We Have Enough Cap Space to Buy Quality

[muzby]

And here:

My understanding is that other than pay for the shares, which has allowed the NRL loan to be repaid and paid back the loan to the St George Club, there has been little in the way of further funds forthcoming from WIN corp. They have their people on the board and, I think it was mentioned in another thread a possible casting vote should push come to shove, but no additional funds to advance the team.

When you think the club declared, and I could be wrong, $25k in TPA for the year, surely the WIN corp, somewhere in the conglomeration of companies, could find or influence a little more.

 

[muzby]

And here:

I am not saying that its WIN entirely, they may just be taking advantage of something that was not thought through properly or just not put together right.

 

[muzby]

And here:

I also question that the new owner does not provide any further funds past the buy in to a club that needs cash injections. I get concerned that having a company which is owned by a billionaire, allows the club to have a declared TPA figure of $25k

 

[Dragonslayer]

It seems weird that the Roosters always seem to have cap space and can attract the best players.
The "no salary cap" salary cap so to speak.

Are they rorting the system or are just better managers of it!

I found it interesting that reading through the salary cap rules as set by the NRL, there sems to be a loophole that they effectively use: It's called an SLA or Sponsor Leveraging Agreements. These are exempt from the salary cap and have no limit, as a are a host of other things as well such as, medical insurance (pretty high for a football player), marquee player agreements and relocation payments (to name a few), all exempt under the salary cap.

For example: James Tedesco (all assumption of course)
Base contract - 500k
TPA - 100k
SLA - 20k @ 24 games per season - 480k
Marquee player agreement - 100k
Relocation payment (from west tigers to Bondi for example) - 20k

You can see how he can be earning - 1.2m per season, but only have 500k on salary cap.

Given that the Roosters are basically in the high end of town where SLA from sponsors would be, lets say, more flexible with payments than say a business in the western suburbs.

I would think that the Roosters as well as the Storm and Broncos would be particularly savvy with this aspect of the cap hence their continued domination on the ladder and the attraction for players to go there.

Unfair advantage, absolutely. Most major corporate businesses are centred around the major cities and a few if any spread out to such places as Kogarah or Campbelltown for example. If you notice who sponsors each player, each week, then you get a fair idea of the variance from the high end of town. I think also having a real "businessman" as your front and centre (eg: Politis) also is a key factor.

Politis once said they are just better at managing the cap than most, from this, you can see how. Rorters, maybe, but facts may prove otherwise.

 

[gregstar]

Ryan Matterson
He's been told he can negotiate with other clubs - de Belin can be replaced if convicted.
But I guess the time span before the ruling will F*cK us.

So far as backs? FMD!

* Widdop has barely played & is leaving
* Hunt has been disappointing
* Norman has been crap
* Aitken has been crap
* Lafai IS crap
* Dufty has been disappointing

Our backline has simply been sh*thouse!
And its best player is leaving.

Again....FMD!

 

[possm]

It seems weird that the Roosters always seem to have cap space and can attract the best players.
The "no salary cap" salary cap so to speak.

Are they rorting the system or are just better managers of it!

I found it interesting that reading through the salary cap rules as set by the NRL, there sems to be a loophole that they effectively use: It's called an SLA or Sponsor Leveraging Agreements. These are exempt from the salary cap and have no limit, as a are a host of other things as well such as, medical insurance (pretty high for a football player), marquee player agreements and relocation payments (to name a few), all exempt under the salary cap.

For example: James Tedesco (all assumption of course)
Base contract - 500k
TPA - 100k
SLA - 20k @ 24 games per season - 480k
Marquee player agreement - 100k
Relocation payment (from west tigers to Bondi for example) - 20k

You can see how he can be earning - 1.2m per season, but only have 500k on salary cap.

Given that the Roosters are basically in the high end of town where SLA from sponsors would be, lets say, more flexible with payments than say a business in the western suburbs.

I would think that the Roosters as well as the Storm and Broncos would be particularly savvy with this aspect of the cap hence their continued domination on the ladder and the attraction for players to go there.

Unfair advantage, absolutely. Most major corporate businesses are centred around the major cities and a few if any spread out to such places as Kogarah or Campbelltown for example. If you notice who sponsors each player, each week, then you get a fair idea of the variance from the high end of town. I think also having a real "businessman" as your front and centre (eg: Politis) also is a key factor.

Politis once said they are just better at managing the cap than most, from this, you can see how. Rorters, maybe, but facts may prove otherwise.

Good post but I'm not sure about the figures you present however, I really do not think it matters all that much. There are a few ways that this problem can be addressed:

• Make all payments, with no exception be part of the salary cap, or
• Make all sponsorship of players, TPA, be arranged by player managers and the NRL, using national products and national campaigns, make these TPA be non-club specific, meaning they follow the player from club to club.

Only in this way would the principal reasons for creating a salary cap - to even out expenditure on players between rich and not so rich clubs.

Of course if a draft system could be introduced it would also go a long way to solving some of the problems the less successful clubs are facing right now.

 

[Dorsai]

And here:

And all legitimate questions.

I also ask about the stupidity of the club before the merger for allowing the club to get to this position.

Poor management prior to WIN’s involvement is certainly up there, but the fact remains, for a company which is supposed to be profit oriented, they do not seem to be providing that input here.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking there are issues here which WIN are also accountable for. How much? That’s what I am questioning. And it’s not one year, get your facts straight.

 

[giboz71]

It seems weird that the Roosters always seem to have cap space and can attract the best players.
The "no salary cap" salary cap so to speak.

Are they rorting the system or are just better managers of it!

I found it interesting that reading through the salary cap rules as set by the NRL, there sems to be a loophole that they effectively use: It's called an SLA or Sponsor Leveraging Agreements. These are exempt from the salary cap and have no limit, as a are a host of other things as well such as, medical insurance (pretty high for a football player), marquee player agreements and relocation payments (to name a few), all exempt under the salary cap.

For example: James Tedesco (all assumption of course)
Base contract - 500k
TPA - 100k
SLA - 20k @ 24 games per season - 480k
Marquee player agreement - 100k
Relocation payment (from west tigers to Bondi for example) - 20k

You can see how he can be earning - 1.2m per season, but only have 500k on salary cap.

Given that the Roosters are basically in the high end of town where SLA from sponsors would be, lets say, more flexible with payments than say a business in the western suburbs.

I would think that the Roosters as well as the Storm and Broncos would be particularly savvy with this aspect of the cap hence their continued domination on the ladder and the attraction for players to go there.

Unfair advantage, absolutely. Most major corporate businesses are centred around the major cities and a few if any spread out to such places as Kogarah or Campbelltown for example. If you notice who sponsors each player, each week, then you get a fair idea of the variance from the high end of town. I think also having a real "businessman" as your front and centre (eg: Politis) also is a key factor.

Politis once said they are just better at managing the cap than most, from this, you can see how. Rorters, maybe, but facts may prove otherwise.

I’m pretty sure that if there are tricks and loopholes to managing the salary cap, the Roosters would be the club to exploit it. Nick Politis and Mark Bouris have a combined net worth of half a billion.

I’m pretty sure they didn’t get to where they were by just robotically following the rules.

The Roosters are just smarter than most clubs, especially us.

 

[Slippery Morris]

There are plenty of ways to fix the issues with the cap but why would they as it will disadvantage the Roosters and Storm. If teams can exclude their juniors from the cap then the issue is sorted but the NRL do not want to give the Roosters and Storm a disadvantage but rather give the other 14 clubs the disadvantage.....And that is one of the many reasons why this sporting code is run so badly.

 

[muzby]

And all legitimate questions.

I also ask about the stupidity of the club before the merger for allowing the club to get to this position.

Poor management prior to WIN’s involvement is certainly up there, but the fact remains, for a company which is supposed to be profit oriented, they do not seem to be providing that input here.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking there are issues here which WIN are also accountable for. How much? That’s what I am questioning. And it’s not one year, get your facts straight.

So all failures up to the point of change in part owners are blamed on the new part owner for failing to fix it?

Despite the other part owner being there throughout the whole time?

Come on..

And yes, it’s only been a year that WIN have the half ownership.. Prior to that their involvement was minor..

Well, minor to all those who don’t wear tinfoil anyway..

 

[possm]

So all failures up to the point of change in part owners are blamed on the new part owner for failing to fix it?

Despite the other part owner being there throughout the whole time?

Come on..

And yes, it’s only been a year that WIN have the half ownership.. Prior to that their involvement was minor..

Well, minor to all those who don’t wear tinfoil anyway..

For goodness sales. WIN got the club at least 5m cheaper than the highest bid at the time and SGI did not benefit at all, WIN's deal ensured Illawarra's debt to WIN and the Gordons was paid in full - no funds transferred, and Illawarra's debt to SGI paid in full - which was equal to the funds owed to the NRL - so no net benefit to SGI.

Yes we have a new partner but essentially we are no better off. WIN has shares as repayment of their Illawarra loans, the NRL are paid in full and SGI receive no benefit at all.

To top it all off, we are stuck with Craig Young on the Board - taking up a St George seat, Johnston who is beholden to WIN for his CEO job and Mary and Millward the untouchables.

I'd say none of the above people would be holding down these jobs if the other - higher bidder - was to be the new partner.

 

[muzby]

For goodness sales. WIN got the club at least 5m sheaper than the winning bid at the time and SGI did not benefit at all, WIN's deal ensured Illawarra's debt to win was paid in full - no funds transferred, and Illawarra's debt to SGI paid in full - which was equal to the funds owed to the NRL - so no net benefit to SGI.

Yes we have a new partner but essentially we are no better off. WIN has shares as repayment of their Illawarra loans, the NRL are paid in full and SGI receive no benefit at all.

To top it all off we are stuck with Craig Young on the Board - taking up a St George seat, Johnston who is beholden to WIN for his CEO job and Mary and Millward the untouchables.

I'd day none of the above people would be holding down these jobs if the other - higher bidder - was to be the new partner.

So you’re saying it’s the St George board member and St George CEO that are the issues at the top?

Why are St George holding the club back like this?

 

[Old Timer]

So you’re saying it’s the St George board member and St George CEO that are the issues at the top?

Why are St George holding the club back like this?

If truthful we all know that both sides of the JV are holding the club back
The once iconic St George brand is being cheapened and trashed by a bunch of f**kwhits and the millionaire who was supposed to bring something worthwhile to the table has brought nothing
A pox on all their houses.

 

[Forbes Creek Dragons]

It seems weird that the Roosters always seem to have cap space and can attract the best players.
The "no salary cap" salary cap so to speak.

Are they rorting the system or are just better managers of it!

I found it interesting that reading through the salary cap rules as set by the NRL, there sems to be a loophole that they effectively use: It's called an SLA or Sponsor Leveraging Agreements. These are exempt from the salary cap and have no limit, as a are a host of other things as well such as, medical insurance (pretty high for a football player), marquee player agreements and relocation payments (to name a few), all exempt under the salary cap.

For example: James Tedesco (all assumption of course)
Base contract - 500k
TPA - 100k
SLA - 20k @ 24 games per season - 480k
Marquee player agreement - 100k
Relocation payment (from west tigers to Bondi for example) - 20k

You can see how he can be earning - 1.2m per season, but only have 500k on salary cap.

Given that the Roosters are basically in the high end of town where SLA from sponsors would be, lets say, more flexible with payments than say a business in the western suburbs.

I would think that the Roosters as well as the Storm and Broncos would be particularly savvy with this aspect of the cap hence their continued domination on the ladder and the attraction for players to go there.

Unfair advantage, absolutely. Most major corporate businesses are centred around the major cities and a few if any spread out to such places as Kogarah or Campbelltown for example. If you notice who sponsors each player, each week, then you get a fair idea of the variance from the high end of town. I think also having a real "businessman" as your front and centre (eg: Politis) also is a key factor.

Politis once said they are just better at managing the cap than most, from this, you can see how. Rorters, maybe, but facts may prove otherwise.

Good article, I’m not sure if it is all 100% correct but raises some good points. I’m not sure about the marquee player thing though and if so why can’t we use it too? The main takeaway I get from this is that the rules have to have a major overhaul as there is no doubt it is not a level playing field. If Brisbane was the dominant team I can hack that, they are in a heartland, have good sponsorship and produce juniors. Roosters have all the corporate things in order but don’t produce juniors. No juniors no game, same teams in the final every year no game. It’s not sour grapes there are serious issues with the rules as they stand.

 

[Dragon Revival]

The reason why the Dragons were so successful between 1956 to 1966 is that they had quality players, no holes in their roster and had good utility players such as Armstrong, Clay, Evans, Langlands, Pollard, Rasmussen, Smith, etc. It is no good having great forwards without competent backs. The Dragons backline is poor and getting weaker. No attack,
snail pace, woeful defence, poor handling, inept kicking and flawed tactics. The Board only has two ex players and the entire Board
do not take their job seriously regarding having a competent well coached team back up by strong depth at lower tiers.

 

[SAP58]

Unfortunately the Dragons cannot attract TP deals like clubs like the Roosters, obviously the Politis & Bouris contacts assist considerably. Even the Sharks have increased there TP deals considerably over the last few years which is how they have signed the number of profile players they have.

 

[Old Timer]

The reason why the Dragons were so successful between 1956 to 1966 is that they had quality players, no holes in their roster and had good utility players such as Armstrong, Clay, Evans, Langlands, Pollard, Rasmussen, Smith, etc. It is no good having great forwards without competent backs. The Dragons backline is poor and getting weaker. No attack,
snail pace, woeful defence, poor handling, inept kicking and flawed tactics. The Board only has two ex players and the entire Board
do not take their job seriously regarding having a competent well coached team back up by strong depth at lower tiers.

Those were the days when they would rather play for us for less.

 

[BLM01]

Unfortunately the Dragons cannot attract TP deals like clubs like the Roosters, obviously the Politis & Bouris contacts assist considerably. Even the Sharks have increased there TP deals considerably over the last few years which is how they have signed the number of profile players they have.

TPA's yeh..na. Yes via a developer promising cheaper.units than Market Value at the new beaut to be built complex at the home ground.

 

[muzby]

Those were the days when they would rather play for us for less.

Now they just would rather less play for us..

 

[Wittenberg]

Look we can talk about the cap all we like but STGI has not been connected to any player from anywhere. Even if we had the Roosters’ money we would not attract quality. MacGregor and Johnston are the millstones around our neck and unless we get a new coach, which is not happening any time soon, 2020 will be another disaster and most likely we will lose Tyson, Luc and Zac along the way. We are a total basket case.