case where a cap exemption is sought, the NRL should be given authority to access the player's full medical records to confirm it is not pre-existing.