Cheating the Salary Cap

[Vyssini]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Krisnan Inu's mid-season transfer to the scumdogs only represented a minor (I think the figure quoted was $50,000) imposition on its 2012 salary cap, as the Warriors had supposedly already paid for most of his current year's contract. I'm sure Greenturd and de$ will argue that the same applies for Perrett's transfer this week.

This might be how the rules presently read, but I respectfully argue that this is WRONG- the player's full year value should be included as part of salary cap calculations.

Taking the scumdogs as an example, they have signed on two players valued at a conservative $600k (for both) and will claim cap space of probably only $100k- irrespective if they haven't had them all year, they will now have a team for the most important part of the season obviously worth more than the cap limit.

If this loophole isn't closed, all teams will look to sign players just before 30 June and claim payments (under the cap) only for the few remaining months of that year.

 

[bones]

If Inu and Perrett are worth $600 k combined then Micahel Robertson would be worth a million on his own.
$200k each max IMO.

 

[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.

 

[lsz]

If they breach the cap then they are fined / lose points etc

Seems fair to me

 

[Vyssini]

If Inu and Perrett are worth $600 k combined then Micahel Robertson would be worth a million on his own.
$200k each max IMO.

Whilst I won't argue with you on Robbo (aren't we missing him this year), I think you will find that Inu reportedly was on $300k at the Warriors and Perrett is a current NZ international.

Either way, the issue here is not the exact value of Inu and Perrett but rather that de$ has found a way to rort the cap by getting them at significantly under their true value.

 

[Rambo1987]

Contract are paid up to October/November so they only have to pay for 3 months of the contract.
Still not right but the Dogs will have the same problem we have with the last year of contracts paying the majority of the money.

 

[Vyssini]

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.

 

[Jonesyv2]

It's completely allowed under the rules currently so it's not Cheating.

However i do agree it is a bit piss poor and a review into should be had by the ARLIC.

 

[Dan79]

You can't blame the dogs for this. The question you have to ask is why would the roosters and warriors want to strengthen the dogs mid season. Especially since they both lag the dogs by such a margin on the table.
The only reason the nrl would intervene would be if there is comprehensive evidence that teams were colluding to Rory the cap by making trades mid season at a reduce salary cap cost. That's just putting it out there for the tin foil hat brigade.

The same question would apply to manly if we let Oldfield go mid season. Salary cap pressure, falling out, resire to be a chook. Who knows

I agree with getting a discount for mid seadon trades. But the following year should not be discounted

 

[tookey]

John Grant has issue a press release this morning confirming that mid season transfers will continued to be allowed provided that players are transferring to the dogs. Transfers to other clubs will not be permitted

 

[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.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

It appears that Melbourne Storm are also going to be doing this via Ritchie Faaoso.

Who would have thought it. The dogs & the storm.

 

[1947]

If they breach the cap then they are fined / lose points etc

Seems fair to me

The Dogs would have to be close wouldn't they. I hear it on this forum and from colleagues / friends that support a range of other clubs. We are all of the same opinion!
🙂

 

[bones]

It appears that Melbourne Storm are also going to be doing this via Ritchie Faaoso.

Who would have thought it. The dogs & the storm.

As Dr. Phill says.... "The best predictor of future behaviour, is past behaviour"
With that in mind, Manly will continue to win premierships and the Scumdogs and Storm will continue on their corrupt and cheating ways.

 

[lsz]

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???

 

[clontaago]

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.

 

[Vyssini]

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.

 

[EagleRock40]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Krisnan Inu's mid-season transfer to the scumdogs only represented a minor (I think the figure quoted was $50,000) imposition on its 2012 salary cap, as the Warriors had supposedly already paid for most of his current year's contract. I'm sure Greenturd and de$ will argue that the same applies for Perrett's transfer this week.

This might be how the rules presently read, but I respectfully argue that this is WRONG- the player's full year value should be included as part of salary cap calculations.

Taking the scumdogs as an example, they have signed on two players valued at a conservative $600k (for both) and will claim cap space of probably only $100k- irrespective if they haven't had them all year, they will now have a team for the most important part of the season obviously worth more than the cap limit.

If this loophole isn't closed, all teams will look to sign players just before 30 June and claim payments (under the cap) only for the few remaining months of that year.

I see your point but at the moment as the rules stand they aren't cheating the cap. I believe there should be a 2 week trade period in the middle of the season where clubs can announce new signings for the following year, and/or trade players for the remainder of the current season.

 

[lsz]

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

 

[Hamster Huey]

Clubs will happily go over their Cap by $50,000-$100,000 to secure a key player at the backend of the season, and wear the fine the following year (which would be token given the money the Dogs get from their Leagues Club), if it means a greater chance for a premiership.

While there is no punishment for this behaviour in the year it was done, they'll keep doing it.