Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[Holman Barnes #1 Fan]

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.

Chooks and Storm get around this by advising their players to invest in certain companies. Melbourne a year or two ago had them investing in a company owned by the chairman.

 

[Cobarcats]

Pom said that he was basically testing the market but wants to stay at the Sharks

Cool thanks, its the same statement that gets thrown out there though mate, get a good club offer that sets the value then try to beat it.

 

[2041]

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.

It's not a question of tribalism, though - at least not exclusively. If Mitchell Moses thinks he's going to make enough money wherever he signs, perhaps he really does want to prioritise being at a club where he's got the best chance of winning a premiership rather than taking $1.5m instead of $1.3m. If Robbie Farah thought his post-playing career would be best served by being a one-club player, perhaps he'd have been prepared to re-sign for the Tigers for less than someone else was offering. That's not loyalty or tribalism - it's just the reality of priorities beyond just dollars.

Some players don't want to be in the big city, some would like to live and train by the beach, some want to stay playing with the group they've come up with, some might prefer a certain coach or coaching structure, some might be more or less happy to play anywhere other than New Zealand... all these things have *some* value. Maybe not the difference between $200k a year and $600k a year, but not nothing either.

The thing is, it's not a black and white issue. The kid from NQ in my example doesn't have a choice of moving to Sydney or not being in the league - they can move to Sydney for X dollars or sign for the Cowboys for a bit less. Is the NRL really going to tell them "it's the highest offer or you're out"? That might not even be legal, let alone the ethical issues.

I can't think of a sporting competition in the world that literally demands its players take the highest dollar value on offer regardless of any other considerations. Major League Baseball is the closest I know of, but that's more the product of a very strong players union that wants to maximise overall player earnings than the comp demanding it. Also it's in a completely different league money-wise: the major league *minimum* salary is more than A$800k equivalent, which makes it a bit easier to tell players to cope. And of course there isn't really much option for baseball players - if they want to make MLB money they have to live with MLB rules.

 

[2041]

Imagine the players who would walk away from their contracts if they became void due to illegal TPA's. Would Manu stay at the Roosters for his advertised $700K? I don't think so!

TPAs are wildly overstated, at least based on the most recently published information. As an aside, I think it's pretty funny that in 2018 the NRL proudly boasted that it was improving the "transparency and integrity of the code's contract process" by making public TPA amounts... but good luck finding that data for more recent seasons. Just quietly dropped, it seems. Anyway, FWIW: https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/12/13...ents-public-and-strengthens-contract-process/

According to the NRL, TPAs actually fell since then - to 3% of the total cap last year from 5.5% in 2018: https://www.nrl.com/news/2022/04/29/nrl-unpacked-how-does-the-salary-cap-work/

Basically, if you're looking for a game changer in how the cap works it almost certainly won't come in the registered TPA space. The Roosters had about $200k total of TPAs in 2018, which might be a difference maker in, what, two front line free agent contracts? It would hardly explain why a raft of top line talent is signed for them on obvious unders.

What I'm saying is: you might as well just say illegal "payments" - if it's happening (which I think is entirely possible), it probably isn't in the form of TPAs.

 

[Cobarcats]

TPAs are wildly overstated, at least based on the most recently published information. As an aside, I think it's pretty funny that in 2018 the NRL proudly boasted that it was improving the "transparency and integrity of the code's contract process" by making public TPA amounts... but good luck finding that data for more recent seasons. Just quietly dropped, it seems. Anyway, FWIW: https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/12/13...ents-public-and-strengthens-contract-process/

According to the NRL, TPAs actually fell since then - to 3% of the total cap last year from 5.5% in 2018: https://www.nrl.com/news/2022/04/29/nrl-unpacked-how-does-the-salary-cap-work/

Basically, if you're looking for a game changer in how the cap works it almost certainly won't come in the registered TPA space. The Roosters had about $200k total of TPAs in 2018, which might be a difference maker in, what, two front line free agent contracts? It would hardly explain why a raft of top line talent is signed for them on obvious unders.

What I'm saying is: you might as well just say illegal "payments" - if it's happening (which I think is entirely possible), it probably isn't in the form of TPAs.

Common mate, as stated in post #163,157
this is not the thread for this, please continue in Salary Cap thread.

 

[diedpretty]

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?

As for point 1. The only TPAs that should be used to increase a contract value are the ones the clubs are legally allowed to organise. I know there is a cap on the amount but not sure what it is. All other TPAs are meant to be organised by the player, manager or unaffiliated sponsor and shouldn't have any bearing on the contract offer.

 

[trentrunciman]

Yeah we all knew that few days ago brother

 

[diedpretty]

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?

And as for point 2 - that's not wht the OP said. The player is not forced to go anywhere. He can take the lower offer but the cows have to include the higher offer in their cap.

 

[trentrunciman]

Fishing? 😃

 

[Halbrowne61]

I'd rather make a big play for Herbie Farnsworth

I wasn’t sure if Farnwirth also still in the market.

 

[Cobarcats]

I wasn’t sure if Farnwirth also still in the market.

2024 isn't it?

 

[bathursttiger1]

Decision Day on FRIDAY 13TH lol

Which year?

 

[SeanT]

I wasn’t sure if Farnwirth also still in the market.

He signed a one year deal for 2023. Free to negotiate.

 

[gregjm87]

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.

But it is a restraint because you are putting restrictions upon Tedesco by placing a market value on him. He is not only the BMW but also the owner and if he wants to sell it at below market value he is entitled to do so.

 

[Champ1]

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?

Firstly i appreciate the discussion & everyone's ideas.
1- No need to regulate TPAS. A club could pay the players as much as they want "off the books". (just like ther Rorters do now. ) But this way , instead of the Rorters paying supposedly"700 K" to Tedesco under the salary cap they now are forced , like most other clubs to pay market value under their salary cap. They are made to adhere to the salary cap like everyone else. Essentially, if the Rorters wanted to pay Tedesco 10m in hidden payments it doesnt matter, cause they are still forced to pay market value for him, that value comes off the their salary cap, not the value they supposedly pay now.
2-No players are forced to sign anywhere. The players can sign with any club , however that club has to pay the market value for that player, as determined by the highest bidder.2 things could help with what you are suggesting- There is a long service discount & a developed junior discount.
The 18 yo kid from country QLD can still join the Cowboys , but the Cowboys have to match the offer the Bulldogs made. But also remember , there would be a junior discount for the Cowboys if that 18yo kid was developed through their systems , say 20%. This would keep juniors local & stop the Rorters picking the eyes out of the juniors after all the other clubs have done the hard work. One last thing, sometimes the 18 yo kids from country Qld cant get a contract with their preferred club.If they have the commitment to play NRL, they would take a start anywhere to get an opportunity.
I dont pretend to have all the answers & appreciate all the input & ideas.

 

[Champ1]

But it is a restraint because you are putting restrictions upon Tedesco by placing a market value on him. He is not only the BMW but also the owner and if he wants to sell it at below market value he is entitled to do so.

Greg if what your suggesting was true i would be with you. However we all know Tedesco isnt selling himself at a discount . As it stands now, The Rorters determine a false market value cause we all know the Rorteres are paying more than "800k " for Tesdesco. Tedesco is NOT selling at below market value as you say . Thats the point. He is taking the 800k & ther rest off the books. His true market value is probably 1.4m. This system would make all that transparent.

 

[Odessa]

But it is a restraint because you are putting restrictions upon Tedesco by placing a market value on him. He is not only the BMW but also the owner and if he wants to sell it at below market value he is entitled to do so.

I don't think that's the problem I think the problem is when they are not declared Tedesco can sell it below market value if he wants just declare it a bit like the cowboy players buying cheap house's or Scott Prices house up on the gold coast