Player fire sale just weeks away

@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
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.

Either way it had to be used on veteran players, you were allowed to spend $9.2 m on players, $300000 of that was to be the allowance. If you didn't have any veteran players you would have only been allowed to spend $8.9M. It was the NRL playing around with numbers, they were including everything to get to that 9.2 figure, they were also including the money spent on welfare officers for players in the Salary cap at one point. So now that the $300K will come from outside the $9.2M cap clubs will be able to spend $9.5M. I would guess every club has at least one player that qualifies for the long serving player allowance.

This change will get most clubs into a situation that will get them close to cap compliant for 2018
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
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.

Either way it had to be used on veteran players, you were allowed to spend $9.2 m on players, $300000 of that was to be the allowance. If you didn't have any veteran players you would have only been allowed to spend $8.9M. It was the NRL playing around with numbers, they were including everything to get to that 9.2 figure, they were also including the money spent on welfare officers for players in the Salary cap at one point. So now that the $300K will come from outside the $9.2M cap clubs will be able to spend $9.5M. I would guess every club has at least one player that qualifies for the long serving player allowance.

Would ours be Chris Lawrence?
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
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.

Either way it had to be used on veteran players, you were allowed to spend $9.2 m on players, $300000 of that was to be the allowance. If you didn't have any veteran players you would have only been allowed to spend $8.9M. It was the NRL playing around with numbers, they were including everything to get to that 9.2 figure, they were also including the money spent on welfare officers for players in the Salary cap at one point. So now that the $300K will come from outside the $9.2M cap clubs will be able to spend $9.5M. I would guess every club has at least one player that qualifies for the long serving player allowance.

Would ours be Chris Lawrence?

100% Chris has been playing NRL for 12 years, then add his junior footy he may be close to double the length of time needed to qualify. The qualifying time is 8 years at the club, we did have salary cap problems a few years ago when the NRL refused to acknowledge Jersey Flegg for the likes of fulton and Farah as time at the club so they didn't allow us to claim the long serving player allowance on those players.

Basically any player that started at a club in 2010 or before counts as a long serving player for next season
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
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.

Either way it had to be used on veteran players, you were allowed to spend $9.2 m on players, $300000 of that was to be the allowance. If you didn't have any veteran players you would have only been allowed to spend $8.9M. It was the NRL playing around with numbers, they were including everything to get to that 9.2 figure, they were also including the money spent on welfare officers for players in the Salary cap at one point. So now that the $300K will come from outside the $9.2M cap clubs will be able to spend $9.5M. I would guess every club has at least one player that qualifies for the long serving player allowance.

Would ours be Chris Lawrence?

100% Chris has been playing NRL for 12 years, then add his junior footy he may be close to double the length of time needed to qualify. The qualifying time is 8 years at the club, we did have salary cap problems a few years ago when the NRL refused to acknowledge Jersey Flegg for the likes of fulton and Farah as time at the club so they didn't allow us to claim the long serving player allowance on those players.

Basically any player that started at a club in 2010 or before counts as a long serving player for next season

The question is would We want to keep Lawrence beyond next season?
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Either way it had to be used on veteran players, you were allowed to spend $9.2 m on players, $300000 of that was to be the allowance. If you didn't have any veteran players you would have only been allowed to spend $8.9M. It was the NRL playing around with numbers, they were including everything to get to that 9.2 figure, they were also including the money spent on welfare officers for players in the Salary cap at one point. So now that the $300K will come from outside the $9.2M cap clubs will be able to spend $9.5M. I would guess every club has at least one player that qualifies for the long serving player allowance.

Would ours be Chris Lawrence?

100% Chris has been playing NRL for 12 years, then add his junior footy he may be close to double the length of time needed to qualify. The qualifying time is 8 years at the club, we did have salary cap problems a few years ago when the NRL refused to acknowledge Jersey Flegg for the likes of fulton and Farah as time at the club so they didn't allow us to claim the long serving player allowance on those players.

Basically any player that started at a club in 2010 or before counts as a long serving player for next season

The question is would We want to keep Lawrence beyond next season?

Why not, he's basically cap exempt.
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Would ours be Chris Lawrence?

100% Chris has been playing NRL for 12 years, then add his junior footy he may be close to double the length of time needed to qualify. The qualifying time is 8 years at the club, we did have salary cap problems a few years ago when the NRL refused to acknowledge Jersey Flegg for the likes of fulton and Farah as time at the club so they didn't allow us to claim the long serving player allowance on those players.

Basically any player that started at a club in 2010 or before counts as a long serving player for next season

The question is would We want to keep Lawrence beyond next season?

Why not, he's basically cap exempt.

But this may be his last FG season?
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
100% Chris has been playing NRL for 12 years, then add his junior footy he may be close to double the length of time needed to qualify. The qualifying time is 8 years at the club, we did have salary cap problems a few years ago when the NRL refused to acknowledge Jersey Flegg for the likes of fulton and Farah as time at the club so they didn't allow us to claim the long serving player allowance on those players.

Basically any player that started at a club in 2010 or before counts as a long serving player for next season

The question is would We want to keep Lawrence beyond next season?

Why not, he's basically cap exempt.

But this may be his last FG season?

Why?
 
@ said:
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.

So Penrith are non committal - strange. Plus if I was the NRL i would be seriously looking at the books of all non committal clubs.
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
100% Chris has been playing NRL for 12 years, then add his junior footy he may be close to double the length of time needed to qualify. The qualifying time is 8 years at the club, we did have salary cap problems a few years ago when the NRL refused to acknowledge Jersey Flegg for the likes of fulton and Farah as time at the club so they didn't allow us to claim the long serving player allowance on those players.

Basically any player that started at a club in 2010 or before counts as a long serving player for next season

The question is would We want to keep Lawrence beyond next season?

Why not, he's basically cap exempt.

But this may be his last FG season?

Says who?
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
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.

Either way it had to be used on veteran players, you were allowed to spend $9.2 m on players, $300000 of that was to be the allowance. If you didn't have any veteran players you would have only been allowed to spend $8.9M. It was the NRL playing around with numbers, they were including everything to get to that 9.2 figure, they were also including the money spent on welfare officers for players in the Salary cap at one point. So now that the $300K will come from outside the $9.2M cap clubs will be able to spend $9.5M. I would guess every club has at least one player that qualifies for the long serving player allowance.

This change will get most clubs into a situation that will get them close to cap compliant for 2018

Thinking it is part of a compromise that does not cost the NRL with the 130% of the cap amount.
 
THE ENTIRE Bulldogs NRL squad has been put on the open market with a $1 million salary cap crisis forcing the club to put a “For Sale’’ sign on every contracted player.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned Bulldogs chairman Ray Dibb and Chief Executive Officer Raylene Castle have been personally calling rivals clubs and player agents in a desperate bid to off-load contracted players.

Josh Morris and Brett Morris, Aiden Tolman, James Graham, Moses Mbye are not the only players to have been told that they are free to break their Bulldogs deals with the club to consider releasing any player with a contract.

“They are all on the market,’’ said a leading player manager.

“It is not just the guys that have been mentioned. No one has been told they won’t be at the club next year but they are all aware that they are free to explore options elsewhere.’’

Dogs officials have even been shopping around Mbye without informing him or his manager or getting their consent.

The Brisbane-born halfback is on a four-year, $3 million dollar deal at Canterbury, which doesn’t expire until the end of the 2020 season has been offered to multiple rival clubs.

It’s understood Mbye’s manager Simon Mammino has approached Bulldogs officials about shopping around his client and they denied it.

Already $1 million dollars over next year’s proposed salary cap figure of $9.2 million, the Bulldogs will be forced to consider releasing any player capable of attracting a fine saving offer from a rival club.

That means even the likes of Josh Jackson and David Klemmer could end up at another club next year.

And the uncertainty over the future of the entire club has contributed to the Bulldogs remarkable second half of the season collapse.

“It is not that we are not trying to win,’’ a Bulldogs player said.

“The boys are all desperate to win and putting in everything. But that uncertainty does affect us. No one has been told that we are not wanted but we read the stories and hear about it. And that makes you try harder if anything and that can make things go wrong.’’

The Bulldogs have had little interest from rival clubs with few showing interest in the unprecedented August shopping list.

It is understood out of favour forward Eastwood has held discussion with the Panthers about a switch next year in a move that would see the Bulldogs payout most of his $700,000 a year deal.

Under fire coach Des Hasler denied the contract speculation had contributed to the team’s horror run before his side were thumped by South Sydney.

“The players are very professional and they understand what it’s about,’’ Hasler said.

“I don’t think (the uncertainty) creates any paranoia.’’

The Bulldogs two big name recruits for season 2018 are not expected to be affected by the salary cap situation.

Both Aaron Woods and Kieran Foran expect to be at Belmore at the end of the year.

c-b-b, Yesterday at 9:24 PM
 
Do we want any of their players ? Josh Jackson is a great player but we have a fair amount of depth in our squad for next year and will he really make an impact to the team.

Josh Jackson is about the only one that I think we'd want.
 
@ said:
Do we want any of their players ? Josh Jackson is a great player but we have a fair amount of depth in our squad for next year and will he really make an impact to the team.

Josh Jackson is about the only one that I think we'd want.

Yes, Fatila Mariner and Jackson.
 
Branko Lee is no better than what we already have for next year. I think Graham is starting to slow down, so his signing doesn't interest me as much as it once did. Klemmer would be a good pick up. I think our club would prioritise keeping Woods though. And i think the Dogs would rather lose Woods too, as losing an existing player runs the risk of upsetting their playing roster and supporters and causing even more instability. Plus it won't do Woods any favours. Its already going to be hard enough going there with the plight they are in, he doesn't want to go there feeling alienated by being the guy that forced someone else out. The fans will hate him. I still don't understand why if he doesn't want to go he just doesn't make it known. If he did, the Dogs would have no choice but to allow him to renege as no club forces players to honour contracts anymore. Maybe Woods isn't smart enough to know that, and his manager doesn't want to remind him of it because it will cut his commission in half. Idk, as hard as i have been on Woods, he's a simpleton, he's not very intelligent and is probably very easily lead and influenced. His manager has milked these traits for all they are worth. James Hooper is another idiot who hasn't gotten half of what he deserves either. Whose to say the bile he was spewing earlier in the year didn't get inside Woods head.
 
Back
Top