No ... it is the difference of fact based opinions ...
I have no facts .. so I ask for evidence of rorting ...
you have no facts ... but are convinced and are accusing him of rorting
News: ‘It’s a stupid rule’: Gus fumes after Bulldogs hit with salary cap slap
- Thread starter EaglesDontTweet
- Start date
No ... it is the difference of fact based opinions ...
I have no facts .. so I ask for evidence of rorting ...
you have no facts ... but are convinced and are accusing him of rorting
Bulldogs lodge appeal after NRL adds Josh Jackson's final year contract to salary cap
“I can understand the NRL’s reason behind it."
www.sen.com.au
Peter C
Bencher
You tell em Mark
5 years experience is 100 - 140 k
That is for the AFL so you would think that a decent benchmark.
That is for the AFL so you would think that a decent benchmark.
Great point - you have no facts, yet hold a strong view everything is all good, similar to you or I having zero idea of what the Roosters are paying the players who stay for $500,000 rather than taking $850,000 from another club, sometimes we just use our intuition and own best judgement.
As I say - we both see it differently.
Briza
Maroon and White - Born and Bred
Yep the amount of Manly first grade players pulling beers back in the day was phenomenal.
This is before pokies in pubs and when the league's club propped up the footy club.
Shoe1
Journey Man
We are speculating on his salary. It could be worse than we think.
The article says he would have got 600k if he played this year. The nrl is counting 200k toward the cap… what if he is getting 400k (i.e.) the difference between 600 and 200 as a year 1 strength and conditioning coach?
If I were Gus I’d keep quiet.
The article says he would have got 600k if he played this year. The nrl is counting 200k toward the cap… what if he is getting 400k (i.e.) the difference between 600 and 200 as a year 1 strength and conditioning coach?
If I were Gus I’d keep quiet.
47MVEagle
Bencher
For comparison:
www.foxsports.com.au
“The Tigers were heavily reprimand by the NRL in 2018 for failing to disclose the deal worth $639,000 for Farah’s post-career ambassador role.
At the time Tigers Chief executive Justin Pascoe was deregistered, the club was fined $750,000 and, most significantly, the value of the Farah deal was scrubbed off the 2019 salary cap.”
I take that as meaning ANY post-footy career incentive offered to a retiring player (or a player encouraged to retire to free up salary cap) is a big no-no.
Robbie Farah’s awkward salary cap gaffe in response to infamous ambassador role
‘We’ve done the crime’: Farah’s VERY awkward salary cap gaffe
www.foxsports.com.au
“The Tigers were heavily reprimand by the NRL in 2018 for failing to disclose the deal worth $639,000 for Farah’s post-career ambassador role.
At the time Tigers Chief executive Justin Pascoe was deregistered, the club was fined $750,000 and, most significantly, the value of the Farah deal was scrubbed off the 2019 salary cap.”
I take that as meaning ANY post-footy career incentive offered to a retiring player (or a player encouraged to retire to free up salary cap) is a big no-no.
Last edited:
Gee Gus is looking old and dinosaurish and seems on a downward spiral. Had a quick squiz at that chanel 9 show and his comments on the independent doctor in the bunker were embarrassing (for the sensible view on that, just search for Luke Keary's comments yesterday). Then he kept mentioning climate change as though that somehow proved his case. Sad to see really, he used to be a smart operator.
Terry Zarsoff
First Grader
Maybe a high percentage of his recent weight reduction was in the grey matter department.
Last edited:
voicefromthehill
Bencher
According to LinkedIn he has a Bachelor of exercise and sports science at UON - so I have to say outrage may be a little misplaced
Anyone that has worked in a company knows they get paid overs based on reputation gained through service.
Anyone that has worked in a company knows they get paid overs based on reputation gained through service.
Last edited:
There is no outrage, there is a chance he is completely qualified, experienced and the best fit for the job especially considering his relationship with the staff/players.
The fact still remains that if clubs are allowed to employ players straight off the back of a playing contract then it will be used to circumvent the salary cap.
If he got the same job at another club, I have no problem.
voicefromthehill
Bencher
Don't get me wrong - it stinks, but he has qualifications for the role and a business can choose to pay what they want.
That was because they didn't retire ... they were injured and still being paid ... Jackson has walked away from his contract ... and isn't being paid ...
And another business can choose when to apply a salary to a salary cap in an attempt to level the playing field.
The whole thing rests on two very simple points ...
1) Was he offered an incentive to retire ... well nobody has yet established that he was ... it is not unusual for an ageing player to look at the beginning of another pre-season and say ... my hearts not in it anymore ...
2) Is he being remunerated at a standard rate for the job he is doing ....
Nobody on here has a clue as to the answers to those questions ... but they just know ...
1) Was he offered an incentive to retire ... well nobody has yet established that he was ... it is not unusual for an ageing player to look at the beginning of another pre-season and say ... my hearts not in it anymore ...
2) Is he being remunerated at a standard rate for the job he is doing ....
Nobody on here has a clue as to the answers to those questions ... but they just know ...
voicefromthehill
Bencher
I think I know where you are going there, but I wasn't pressing that point - I do however agree that the NRL are correct to do what they have done
Why did he walk away from his contract? If there was no guarantee of future employment would you give up $650k out of the kindness in your heart? Even if he couldn't play, his wages were guaranteed. If you truly believe he loved the dogs so much and earnt the job on merit alone then this is one thing we will never agree on.
Regardless of who is right, the Nrl can't allow it unless they are gonna monitor the who, what, when, why, how, of every post retirement employment. It's a blanket rule. IMO it's a necessity to preserve the salary cap.
Provided a player never plays in the NRL again I’m okay with it.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
