Coastie_Tiger
Well-known member
Im surprised they got the right photo they usually throw up a pic of Sam Fainu
Stefano Utoikamanu #241
- Thread starter Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan
- Start date
Im surprised they got the right photo they usually throw up a pic of Sam Fainu
Watching the Roosters young middles last week I don’t know why they would be bothered about Stefano
Plenty of talent there already in their forwards it’s their backs they will be spending on.
BrissieTiger67
Well-known member
Ha I saw that one... muppets
It’s not that simple. It needs to be a mean value. You can’t have 1 club just offer above the odds to raise his value. I’d argue 800 is above his market value. This is almost similar to the Jack Wighton situation last year where Canberra offered him an offical 1m deal to ensure his market value is based off that. Don’t think it worked though as Souths paid what they paid and he certainly isn’t standing out as a 1mil player.
And neither is the Ute standing out as a $800k player.
With the Ute set to receive an option extension of between 600 and 700k for next year. This deal is instantly more attractive as there is almost 200k on top of what his option extension was for 25 and it’s almost pointless as to whether he gets picked for origin and or the Tigers make the finals.
This play by Richo is very take it or leave it. Agree to a large extension when it’s on the table or move on. As they stated, they are very keen to get it done sooner then later.
jirskyr
Well-known member
I understand what you are saying and i would agree except for one thing. They only use 1 metric to distribute a very shallow pool of talent across 17 clubs. Until there is another, or a generic system for all clubs to quantify the value of every player in the competition so a player doesn't need to go to market to find their market value. The only solution to stop clubs being able to pay under MV is enforce the MV with in the salary cap.
You mention Jack Whiton. I will raise you Latrell, Teddy, Munster, moses etc etc all players that knocked back 10s to 100s of thousands to not play at the tigers. Were all these players worth the offer at the time probably not. But that doesn't change that the salary cap was made a mockery of.
watersider
Well-known member
I think the contract is too long and too high. He's proven nothing and we're paying him out of desperation. I get the feeling he wants out, at least that's the way he's playing. Nothing about what he does cries passion, and now we're rewarding him because we have no options. Tough times. I hope if he does sign he starts playing to potential. Fonua-blake on 1 mil a year is a heaps better move.
weststigers
Well-known member
This discussion has been had before. Market value is subjective. It's an imprecise metric for valuing a player.
Quick example. Adam Reynolds to Broncos. Souths were not prepared to offer more than a 1 or 2 year contract, but Brisbane signed him over 3 years. Say the money is the same....which one is " Market Value". I would argue the contract value in total...some may argue the yearly salary. Some may argue the contract clauses etc. It's too subjective because no contract is identical.
The point is, market value isn't as simple as it seems.
weststigers
Well-known member
Let me give you another situation. Say the NRL valued a player at 800k. The offer by a club was only 600k. So a club is forced to pay 200k extra.
Now, that same player plays ok for the first year, but drops in form or is seriously Injured and is not the same player they used to be.
Clubs wants to offload him...what now? Not only have you forced a club to pay 200k more than they were willing to, the player has dropped even further in value...you will cripple clubs.
People only look at the players that play for less...far more players are on salaries over their performances. Our club was full of them at various stages.
Tiger-ferret
Well-known member
Not simple at all.
Been thinking about this today. Perhaps the minimum value of a player could be set where all contracts offered need to be registered and cleared by the nrl (ie other competing clubs need to have the money and spot available). So if tigers have a spot available, and a million available for a player, they register that bid. Current club would have first option to meet that.
You could tinker with cap dispensations for struggling clubs or long standing club players, developing jnrs or clubs with geographic disadvantage.
weststigers
Well-known member
I get the anxiety to solve this issue, but what if a player simply wants to move back home to be with family and they are prepared to take less for intangible benefits. It happens all the time.
I don't think you can mandate clubs pay a "market value", however you try and calculate it. How do you even value the dispensations you mention. How much is a geographic disadvantage worth? One players location disadvantage is anothers home.
The salary cap as it stands works for money motivated players. That is, players chasing coin or longer contracts will move clubs. Api and Luai are examples of that.
Where the salary cap doesn't work is with players that are loyal to clubs for reasons other than money. Is that such a bad thing? We are going to need some of these players in the long run. I'd hate to think a player that is happy to stay with us for less is forced to move to another club based on these subjective market values.
innsaneink
Well-known member
Has there been a case like this previously though?
I can't really recall one
weststigers
Well-known member
There is no case because the NRL doesn't mandate player salaries as per the example. I was just pointing out how this would go a long way to messing up a clubs salary cap.
I guess Latrell is a good example though. Imagine Souths had to pay what we were willing to pay and wanted to get rid of him because he's not performing to his salary level. Much easier to flick him to another club at $800k per season than 1.2 million. In this instance, Souths would have to persist with him or take a $400k haircut on their cap if they chose to offload him.
Tiger-ferret
Well-known member
At the end of the day, do you want an even comp or not? If you do then there will be parties that will be slightly disadvantaged and they would need to suck it up. It will never happen because NRL is driven by self interest.
But a couple of points. In what world are our young players going to stay for less anyway?
The day of a motivated loyal player is gone. Both Luai and Api already have premeirships.
weststigers
Well-known member
You can't tell players to sign with certain clubs. It's a restraint of trade and it's been tried and tested.
Even having dispensations for juniors would mean Penrith could have kept their side together for more years. Turuva, for example, probably wouldn't have had to leave and it just means we would have had to pay more money than we did, further disadvantaging a struggling club.
I don't think the system is perfect, but it's easy to pick apart where some of these salary cap adjustments would just exacerbate the problem or create too much subjectivity.
If we were going to tinker with the cap, the only thing I would even consider is giving the team that comes last an extra, say 2 million in the cap for 2 or 3 years to help them lure players. Even that has whiskers, for example tanking allegations and then having a massive cap issue at the end of those 2 or 3 years, but it's simple enough for people to wrap their head around without being subjective. 2 mill can buy 2 to 3 marquee players and it theoretically should move the dial for a struggling club.
For a team like ours, we could have used that to fill gaps in the team with decent players until our juniors were first grade ready and replace the high value contracts with normalised contracts for the juniors.
All sounds good in theory, but it's probably got a million holes people can poke in that system too.
To me, having a team running around with big cap dispensations or higher cap limits doesn't sit right and a win would always be judged based on having a higher cap. It would feel hollow and imo doesn't incentivise getting better in all aspects of club management.
I reckon that instead of the draft and signing players below their market value. Teams should be granted more money on the cap depending on where they fall on the table. This is the only way to change the bullshite dominance of the top teams manipulating the system e.g roosters, etc.
There would need to be some tweaking as what happens when a lower club gets up the ladder with the cap extras. But that can be worked out.
hank37w
Well-known member
Love how people call Stef "The Ute," but if he decides to leave next year he will have to change his name to "Kia Tasman Ute" - Arriving 2025.
