@Disco, I can understand your perspective in that all that should be included under the cap is what he is in fact paid.
For me, though, it is a policy issue and the NRL seem unable or unwilling to articulate how this decision is consistent with salary cap policy.
We are constantly told about how the salary cap creates a close competition. It is apparently sacrosanct.
Manly was told that the TPAs offered to its players, even though not paid by the club, had the effect of distorting the player market. This may or may not be true. I still have my doubts about this decision purely because the details of the arrangements and the NRL’s reasons (and the reasons of the review tribunal) are not public. All we can go by was Tod’s self serving statements, which were taken up by his goons.
Signing Inglis to a 4 year deal, then allowing him to retire and giving cap space to Souths also distorts the player market. It effectively allows Souths to double dip on a marquee player when they are the ones that took the risk 3 years ago when they resigned him.
Signing Inglis to a 4 year deal when he was 30 years old was always fraught with danger. That it was him not wanting to play any more, as opposed to him not being able to play any more, is irrelevant from a salary cap perspective. Souths rolled the dice and lost out on the gamble - it is no different to Snake and Matai who were signed to their last contracts in full knowledge of their injury histories. We rolled the dice and lost on the gamble.
Even if Inglis just retired without the promise of another job, I’d argue that good salary cap policy shouldn’t factor this into account. Just because a player is in a financial position to retire mid-contract is irrelevant to salary cap policy. I feel sorry for the player who actually wants to retire and help his club out but can’t financially.
To sum it up, the old policy of only getting salary cap relief for a new career ending injury is sound. While foreseeable that any player might suffer such an injury, this is an objective risk all clubs face equally. That’s why I am fine with the decision not to medically retire and give cap relief for Snake and Matai. We rolled the dice and lost the gamble. It was only farcical because the NRL deemed choc to suffer a new career ending injury in order to get Parra under the cap.
Once again, the NRL had the policy right but just stuff it up in wanting to do favours for some.
@The Who, if the other club CEOs are ok with this, it is only because they are looking forward to exploiting it. It is a free for all now. Eg Cronk could go around another year and if he is playing like a busted, one of Uncle Nick’s buddies will offer him a $500k pa job. It will, of course, be ‘arm’s length’ so none of it will hit the Rooster’s cap.
I am happy to convinced otherwise, but this decision is just so flawed in my opinion and only undermines the salary cap.
