Third-party deals have me stumped

[The Who]

We're told Inglis has five third party deals worth $350,000 or so, which allows Souths to register him for just $215,000 a season.
So, does the NRL investigate what work Inglis will do to earn $350,000 which, to 99% of Australians, is a huge annual salary, particularly as this is not his principal job.
It's like us getting five part-time jobs out of workinh hours!
What's he going to be doing: cutting Crowe's lawn? Training Richardson to lose his gut? Painting the Redfern grandstand? Doing bar work at Souths Leagues?
Surely these five jobs don't include him giving motivational speeches because he can't string two sensible words together.
Seriously, how can anyone believe other than these five jobs are nothing more than Souths supporters throwing in money that should be paid by South and, therefore, be counted as part of the salary cap?

 

[jbb/james]

hear what you say barry. I pressume the reason its in place is legal action from players. The draft was cahallenged and lost. Its hard to stop someone earning more money

There are rules such as it cant be paid from the club or any sponsors of the club

But it is a joke. Darren lockyer is on the same deal, reportedly only having 250 included in the cap although he is in the top money earners in the league

 

[master blaster]

wonder how important his girlfriend feels now.I'm sick to death of Gallop and the NRL and the same with Crowe,hearing his crap and seeing his fat head plastered over the TV all the time.If this was Manly,there would be no way it would go though and we would be in deeper s...t than this.The thing is,it will go through and they,ll keep all their players and probably add the rest of the Burgess clan to boot.Why cant Manly do the same to get third party deals for high profile players.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Don't worry Barry, even Schubert is stumped by 3rd party deals, and it's his job to understand them.

 

[Masked Eagle]

3rd party deals have me stumped as well.  If I was in charge of a company who had a few $100k to throw away I'd much prefer to plough that directly into a team than give it straight to an individual.  Sure you might be able to use that individual in promotional things but if you sponsor the club you can get a box and entertain that clients that way.

Maybe instead of encouraging 3rd party deals the NRL should look at ways of getting this money directly into the clubs first and perhaps we could see a raise in the cap because of it????  I know its not as black & white as that but still worth investigating.

 

[vidmar]

Correct Masked Eagle - most sponsors are reluctant to sponsor an individual player with big cash as an injury or off-field indiscretion can bite them or see them do their dough.

In the 2010 season sponsors of Sea Eagles player sponsored the shirt number/position which meant they would always have a player associated with their brand eg Number 1 Player X proudly sponsored by Vids chickens or whatever.

Case in point of course was if someone had paid big cash to sponsor Brett or Dave Williams then they would have not got the exposure they would have hoped for?

The salary cap is ineffective as long as a player can be paid through the loop hole of 3rd party endorsements and there are those teams that have people willing to stump up big cash to attract and retain marquee players

 

[CliffyIsGod]

Doesn't the 3rd Party Sponsorship come from companies that sponsor the club as well?

So Company X is a club sponsor of Souths. Company X also stump up 100k for Inglis.

Souths play better because of Inglis, higher up ladder, more TV games. Company X now wins.

 

[Rex]

If there was a will this could be stamped out by all players signing with the NRL, not the clubs, and being allocated to the clubs making the highest bids.  Then the full bid goes to the club's salary cap.  Perhaps allow player discretion if bids are within a percentage, say 5% - 10%. Maybe allow another 10% of non-salary cap payments (loyalty incentive) if player remains at same club. 

Can't see the will though.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I don't understand them BUT I know it means that (for example) the Bronco's can have a star studded side and still be under the cap..."the thoroughbreds" I think they are called pour gazillions in and none of it included in the cap.

If this is not creating a "those that have it verses those that don't" situation I'll eat my hat.

 

[The Who]

Doesn't the 3rd Party Sponsorship come from companies that sponsor the club as well?

No, not in Souths case. The report says four of the deals are from non-club sponsors. If you are a club sponsor the deal is counted towards the $300,000 marquee player allowance.

Bloody hell. Why must RL be so complicated? They complicate the rules on and off the field.

 

[swoop]

Basically it's a rort. Teams like the broncos, roosters and now souths have an advantage because they have a lot of people with money behind them. I thought the salary cap was to make it an even playing? It's laughable.

 

[Andrew..]

Basically it's a rort. Teams like the broncos, roosters and now souths have an advantage because they have a lot of people with money behind them. I thought the salary cap was to make it an even playing? It's laughable.

I think you could quite possibly throw the saints, parra and the dogs into the mix also.

 

[WAMF]

Now I understand why the Roosters are always mentioned every time a decent player is in negotiations. They may only have 50k left in their cap but they'll find a way to have 3rd party sponsors/fans, pick up the real tab of 300k but only the 50k will count under the cap???

It's a bull**** system that needs an entire overhaul. Either that, or scrap the damn thing altogether.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

You'd only need James Packer behind you and you could have any team you want.

 

[Central Coast Eagle]

I'm sure we wouldn't be complaining if we had the backing to be doing the same thing.
I think they should either have a "hard" cap (no outside agreements at all) or scrap the cap all together it's too complicated the way it is.

 

[Masked Eagle]

Doesn't the 3rd Party Sponsorship come from companies that sponsor the club as well?

So Company X is a club sponsor of Souths. Company X also stump up 100k for Inglis.

Souths play better because of Inglis, higher up ladder, more TV games. Company X now wins.

No because they aren't third party.  The sponsor has to have no association with the club.  That why the Broncos have a massive advantage with the thoroughbreds.  They don't have any official link to the Broncos but will give Lockyer $200k to show up an opening of one of hte guys stores for example (Might have to do more than that ... or possibly not even that much)

 

[WAMF]

From a very good article that appeared recently -
'the Sydney Roosters rugby league club includes a host of big name businessmen as directors and members of an elite wealthy chairman's fund-raising club, including the former David Jones boss Mark McInnes, Channel Nine boss David Gyngell, funds manager Paul Fiani and Wizard Home Loans founder Mark Bouris.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/its-about-knowing-the-score-20101015-16npj.html

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I can tell you that up here the Bronco's are at every **** fight in town, no doubt all part of the "Thoroughbreds"

So ok we have the "Angels" (god love them) but we need a thoroughbreds of our own, any idea for a name?

 

[The Eagle]

Egg Nesters

 

[ManlyBacker]

So ok we have the \"Angels\" (god love them) but we need a thoroughbreds of our own, any idea for a name?

Silvertails would be ideal, but they would have to pass Dan a sizeable amount 🙂