Burgess

[TimmyB]

Yes Glenn, but the salary cap is supposed to create parity. How is there parity if one club shells out transfer fees that the majority of others couldn't ever conceive of paying? Word was we would have signed Burgess all things being equal; eg: if he was off contract, or noone was willing to pay the transfer fee. As it is, we had no chance because another club had more money than us. Isn't that the very thing the salary cap is supposed to prevent?

 

[AndTheKungFoSing]

Its not included in the cap because it doesnt go to the player, it goes to Bradford.

Glenn

Not sure if it is that simple mate…
Can't say I'm 100%, but I'm pretty sure it does impact on the Salary cap and that is why Aussie clubs don't pay out contracts from other clubs... generally.

 

[Glennb]

Its not included in the cap because it doesnt go to the player, it goes to Bradford.

Glenn

Not sure if it is that simple mate…
Can't say I'm 100%, but I'm pretty sure it does impact on the Salary cap and that is why Aussie clubs don't pay out contracts from other clubs... generally.

No thats not why Aussie clubs dont do it. Aussie clubs dont do it(transfer fees) because it is specifically banned by NSWRL, then ARL and now NRL. Good thing too, thanks to Dennis Tutty.

Glenn

 

[Glennb]

Yes Glenn, but the salary cap is supposed to create parity. How is there parity if one club shells out transfer fees that the majority of others couldn't ever conceive of paying? Word was we would have signed Burgess all things being equal; eg: if he was off contract, or noone was willing to pay the transfer fee. As it is, we had no chance because another club had more money than us. Isn't that the very thing the salary cap is supposed to prevent?

Actually the salary cap is NOT supposed to create parity at all (that is just a nice side effect). If the salary cap was designed to create parity it would probably be a restraint of trade (the draft was designed to create parity). The salary cap is supposed to prevent clubs going broke and was originally brought in to save Canberra from itself.

So the answer to your question is NO, what you describe is not what the salary cap is supposed to prevent.

Glenn

 

[diedpretty]

Even though no money goes to Burgess without that payment of $500,000 he wouldn't be playing for Souths - so in effect they have paid whatever his contract is plus the transfer fee to secure him - latest reports are that the NRL going to review the policy - it probably won't be allowed to happen again - unless your a phone throwing smug as gladiator.

 

[Geo]

Actually the salary cap is NOT supposed to create parity at all (that is just a nice side effect). If the salary cap was designed to create parity it would probably be a restraint of trade (the draft was designed to create parity). The salary cap is supposed to prevent clubs going broke and was originally brought in to save Canberra from itself.

So the answer to your question is NO, what you describe is not what the salary cap is supposed to prevent.

Glenn

Just like it's been saving the Sharks for years…..not to mention what News LTD pump into the Storm..... but that's a whole other topic.

Great Post BTW.....