Cheating the Salary Cap

[Vyssini]

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.

It's obviously a difficult concept for some to understand- "No one gets off scot free"- from what? I am not telling you that the player should not be paid, and I'm not even against mid season transfers. It is just the way that mid season transfers should be treated. The club off loading a player (irrespective of the reason) should not be given any cap reductions- clubs are not given reductions if a player is injured- and the purchasing club...you know what, I just realised I am repeating myself. Stevo, if you don't get, you don't get it.

 

[Stevo]

I get it mate. You still haven't explained why both clubs should have to fit a whole salary under their cap if they only benefit from the player for a portion of the year.

 

[Utility Player]

Well if you are trying to stop mid season transfers altogether that would be the way.

Why would a club negotiate to transfer a player for half a season if they had to include his full season value in their salary cap.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Dont worry Stevo, your not going mad.

I also, have no idea of the reasoning behind this concept. Makes no sense.

 

[Stevo]

I thought i was missing something? lol

 

[Vyssini]

I get it mate. You still haven't explained why both clubs should have to fit a whole salary under their cap if they only benefit from the player for a portion of the year.

Yes I have- irrespective of the reason why a player is let go, the selling club should not be given any salary cap reduction. You have $4.4 million per year- use the f...ing money wisely. If you want to save on player wages by offloading in the middle of the year, great, but no salary cap discount- you have blown your load!

On the other hand, the buying club may only be actually paying for half or a third or whatever the lower amount is, but they are getting a player who is obviously worth more for the full year- effectively I am suggesting that in these instances, the NRL incorporate a combination of actual payments and player values to better reflect the player's salary cap worth- similar to what it did with the Ben Kennedy $1 contract example given earlier in this thread.

 

[Stevo]

You're probably the only person in Australia who thinks it should be that way. Hence the reason it isn't.

 

[Vyssini]

You're probably the only person in Australia who thinks it should be that way. Hence the reason it isn't.

Stevo, I'm reliably informed that there are a couple of Bhutanese monks who agree with my views on the salary cap...

 

[clontaago]

You cant just say, "Oh too bad youve blown your load". Take this example.

- Daly Cherry Evans is in year 2 of a 3 year contract (lets say next year), and its June 1.

- He is desperately out of form and is playing NSW Cup, and due to a family tragedy/personal reasons, wants to return to Queensland.

- Brisbane offer to pay $200k of his $350k salary for the remainder of his 2013 contract, if we release him before June 30.

Do we: say no and keep paying DCE's $350k a year contract not only for this year, but for 2014 as well as he is contracted for that year also, and keep playing him in NSW Cup.

Or do we take the $200k for the rest of 2013, free ourselves of the final $350k year payment for 2014 and enable ourselves to pick up a new halfback for that year (2014).

Its a no brainer.

 

[Stevo]

You're probably the only person in Australia who thinks it should be that way. Hence the reason it isn't.

Stevo, I'm reliably informed that there are a couple of Bhutanese monks who agree with my views on the salary cap...

Ok, let's get this straight.

If Manly had debilitating injuries, were scarce on players, and had room to move in the cap, you would be unhappy about us aquiring the services of a top line player for a portion of the season, for a portion of his normal price?

 

[Vyssini]

You're probably the only person in Australia who thinks it should be that way. Hence the reason it isn't.

Stevo, I'm reliably informed that there are a couple of Bhutanese monks who agree with my views on the salary cap...

Ok, let's get this straight.

If Manly had debilitating injuries, were scarce on players, and had room to move in the cap, you would be unhappy about us aquiring the services of a top line player for a portion of the season, for a portion of his normal price?

I don't know about you, but when I suggest rule changes, I am applying them to the whole comp, including my team. I love the integrity of my club as much as I do its record of success. I proudly tell all and sundry that Manly have never cheated to win any of their eight premierships.

As it stands right now, my team doesn't exactly have much space to move in so it is a moot point.

 

[Utility Player]

One thing you may have not considered is that say in the Inu case the Warriors have had to replace him with someone (lets say Hurrell). So even though they have saved 50k based on Inu being a 300k player and the Dogs paying 50k for him they still have to spend at least 50k on upgrades for his replacement.

Now the Dogs have got Inu for 50k but still have to pay the player he replaced who is probably one of their long term injured outside backs (who the have blown their load on) So say an injured Turner is on 250k they have got Inu for 50k so they are still in effect paying 300k for a player.

 

[Vyssini]

1. One thing you may have not considered is that say in the Inu case the Warriors have had to replace him with someone (lets say Hurrell). So even though they have saved 50k based on Inu being a 300k player and the Dogs paying 50k for him they still have to spend at least 50k on upgrades for his replacement.

Now the Dogs have got Inu for 50k but still have to pay the player he replaced who is probably one of their long term injured outside backs (who the have blown their load on) So say an injured Turner is on 250k they have got Inu for 50k so they are still in effect paying 300k for a player.

1. The Warriors had chosen to play Inu in reserves, replacing him with Hurrell. Why should they be given a discount if they offload him? Same applies to Drugcastle- if Uncle Wayne thinks the squad he inherited is crap and wants to offload them midseason, again,I ask, why should he be given cap relief? You make your bed when it comes to the salary cap and you sleep in it! I didn't see the NRL bend over backwards to offer Manly relief for losing Ben Farrar all season long.

2. The example you have given regarding Turner is the perfect example of the problem that I have with the current system- Turner, a player you have valued at $250k (which sounds about right) gets injured and is replaced by a player valued this year by his previous club at $300k (figure reported by the press). Now if the scumdogs had the room in their cap, go right ahead, no problem. But when he only takes up $50k of their cap, then I have a problem.

The current system allows for clubs to significantly improve their roster for a fraction of the real cost, as long as they have a little room in their cap in June. Why wouldn't a club leave $200k "idle" so that it can sign up a player or players valued up to as much as $800k as they are only going to get paid for three months ( x 4 = full year)? Your salary cap is suddenly "worth" as much as $5 million now in "real player" terms.

 

[Utility Player]

Why wouldn't a club leave $200k "idle" so that it can sign up a player or players valued up to as much as $800k as they are only going to get paid for three months ( x 4 = full year)? Your salary cap is suddenly "worth" as much as $5 million now in "real player" terms.

Because they would have to gamble that another club would want to transfer a player or players worth 800k for 200k mid season.

Lets get back to basics would you be happy to be charged the same price for a six pack as a carton.

As long as the rules are the same for all clubs (which they are) then they all have the chance to benefit through player transfers.

 

[Vyssini]

You cant just say, "Oh too bad youve blown your load". Take this example.

- Daly Cherry Evans is in year 2 of a 3 year contract (lets say next year), and its June 1.

- He is desperately out of form and is playing NSW Cup, and due to a family tragedy/personal reasons, wants to return to Queensland.

- Brisbane offer to pay $200k of his $350k salary for the remainder of his 2013 contract, if we release him before June 30.

Do we: say no and keep paying DCE's $350k a year contract not only for this year, but for 2014 as well as he is contracted for that year also, and keep playing him in NSW Cup.

Or do we take the $200k for the rest of 2013, free ourselves of the final $350k year payment for 2014 and enable ourselves to pick up a new halfback for that year (2014).

Its a no brainer.

This one is for the no brainers...
If the Broncos have the space in their cap for a $350,000 player then I see no problem. But I see a problem if DCE or any player worth $350,000 per season (full season) is added to the salary cap for one third of this figure because there are only three months to go in the season.

Once again for the no brainers, my issue is not with the actual monetary transaction (the warriors, knights etc can save as much cash as they like, I really don't give a **** as to other club's bank balances), but I do want the player purchased to reflect their "real value" in the salary cap. This is the only way for the NRL to keep the "level playing field" that they crap on about. Some of you may not have noticed but we are having one of our greatest ever teams ripped apart under this bloody "level playing field" mantra!

 

[Utility Player]

This one is for the no brainers...
If the Broncos have the space in their cap for a $350,000 player then I see no problem. But I see a problem if DCE or any player worth $350,000 per season (full season) is added to the salary cap for one third of this figure because there are only three months to go in the season.

Once again for the no brainers, my issue is not with the actual monetary transaction (the warriors, knights etc can save as much cash as they like, I really don't give a s**t as to other club's bank balances), but I do want the player purchased to reflect their "real value" in the salary cap.

My "happy to be charged the same for a six pack as a carton" comment was meant in a salary cap charge rather than club funds.

As I said earlier your system would in effect stop mid season transfers as no club would do it on this basis.

So to cut to the chase you want to end mid season transfers, correct.

 

[bones]

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.

Fair enough then. I don't have a problem with it, if that's how it is.
I do however, struggle to believe that a club as wealthy as the Bulldogs were not spending to their salary cap limit and had $50k of cap space left for Inu and whatever they are paying Perrett as well.

---

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.

Fair enough then. I don't have a problem with it of that's how it is.
I do however, struggle to believe that a club as wealthy as the Bulldogs were not spending to their salary cap limit and had not only $50k of cap space left for Inu, but whatever they are paying Perrett as well.

 

[Stevo]

You cant just say, "Oh too bad youve blown your load". Take this example.

- Daly Cherry Evans is in year 2 of a 3 year contract (lets say next year), and its June 1.

- He is desperately out of form and is playing NSW Cup, and due to a family tragedy/personal reasons, wants to return to Queensland.

- Brisbane offer to pay $200k of his $350k salary for the remainder of his 2013 contract, if we release him before June 30.

Do we: say no and keep paying DCE's $350k a year contract not only for this year, but for 2014 as well as he is contracted for that year also, and keep playing him in NSW Cup.

Or do we take the $200k for the rest of 2013, free ourselves of the final $350k year payment for 2014 and enable ourselves to pick up a new halfback for that year (2014).

Its a no brainer.

This one is for the no brainers...
If the Broncos have the space in their cap for a $350,000 player then I see no problem. But I see a problem if DCE or any player worth $350,000 per season (full season) is added to the salary cap for one third of this figure because there are only three months to go in the season.

Once again for the no brainers, my issue is not with the actual monetary transaction (the n knights etc can save as much cash as they like, I really don't give a s**t as to other club's bank balances), but I do want the player purchased to reflect their "real value" in the salary cap. This is the only way for the NRL to keep the "level playing field" that they crap on about. Some of you may not have noticed but we are having one of our greatest ever teams ripped apart under this bloody "level playing field" mantra!

As utility player said, it's an even playing field. All clubs can do it and i'd be more than happy for us to do it. You keep bringing up Ben Farar and the fact the NRL don't give us compensation for him being injured for the year. The NRL didn't compensate the Bulldogs either. They let them bring in a new player whose portion payment fits under their salary cap. If we needed to fill the void that Farar left we could have done it too. There is nothing at all unfair about what's going on.

You're about as reasonable as David Gallop. He is another who won't admit what he's said is horse****.

 

[Vyssini]

You cant just say, "Oh too bad youve blown your load". Take this example.

- Daly Cherry Evans is in year 2 of a 3 year contract (lets say next year), and its June 1.

- He is desperately out of form and is playing NSW Cup, and due to a family tragedy/personal reasons, wants to return to Queensland.

- Brisbane offer to pay $200k of his $350k salary for the remainder of his 2013 contract, if we release him before June 30.

Do we: say no and keep paying DCE's $350k a year contract not only for this year, but for 2014 as well as he is contracted for that year also, and keep playing him in NSW Cup.

Or do we take the $200k for the rest of 2013, free ourselves of the final $350k year payment for 2014 and enable ourselves to pick up a new halfback for that year (2014).

Its a no brainer.

This one is for the no brainers...
If the Broncos have the space in their cap for a $350,000 player then I see no problem. But I see a problem if DCE or any player worth $350,000 per season (full season) is added to the salary cap for one third of this figure because there are only three months to go in the season.

Once again for the no brainers, my issue is not with the actual monetary transaction (the n knights etc can save as much cash as they like, I really don't give a s**t as to other club's bank balances), but I do want the player purchased to reflect their "real value" in the salary cap. This is the only way for the NRL to keep the "level playing field" that they crap on about. Some of you may not have noticed but we are having one of our greatest ever teams ripped apart under this bloody "level playing field" mantra!

As utility player said, it's an even playing field. All clubs can do it and i'd be more than happy for us to do it. You keep bringing up Ben Farar and the fact the NRL don't give us compensation for him being injured for the year. The NRL didn't compensate the Bulldogs either. They let them bring in a new player whose portion payment fits under their salary cap. If we needed to fill the void that Farar left we could have done it too. There is nothing at all unfair about what's going on.

You're about as reasonable as David Gallop. He is another who won't admit what he's said is horse****.

Just because a rule is there for all doesn't make it a good rule- using this argument we'd still be on unlimited tackles. As for your comment about Gallop and horse****, it's good to see that you can argue with and accept differing opinions.

 

[Stevo]

I accept your differing opinion. It's just horse****. There is no sense in it at all. You can't come on to a discussion forum and expect no one to challenge that opinion.