Just a question ??

[maxta]

I knew Sharks were well over the cap before having to release Brailey to the Knights and in fact...seemed over the cap every season (with the exception of course of the year they won the comp???)
My question is relating to this Josh Morris saga....not having a crack at the Roosters as I'm sure most fans with common sense can work out they can afford whoever they want....more the Sharks on this occasion.
Apparently OVER the cap today, so this is why Morris must be released, now if this is the case would it mean they are playing Round 1 with Morris still there and blatently be saying to the NRL, we are over the cap this weekend, but we will be under next weekend.....can anyone shed some light on this so it calculates, as I don't get it ??

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Consistency is overrated?

 

[globaleagle]

Penalty Broncos?

 

[robbiea]

Good question ,Maybe having the likes of xerri ,Moylan and others out this week ?????

 

[Ranga]

I think the Sharks have only 29 contracted players at the moment (which is OK), but if they were to add a 30th even at the minimum salary, that would take them over. They have until 30 June to have 30 contracted players and be at or below the cap, so they agree to let go of Josh Morris now, they should be able to pick up two cheapies and comply by 30 June.

 

[The Who]

I think the Sharks have only 29 contracted players at the moment (which is OK), but if they were to add a 30th even at the minimum salary, that would take them over. They have until 30 June to have 30 contracted players and be at or below the cap, so they agree to let go of Josh Morris now, they should be able to pick up two cheapies and comply by 30 June.

They are reported to be interested in an Easts forward. If that is true then how much are they saving by offloading Morris?
I've see it reported that Morris is on $230,000 plus the reported $40,000 Easts are paying in a transfer fee. That makes a maximum saving of $270,000. The recruited Easts' player would surely be on $100,000 or so. It means the Sharks are saving a maximum of $170,000 in the trade.
Is $170,000 going to make much of a dent in reducing their over-extended salary Cap, which already is less than other clubs because of the fine imposed by the NRL?

 

[47MVEagle]

Weren't Easts setting their sights on Xerri too?

Perhaps Sharks have relented on Morris so they can secure Xerri.

 

[DUFFMAN]

The recruited Easts' player would surely be on $100,000 or so. It means the Sharks are saving a maximum of $170,000 in the trade.
Is $170,000 going to make much of a dent in reducing their over-extended salary Cap, which already is less than other clubs because of the fine imposed by the NRL?

Wrong,
As we all know by now when a player leaves the Roosters they where on close to a million a season, they just sign to play there for a greatly reduced contract that they are on elsewhere.

 

[Ranga]

They are reported to be interested in an Easts forward. If that is true then how much are they saving by offloading Morris?
I've see it reported that Morris is on $230,000 plus the reported $40,000 Easts are paying in a transfer fee. That makes a maximum saving of $270,000. The recruited Easts' player would surely be on $100,000 or so. It means the Sharks are saving a maximum of $170,000 in the trade.
Is $170,000 going to make much of a dent in reducing their over-extended salary Cap, which already is less than other clubs because of the fine imposed by the NRL?

Who'd be a salary cap manager?!

It would all depend, I gather, on when the new players come on board. A $200k a year player (or two $100k players) that joins a club on 1 April is a $117k hit to the cap for that year. Push it out to 30 June and they will potentially save even more.

So I reckon releasing Morris would make a decent dent in how they manage their cap given they already released Prior and Gallen retired.

 

[Peter C]

I knew Sharks were well over the cap before having to release Brailey to the Knights and in fact...seemed over the cap every season (with the exception of course of the year they won the comp???)
My question is relating to this Josh Morris saga....not having a crack at the Roosters as I'm sure most fans with common sense can work out they can afford whoever they want....more the Sharks on this occasion.
Apparently OVER the cap today, so this is why Morris must be released, now if this is the case would it mean they are playing Round 1 with Morris still there and blatently be saying to the NRL, we are over the cap this weekend, but we will be under next weekend.....can anyone shed some light on this so it calculates, as I don't get it ??

It wouldn't be for the week, rather than for the whole year, if Morris is on around $400,000, then they will save around $300,000 on their cap as they would have been paying Morris from November.
The real winners are the Roosters as they will only pay him when he actually starts with them, unless of course they have come to some arrangement with the Sharks over this.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I’d love to manage the Roosters cap it would be as easy as!!

Min cap payment ( not sure exactly ) circa $110k

Business third party $500k

Buy a Bondi apartment worth 1.8 million off the plan for $600k and appear in the Real Estate agents advertisements.

3 year deal

There’s your million a year but only showing on the books at $110k

 

[jbb/james]

Remember when parra were over the cap and couldnt play for points until they were under. They had to offload peats. They did and were able to play but then peats couldnt play for the coast 4 days later as his contract hadnt been sorted

So who was paying peats

 

[Shoe1]

The real mystery is why the Morris brothers are in demand and are paid so much

 

[Ranga]

Remember when parra were over the cap and couldnt play for points until they were under. They had to offload peats. They did and were able to play but then peats couldnt play for the coast 4 days later as his contract hadnt been sorted

So who was paying peats

Todd waved his wand and Choc was medically retired. Problem fixed.

 

[castle eagle]

The real mystery is why the Morris brothers are in demand and are paid so much

the real mystery is always 'who's on first?'

 

[Desert Eagle]

the real mystery is always 'who's on first?'

Showing my age, but I've always thought that sketch was witty.

 

[Shoe1]

the real mystery is always 'who's on first?'

Who declares this a pandemic?

WHO declares this a pandemic

I need to know who declares it??

WHO!!

 

[HoldenV8]

What a lot of people don't actually realise about the salary cap is that TPA's are unlimited, but do not actually count to the cap.

For example, Turbo is on a million per year (roughly), but 250k of that might be TPA's. That actually means that the 750k the club is paying him is what actually counts to the cap, not the full million.

People see players signing for a million or more dollars and tend to automatically assume that the whole lot is cap money when the truth is that its only most of it that counts, not all (unless the club is actually paying the whole lot).

 

[40 years an eagle]

It wouldn't be for the week, rather than for the whole year, if Morris is on around $400,000, then they will save around $300,000 on their cap as they would have been paying Morris from November.
The real winners are the Roosters as they will only pay him when he actually starts with them, unless of course they have come to some arrangement with the Sharks over this.

Apparently the Gummies have already paid Morris $40k and the Chooks will pay a $40k transfer fee.

 

[Eagles2nv]

What a lot of people don't actually realise about the salary cap is that TPA's are unlimited, but do not actually count to the cap.

For example, Turbo is on a million per year (roughly), but 250k of that might be TPA's. That actually means that the 750k the club is paying him is what actually counts to the cap, not the full million.

People see players signing for a million or more dollars and tend to automatically assume that the whole lot is cap money when the truth is that its only most of it that counts, not all (unless the club is actually paying the whole lot).

Yeah the only real protection against the TPA is the market value caps where the NRL won't let a contract be registered for less than a certain value against the cap.

But it's been questionable how low they actually let you go.