Player fire sale just weeks away

Wests Tigers Discussion
cochise
Member
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:42 pm

Re: Player fire sale just weeks away

Post by cochise » Tue 15 Aug, 2017 9:36 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 9:14 am
Tigerdon wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 8:45 am
Aren't the NRL suppose to sign off on any new contacts?
If so, how did they sign Foran and Woods if they were over the cap?
Was it just a case of taking them to a nice Chinese meal and ordering a king lobster.

I'd like the Fire Sale to held in a cattle yard. And the Bulldogs players ( along with any other club that has cheated the cap) are weighed correctly and lead around a pen while Go and Pasco trying out bid other clubs that are under the cap .
As far as I am aware they (the NRL,) have to register the contract. If the contract is not registered Woods is still entitled to the contract money from Canterbury, I would imagine they have to pay it out from outside the cap and Woods will not be allowed to take the field.

Happy to be corrected of course if this is not the case.
That is 100% correct, both Foran and Woods have legally binding contracts with the bulldogs that they have to receive payment for. These contracts have been provisionally registered by the NRL after the bulldogs showed a plan to be cap compliant by round 1 2018. These contracts will not be fully registered until the dogs are cap compliant, if they are not cap compliant then they will will not be registered and neither player will be allowed to play but will still be entitled to the money promised in the contract.


cochise
Member
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:42 pm

Post by cochise » Tue 15 Aug, 2017 9:41 am

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 8:00 am
Branko Lee is no better than what we already have for next year. I think Graham is starting to slow down, so his signing doesn't interest me as much as it once did. Klemmer would be a good pick up. I think our club would prioritise keeping Woods though. And i think the Dogs would rather lose Woods too, as losing an existing player runs the risk of upsetting their playing roster and supporters and causing even more instability. Plus it won't do Woods any favours. Its already going to be hard enough going there with the plight they are in, he doesn't want to go there feeling alienated by being the guy that forced someone else out. The fans will hate him. I still don't understand why if he doesn't want to go he just doesn't make it known. If he did, the Dogs would have no choice but to allow him to renege as no club forces players to honour contracts anymore. Maybe Woods isn't smart enough to know that, and his manager doesn't want to remind him of it because it will cut his commission in half. Idk, as hard as i have been on Woods, he's a simpleton, he's not very intelligent and is probably very easily lead and influenced. His manager has milked these traits for all they are worth. James Hooper is another idiot who hasn't gotten half of what he deserves either. Whose to say the bile he was spewing earlier in the year didn't get inside Woods head.
If I was in Woods' spot right now I would be keeping my mouth shut, if he backs out of the contract he saves the bulldogs skin. If the bulldogs backout they have to top up any potential shortfall in what another club pays him next year.

The perfect way for him to play it would be to let the Tigers know privately that he wants to stay (which I believe he has) and for the Tigers and the dogs to negotiate who is paying what in his contract. If the Tigers negotiate hard they could end up keeping him for much less than if he just walks away from his contract.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16716
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:00 am

cochise wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 9:41 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 8:00 am
Branko Lee is no better than what we already have for next year. I think Graham is starting to slow down, so his signing doesn't interest me as much as it once did. Klemmer would be a good pick up. I think our club would prioritise keeping Woods though. And i think the Dogs would rather lose Woods too, as losing an existing player runs the risk of upsetting their playing roster and supporters and causing even more instability. Plus it won't do Woods any favours. Its already going to be hard enough going there with the plight they are in, he doesn't want to go there feeling alienated by being the guy that forced someone else out. The fans will hate him. I still don't understand why if he doesn't want to go he just doesn't make it known. If he did, the Dogs would have no choice but to allow him to renege as no club forces players to honour contracts anymore. Maybe Woods isn't smart enough to know that, and his manager doesn't want to remind him of it because it will cut his commission in half. Idk, as hard as i have been on Woods, he's a simpleton, he's not very intelligent and is probably very easily lead and influenced. His manager has milked these traits for all they are worth. James Hooper is another idiot who hasn't gotten half of what he deserves either. Whose to say the bile he was spewing earlier in the year didn't get inside Woods head.
If I was in Woods' spot right now I would be keeping my mouth shut, if he backs out of the contract he saves the bulldogs skin. If the bulldogs backout they have to top up any potential shortfall in what another club pays him next year.

The perfect way for him to play it would be to let the Tigers know privately that he wants to stay (which I believe he has) and for the Tigers and the dogs to negotiate who is paying what in his contract. If the Tigers negotiate hard they could end up keeping him for much less than if he just walks away from his contract.
It seems the club has turned a corner with contract negotiations. They will not be prepared to pay full fare on Woods' contract. He'll have to agree to a more reasonable contract or he'll be playing for the Dogs (or sitting on the sidelines whilst being paid by them.)
Don't try to tell me awesome power can corrupt a person, you haven't enough to know what it's like; you're only angry because you wish you were in my position, you nod your head because you know that I'm right.

Fuerza en la adversidad.

Telltails
Member
Member
Posts: 2112
Joined: Fri 18 Apr, 2014 3:24 pm

Post by Telltails » Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:10 am

There is no way Woods will be on the sidelines next year. I dont know where he will be playing but a rep player can not be left without a club because the club he signs with screws up their cap! The NRL/RLPA wiil ensure allowances are made to protect players in this situation even if a club picks him up for way less than he is worth.

cochise
Member
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:42 pm

Post by cochise » Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:26 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:00 am
cochise wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 9:41 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 8:00 am
Branko Lee is no better than what we already have for next year. I think Graham is starting to slow down, so his signing doesn't interest me as much as it once did. Klemmer would be a good pick up. I think our club would prioritise keeping Woods though. And i think the Dogs would rather lose Woods too, as losing an existing player runs the risk of upsetting their playing roster and supporters and causing even more instability. Plus it won't do Woods any favours. Its already going to be hard enough going there with the plight they are in, he doesn't want to go there feeling alienated by being the guy that forced someone else out. The fans will hate him. I still don't understand why if he doesn't want to go he just doesn't make it known. If he did, the Dogs would have no choice but to allow him to renege as no club forces players to honour contracts anymore. Maybe Woods isn't smart enough to know that, and his manager doesn't want to remind him of it because it will cut his commission in half. Idk, as hard as i have been on Woods, he's a simpleton, he's not very intelligent and is probably very easily lead and influenced. His manager has milked these traits for all they are worth. James Hooper is another idiot who hasn't gotten half of what he deserves either. Whose to say the bile he was spewing earlier in the year didn't get inside Woods head.
If I was in Woods' spot right now I would be keeping my mouth shut, if he backs out of the contract he saves the bulldogs skin. If the bulldogs backout they have to top up any potential shortfall in what another club pays him next year.

The perfect way for him to play it would be to let the Tigers know privately that he wants to stay (which I believe he has) and for the Tigers and the dogs to negotiate who is paying what in his contract. If the Tigers negotiate hard they could end up keeping him for much less than if he just walks away from his contract.
It seems the club has turned a corner with contract negotiations. They will not be prepared to pay full fare on Woods' contract. He'll have to agree to a more reasonable contract or he'll be playing for the Dogs (or sitting on the sidelines whilst being paid by them.)
He doesn't necessarily have to agree to a more reasonable contract, the bulldogs may have to pay part due to him having a binding contract with them. How much they are willing to pay will depend on how desperate they are to fix their mess, the longer it carries on the more desperate they may become.

As I said Woods' best tactic right now would to be to be quiet, let the clubs see if they can work out a solution. We may end up with a case where the Tigers are paying him $500K and the Bulldogs are paying $300K. Woods get his money, Tigers get him for very good value and the Bulldogs are stuck paying a player for 3 years who never even wore their jersey. Sounds perfect to me.


User avatar
Cosimo_Zaretti
Member
Member
Posts: 1300
Joined: Sat 18 Aug, 2012 7:07 pm
Location: Camperdown

Post by Cosimo_Zaretti » Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:41 am

Telltails wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:10 am
There is no way Woods will be on the sidelines next year. I dont know where he will be playing but a rep player can not be left without a club because the club he signs with screws up their cap! The NRL/RLPA wiil ensure allowances are made to protect players in this situation even if a club picks him up for way less than he is worth.
As far as I know, NRL clubs are still allowed to loan contracted players to the English Superleague while retaining them, and can then discount the contract for that year's cap. We did it for a year of Liam Fulton's contract. It's a possibility that a few Dogs players, not neccesaraly Woods, might find themselves in Yorkshire while still employed by Canturbury.

cochise
Member
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:42 pm

Post by cochise » Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:54 am

Cosimo_Zaretti wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:41 am
Telltails wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:10 am
There is no way Woods will be on the sidelines next year. I dont know where he will be playing but a rep player can not be left without a club because the club he signs with screws up their cap! The NRL/RLPA wiil ensure allowances are made to protect players in this situation even if a club picks him up for way less than he is worth.
As far as I know, NRL clubs are still allowed to loan contracted players to the English Superleague while retaining them, and can then discount the contract for that year's cap. We did it for a year of Liam Fulton's contract. It's a possibility that a few Dogs players, not neccesaraly Woods, might find themselves in Yorkshire while still employed by Canturbury.
That's not exactly how that work, the Tigers didn't technically loan Liam to the Giants. The Tigers released him from his contract he then signed a short term deal with Huddersfield, when he completed that contract he re-signed with the Tigers. It was all agreed to beforehand but at no point was Liam playing for Huddersfield while contracted to the Tigers.

It is possible that Dogs players could end up in the superleague, but they would no longer be contracted to the Dogs, would have to agree to the move, and any money they are short with their new deal will have to be made up by the Dogs.

Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm

Post by Pawsandclaws » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:20 am

Big meeting today with three quarters of clubs required to get an increase through. Let's hope we can muster five clubs to resist the attempt. I'd say the NRL have six and a half million reasons for being able to bring the Dragons' onside.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rugby-l ... xxk3l.html

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16716
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:22 am

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:20 am
Big meeting today with three quarters of clubs required to get an increase through. Let's hope we can muster five clubs to resist the attempt.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rugby-l ... xxk3l.html
Clubs who don't want the increase should threaten to boycott.

The NRL will crap themselves if four sides choose to stand down, possibly four games a week they could lose and that Channel Nine/Fox will be asking compensation for. That would be a far more costly exercise than telling clubs that have over budgeted to GAGF.
Don't try to tell me awesome power can corrupt a person, you haven't enough to know what it's like; you're only angry because you wish you were in my position, you nod your head because you know that I'm right.

Fuerza en la adversidad.

Pawsandclaws
Member
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: Sat 20 Jun, 2015 5:53 pm

Post by Pawsandclaws » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:29 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:22 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:20 am
Big meeting today with three quarters of clubs required to get an increase through. Let's hope we can muster five clubs to resist the attempt.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rugby-l ... xxk3l.html
Clubs who don't want the increase should threaten to boycott.

The NRL will crap themselves if four sides choose to stand down, possibly four games a week they could lose and that Channel Nine/Fox will be asking compensation for. That would be a far more costly exercise than telling clubs that have over budgeted to GAGF.
Well I'm shocked the Dragons would be involved with their loan from the NRL which apparently has not been repaid?

05TIGZ
Member
Member
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun 26 Mar, 2017 5:57 pm

Post by 05TIGZ » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 9:26 am

Pawsandclaws wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:29 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:22 am
Pawsandclaws wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 8:20 am
Big meeting today with three quarters of clubs required to get an increase through. Let's hope we can muster five clubs to resist the attempt.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rugby-l ... xxk3l.html
Clubs who don't want the increase should threaten to boycott.

The NRL will crap themselves if four sides choose to stand down, possibly four games a week they could lose and that Channel Nine/Fox will be asking compensation for. That would be a far more costly exercise than telling clubs that have over budgeted to GAGF.
Well I'm shocked the Dragons would be involved with their loan from the NRL which apparently has not been repaid?
So who are the 5 clubs that are going to vote with us. I'd say knights but who else.....

Seantice
Member
Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon 13 Mar, 2017 9:00 pm

Post by Seantice » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 9:47 am

Tigers,knights,warriors,storm,eels. maybe st george and manly.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 9:59 am

Seantice wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 9:47 am
Tigers,knights,warriors,storm,eels. maybe st george and manly.
I believe the QLD sides are also against a cap hike, particularly Brisbane.

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 20137
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm

Post by GNR4LIFE » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 10:05 am

Eastwood has been linked to the Panthers with talk that the Dogs could foot 700k of his contract next year.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3542
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm

Post by formerguest » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 10:40 am

GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 10:05 am
Eastwood has been linked to the Panthers with talk that the Dogs could foot 700k of his contract next year.
If the dogs contract figure of $800k odd for next year is accurate, I cannot fathom the NRL registering him for the panthers at or around the new minimum, nor the dogs not keeping him for the same extra amount.

bathursttiger
Member
Member
Posts: 1979
Joined: Thu 02 Dec, 2010 5:21 pm

Post by bathursttiger » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 11:51 am

formerguest wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 10:40 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 10:05 am
Eastwood has been linked to the Panthers with talk that the Dogs could foot 700k of his contract next year.
If the dogs contract figure of $800k odd for next year is accurate, I cannot fathom the NRL registering him for the panthers at or around the new minimum, nor the dogs not keeping him for the same extra amount.
Eastwood's backend contract was reported being $850K next season.
Great cap management by Des and Co.

white_tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed 05 Aug, 2009 4:27 pm

Post by white_tiger » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 12:08 pm

If that is the case, the bulldogs would only see a saving of 50k p.a. By the time they pay 700 for Eastwood and then 100k for a player to take his spot in the bulldogs top squad. Hardly seems worthwhile.

Knuckles
Member
Member
Posts: 2779
Joined: Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:11 am

Post by Knuckles » Thu 17 Aug, 2017 12:51 pm

cochise wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:26 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 10:00 am
cochise wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 9:41 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Tue 15 Aug, 2017 8:00 am
Branko Lee is no better than what we already have for next year. I think Graham is starting to slow down, so his signing doesn't interest me as much as it once did. Klemmer would be a good pick up. I think our club would prioritise keeping Woods though. And i think the Dogs would rather lose Woods too, as losing an existing player runs the risk of upsetting their playing roster and supporters and causing even more instability. Plus it won't do Woods any favours. Its already going to be hard enough going there with the plight they are in, he doesn't want to go there feeling alienated by being the guy that forced someone else out. The fans will hate him. I still don't understand why if he doesn't want to go he just doesn't make it known. If he did, the Dogs would have no choice but to allow him to renege as no club forces players to honour contracts anymore. Maybe Woods isn't smart enough to know that, and his manager doesn't want to remind him of it because it will cut his commission in half. Idk, as hard as i have been on Woods, he's a simpleton, he's not very intelligent and is probably very easily lead and influenced. His manager has milked these traits for all they are worth. James Hooper is another idiot who hasn't gotten half of what he deserves either. Whose to say the bile he was spewing earlier in the year didn't get inside Woods head.
If I was in Woods' spot right now I would be keeping my mouth shut, if he backs out of the contract he saves the bulldogs skin. If the bulldogs backout they have to top up any potential shortfall in what another club pays him next year.

The perfect way for him to play it would be to let the Tigers know privately that he wants to stay (which I believe he has) and for the Tigers and the dogs to negotiate who is paying what in his contract. If the Tigers negotiate hard they could end up keeping him for much less than if he just walks away from his contract.
It seems the club has turned a corner with contract negotiations. They will not be prepared to pay full fare on Woods' contract. He'll have to agree to a more reasonable contract or he'll be playing for the Dogs (or sitting on the sidelines whilst being paid by them.)
He doesn't necessarily have to agree to a more reasonable contract, the bulldogs may have to pay part due to him having a binding contract with them. How much they are willing to pay will depend on how desperate they are to fix their mess, the longer it carries on the more desperate they may become.

As I said Woods' best tactic right now would to be to be quiet, let the clubs see if they can work out a solution. We may end up with a case where the Tigers are paying him $500K and the Bulldogs are paying $300K. Woods get his money, Tigers get him for very good value and the Bulldogs are stuck paying a player for 3 years who never even wore their jersey. Sounds perfect to me.
Sounds perfect to me too .... hahaha !!!
That sort of thing usually happens to us.

Post Reply