NRL HAS FINED MANLY $85,000,FOR 2012 SALARY CAP BREACHES

[lsz]

Does the fine = the amount over? I would think not?

---

Also with all the back ending etc from Des it would not suprise me if we decided to pay out some additional amounts last year, wear a fine, to get back on track

 

[master blaster]

just had to pick myself up off the ground from laughing so much when I saw the rorters were only 14,348 over the cap,surely thats a mistake,shouldnt it be 1,400,348,that sounds better

These are the fines MB. The extent to which they breached the cap is different.

Although I'm guessing the size of the fine is indicative of the size of the breach.

no probs,and thanks Simon64

 

[MissKate]

Does the fine = the amount over? I would think not?

---

Also with all the back ending etc from Des it would not suprise me if we decided to pay out some additional amounts last year, wear a fine, to get back on track

---

Yes it does equal the amount over. When this first came to light it was due to the $80k we had to pay tontine, I am sure at the time it was stated that we would get fined 100% of the breach. Nothing we didn't already know. And - thanks again des!

 

[Daddycool08]

RE: Salary C(r)ap Breach

Yes but!

It now makes it hard to laugh at the Dogs and the Storm like we used to.

Damn!

 

[Daddycool08]

I think I remember that we have to include $85K because of T Rex and cannot have a 25th man.

The salary c(r)ap is a joke.

Do we question the propriety of Schubert?

I hope we don't need to.

 

[swoop]

I think I remember that we have to include $85K because of T Rex and cannot have a 25th man.

The salary c(r)ap is a joke.

Do we question the propriety of Schubert?

I hope we don't need to.

I said that in the other thread on this topic.

Apparently according to Schubert we under valued T-dog by 85k last year because he played SOO and for Australia. We are still paying him 80k this year.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

The salary cap is a complicated thing with variables that cannot always be accounted for as a season progresses. Its no wonder that most, if not all, of the 16 NRL clubs have a history of breaches of some sort going back over the years.

While Im not going to knock the salary cap (as it is an extemely valuable tool) it seems to be getting to the point you need a dedicated accounting rocket scientist on staff to have any hope of complying.

A cap review should at least be on the to do list for the commission, IMO.

 

[globaleagle]

85K !!!!


That's like 8 and a half dummy spits by tooves at the refs!

Ok everyone, wallets out!

 

[KOMORI]

Storm in a teacup lol 🙂

 

[simon64]

The salary cap is a complicated thing with variables that cannot always be accounted for as a season progresses. Its no wonder that most, if not all, of the 16 NRL clubs have a history of breaches of some sort going back over the years.

While Im not going to knock the salary cap (as it is an extemely valuable tool) it seems to be getting to the point you need a dedicated accounting rocket scientist on staff to have any hope of complying.

A cap review should at least be on the to do list for the commission, IMO.

I agree Jatz. Without the cap, we would end up like the English Premier League. The two Manchesters, Chelsea, Arsenal and forget the rest.

Every club has "miscalculated" at some point. The difference between that and what the Scum and Dogs did was that was intentional overpayment to gain an advantage.

Let the hate and rage continue.

 

[Dan]

No this isnt the amount over it is the amount of fines for breaches.

 

[mmmdl]

I think I remember that we have to include $85K because of T Rex and cannot have a 25th man.

The salary c(r)ap is a joke.

Do we question the propriety of Schubert?

I hope we don't need to.

I said that in the other thread on this topic.

Apparently according to Schubert we under valued T-dog by 85k last year because he played SOO and for Australia. We are still paying him 80k this year.

I don't believe this is the case anymore.

In order for us to be able to sign Brett Stewart, the only way was to have the 85k put back into last years cap, meaning we went over. That then freed up the T-Rex 80k, meaning we could register Brett's contract.

from this thread:
http://www.silvertails.net/forum/Thread-Brett-Stewart-s-contract-APPROVED

From the DT this morning;


A $60,000 fine for breaching last season's salary cap shapes as Manly's price for finally registering Brett Stewart's contract.

In a complex set of negotiations with NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert, Sea Eagles officials were given a choice over which punishment to accept in exchange for Stewart's four-year deal being ratified yesterday.

The dilemma involved Schubert having an issue with the two-year contract of former Manly star Tony Williams, who exercised an option to join the Bulldogs this season.

The second year of Williams' Sea Eagles contract, for 2013, was wildly back-ended compared to what he earned last season.

Schubert felt the contract was framed suspiciously, and demanded $60,000 be added to Williams' notional cap value for 2012 to reflect his worth as an Australian and NSW Origin representative.

Because Manly were right on the limit of last year's $4.6 million limit, the excess amount will result in a fine for breaching the cap.

The club's other option was to release more players, with utility Ben Farrar believed to be the main candidate.

 

[voicefromthehill]

I think I remember that we have to include $85K because of T Rex and cannot have a 25th man.

The salary c(r)ap is a joke.

Do we question the propriety of Schubert?

I hope we don't need to.

I said that in the other thread on this topic.

Apparently according to Schubert we under valued T-dog by 85k last year because he played SOO and for Australia. We are still paying him 80k this year.

I don't believe this is the case anymore.

In order for us to be able to sign Brett Stewart, the only way was to have the 85k put back into last years cap, meaning we went over. That then freed up the T-Rex 80k, meaning we could register Brett's contract.

from this thread:
http://www.silvertails.net/forum/Thread-Brett-Stewart-s-contract-APPROVED

From the DT this morning;


A $60,000 fine for breaching last season's salary cap shapes as Manly's price for finally registering Brett Stewart's contract.

In a complex set of negotiations with NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert, Sea Eagles officials were given a choice over which punishment to accept in exchange for Stewart's four-year deal being ratified yesterday.

The dilemma involved Schubert having an issue with the two-year contract of former Manly star Tony Williams, who exercised an option to join the Bulldogs this season.

The second year of Williams' Sea Eagles contract, for 2013, was wildly back-ended compared to what he earned last season.

Schubert felt the contract was framed suspiciously, and demanded $60,000 be added to Williams' notional cap value for 2012 to reflect his worth as an Australian and NSW Origin representative.

Because Manly were right on the limit of last year's $4.6 million limit, the excess amount will result in a fine for breaching the cap.

The club's other option was to release more players, with utility Ben Farrar believed to be the main candidate.

So I was correct, the fine is absolute BS then - Schubert forced a restructure, yet the contract for Williams was agreed by all parties!

 

[DSM5]

So why didn't we release Farrar?

 

[voicefromthehill]

So why didn't we release Farrar?

Still need a player in the 25

 

[Shoe1]

It's a joke when the issue happens because a player LEAVES for a bigger contract.

 

[Chip and Chase]

From the Sea Eagles

http://www.seaeagles.com.au/news-display/Statement-in-response-to-salary-cap-fine/78797

Statement in response to salary cap fine
Sea Eagles General Manager David Perry

Friday 5 July 2013 3:25 PM

The Sea Eagles today received a fine notice from the NRL in regards to alleged salary cap breaches in 2012.

The $85,000 penalty was the result of an alleged administrative error and only occurred due to a difference in the interpretation of how the new CBA allowances could be applied.

This breach was in relation to one contract and one player departing earlier than predicted. Never at any stage did the club believe that it had not complied with both the spirit and intent of the salary cap rules.

The club has been in dialogue with the NRL in regards to this matter for some time now and, whilst we have already had an opportunity to present our argument, we will be reviewing our position and will make a decision shortly on whether an appeal will be lodged.

 

[Frogz]

And if it was another club we would be spewing.....If we knew, it shouldn't happen....Its poor administration now to be appealing...we should have already sorted it out before today.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

How do you get from Perry's statement that we knew?

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

How do you get from Perry's statement that we knew?

Ah good, I'm not the only one trying to figure that out