Player fire sale just weeks away

[2041]

Its an interesting scenario from what I hear.
The clubs that seek the cap raised are working with the RLPA as they have the same interest. All clubs also want 130 percent of the salary cap without question.
The issue is the NRL can't afford more as they have spent like drunkard sailors. Their long term bankers I believe CBA reportedly knocked them back for a bank loan in recent days.

The chook that laid the golden egg is about to get its head cut off by a lot of self interested clubs and players. You only have to look at rugby, a few years ago the safe was full of money and they were in great shape, a few years on they are on the brink of going under on the back of some really bad calls by the people in charge. The same thing will happen to the NRL, the game is going backwards and one of the reasons is the greed and self interest that is rife in some sections of the NRL

If the NRL were smart they would ageee to a percentage of revenue model. At the next TV deal they should schedule all games in the interest of the NRL so the competition is fair and higher quality. They will get less from the TV deal therefore the players will end up with less. Keep the same level of grass roots funding and the game will be better off.

In other words, the NRL should knowingly piss off its players and broadcast partners, and reduce its own income, solely in order to get one over the players' association?

You should consider joining one of Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon's negotiating teams with tactics like that. Or the Brexit fellas.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

The bulldogs are desperate and should not be saved. You can not go around doing what you want and then try and just the rules to suit you.

Allowing them to be $400000 over for one season and 100000 under for 4 would also be a joke. Big benefit with little consequence

 

[TYGA]

Its an interesting scenario from what I hear.
The clubs that seek the cap raised are working with the RLPA as they have the same interest. All clubs also want 130 percent of the salary cap without question.
The issue is the NRL can't afford more as they have spent like drunkard sailors. Their long term bankers I believe CBA reportedly knocked them back for a bank loan in recent days.

The chook that laid the golden egg is about to get its head cut off by a lot of self interested clubs and players. You only have to look at rugby, a few years ago the safe was full of money and they were in great shape, a few years on they are on the brink of going under on the back of some really bad calls by the people in charge. The same thing will happen to the NRL, the game is going backwards and one of the reasons is the greed and self interest that is rife in some sections of the NRL

If the NRL were smart they would ageee to a percentage of revenue model. At the next TV deal they should schedule all games in the interest of the NRL so the competition is fair and higher quality. They will get less from the TV deal therefore the players will end up with less. Keep the same level of grass roots funding and the game will be better off.

In other words, the NRL should knowingly piss off its players and broadcast partners, and reduce its own income, solely in order to get one over the players' association?

You should consider joining one of Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon's negotiating teams with tactics like that. Or the Brexit fellas.

Quite the opposite short term sacrifice in the long term interests of the game. Revenue will eventually grow with a better product. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon and Brexit have a common theme and that's winning.

 

[Furious1]

So the Bulldogs went and signed 2 big name signings after being continually warned what the cap would be, knowing it would put them substantially over the cap.
Then they want to be 400k over the cap for 2018 and then take 100k less on the cap for 4 years after?

Sorry but 400k is an established solid first grader. 100k is chicken feed and nothing more than a part time player that could easily be made up in 3rd party.

If the NRL allows this crap than i don't see how they can expect current paying members of clubs to stump up the coin for memberships next year knowing their own clubs are playing in a competition with teams blatantly exceeding the cap. Infact i'm sure if we were able to be 400k over the proposed cap next year we could have kept either Woods or Tedesco. (most likely Woods as i think Teddy always wanted out no matter what the coin was)

I think there will be massive damage to the game next year if this plays out in the Dogs favour.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

Chris Barrett and Michael Chammas

Canterbury's last-ditch bid for significant salary cap relief next year has suffered a major blow with NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg to be a no-show at a lunch on Monday called by Bulldogs chairman Ray Dib.

Greenberg was among those invited by Dib to a get-together at Canterbury Leagues Club at which the idea of a 'soft cap' for 2018 was set to be floated, with the Bulldogs having overshot an indicative cap figure of $9.2 million for next season.

Rival clubs determined not to allow the Bulldogs to wriggle their way out of their situation were angry at the prospect of the NRL chief attending the meeting on Monday.

Greenberg's non-attendance will therefore head off a potentially furious reaction from some who oppose raising the player payment spending ceiling for 2018 after they were advised to work around a figure of $9.14m in April.

The NRL chief had planned to go along and give the club officials in attendance an update on the collective bargaining agreement talks with the Rugby League Players' Association.

However, he is now expected to be instead tied up in the first of three consecutive days of intensive negotiations with the players' union.

It is understood Greenberg notified Dib on Sunday of his inability to attend the impromptu meeting.

Eels chief Bernie Gurr will be another absentee on Monday, with a club spokesman saying that "Parramatta will not be attending the meeting".

Penrith chief Brian Fletcher is away on a family matter and was considered unlikely that anyone else from the Panthers would attend. It was unclear on Sunday if officials from other Sydney clubs would turn up to Monday's lunch. Manly and Wests Tigers were not invited to attend the meeting organised by Dib.

As reported by Fairfax Media on Saturday the NRL is poised to effectively raise next year's spending limit on players to $9.5m by taking a $300,000 veteran players' allowance outside the $9.2m cap and permitting clubs to spend it at their discretion.

The expectation is that could be the solution to appease the RLPA, who opposed the long-serving player allowance being inside the cap, and the required 75 per cent of clubs despite reluctance from some about any lift beyond the number they were told to budget around four months ago.

The Raiders were another club who had spent beyond the indicative cap for 2018 but it is understood the NRL's concession on the veteran's allowance would help solve a lot of their problems.

The same can't be said for the Bulldogs, who are facing the likelihood of having to shed multiple players to be compliant with the cap by the first round of next season.

Canterbury have had the contracts of Aaron Woods and Kieran Foran provisionally registered by the NRL on the condition they are under the salary cap by round one next year.

However they still have a million dollars worth of talent to offload, hence the desire from the club to increase the cap next year.

There appears to be little appetite from rivals to come to their aid, with interest in the players Canterbury want to release diminishing by the week given the standard of football they have been playing.

Club chairmen and chief executives will on Thursday attend a meeting at Rugby League Central, where it is expected Greenberg will propose a finalised salary cap and collective bargaining agreement.

RLPA board member Tim Mannah last week said it was "presumptuous" of the NRL to consider the players would agree to a $9.2 million salary cap, but it is hope a lock-in with the NRL this week will see the two parties reach an agreement.

The clubs will need to vote on Thursday, before a large group of players will gather on Monday week to sign off on the agreement that could be finalised in the coming days.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug…h-bulldogs-chair-ray-dib-20170813-gxv939.html

It would certainly appear all is falling apart for the Club. Any Official of our Club who blows the salary cap in itself should be shown the door and banned for life!

GrogDog, Yesterday at 10:22 PM

 

[Tim Sheens]

If as proposed it is outside the cap, how ironic it would be if Reynolds is the only player that would have been eligible for the long serving allowance at the dogs. I certainly hope so.

 

[05TIGZ]

I'd be very nervous if I was Aaron woods. If I was him i would be knocking on Pascoe's door , wearing my favourite head band and getting on my knees and telling him to please take me back. If he keeps delaying it , we won't have cap space , neither will the other clubs under, and if the bulldogs can't get cap compliant , then he might have no where to go.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I'd be very nervous if I was Aaron woods. If I was him i would be knocking on Pascoe's door , wearing my favourite head band and getting on my knees and telling him to please take me back. If he keeps delaying it , we won't have cap space , neither will the other clubs under, and if the bulldogs can't get cap compliant , then he might have no where to go.

I personally wouldn't take him back, but I'm not running the club. Hopefully if they are serious about having him stay they lowball the bejesus out of him.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I'd be very nervous if I was Aaron woods. If I was him i would be knocking on Pascoe's door , wearing my favourite head band and getting on my knees and telling him to please take me back. If he keeps delaying it , we won't have cap space , neither will the other clubs under, and if the bulldogs can't get cap compliant , **then he might have no where to go.**

Wouldn't that be a shame. You reap what you sow.

 

[jirskyr]

I have dibs on nobody attending Chinese lunch today! Ha suffer Dogs, suffer suffer suffer.

In regards to the veteran player allowance being "outside the cap", can anyone explain what that even means? It's a discount, you get to spend money on long-term service without it counting towards your cap, so how can it ever be counted in your cap?

I.e. what's the point of allowing Tigers to spend $100K on Chris Lawrence as a veteran, if they then count it against out total cap? Really it just means you have a cap, say $9.2M, and you allow X thousand on top of that only if it goes to veterans, which is what already happens, they are just going to increase the value of the veteran allowance. Which is fine, but I wish they'd floated that earlier for Tigers' sake.

 

[Geo]

I have dibs on nobody attending Chinese lunch today! Ha suffer Dogs, suffer suffer suffer.

In regards to the veteran player allowance being "outside the cap", can anyone explain what that even means? It's a discount, you get to spend money on long-term service without it counting towards your cap, so how can it ever be counted in your cap?

I.e. what's the point of allowing Tigers to spend $100K on Chris Lawrence as a veteran, if they then count it against out total cap? Really it just means you have a cap, say $9.2M, and you allow X thousand on top of that only if it goes to veterans, which is what already happens, they are just going to increase the value of the veteran allowance. Which is fine, but I wish they'd floated that earlier for Tigers' sake.

The Veteran Player Allowance is a 300K Allowance on top of the existing Salary cap that can be spread among players who have more than 8 years service to 1 club..

I think the SMH reporting is a tad inaccurate …So effectively you can spend 300K more on players who don't qualify within the Cap...

Questions over qualification have caused us issues in the past as Wests and Balmain Juniors were not recognised as Wests Tigers serving players...

 

[bp_tiger]

I'd be very nervous if I was Aaron woods. If I was him i would be knocking on Pascoe's door , wearing my favourite head band and getting on my knees and telling him to please take me back. If he keeps delaying it , we won't have cap space , neither will the other clubs under, and if the bulldogs can't get cap compliant , then he might have no where to go.

on your point, heard a rumor and it is just a rumor from a club worker that the tigers had pull out of talks with other forward players who they wanted to sign, hoping to keep money in case woods came available.

 

[05TIGZ]

I'd be very nervous if I was Aaron woods. If I was him i would be knocking on Pascoe's door , wearing my favourite head band and getting on my knees and telling him to please take me back. If he keeps delaying it , we won't have cap space , neither will the other clubs under, and if the bulldogs can't get cap compliant , then he might have no where to go.

on your point, heard a rumor and it is just a rumor from a club worker that the tigers had pull out of talks with other forward players who they wanted to sign, hoping to keep money in case woods came available.

As much as I hate the way he carried on, I think him staying will be the final piece of our forward pack. We all make mistakes, and you could see how excited he was yesterday, so hopefully this happens.

 

[jirskyr]

I have dibs on nobody attending Chinese lunch today! Ha suffer Dogs, suffer suffer suffer.

In regards to the veteran player allowance being "outside the cap", can anyone explain what that even means? It's a discount, you get to spend money on long-term service without it counting towards your cap, so how can it ever be counted in your cap?

I.e. what's the point of allowing Tigers to spend $100K on Chris Lawrence as a veteran, if they then count it against out total cap? Really it just means you have a cap, say $9.2M, and you allow X thousand on top of that only if it goes to veterans, which is what already happens, they are just going to increase the value of the veteran allowance. Which is fine, but I wish they'd floated that earlier for Tigers' sake.

The Veteran Player Allowance is a 300K Allowance on top of the existing Salary cap that can be spread among players who have more than 8 years service to 1 club..

I think the SMH reporting is a tad inaccurate …So effectively you can spend 300K more on players who don't qualify within the Cap...

Questions over qualification have caused us issues in the past as Wests and Balmain Juniors were not recognised as Wests Tigers serving players...

Thanks for confirming. So it was never in the cap in the first place. The only thing that changes is the value of the veterans allowance (never $300K in previous seasons?) that might allow some big-spenders to claim extra veteran salary. That part I really have no trouble with, except again where some clubs may not have negotiated as hard for their veterans, thinking they didn't have the allowance space.

 

[cochise]

I have dibs on nobody attending Chinese lunch today! Ha suffer Dogs, suffer suffer suffer.

In regards to the veteran player allowance being "outside the cap", can anyone explain what that even means? It's a discount, you get to spend money on long-term service without it counting towards your cap, so how can it ever be counted in your cap?

I.e. what's the point of allowing Tigers to spend $100K on Chris Lawrence as a veteran, if they then count it against out total cap? Really it just means you have a cap, say $9.2M, and you allow X thousand on top of that only if it goes to veterans, which is what already happens, they are just going to increase the value of the veteran allowance. Which is fine, but I wish they'd floated that earlier for Tigers' sake.

The Veteran Player Allowance is a 300K Allowance on top of the existing Salary cap that can be spread among players who have more than 8 years service to 1 club..

I think the SMH reporting is a tad inaccurate …So effectively you can spend 300K more on players who don't qualify within the Cap...

Questions over qualification have caused us issues in the past as Wests and Balmain Juniors were not recognised as Wests Tigers serving players...

Thanks for confirming. So it was never in the cap in the first place. The only thing that changes is the value of the veterans allowance (never $300K in previous seasons?) that might allow some big-spenders to claim extra veteran salary. That part I really have no trouble with, except again where some clubs may not have negotiated as hard for their veterans, thinking they didn't have the allowance space.

That's not entirely true, during CBA negotiations, the NRL in an attempt to have a higher Salary Cap announcement has been including many things in their cap total that in previous years have been outside the cap. These include welfare officers at clubs, car allowances and long serving player allowances, you just couldn't spend it if you didn't have the players eligible. There is now talk of taking out the long serving player allowance from the cap. This is effectively a $300K increase in the cap for next year because instead of being able to spend $9.2M on players when using the $300K long serving player allowance, the clubs will be able to spend $9.5M when using the the $300K long serving player allowance.

 

[barra]

^^ yep, makes sense to me that it will unfold that way.

 

[hammertime]

I have dibs on nobody attending Chinese lunch today! Ha suffer Dogs, suffer suffer suffer.

In regards to the veteran player allowance being "outside the cap", can anyone explain what that even means? It's a discount, you get to spend money on long-term service without it counting towards your cap, so how can it ever be counted in your cap?

I.e. what's the point of allowing Tigers to spend $100K on Chris Lawrence as a veteran, if they then count it against out total cap? Really it just means you have a cap, say $9.2M, and you allow X thousand on top of that only if it goes to veterans, which is what already happens, they are just going to increase the value of the veteran allowance. Which is fine, but I wish they'd floated that earlier for Tigers' sake.

The Veteran Player Allowance is a 300K Allowance on top of the existing Salary cap that can be spread among players who have more than 8 years service to 1 club..

I think the SMH reporting is a tad inaccurate …So effectively you can spend 300K more on players who don't qualify within the Cap...

Questions over qualification have caused us issues in the past as Wests and Balmain Juniors were not recognised as Wests Tigers serving players...

Probably another good reason for bringing benji back? Can't see Lawrence taking all that 300k up.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

Five clubs pushing for 9.six m cap (Bulldogs, Roosters, Dragons, Raiders and Sharks) ahead of what is expected to be a fiery mtg on Thurs. Titans, Manly, WTs, Knights all want 9.2 or less.

 

[Snake]

Five clubs pushing for 9.six m cap (Bulldogs, Roosters, Dragons, Raiders and Sharks) ahead of what is expected to be a fiery mtg on Thurs. Titans, Manly, WTs, Knights all want 9.2 or less.

These are the clubs that already rort 3rd party agreements ,many of these clubs just can not help themselves deliberately rorting the cap ,now they have the front to go the the NRL to ask for help to rort the cap…this is not about rich or poor clubs this is about dishonest behaviour being condoned if approved by the governing body.

 

[jirskyr]

I have dibs on nobody attending Chinese lunch today! Ha suffer Dogs, suffer suffer suffer.

In regards to the veteran player allowance being "outside the cap", can anyone explain what that even means? It's a discount, you get to spend money on long-term service without it counting towards your cap, so how can it ever be counted in your cap?

I.e. what's the point of allowing Tigers to spend $100K on Chris Lawrence as a veteran, if they then count it against out total cap? Really it just means you have a cap, say $9.2M, and you allow X thousand on top of that only if it goes to veterans, which is what already happens, they are just going to increase the value of the veteran allowance. Which is fine, but I wish they'd floated that earlier for Tigers' sake.

The Veteran Player Allowance is a 300K Allowance on top of the existing Salary cap that can be spread among players who have more than 8 years service to 1 club..

I think the SMH reporting is a tad inaccurate …So effectively you can spend 300K more on players who don't qualify within the Cap...

Questions over qualification have caused us issues in the past as Wests and Balmain Juniors were not recognised as Wests Tigers serving players...

Thanks for confirming. So it was never in the cap in the first place. The only thing that changes is the value of the veterans allowance (never $300K in previous seasons?) that might allow some big-spenders to claim extra veteran salary. That part I really have no trouble with, except again where some clubs may not have negotiated as hard for their veterans, thinking they didn't have the allowance space.

That's not entirely true, during CBA negotiations, the NRL in an attempt to have a higher Salary Cap announcement has been including many things in their cap total that in previous years have been outside the cap. These include welfare officers at clubs, car allowances and long serving player allowances, you just couldn't spend it if you didn't have the players eligible. There is now talk of taking out the long serving player allowance from the cap. This is effectively a $300K increase in the cap for next year because instead of being able to spend $9.2M on players when using the $300K long serving player allowance, the clubs will be able to spend $9.5M when using the the $300K long serving player allowance.

Ah thanks, I never realised NRL had planned to put the veterans allowance inside the cap. Pretty much makes it null and void if you have an allowance that anyone can use on anything, not limited to veterans. It just ends up being money.

But surely they aren't letting all clubs in 2018 spend $9.5M under this proposal? Only those clubs that are able to spend the extra $300K on a veteran? And if they don't have a veteran, they can only spend $9.2M? Kind of like how it is now with the current veterans allowance.