Sam Tomkins: coming to an NRL club near you

[Lambretta]

A PLAYER IS WORTH WHAT A CLUB IS WILLING TO PAY!!

some clubs have a MASSIVE amount of cap space... and need quality players... so they can afford to pay more than another club for a player...

some clubs are very successful a thus have been hit hard by the cap... so players are willing to take a hit in pay to stay in a good environment.

Apologies for the late reply shiznit. I understand your viewpoint but I disagree with the logic of paying one player $1 million per season out of a $5.85 million salary cap. It just doesn't make sense.

If you divide $5.85m between 25 players that's an average salary of $235,000 per player. If you pay one person $1million the average for the other 24 drops $31,000 to $194,000. That's a massive pay cut that everyone else has to accept to accommodate one player.

The Bulldogs had this issue when they signed Sonny Bill Williams for $600,000 per season all those years ago. He chewed up so much cap on his own that when he was injured (or when he flew to France) he left such a massive hole in the team they couldn't cover for him. From that point they made a point of spreading the cap more evenly and replaced him with 3 players of less ability that gave them a stronger squad.

If you offer one player $1 million he is going to look at the rest of the team and think "hold on - I'm carrying this lot on my own - I'm not going there". Offering less money usually means you've spent more elsewhere and your team looks more attractive to footballers. The best footballers, believe it or not, are a competitive bunch and would rather win getting paid $700,000 a year than constantly get smashed being paid a million.

Offering massive amounts to a single player is usually a recipe for disaster and will hardly ever turn around a struggling club.

 

[LeedsRhinos]

I believe that $1m is a false figure and overblown by the media, Tomkins salary is £300,000 at Wigan ($460,000) so i think he'd be paid more in the $600,000 - $750,000 range for moving to the NRL.

 

[Mader45]

The best footballers, believe it or not, are a competitive bunch and would rather win getting paid $700,000 a year than constantly get smashed being paid a million.

I'd have believed this 20 years ago. But with the way player managers are in their ears constantly nowadays im sure greed comes into play.

 

[shiznit]

Apologies for the late reply shiznit. I understand your viewpoint but I disagree with the logic of paying one player $1 million per season out of a $5.85 million salary cap. It just doesn't make sense.

If you divide $5.85m between 25 players that's an average salary of $235,000 per player. If you pay one person $1million the average for the other 24 drops $31,000 to $194,000. That's a massive pay cut that everyone else has to accept to accommodate one player.

The Bulldogs had this issue when they signed Sonny Bill Williams for $600,000 per season all those years ago. He chewed up so much cap on his own that when he was injured (or when he flew to France) he left such a massive hole in the team they couldn't cover for him. From that point they made a point of spreading the cap more evenly and replaced him with 3 players of less ability that gave them a stronger squad.

If you offer one player $1 million he is going to look at the rest of the team and think "hold on - I'm carrying this lot on my own - I'm not going there". Offering less money usually means you've spent more elsewhere and your team looks more attractive to footballers. The best footballers, believe it or not, are a competitive bunch and would rather win getting paid $700,000 a year than constantly get smashed being paid a million.

Offering massive amounts to a single player is usually a recipe for disaster and will hardly ever turn around a struggling club.

that's completely up to the club involved... and its not as easy as splitting the total salary cap by 25 players...

some clubs... like the Warriors for example... have over a million dollars left over in the cap after 24 players have been taken in to account.

so they can afford to pay over a million dollars for a player.

it all comes down to the right player... and can the club handle the problems that may arise from having one player earn that much.

but if a club wants to do then fair enough...

 

[BunniesMan]

that's completely up to the club involved... and its not as easy as splitting the total salary cap by 25 players...

some clubs... like the Warriors for example... have over a million dollars left over in the cap after 24 players have been taken in to account.

so they can afford to pay over a million dollars for a player.

it all comes down to the right player... and can the club handle the problems that may arise from having one player earn that much.

but if a club wants to do then fair enough...

Just because they can afford it doesn't mean it makes sense.

A team could blow a million on him and then next year miss out on a great opportunity because they blew too much now.

Clubs need to be patient when they have the luxury of cap space and not blow it on the first shiny thing they see like a lotto winning bogan.

 

[Perth Red]

that's completely up to the club involved... and its not as easy as splitting the total salary cap by 25 players...

some clubs... like the Warriors for example... have over a million dollars left over in the cap after 24 players have been taken in to account.

so they can afford to pay over a million dollars for a player.

it all comes down to the right player... and can the club handle the problems that may arise from having one player earn that much.

but if a club wants to do then fair enough...

I doubt it, if you had $1mill to spend you could have signed anyone you want. That would be $2-300k more than any player is receiving in the NRL and would be more than enough to tempt any player to move over to Auckland for a couple of years. if you had $1mill going spare you would have Thurston or SBW in a Warriors jersey next year.

 

[blukablu]

I believe that $1m is a false figure and overblown by the media, Tomkins salary is £300,000 at Wigan ($460,000) so i think he'd be paid more in the $600,000 - $750,000 range for moving to the NRL.

This. The $1,000,000 price tag is hes asking salary ($750,000) plus a $250,000 transfer fee. Considering the Warriors are now owned by a billionaire I'm sure their not too worry about the transfer fee. $750,000/pa is a great price for someone like Tomkins considering how much the Warriors struggle to attract marquee players without paying massive overs.

 

[WellsNZ]

I doubt it, if you had $1mill to spend you could have signed anyone you want. That would be $2-300k more than any player is receiving in the NRL and would be more than enough to tempt any player to move over to Auckland for a couple of years. if you had $1mill going spare you would have Thurston or SBW in a Warriors jersey next year.

Well the supposed offer of about 900k for Carney wasn't enough to lure him over, nor was whatever Penrith ponied up for him.

and Thurston turned the big money down from Penrith also.

 

[Perth Red]

I doubt Carney turned down a $900k offer for probably $700k to stay in Cronulla. Seriously anything over $100k is going to get any player to move unless there is some after playing job sweetner involved. Ask yourself would you move companies for an extra $100k? Media just guess, stay at sharks for 750 or go to Penrtih or NZ for 900, Yeh of course he is going to turn down an extra earning of $750,000 for the remaining life of his playing career! I know he isn;t the brightest guy but even he isn't that stupid. The media just play guess and come up with figures to fit their story.

 

[WellsNZ]

Of course I would move for an extra 100k because I'm not making 5, 6, 700k.

If I was making 700k and was set up somewhere that I was happy and enjoying my life then the question of whether I would, to another country at that, for an extra 1, 200k is very different.

Indeed there's numerous examples of athletes who have taken pay cuts to stay where they want to be, particularly in sports with a salary cap in place.

The reports of the Warriors offer to Carney was 5 million over 5 years, that was turned down.

 

[Perth Red]

Again just a media made up figure, seriously consider it for a minute, Sharks "allegedly" offered him $750k, Warriors "allegedly" $1mill a year. Do you really think he loves the Shire so much that he would throw away $1.25 million at a time when this contract will be the last chance to earn big? I can undertsand not moving for $25K but seriously $250k a year? I don't believe media made up salary offer figures for one minute.

 

[WellsNZ]

My partners father recently turned down a job offer that would have seen him earning about 150k more per year along with additional benefits that would have saved him further money but he didn't want to move overseas. There's more to life than money, he likes it where he lives, he likes having his family and friends nearby, so after much consideration he decided to stay put because he already has plenty of money and values those other factors more. This isn't exactly unheard of.

There's numerous examples of players turning down more money to stay where they want to be across many sports but for whatever reason you don't want to acknowledge that.

Carney said he didn't want to once again have to start over with a new club at his age and he likely feels a degree of loyalty to the club that threw him his last lifeline.

It's quite clear you have formulated your own idea on this situation, based on not much but your own conjecture, and will just shoot down anything that suggests otherwise.

 

[Perth Red]

Does your partners father have a 10 year career lifespan (if he's lucky)?

 

[WellsNZ]

Does your partners father have a 10 year career lifespan (if he's lucky)?

This is already Carney's 8th year, it would have been 9th if he didn't miss a year for being a dimwit, so I think his career will be spanning a little more than 10 years lol.

My partner's father will be retired within 10 years so even less than that at this point. He also doesn't make as much as Carney.

Not everyone is entirely controlled by money as you seem to think. Certainly it plays a big factor and for many people it is the deciding factor, but not for everyone.

 

[Perth Red]

true, but in my experience with these sort of figures, and professional sportsmen with short careers, it is the exception rather than the rule. So takes us back to the original point which is if the Warriors really have $1mill to spend on a marquee player then they would have snared someone by now surely.

 

[WellsNZ]

But that's based on nothing more than your own conjecture and anything that says otherwise you shoot down anyway.

Guess we will find out when we see what Tomkins signs for if he so does. If it's within that 1 million ball park then obviously they had that much money to spend on someone and it would be a reasonable suggestion to make that if they were willing to offer it for Tomkins they would have been willing to offer it for a proven star from the NRL also.

 

[shiznit]

I doubt Carney turned down a $900k offer for probably $700k to stay in Cronulla. Seriously anything over $100k is going to get any player to move unless there is some after playing job sweetner involved. Ask yourself would you move companies for an extra $100k? Media just guess, stay at sharks for 750 or go to Penrtih or NZ for 900, Yeh of course he is going to turn down an extra earning of $750,000 for the remaining life of his playing career! I know he isn;t the brightest guy but even he isn't that stupid. The media just play guess and come up with figures to fit their story.

Actually pal, he turned down over a million per season from the warriors.

And he isn't the first player the warriors have offered massive money to.

The warriors have made it very clear that they are happy to break that barrier for the right player. And they have also made it clear that they have a problem with getting top players to even consider moving to nz.

They have to be prepared to pay overs to get them. That's a fact of life. More worrying is the fact that even a million plus is being turned down.

People need to remember that the warriors have a production line of young forwards and outside backs who would be in NRL minimum wages at the moment.

So they certainly have the space

 

[WellsNZ]

Actually pal, he turned down over a million per season from the warriors.

And he isn't the first player the warriors have offered massive money to.

The warriors have made it very clear that they are happy to break that barrier for the right player. And they have also made it clear that they have a problem with getting top players to even consider moving to nz.

They have to be prepared to pay overs to get them. That's a fact of life. More worrying is the fact that even a million plus is being turned down.

People need to remember that the warriors have a production line of young forwards and outside backs who would be in NRL minimum wages at the moment.

So they certainly have the space

No, no, no. It's just media speculation ;-)

 

[Miller was a legend]

PR, guarantee the Sharks did not match the Pennies offer. Even Carney has said he knew the club couldn't do that and spoke to club direct in the end and told club and manager to get it done.

He has been respectful to both Pennies and Warriors saying he did seriously consider and was tempted by the offers, however wanted to stay rather then start all over again at another club.

 

[Lambretta]

true, but in my experience with these sort of figures, and professional sportsmen with short careers, it is the exception rather than the rule. So takes us back to the original point which is if the Warriors really have $1mill to spend on a marquee player then they would have snared someone by now surely.

By all accounts that I have heard the Sharks offer to Carney was about 100-150 lower than he had been offered elsewhere. But he was happy where he was and didn't want to go through all the upheaval etc when he was happy where he was.

He felt a debt of loyalty to the Sharks and the money he is on there is bloody good so he decided to stay.

Don't forget when you earn 100 grand more you only see 50 of it. Is 50 grand extra really enough for all that uncertainty and perceived lack of loyalty when someone is already paying you 700k?