Cheating the Salary Cap

[Vyssini]

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

The value of a player's contract and what they are paying him (usually one and the same) is exactly what the NRL should be using for salary cap purposes. All I am saying is that short term contracts should be proportionately increased to an annual basis (like I presume most contracts are in the NRL) for inclusion in the salary cap.

 

[Dan79]

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

I am with clontaago on this one. Inu can be very good, and he can be very average as well. I wouldnt make a judgement at these stage of his dogs contract. If he was consistent he would have still been at parra, or the warriors. So far so good for them. If you consider the real reason that Dessie picked up Inu, you would have to say it was a good move. Inu at the dogs was part of the ploy to land T-Rex.

 

[mmmdl]

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

The value of a player's contract and what they are paying him (usually one and the same) is exactly what the NRL should be using for salary cap purposes. All I am saying is that short term contracts should be proportionately increased to an annual basis (like I presume most contracts are in the NRL) for inclusion in the salary cap.

That's just stupid.

Clubs should only be liable for the amount that they pay.

Under your scenario, you think that Inu should be counted under both the Dogs AND Warriors salary caps. Why? Is he getting paid twice? No.

At the end of the season, Inu will have been assessed under certain clubs salary caps for the amount that his contract was at the start of the season. Who that is paid by is irrelevant. To say that a player that plays 1/2 of a season for a club should have an annualised figure attributed is preposterous.

 

[Central Coast Eagle]

If Inu and Perrett weren't going (have gone) to the Bulldogs this would be a none issue......

 

[Vyssini]

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

The value of a player's contract and what they are paying him (usually one and the same) is exactly what the NRL should be using for salary cap purposes. All I am saying is that short term contracts should be proportionately increased to an annual basis (like I presume most contracts are in the NRL) for inclusion in the salary cap.

That's just stupid.

Clubs should only be liable for the amount that they pay.

Under your scenario, you think that Inu should be counted under both the Dogs AND Warriors salary caps. Why? Is he getting paid twice? No.

At the end of the season, Inu will have been assessed under certain clubs salary caps for the amount that his contract was at the start of the season. Who that is paid by is irrelevant. To say that a player that plays 1/2 of a season for a club should have an annualised figure attributed is preposterous.

Are you a player manager? Georgie Mimis maybe?

Why should the Warriors be allowed to take the remainder of Inu's wages off their books if they are incapable of bringing out the best of his ability? Also, why should the Roosters have Perrett's wages taken off their books- they signed him for the full year- and ultimately they also could have told him he wasn't going anywhere.
What is preposterous is a player like Inu (who played in a grand final last year), claiming only $50k of the scumdog's cap.

 

[Utility Player]

No one held a gun to the Roosters or Warriors recruitment managers, If it was not beneficial to both parties it would not have happened.

As Stevo said how can you say that if Inu was worth 300k that even though he has changed teams half way through the season that both teams must allow 300k for him in their cap.

 

[the mauler]

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

The value of a player's contract and what they are paying him (usually one and the same) is exactly what the NRL should be using for salary cap purposes. All I am saying is that short term contracts should be proportionately increased to an annual basis (like I presume most contracts are in the NRL) for inclusion in the salary cap.

That's just stupid.

Clubs should only be liable for the amount that they pay.

Under your scenario, you think that Inu should be counted under both the Dogs AND Warriors salary caps. Why? Is he getting paid twice? No.

At the end of the season, Inu will have been assessed under certain clubs salary caps for the amount that his contract was at the start of the season. Who that is paid by is irrelevant. To say that a player that plays 1/2 of a season for a club should have an annualised figure attributed is preposterous.

Are you a player manager? Georgie Mimis maybe?

Why should the Warriors be allowed to take the remainder of Inu's wages off their books if they are incapable of bringing out the best of his ability? Also, why should the Roosters have Perrett's wages taken off their books- they signed him for the full year- and ultimately they also could have told him he wasn't going anywhere.
What is preposterous is a player like Inu (who played in a grand final last year), claiming only $50k of the scumdog's cap.

I'm a big believer in karma, and im hoping Inu will cost the Dogs a big finals game with a **** load of errors. One can only hope.

 

[Brookvale]

Kristen Emu will be back to his old tricks of taking things too casually, running kick returns with the ball between his fingertips. Sly smiling while taking kicks is odd.

he should be goalkicking like soward. Place the ball. stare at the posts for 3 mins, take deep breaths. do the emu dance then pop it over!

 

[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?

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.

You still haven't explained why you think this should be the case.

Question - If a player is only at a club for 1/3 of the season, why should they have to fit his whole yearly salary under their salary cap?

Answer - ?

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

Peter Moore admitted rorting the league in 1995 in an article in RLW in 1996, Cam was having a serious arguement with a dog supporter named Timmay who called him a liar and to prove it , so Cam did & the ****tard still denies it
he has pics of the article and he may post them here if he sees this

 

[Stevo]

Ha ha. That's funny

 

[Masked Eagle]

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.

You still haven't explained why you think this should be the case.

Question - If a player is only at a club for 1/3 of the season, why should they have to fit his whole yearly salary under their salary cap?

Answer - ?

When a player transfers mid season how much is included under the teams cap that he is going to is not dependant on how much time is left in the season. Its a negotiation process between the club he is leaving and the club he is going to. How much usually depends on how badly the team he is leaving wants to get rid of them. There is no set formula.

 

[Stevo]

I know. I just want to know the reasoning behind Vyssini's belief that the figure for the whole season should be included under both teams salary cap. Doesn't make any sense to me?

 

[bones]

I know. I just want to know the reasoning behind Vyssini's belief that the figure for the whole season should be included under both teams salary cap. Doesn't make any sense to me?

I think he means that with a salary cap in place, all 16 teams should be playing with a team of equal value ($4.4mil).
However, If a player is going to a club for a third of the season and therefor only a third of his value is adding towards their salary cap then it's not evening out the talent like the cap is meant to.
How much of Inu's salary is included under the Warriors cap for the remainder of the year? If he is a $300k per year player then $300k should be included in a teams salary cap at any given time during any year that he is getting paid that much. If only $50k is included in the dogs cap does that mean $250k is included in the warriors cap even though he isn't playing for them any more? If he is being paid $300 k then $300k should be accountable in a salary cap somewhere... whether it's at the dogs, the warriors, or a percentage of that amount at both clubs.
We could end up with a situation where clubs do deals with one another to release players after a few weeks to avoid the full amounts applying onto their cap for the year.

 

[Vyssini]

I know. I just want to know the reasoning behind Vyssini's belief that the figure for the whole season should be included under both teams salary cap. Doesn't make any sense to me?

I think he means that with a salary cap in place, all 16 teams should be playing with a team of equal value ($4.4mil).
However, If a player is going to a club for a third of the season and therefor only a third of his value is adding towards their salary cap then it's not evening out the talent like the cap is meant to.
How much of Inu's salary is included under the Warriors cap for the remainder of the year? If he is a $300k per year player then $300k should be included in a teams salary cap at any given time during any year that he is getting paid that much. If only $50k is included in the dogs cap does that mean $250k is included in the warriors cap even though he isn't playing for them any more? If he is being paid $300 k then $300k should be accountable in a salary cap somewhere... whether it's at the dogs, the warriors, or a percentage of that amount at both clubs.
We could end up with a situation where clubs do deals with one another to release players after a few weeks to avoid the full amounts applying onto their cap for the year.

Thank you Bones....explained better than I could have in a million posts.

 

[clontaago]

It is. The players full salary has to be included somewhere.

If his contract is for $300k, the Warriors and Dogs will have worked out a result that sees both clubs take a percenatge of that $300k.

If it suits both clubs then so be it. Get over it. If the Warriors are happy to release him from his contract for the remainder of this year and next year and that just happens to cost them $250k this year, well thats a business decision that has to be made and has been.

As my mate says, It aint Rocket Surgery.

 

[Stevo]

I know. I just want to know the reasoning behind Vyssini's belief that the figure for the whole season should be included under both teams salary cap. Doesn't make any sense to me?

I think he means that with a salary cap in place, all 16 teams should be playing with a team of equal value ($4.4mil).
However, If a player is going to a club for a third of the season and therefor only a third of his value is adding towards their salary cap then it's not evening out the talent like the cap is meant to.
How much of Inu's salary is included under the Warriors cap for the remainder of the year? If he is a $300k per year player then $300k should be included in a teams salary cap at any given time during any year that he is getting paid that much. If only $50k is included in the dogs cap does that mean $250k is included in the warriors cap even though he isn't playing for them any more? If he is being paid $300 k then $300k should be accountable in a salary cap somewhere... whether it's at the dogs, the warriors, or a percentage of that amount at both clubs.
We could end up with a situation where clubs do deals with one another to release players after a few weeks to avoid the full amounts applying onto their cap for the year.

I completely disagree. I fail to see why a club should have to include a whole season in the cap when they don't have the benefit of the player for the whole season. Furthermore, i'm more than happy for this to happen to us or any other team that is struggling with player numbers due to injury or whatever.

The Warriors will have to include in their cap what ever payments have been made to Inu up until he left. This is overseen by the NRL so it's not as though somehow they benefit financially from a mid season transfer

The dogs are getting what they pay for. If they get half a season out of Inu, they good on em. This is overseen by the NRL so it's not as though somehow they benefit financially from a mid season transfer.

If a player is unwanted at 1 club for whatever reason, why can't another club benefit from his services if all parties agree to the terms and it is signed off by the NRL?

 

[Utility Player]

If he is a $300k per year player

If only $50k is included in the dogs cap does that mean $250k is included in the warriors cap even though he isn't playing for them any more?

I would say thats exactly what happens.

Warriors still have to allow the 250k, the Dogs get a bargin but no one forced the Warriors into the deal.

If a 300k player transferd after a few weeks for 200k then the original club would be up for 100k of his contract salary cap wise for the year with the new club up for 200k.

 

[bones]

I'm not saying that one club should include the WHOLE amount in their cap. But whatever Inu is paid for the year must be included in someones salary cap. The amount that the dogs include for Inu in their cap,, plus the amount that the Warriors include in the cap for Inu, should equal Inu's salary for the year.

 

[Stevo]

Exactly. That's what happens. No one gets off scot free. I just don't understand how someone can claim that his salary should appear on both clubs cap.