G.I off to the U.K

[HoldenV8]

My comments aren’t anti the player , he’s quite entitled to play again if he wants, my comments are aimed at Souths who rorted the system and the NRL who allowed it.

Isn't it funny how Souffs were allowed to retire 1nglis and offer him a cultural ambassador role, upon which the NRL also gave him the same role, plus they were allowed to take his contract off their salary cap, yet when the Tigpies tried to offer the same (or similar) ambassador deal to Robbie Farah for when he retired the NRL hit them with a similar 2 year salary cap penalty that we copped and their CEO got de-registered.

 

[Uk eagle]

Isn't it funny how Souffs were allowed to retire 1nglis and offer him a cultural ambassador role, upon which the NRL also gave him the same role, plus they were allowed to take his contract off their salary cap, yet when the Tigpies tried to offer the same (or similar) ambassador deal to Robbie Farah for when he retired the NRL hit them with a similar 2 year salary cap penalty that we copped and their CEO got de-registered.

Farah's last playing contract included an ambassadorial role for when he finished playing, I think that was where they went wrong. You have to be more underhanded when offering contracts out. Souths and rorters probably have the same brown envelope suppliers

 

[globaleagle]

Does he still think planes don't fly in the rain?
Might be hard to get to the UK if so.

 

[Scorpio]

So you don't reckon he 'got better' or 'changed his mind' ?

The issue is that NRL allowed Souths to clear $900000 off their cap when Inglis retired (not for medical reasons apparently), when dispensation for more obvious cases was not granted... see Snake and Matai.

Whether he got better or changed his mind is a matter for Greg, not really relevant here.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

So you don't reckon he 'got better' or 'changed his mind' ?

Irrelevant as Souths have received an unfair advantage. They should now be penalised by a CAP reduction. Not about the player but rather the club.

 

[Woodsie]

It appears that this year Inglis is on a salary of $100,000 as an assistant coach ... that would be a fair and reasonable situation .... (confirmed by Kenty and Souffs)

Now after tax ... and payments to an ex-wife and a couple of kids .... what is left over wouldn't exactly fuel the lifestyle he is accustomed to ....

So, I call bull**** on all the gushing fanboi crap about unfinished business and testing himself in the ESL .... and say the simple reason is he needs/wants the cash ......

 

[The Who]

Does he still think planes don't fly in the rain?
Might be hard to get to the UK if so.

He'll take his boat.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I think this is how it works but correct me if this is not right

There are 2 key issues around player ‘retirement’ – do you still get paid, and if so, will it count against the salary cap.

First, in short, ‘no’. A player who decides to retire (stop playing) mid-contract forfeits entitlement to pay, and I think Kane Elgey is a recent example. No pay, and not in the cap. If you stop playing but are still technically available, even if unfit to play, you still get paid and it still counts on the cap.

The exception is the notorious ‘medical retirement’. Supposedly applies if, after signing your current contract, you suffer a career-ending injury. Snake and Matai were denied this, so even though they were broken, they were still paid and their pay was included in our cap. Controversially, and to the great advantage of perceived favoured clubs Eels, Broncos and Souths, players such as Watmough Gillett and Burgess were surprisingly granted medical retirement, despite well-documented injury histories. Hence still paid but not counted in the cap.

We’re told Greg Inglis was not medically retired. Yet his contract was not counted in Souths cap beyond 2019. That decision never passed the pub test (and with Gladys re-opening pubs, it still doesn’t).

 

[Woodsie]

I have never read so much drivel .... if Inglis retires ... then the only payments subject to the salary cap are those up to the date of his retirement .... his contract is terminated as of that date ...

The whole issue was ... was Inglis offered a well paid job at the club ... off the salary cap ... as an enducement to retire .....

Souff's say he was offered $300.000 a year after the fact for coaching and other development and marketing duties ... however, Inglis diidn't want to talk to groups of people and settled for $100,000 a year coaching only ....

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The whole issue was ... was Inglis offered a well paid job at the club ... off the salary cap ... as an enducement to retire .....

Exactly. When the retirement of a high-paid but now useless former star just happens to open up room in the cap for a new young superstar, and the club is one that is so rich it can just turn around and offer a high paid post-playing gig instead, it sure looks wrong. Wrong wrong wrong!

 

[Woodsie]

Exactly. When the retirement of a high-paid but now useless former star just happens to open up room in the cap for a new young superstar, and the club is one that is so rich it can just turn around and offer a high paid post-playing gig instead, it sure looks wrong. Wrong wrong wrong!

Thank goodness looking wrong is not a crime .....