Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[2041]

Its not a restraint. In this example it is simply supply & demand. The Rorters dont have a contract for Tedsco at 1.2 M. He might want to sign with them but he cant cause they simply dont have the money in their cap & want to spend their money eIsewhere(eg Sualli of Manu) I might want to buy a new BMW but i cant afford it. I think i should be able to get it for $1000 but the market dictates its worth $500 000. Its not a restraint of trade because the market has set the value.

The two major problems with the system you're suggesting, as far as I can see, are:
1) You don't have any place for TPAs. The NRL has decided TPAs are important as a way of making sure the code of rugby league is as competitive as it can be with external bidders for talent, so they ought to be factored in. What happens if club A's bid for a player is 800k and it comes with 300k of TPAs attached that are, as required, out of the club's hands, and club B's offer is 900k? Is club A required to increase its offer by 100k even though it is already the most lucrative deal on the table? If not, what value do the TPAs have?
2) There's no room for player preference. I have as many doubts as the next person about players "signing for unders to be part of a winning culture" at the Roosters, but equally it's pretty tough to force players to move to clubs they don't want to play for. I'm aware the AFL basically does this but (a) that system is under severe pressure and (b) that code doesn't have the same pressure from cross-code interest. Are you going to try to force a player who doesn't want to leave the ACT to sign for the Warriors even when the response is likely to be taking a contract from the Brumbies? Are you going to tell an 18 year old Indigenous kid from country Queensland that he has to go play for the Bulldogs because they've offered 70k a year more than the Cowboys?

 

[Tucker]

HAHAHA!!!

Yeah
- Quality of players has absolutely nothing to do with winning the competition.....

Comes under the banner of TPAs.

 

[Tucker]

+ a bit of luck 🔮

I was going to include this but winners make their own over the course of a 7 month campaign.

 

[rusted-on]

All offers are made public & registered with the NRL. .The Roosters can only withdraw the offer IF the player has not accepted it. Say Tigers offer Tedesco 1.2 M . That is now his market value. Before Tedesco accepts it, the Tiger sign RTS & withdraw the offer. The market value is now determined by the next highest offer (say Parra offered 1 m )that is now Tedescos market price. But if Tedesco has agreed to terms with the Tigers BEFORE they withdrew the offer, , The tigers are contractually bound to honour that offer. It is not too disimilar to how things work now except it is transparent cause they all have to make public bids.
Also bogus offers would be frought with danger as once the offer is registered , it cannot be withdrawn if the player has accepted it. EG say the Tigers want to up the price of Brandon Smith on the Rorters Tigs offer 2m . If Smith accepts this , the Tigers now have to honor it.

Let's say that Tigers make the 1.2M offer to Teddy, knowing they are about to sign RTS, thus inflating the asking pricing for anyone else. Like I said, this approach provides too many ways to rort the system

 

[Eternal Tiger]

TPAs are not the biggest rort in the NRL. Cash is. Can't be policed and will always be a lure for players.
No player "stays for less" their NRL Contract might be less, but the Club will ensure they'll be subsidised.

 

[Tucker]

The two major problems with the system you're suggesting, as far as I can see, are:
1) You don't have any place for TPAs. The NRL has decided TPAs are important as a way of making sure the code of rugby league is as competitive as it can be with external bidders for talent, so they ought to be factored in. What happens if club A's bid for a player is 800k and it comes with 300k of TPAs attached that are, as required, out of the club's hands, and club B's offer is 900k? Is club A required to increase its offer by 100k even though it is already the most lucrative deal on the table? If not, what value do the TPAs have?
2) There's no room for player preference. I have as many doubts as the next person about players "signing for unders to be part of a winning culture" at the Roosters, but equally it's pretty tough to force players to move to clubs they don't want to play for. I'm aware the AFL basically does this but (a) that system is under severe pressure and (b) that code doesn't have the same pressure from cross-code interest. Are you going to try to force a player who doesn't want to leave the ACT to sign for the Warriors even when the response is likely to be taking a contract from the Brumbies? Are you going to tell an 18 year old Indigenous kid from country Queensland that he has to go play for the Bulldogs because they've offered 70k a year more than the Cowboys?

I agree wholeheartedly with point 1). Without the TPAs the NRL would be in trouble as rival codes and competitions could easily poach our best up and coming players with higher offers.

Your point 2) though…I think these guys are professional athletes and they’ll do what’s necessary to stay employed. Additionally, Id suggest few of them are currently playing for their childhood club. If the ACT player hasn’t been picked up by the Raiders, but has keen interest from NZ, unless he is prepared to learn Union he will be packing his bags. The kid from NQ will relocate to the big smoke, or start wearing Hi-Viz. The days of tribalism for players is over.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Did he end up been proven innocent? They were some pretty heavy charges laid on him

I think so

 

[Tucker]

I think so

Really? Haven’t seen that reported anywhere.
Funny how it’s news when it’s an unproven allegation though…

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Really? Haven’t seen that reported anywhere.
Funny how it’s news when it’s an unproven allegation though…

yeah foxsports had an article 21 march 2022 advising he was found not guilty at district court
Free to go to Broncos I guess, they can send us cobbo

 

[rusted-on]

I agree wholeheartedly with point 1). Without the TPAs the NRL would be in trouble as rival codes and competitions could easily poach our best up and coming players with higher offers.

Your point 2) though…I think these guys are professional athletes and they’ll do what’s necessary to stay employed. Additionally, Id suggest few of them are currently playing for their childhood club. If the ACT player hasn’t been picked up by the Raiders, but has keen interest from NZ, unless he is prepared to learn Union he will be packing his bags. The kid from NQ will relocate to the big smoke, or start wearing Hi-Viz. The days of tribalism for players is over.

That stands up if there is only interest from 1 club, but if a player has multiple clubs bidding for his services, shouldn't his preference also weigh into the decision, not purely the $$$ on the table? The difference may be 50k, but means he has to relocate interstate or overseas. To someone on the kind of money we're talking about, I don't think moving interstate or overseas is balanced out by a 50k carrot

 

[Plato]

Nothing wrong with TPA's persay,
and players earning more money
outside of the cap. The problem
lies in the fact that they are not
regulated or policed by the NRL

I don't pretend to understand contractual law but believe contracts to be void or unenforceable if they contain fraudulent elements. If both parties are content that they each benefit from the fraudulent elements nothing will change unless (unsure on this point) a third party objects. In this case, contract considerations based on deliberately misleading TPA's could be considered fraudulent, and if they remove otherwise available players from the marketplace could they also be considered a restriction of trade? As it stands I would consider that the NRL makes themselves complacent by rubber stamping contracts knowing them to contain fraudulent elements.

 

[Fingers83]

Decision Day is upon us. I think we will know today and we can finally move on with our lives*

*based on nothing but wanting to finally end this sh*t show.

 

[jojo]

That stands up if there is only interest from 1 club, but if a player has multiple clubs bidding for his services, shouldn't his preference also weigh into the decision, not purely the $$$ on the table? The difference may be 50k, but means he has to relocate interstate or overseas. To someone on the kind of money we're talking about, I don't think moving interstate or overseas is balanced out by a 50k carrot

Also, the value of playing at a successful club also increases the chance of rep football, which at 30k per origin game and 20k per test for Australia would be worth over 100k a season. The Fox missed origin last year, playing for a poor performing team and not scoring tries. The Cowboys had a heap of Origin players debut due to their form. Therefore a 50k difference in an offer from a poorly performing team could cost a player twice as much.

 

[stevied]

Yes, the club could withdraw their offer at any time before it is accepted by the player. Also there should be a percentage discount for local juniors & that percentage gradually increases the longer a players stays. This would stop clubs like the Rorters pilfering young players from Penrith, Tigs & Souths juniors and make them develop their own.

Yes, and that will make it hard for the Rorters with their tiny catchment area! Actually, it's ironic that they do so well. They can't bring through swathes of juniors like Penrith so they have to pilfer and plunder (in other words, cheat) to garner talent.

 

[gallagher]

The Salary cap isn't keeping crap teams down. They generally keep themselves down through stupidity

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

If we want Cobbo, we shall make Broncos an offer they cannot possibly refuse:
Cobbo for Nofoaluma, and Seyfarth!😉

 

[trentrunciman]

Decision Day is upon us. I think we will know today and we can finally move on with our lives*

*based on nothing but wanting to finally end this sh*t show.

Nah brother, we’ve all agreed he has re- signed with the eels.

😉

 

[rusted-on]

Also, I the value of playing at a successful club also increases the chance of rep football, which at 30k per origin game and 20k per test for Australia would be worth over 100k a season. The Fox missed origin last year, playing for a poor performing team and not scoring tries. The Cowboys had a heap of Origin players debut due to their form. Therefore a 50k difference in an offer from a poorly performing team could cost a player twice as much.

Spot on. There is more to a contract than just the money on offer, and this proposed system ignores that fact.

 

[Kaito]

I don't pretend to understand contractual law but believe contracts to be void or unenforceable if they contain fraudulent elements. If both parties are content that they each benefit from the fraudulent elements nothing will change unless (unsure on this point) a third party objects. In this case, contract considerations based on deliberately misleading TPA's could be considered fraudulent, and if they remove otherwise available players from the marketplace could they also be considered a restriction of trade? As it stands I would consider that the NRL makes themselves complacent by rubber stamping contracts knowing them to contain fraudulent elements.

Good post Plato, food 4 thought.
Technically they should be rubber
stamping all 3rd party agreements thus
avoiding any sort of liability or false pay claims. No reason why they
wouldn't if everythings above board?
fining clubs massive amounts for
breaches every other year would
do massive damage to the brand.
NRL want to keep the brightest
stars in the game, turning a blind
eye to some deals, at some clubs
in order to keep them in the code
isn't really a far-out possibility lol

 

[Kaito]

Not sure if my post makes sense
can't be bothered editing at the
moment but @watersider made a
good one earlier on and why it was
Introduced initially (to fend off
other codes in an already preety
much saturated market) and why the system is effectively still in place . A lot
of under the table stuff going on,
would be naïve to think otherwise

Initial justification for TPAs were because there was big money from rugby and english super league leading to a bleeding of players (sailor, Rogers, thorn, tuqiri etc). But now Roosters, Storm, Broncos all seem to be able to attract big talent on small contracts.

I think power brokers at those clubs have an influence on NRL policy and they want this dodgy system maintained. There's no way this TPA system fits with the intention of the salary cap and this is obvious in that the top teams maintain dominance in the period since the TPAs came into play.

Your assessment of TPAs is very naive and it is not the way big clubs have used it. Given super league and rugby are nowhere near the threat they were there is no justification for this system except the powerful clubs have too much influence over nrl policy.

This is a messy system that should be changed if integrity is of any importance to the nrl.