JAC

[Yossarian]

I can foresee another 5 pages interpreting his post match interview.

Any chance the CSIRO can stop that COVID vaccine nonsense and work full time of deciphering JAC’s post match interview?

 

[izotope]

i saw him look at the clock, the clock was 9:xx something. we often finish 9th

Its a clear sign he's coming here

 

[happy_tiger]

I’m sure he looked towards the north when being interviewed. I’d say he’s going to Newcastle. Yep that’s it! Newcastle!!
Wow! His comments meant nothing!!

He made a circular jester with one hand and pointed down with the other.
A hole, down south...
South West Sydney! That's confirmation for me.

What’s the odds we’ll sign him then he goes to jail for firearm offences ?

Honestly, who hasnt shot a gun at a country cousins farm? Cops not nothing else to do?

Did your cousin get away ??

 

[Spud_Murphy]

yes the Redfern comment he ain't coming here guys

Yep

Never in doubt

 

[Cairnstigers]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

Would last five minutes in court if the Players Union (or someone willing to payroll) challenged it. Clear restraint of trade.

Can a $9.4 million cap be thought of as a restraint of trade ?
Because the league has set that figure

POssibly, but hasnt been tested, but that is not what you are talking about, you are talking about setting arbitrary values. What if Teddy wanted to come to the Tigers and we had $300K to offer him and he said yes but NRL said no he is worth $700K and cant come?

(If another club offers him $700k then that is market value and his value
So if we don't have the available funds then we can't sign him simple
Stay where he is or go to another club with available funds)

What is JAC's value
$600,000 as an untried fullback?

A player has the right to earn as much as possible (we all know and understand that) and that is determined by what a club is willing to pay


and that is the current system, not what you are suggesting.

(Yes but signing with clubs for unders should be stopped
If we have funds to sign a player for $600,000 but he chooses to go to another club for $400,000 that is his choice
But the club that signs him should have $600,000 deducted from their cap
That is how teams like Roosters and souths stack their teams
By signing players on paper for under market value)

Therefore the larger amount offered to a player should set a players value (not undervalued)
And that is the value that should be used and applied against the cap

Do you realise what the cap is for? It is not to level the talent, it is to stop clubs going broke. What you are suggesting would encourage the Tigers or Bulldogs to offer a Teddy $3M to force Roosters hands,

(It is both
To stop clubs going broke and to spread the talent )
(Tell me why Harry wasn't allowed to pay 3rd party payments to lure players to our club
Its his money, not the clubs
So why is this not allowed
We all assume Rusty and Nick do it)

Or
Think of it as $1 equals 1 point (like flybuys)
Each club has 9,400,000 points to spend
You can only get so much with your points


Make up your mind. Points? Market value? NRL set value?.

(Nrl do not set the Value
The bidding clubs do
My point is $ or points should make no difference
Each has a value
Each club has an allowance
They should not be allowed to exceed that no matter which value is used
And the good thing is all clubs bidding for a player have a chance to set a players value
You bid highest then you buy
Player says no I want to go souths, then souths have that bid off there cap regardless of what they say they pay)

 

[mike]

JAC watch: Day 66

 

[TillLindemann]

Does anybody else get the sense JAC is a complete lunatic?

 

[cochise]

Does anybody else get the sense JAC is a complete lunatic?

Yes lol

 

[diedpretty]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

I have said it many times before
If a player is worth an average of $1,000,000 on the open market, then that is what should and must come off the clubs cap that signs him
That club can pay him $200,000 for all I care
But his market value must come off the allocated cap
That is the only way that we will achieve a fair and even competition
You can not rort a system like that
It stops clubs from stacking talent which is the cause of a lop sided competition

Too east to manipulate.

Not being smart - but how do you manipulate it if the market value is set by the NRL.

 

[diedpretty]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

Would last five minutes in court if the Players Union (or someone willing to payroll) challenged it. Clear restraint of trade.

Its not a restraint of trade if the club can pay the player whatever they agree to.

 

[cochise]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

I have said it many times before
If a player is worth an average of $1,000,000 on the open market, then that is what should and must come off the clubs cap that signs him
That club can pay him $200,000 for all I care
But his market value must come off the allocated cap
That is the only way that we will achieve a fair and even competition
You can not rort a system like that
It stops clubs from stacking talent which is the cause of a lop sided competition

Too east to manipulate.


Not being smart - but how do you manipulate it if the market value is set by the NRL.

That comment was to a market value set by other clubs. As soon as you know a player does not want to come to you, you would increase your offer beyond what you are willing to pay to put strain on another teams salary cap.

 

[cochise]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

Would last five minutes in court if the Players Union (or someone willing to payroll) challenged it. Clear restraint of trade.


Its not a restraint of trade if the club can pay the player whatever they agree to.

It is when you are potentially preventing them from playing for a team on a wage they both agree to.

 

[happy_tiger]

Does anybody else get the sense JAC is a complete lunatic?

is that because he might be going elsewhere ...did he say something last night

 

[diedpretty]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

I have said it many times before
If a player is worth an average of $1,000,000 on the open market, then that is what should and must come off the clubs cap that signs him
That club can pay him $200,000 for all I care
But his market value must come off the allocated cap
That is the only way that we will achieve a fair and even competition
You can not rort a system like that
It stops clubs from stacking talent which is the cause of a lop sided competition

Too east to manipulate.


Not being smart - but how do you manipulate it if the market value is set by the NRL.

That comment was to a market value set by other clubs. As soon as you know a player does not want to come to you, you would increase your offer beyond what you are willing to pay to put strain on another teams salary cap.

Yea i get that - i assumed any market value would be set by the NRL. Bit of a fine line how you do it though. However market value are set on property by third parties based on sales of similar properties, historical value of that particular property etc. Wouldn't stop clubs from overspending but would certainly put a limit on the number of high profile players you could have on your books.

 

[cochise]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

I have said it many times before
If a player is worth an average of $1,000,000 on the open market, then that is what should and must come off the clubs cap that signs him
That club can pay him $200,000 for all I care
But his market value must come off the allocated cap
That is the only way that we will achieve a fair and even competition
You can not rort a system like that
It stops clubs from stacking talent which is the cause of a lop sided competition

Too east to manipulate.


Not being smart - but how do you manipulate it if the market value is set by the NRL.

That comment was to a market value set by other clubs. As soon as you know a player does not want to come to you, you would increase your offer beyond what you are willing to pay to put strain on another teams salary cap.


Yea i get that - i assumed any market value would be set by the NRL. Bit of a fine line how you do it though. However market value are set on property by third parties based on sales of similar properties, historical value of that particular property etc. Wouldn't stop clubs from overspending but would certainly put a limit on the number of high profile players you could have on your books.

Other posters are saying if a Club offers $800k, you pay $600k, but his market value is $800k so that is what goes on your cap. That is easy to manipulate as I pointed out before.

 

[diedpretty]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

Would last five minutes in court if the Players Union (or someone willing to payroll) challenged it. Clear restraint of trade.


Its not a restraint of trade if the club can pay the player whatever they agree to.

It is when you are potentially preventing them from playing for a team on a wage they both agree to.

Thats not restraint of trade - you are not stopping them from playing. Just because they want to play for X but have to play for Y because X can't fit you in is not restraint.

 

[cochise]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

Would last five minutes in court if the Players Union (or someone willing to payroll) challenged it. Clear restraint of trade.


Its not a restraint of trade if the club can pay the player whatever they agree to.

It is when you are potentially preventing them from playing for a team on a wage they both agree to.


Thats not restraint of trade - you are not stopping them from playing. Just because they want to play for X but have to play for Y because X can't fit you in is not restraint.

Of course it is, an employee as a right to choose their employer.

 

[diedpretty]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

I have said it many times before
If a player is worth an average of $1,000,000 on the open market, then that is what should and must come off the clubs cap that signs him
That club can pay him $200,000 for all I care
But his market value must come off the allocated cap
That is the only way that we will achieve a fair and even competition
You can not rort a system like that
It stops clubs from stacking talent which is the cause of a lop sided competition

Too east to manipulate.


Not being smart - but how do you manipulate it if the market value is set by the NRL.

That comment was to a market value set by other clubs. As soon as you know a player does not want to come to you, you would increase your offer beyond what you are willing to pay to put strain on another teams salary cap.


Yea i get that - i assumed any market value would be set by the NRL. Bit of a fine line how you do it though. However market value are set on property by third parties based on sales of similar properties, historical value of that particular property etc. Wouldn't stop clubs from overspending but would certainly put a limit on the number of high profile players you could have on your books.

Other posters are saying if a Club offers $800k, you pay $600k, but his market value is $800k so that is what goes on your cap. That is easy to manipulate as I pointed out before.

I still fail to see how that is manipulation. The only problem I see with a market valuation of players in when a player is undervalued by the NRL. If they set a cap value of a player at 600k but he signs for 1mil. They would have to reassess his market value when his contract comes up for renewal based on what he is being paid on his current contract.

 

[diedpretty]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

Would last five minutes in court if the Players Union (or someone willing to payroll) challenged it. Clear restraint of trade.


Its not a restraint of trade if the club can pay the player whatever they agree to.

It is when you are potentially preventing them from playing for a team on a wage they both agree to.


Thats not restraint of trade - you are not stopping them from playing. Just because they want to play for X but have to play for Y because X can't fit you in is not restraint.

Of course it is, an employee as a right to choose their employer.

So if i have the qualifications and choose to work at IBM and they don't employ me its a restraint of trade?

 

[cochise]

Take this points system dribble elsewhere

It doesn't have to be a points system
A market value would be fare
And this would only need to be used when a player is looking at changing clubs not being re signed at his existing club

Would last five minutes in court if the Players Union (or someone willing to payroll) challenged it. Clear restraint of trade.


Its not a restraint of trade if the club can pay the player whatever they agree to.

It is when you are potentially preventing them from playing for a team on a wage they both agree to.


Thats not restraint of trade - you are not stopping them from playing. Just because they want to play for X but have to play for Y because X can't fit you in is not restraint.

Of course it is, an employee as a right to choose their employer.


So if i have the qualifications and choose to work at IBM and they don't employ me its a restraint of trade?

Now you're jyst being argumentative. Of course it's not because they don't want you. That is not the situation in this case. You are preventing someone from playing at a club at a price both parties agree to over what you think he should be paid.