"those tazos...we only get $1000"

[Karmawave]

I have 2 qustions on the salary cap rule, if someone can clear them up for me.

1) what if player A decides to do something outside of the game in his spare time and it becomes a good earner. Lets say he invents something or makes a number 1 hit singel and gets, lets say 10 mill for his troubles. Where does that sit in Mr. Shuberts audit?

2) What if a few high profile players decide to get ghost writers in and every year pen a book or two with their help (be it sports stories, cookbooks AKA Mat Hayden etc)? Would the money earnt from these books come under the salary cap. If not what is to stop player A getting his name credited with a book and the club or independant sponsor buying $500k worth.

1. It wouldnt come under " guaranteed income " because it would not be a certainty to occur. No different to a player making a smart investment in shares and earning $10M out of it. So it would be salary cap exempt.

2. If the player received a set amount for the " rights " to a book , it could come under the salary cap because its set income. If someone wanted to rort it and buy up $500K worth of books where the player was not paid upfront with guaranteed income and was reliant on royalty income, well I have no idea what would happen, but tecnically it could occur.

 

[Calixte]

Without reading this thread fully, his comment made him sound like the money hungry scumbag he is.

As has been said many times, good riddance.

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

You could argue logically that Gasnier has earned his high profile only through playing in the NRL...thus the NRL deserve a greater share of the profits off his image.

If he'd been playing park footy, he wouldnt be famous. The NRL has allowed him to become well-known.

You could argue that his uncle and moreso the name his uncle forged in the game has made him such a high profile player and a golden goose so to speak for the NRL. The NRL has profited greatly for the 2nd time over the great name of Gasnier. Should he too be compensated? At the end of the day the NRL did not give him his start in football. StGeorge gave him that oportunity. The NRL has done very little to keep him and other big names in the game, but are more than happy to profit from them while they are here.

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

1. It wouldnt come under " guaranteed income " because it would not be a certainty to occur. No different to a player making a smart investment in shares and earning $10M out of it. So it would be salary cap exempt.

2. If the player received a set amount for the " rights " to a book , it could come under the salary cap because its set income. If someone wanted to rort it and buy up $500K worth of books where the player was not paid upfront with guaranteed income and was reliant on royalty income, well I have no idea what would happen, but tecnically it could occur.

I love a good loophole. So to keep our stars in the game they can either make a single or write a book. Then it can be up to the fans and the sponsors to determine how much they are willing to pay to keep them.... simple problem solved

 

[bartman]

You say his " job " like he should play the game for us all for free. Like it is our god given entitlement to see the best athletes running around for us just to entertain us for the " love of the game "...

No, I say his job, because he's already being rewarded handsomely for what he actually does. The tazos and third party contract bollocks have nothing to do with us, that should be Gasnier's problem (and his managers'), not rugby leagues, channel 9's nor the Dragons.

Its ok for Smiths Snackfoods and the NRL to make millions out of an image of a high profile player, but the person's image they use shouldn't be entitled to their fair share of the money? Is that what you're saying?

Make millions :lol:. Who gives a f**k about Tazos? You seem to be guessing that Smiths are paying the game heaps for this (why would they, it would hardly increase their sales by millions), and that the game or Smiths are making heaps of money out of it. I've seen the light, the future isn't pokies profits, it's tazos profits! Get on it now... :lol:

Its ok if the NRL makes all this money from the talents of others, but the players themselves should be content with getting " well paid " and being famous while entertaining the masses of fans for the love of it.

If Gas or others don't like their six figure contracts, then they shouldn't sign them, or moan about the conditions under which they signed. Good luck to them if they f**k off and play NFL or becoem Tazo all-stars or whatever. The bottom line is... who cares? Life goes on. Gaz is nothing special, but he carries on like he is, and people carry on like he deserves more than he already gets?

As for all the bollocks about Macquarie bankers and rock stars and whatever... it's just Gasnier we're talking about. Let him f**k off to France to earn his wedge - but he and others shouldn't cover it up or need to put himself on a pedestal with claims that it's for the experience, or the lifestyle, moan about his missing million (which he wasn't good enough to earn through his third party contract), or moan about flipping tazos :lol:.

Piss off quickly Gas, the game and St George don't need mercenaries like you or your apologists.

 

[Raider_69]

FTR id rather a Josh Miller tazo then a Gasnier one

 

[Raider_69]

I don't think I'm the one that is smoking :lol:

What was Gasniers multi million dollar sponsorship deal that he signed that wasn't honoured?

All NRL players are restricted as to what they can earn without it being approved by the NRL.

so long as said company has no affliation with the players club as i understand it, he can be paid as much as he likes
the issue comes in with club alligned sponsors like Sydney City Holden who may sponsor the roosters and may give a brand new car to a high profile recruit every 6 months...

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

A good point you bring up there Bartman.

If

Gas or others don't like their six figure contracts, then they shouldn't sign them, or moan about the conditions under which they signed.

Gaz contract hasn't been honoured, as such he has activated the get out clause for just such event.

As for the part about him carrying on like he is something special please give reference to this as the report I read he claimed "he would not return to the NRL and would not be missed by rugby league". This doesn't sound like a guy who is claiming to be all you say. True his fans big him up but he isn't responsible for that.

 

[Karmawave]

Waste of time responding to that tripe Bartman, you clearly have a personal issue with Gasnier which prevents your from looking at the reasons why this is even being discussed - that the NRL undersells its rights to outside companies - simple as that. ( and you touched on that exactly in what you just said though you may not realise it )...

Forget tazo's, forget all of that garbage. The players deserve to be rewarded for the use of their image by other companies ( whoever they are , tazos or not ) who profit from promoting a talented footballer to the public. Bottom line. It is no different when a supermodel is rewarded with a contract for wearing a pair of Calvin Klein jeans. Will it sell more jeans? Who knows! But the company are sure as hell hoping they do. And I'd hope the model was being well paid too!

Your obvious dislike for Gasnier will continue to cloud your judgement and prevent us from having an actual unbiased discussion about the whole thing.

 

[bartman]

Gaz contract hasn't been honoured, as such he has activated the get out clause for just such event.

Hasn't stopped him referring to it (moaning) about it farily regularly, including in his farewell press conference.

As for the part about him carrying on like he is something special please give reference to this as the report I read he claimed "he would not return to the NRL and would not be missed by rugby league". This doesn't sound like a guy who is claiming to be all you say. True his fans big him up but he isn't responsible for that.

Carrying on like something special - wanting a meeting with Gallop before "deciding his future" when on the reasons he has given for the switch, his mind was already made up... unless perhaps Gallop could magic up some more contra and money to satisfy the greed he is showing all signs of here but not owning up to.

As above, I have given him credit for that closing line of the press conference, where he did say something like life goes on. A small dose of humilty after all the preceding arrogance of him and his manager (just like Joey and Fordham before them) trying to extract the maximum possible from his club and the game has been said and done.

 

[Karmawave]

Hasn't stopped him referring to it (moaning) about it farily regularly, including in his farewell press conference.

Well who here WOULD want their employer to dishonour a contract? :lol:

You?

If your employer decided to put in $800 into your bank account every week instead of the agreed $1,000 you signed a contract to, I'm sure you would be incredibly cool about it and not complain, right? ;-)

Sure you might not go on T.V. to do so , but that's because you're a Neville Nobody, but I'm sure you and Gaz might have a bit in common all of a sudden.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Absolutely I think it should be worth more.

You say his " job " like he should play the game for us all for free. Like it is our god given entitlement to see the best athletes running around for us just to entertain us for the " love of the game "...

Anyone, NRL players, garbagemen, whoever, should be rewarded to the maximum for their " jobs " if they are making many millions for those they work for.

Its ok for Smiths Snackfoods and the NRL to make millions out of an image of a high profile player, but the person's image they use shouldn't be entitled to their fair share of the money? Is that what you're saying?

Its ok if the NRL makes all this money from the talents of others, but the players themselves should be content with getting " well paid " and being famous while entertaining the masses of fans for the love of it.

Just because Joe Bloggs struggles to earn $40G a year, doesn't mean we should begrudge someone from earning $40M a year - whoever it is.

Allan Moss former CEO of Macquarie Bank earned a massive amount of money for his performance http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/macquarie-allan-moss/2007/05/17/ ...

Sure, its ridiculous, but it was all relative to how much Moss earned for the company he worked for and in his case, Mac Bank shareholders voted for him to earn that amount of money.

Sportsman or not, we don't have the right to sit here and say Gasnier doesn't deserve as much money as he can get simply because people are jealous or envious of his earning potential.

No one should entertain us for free, and no one should add to the coffers of massive corporations like Smiths without getting properly rewarded for doing so. Any suggestion as to otherwise is simply not unbiased.

Rockstars, actors, models, whoever it is, earn big money from their likeness if a company uses their image in a promotion. NRL stars should be no different. Bar none. It would be like saying a supermodel can get paid to model on catwalks, but when it comes to using their image to sell Calvin Klein, they should just be happy with whatever they can get.

Excellent post.

I agree with everything you just said and your post has saved me the job of expressing the same views.

Personally i find this view we have within rugby league that "league players should stop whinging because Joe Bloggs works 50 hours a week for 35k a year" to be absolutely ludicrous and very backwards.

Everyone has the right to earn as much as they can in their respective profession. They have the right to earn their market value. It doesn't make it right. I mean everyone knows that the teachers and nurses of this world are everybit as valuable as our footy players and actors.

But it just so happens that, given their public profile and celebrity status, footy stars and actors have the capacity to earn considerably more. That's the way the world works. 99% of the wealth owned by 10% of the population.

That considered i don't see why league players should have any less right than the actors and business executives of this world to earn as much as their position allows them.

If Mark Gasnier can earn $1 million dollars a year through nike sponsorship then how on earth does the NRL, the organisation that he makes alot of money for, have the right to stop him? It borders on unlawful restraint of ones earning capacity IMO.

I challenge anyone here to infer that, even if they were earning 500k a year, that they wouldn't consider an increased offer of $1 million a year overseas. Especially if that position you held had a shelf life of just another 5-6 years, which is the case for Gasnier.

Or are League players supposed to be selfless public figures? Happy to earn a certain amount but never no more. Servants to the community and the NRL, never to question whether they deserve a larger slice of the pie.

Is there a certain amount that we all should be happy to earn, thus forfeiting our right to try and earn more? If i earn 100k a year should i shut-up and lose all desire to earn more for fear of offending joe bloggs? Or is that figure 200k?

Oh and btw, if you want an example of greed and over-inflated salaries then look no further than high-profile soccer players. 250'000 dollars a week, not a year. And one of them still complains about being treat like a slave (Ronaldo). Now that is spoilt.

 

[bartman]

Waste of time responding to that tripe Bartman, you clearly have a personal issue with Gasnier which prevents your from looking at the reasons why this is even being discussed - that the NRL undersells its rights to outside companies - simple as that. ( and you touched on that exactly in what you just said though you may not realise it )...

When in trouble justifying your opinion, claim it's a personal issue, and not just an opposing opinion. Heard al that before (you haven't changed you name on here recently, have you?)

For the record I agree the NRL undersold the broadcasting rights - no surprise there when you look at the half owners of the NRL and the broadcaster concerned.

Tazos is irrelevant. Seriously. Who cares? You and Gaz. The other players are happy to pocket their $1,000 for a photo opportunity and get on with life without moaning.

Forget tazo's, forget all of that garbage. The players deserve to be rewarded for the use of their image by other companies ( whoever they are , tazos or not ) who profit from promoting a talented footballer to the public. Bottom line. It is no different when a supermodel is rewarded with a contract for wearing a pair of Calvin Klein jeans. Will it sell more jeans? Who knows! But the company are sure as hell hoping they do. And I'd hope the model was being well paid too!

I'd suggest the players are being rewarded for use of their image by companies - in this case $1000 is amble for a flipping tazo. Again, haven't heard a single other player complaining, they're happy to pocket the free extra cash.

Your obvious dislike for Gasnier will continue to cloud your judgement and prevent us from having an actual unbiased discussion about the whole thing.

I don't dislike him, just think that he - like several other players these days, including some from my own club - goes on a bit in all this contract negotiating, trying to squeeze the maximum. I guess I just don't live my life that way, am happy enough without being a mercenary, and tend to respect and prefer teh company of people who are the same. I happen to think player managers are a scourge on the game as well and the salary cap doesn't need to be raised, something I suspect that you disagree with too.

But if it makes you feel better, please assume this is personal of me against Gasnier, just so that you don't have to bother considering differing points of view.

 

[Karmawave]

It's a bit naive to think Gaz is the only player not happy about his share of the pie Bartman, but I accept your points all the same. Cameron Smith mentioned the word " strike " in one article in the Daily Tele. Player strikes have been common in other sports and I hope to avoid it in the NRL , but wouldn't be suprised that one day it happens.

Player managers/agents - well all agents / managers in any form of entertainment are a scourge on society. That we agree on.

A salary cap - hmmm, can definitely be improved, but for now - required. I'm not a fan of placing restrictions on people's incomes though which is a big downside to it all.

 

[nqboy]

I love the bit where Karma presents broad claims with no evidence as facts. And there's so many bits to love.

 

[Karmawave]

I love the bit where Karma presents broad claims with no evidence as facts. And there's so many bits to love.

Then where's your facts to disprove it ;-) I stand by my comments 100% , and I don't see you rushing in with any " links and sources " to prove otherwise.

Did you educate yourself on Smith Snackfoods annual profits and investor information yet? Or maybe you can work a miracle that other's ( including journalists ) cannot and get the NRL to reveal what the Smiths Snackfood deal with PepsiCo involved financially and what % of that deal went to the current players and junior development? :lol:

 

[Raider_69]

Then where's your facts to disprove it ;-) I stand by my comments 100% , and I don't see you rushing in with any " links and sources " to prove otherwise.

You made the claim or rather broad general statement, the onus is on you to prove it correct

 

[nqboy]

Then where's your facts to disprove it ;-) I stand by my comments 100% , and I don't see you rushing in with any " links and sources " to prove otherwise.

See, there's your smoke and mirrors again. It's not up to me to disprove your claimed "facts", it's up to you to substantiate them.

 

[Karmawave]

You made the claim or rather broad general statement, the onus is on you to prove it correct

What facts or statement are you even referring to, thats what I don't quite understand :lol: I've not made any outlandish statistical claims, I've made opinions based on basic common sense.

That Smiths and PepsiCo are a big company? Heaven forbid!!! I've already pointed out what they earn from the tazo's and chips is irrelevant completely because the NRL get paid rights for them to use the tazo's. If they make money or lose money on the promotion has nothing to do with what the players get out of it!!!

How can anyone here come up with anything to prove facts when a company ( like the NRL ) refuses to release the details of the Smiths deal to anyone?!

All we have is a disgruntled star who says he is disappointed about what's going on. And other players who in the past have questioned the NRL's skills at negotiating rights.

The NRL meanwhile won't release any details to the public? Why not?

Do you want me to pull out facts and figures outta my ass that aren't even made available to the public by the NRL? :lol:

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

It ius hard for him to support his claim as there are no figures being revealed. Would anyone like to take a stab at what they think the numbers could be involving the Smith's deal?
What was there:
3 player cards x 16 teams = 48
Then there were a trio card for each team = 16

So from there we can say that they only pay the player once, so the NRL would have paid our $48k tops. Would they have sold the players likeness for how much? Twice that amount? Three times? $200k? $500K? To assume the NRL did not maximize their profit in this instance is naive. A conservative estimate would be $300k, thus resulting witht he NRL to get a whopping $250k profit. I dare anyone with knowlege in these types of deals to show me valid reasons why my figures are overinflated as I know from owning my own business how many more packets of chips we sell when the footy cards are in them. We easily triple our sales.