Cheating the Salary Cap

[master blaster]

seems like the dogs can dictate to any club they want and who they want,and get the players they need to ask for a release,again,the dogs seem to be able to do as they please

 

[Spuds Bodyguard]

As much as I hate the bulldogs I don't think you can blame them entirely.

It is the other clubs that are granting the release mid season and copping the lions share of the contract.

If the other club is that desperate to offload a player then so be it. If they didn't want to do it, simply tell the Dogs to get ****ed and deny the release.

 

[Stevo]

It's hard to guage a players exact yearly value as payments to players are made in a number of ways over the term of the contract.

I get what you are saying though. It's bull**** the dogs get two internationals for bugger all money without having to release the players thay have been brought in to replace.

Stevo, if it was hard to "gauge a players exact yearly value", there would be no way you could enforce the salary cap. In fact, the yearly value of a contract is the one that should count at all times.

Agreed, but, if his deal was front ended maybe this year he wasn't on much money. But more to the point, if he was on a smaller contract he probably relied heavily on match payments and reaching certain quotas to unlock incentive payments. His base salary for the year mightn't have been all that much above 50 grand.

I take your point Stevo, but again I am talking about effectively "transferring" the contract as well as the player- all payments made to the player in the specific season in question should be included for cap purposes. And for what its worth, the club selling the player should also be slugged the full amount of the contract under the salary cap- for example the warriors can save having to pay the remainder of Inu's contract, but why should their salary cap position alter (to their benefit) if they are unable to select / coach / prepare a player?
Remember, the cap is meant to create a level playing field...

---

I would think people feel the same about us for this year

With front ending / back ending contracts there is no way to tell what a player is going to be paid in any given year (who knows how much Foz might get in the last year of his contract v first) even if you know what a player is being paid

As it stands the dogs a heap of players off contract this year which free's up their cap + who know how much they might have been under before

Remember when we signed up BK and Kite (when we were well under the cap) the front loading that went on then???

You are missing the point- this has nothing to do with front or back ended contracts, or even how much space the scumdogs have left in their cap this year or will have next year. It is about being able to (obviously legitimately under current rules) get players on their books for the rest of THIS year for significantly less than whatever they would have been paid had they been there all season.

---

As much as i'd like to start a heated debate over this topic i don't know anything about Sam Perret's contract or Krisnan Inu's contract or the reason that either of them were released to the dogs early. So it would be a pointless arguement.

What i will say is this. There are what? 10 or 9 rounds to go. About a third of the season. I'm fine with them paying a reduced figure to aquire a player they need. It would be handy if we needed players mid season and could still afford it.

However, I'd be filthy if we released a player to another club for a whole season and still had to pay the majority of the contract.

 

[Utility Player]

In the Inu case the Warriors may have had to pay incentives to Hurrell based on 1st grade apperances if this was going to put them over the cap the release of Inu who would most likely play reserves would free up some room.

 

[Disco]

I have no problems with it.

The opportunity is available to all clubs and had Parra agreed to release Shackleton nobody here would be complaining

 

[MadMarcus]

Is a player only worth what someone will pay for them (maybe more of a rex question)

If this is the case any player who has legs and arms is worth at least $500K as long as Parra are in the comp.

 

[Vyssini]

I have no problems with it.

The opportunity is available to all clubs and had Parra agreed to release Shackleton nobody here would be complaining

Once again, my problem in this instance is not players leaving mid-season (that is a topic for another thread) but that the "buying" club is effectively able to have the player "valued" at the lesser amount (once again) for salary cap purposes.

 

[Stevo]

But if they're only playing a 3rd of the season surely the contract is only worth a 3rd of market price anyway?

 

[Vyssini]

But if they're only playing a 3rd of the season surely the contract is only worth a 3rd of market price anyway?

This is my point- the player may be worth only 1/3 of his yearly value in cash terms, but for the purposes of the salary cap, should be worth his annual "value". Unless this loop hole is closed, what is to stop any team, even our mob, from bringing in players eg from the English Super League, on short term contracts for the rest of the year. *Hey great idea, why don't we bring Robbo back for the remainder of this season on match payments??? The London Broncs aren't going to make the semis, they can save some wages...we can offload Oldfield to the rooters and save some cap space...win win for everyone.

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

Inu has now been let go by Parra and the Warriors. He's a liability. Once the honeymoon period is over at the Dogs he will start crumbling again.

Look at how he choked in the GF against us, he just doenst have the mental fortitude when it counts.

Perrett is solid but hardly a match winner.

I see no problem with it.

I don't agree with that mate. I have no doubt Des will get the best out of him consistently, like he has done with Pritchard this season.
I don't think being let go by a couple of clubs means anything because Galuvao has been let go by the same 2 sides with Souths added in yet is one of our best. Inu went pretty well in the GF against us as well

 

[Disco]

I have no problems with it.

The opportunity is available to all clubs and had Parra agreed to release Shackleton nobody here would be complaining

Once again, my problem in this instance is not players leaving mid-season (that is a topic for another thread) but that the "buying" club is effectively able to have the player "valued" at the lesser amount (once again) for salary cap purposes.

I understand you issue

But the salary cap is based on what you pay players not what they are "valued at". Any club could have come in and signed Inu as the Warriors wanted rid of him and were willing to subsidize the signing.

We were intending on signing shackleton on minimum wage meaning Parra would have had to pick up the remainder of his contract.

And im pretty sure all those years ago we signed Micheal Witt and Parra where picking up part of his wage.

Its been going on for years and will continue.............and to be honest i applaud clubs who can pull off a bargain and make it work

 

[Spuds Bodyguard]

But if they're only playing a 3rd of the season surely the contract is only worth a 3rd of market price anyway?

This is my point- the player may be worth only 1/3 of his yearly value in cash terms, but for the purposes of the salary cap, should be worth his annual "value". Unless this loop hole is closed, what is to stop any team, even our mob, from bringing in players eg from the English Super League, on short term contracts for the rest of the year. *Hey great idea, why don't we bring Robbo back for the remainder of this season on match payments??? The London Broncs aren't going to make the semis, they can save some wages...we can offload Oldfield to the rooters and save some cap space...win win for everyone.

Good idea. Do you have David Perry's number?

 

[DSM5]

As another poster commented, I think the greater issue is the deduction of points in the current season when a club is over the cap. The NRL surely has a handle on the outgoings on a continual basis as contracts are registered. Surely there should be a graded deduction of points after the registration date, about now, or at least before the finals. Maybe, 10K over, one point etc. It's way o late the following season.

 

[Stevo]

Is a player only worth what someone will pay for them (maybe more of a rex question)

If this is the case any player who has legs and arms is worth at least $500K as long as Parra are in the comp.

But if they're only playing a 3rd of the season surely the contract is only worth a 3rd of market price anyway?

This is my point- the player may be worth only 1/3 of his yearly value in cash terms, but for the purposes of the salary cap, should be worth his annual "value". Unless this loop hole is closed, what is to stop any team, even our mob, from bringing in players eg from the English Super League, on short term contracts for the rest of the year. *Hey great idea, why don't we bring Robbo back for the remainder of this season on match payments??? The London Broncs aren't going to make the semis, they can save some wages...we can offload Oldfield to the rooters and save some cap space...win win for everyone.

Do you recall the Sea Eagles trying to sign Ben Kennedy the season after he retired for 1$ cause we were short of forwards at the time?

It was knocked back because the amount of money was bull****. It would have allowed us to play an awesome player for $1.

If the price is fair and the contract is signed off by the NRL how is it unfair if the payment fits under the bulldogs cap?

And anyway, what's wrong with short term contracts if they are approved by the NRL and it fits under the clubs cap?

 

[Vyssini]

Do you recall the Sea Eagles trying to sign Ben Kennedy the season after he retired for 1$ cause we were short of forwards at the time?

It was knocked back because the amount of money was bull****. It would have allowed us to play an awesome player for $1.

If the price is fair and the contract is signed off by the NRL how is it unfair if the payment fits under the bulldogs cap?

And anyway, what's wrong with short term contracts if they are approved by the NRL and it fits under the clubs cap?

What is wrong is that if a club has $100,000 left under its salary cap, it should (if what the league are trying to do is create a level playing field) only be able to purchase a player worth $100,000 (over the season), not purchase a $300,000 player for $100,000 because there is only one third of the season to go.

 

[manlyfan76]

Just give their dad $200K to be at the club a la Hoppa Snr.

 

[Stevo]

Do you recall the Sea Eagles trying to sign Ben Kennedy the season after he retired for 1$ cause we were short of forwards at the time?

It was knocked back because the amount of money was bull****. It would have allowed us to play an awesome player for $1.

If the price is fair and the contract is signed off by the NRL how is it unfair if the payment fits under the bulldogs cap?

And anyway, what's wrong with short term contracts if they are approved by the NRL and it fits under the clubs cap?

What is wrong is that if a club has $100,000 left under its salary cap, it should (if what the league are trying to do is create a level playing field) only be able to purchase a player worth $100,000 (over the season), not purchase a $300,000 player for $100,000 because there is only one third of the season to go.

Explain to me why a club should have to pay a player a whole seasons wage if they don't get the benefit of him for the whole season?

 

[Vyssini]

Do you recall the Sea Eagles trying to sign Ben Kennedy the season after he retired for 1$ cause we were short of forwards at the time?

It was knocked back because the amount of money was bull****. It would have allowed us to play an awesome player for $1.

If the price is fair and the contract is signed off by the NRL how is it unfair if the payment fits under the bulldogs cap?

And anyway, what's wrong with short term contracts if they are approved by the NRL and it fits under the clubs cap?

What is wrong is that if a club has $100,000 left under its salary cap, it should (if what the league are trying to do is create a level playing field) only be able to purchase a player worth $100,000 (over the season), not purchase a $300,000 player for $100,000 because there is only one third of the season to go.

Explain to me why a club should have to pay a player a whole seasons wage if they don't get the benefit of him for the whole season?

Here we go again... I am not saying that a club pay the player for a full year if he signs mid year- what I am saying is that for salary cap purposes the value registered by the NRL should be equal to what the player would earn for the full year.

 

[SeaEagle007]

If thats the case we should of picked up Inu as a Winger and back up Goal Kicker

 

[lsz]

So it is the value of the player's contract not what they are paying him?