Tiger_Watto
New member
When does this Sale start?
I'm hearing Geo is happy to throw in a $1M TPA to help out the Tigers!
I'm hearing Geo is happy to throw in a $1M TPA to help out the Tigers!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@ 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.
@ 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.
@ 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?
@ 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
@ 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?
@ 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.
@ 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?
@ 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.
@ 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?
@ 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
@ said:Josh Jackson please.
@ 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.
@ said:@ said:Josh Jackson please.
x2
Add in Klemmer & Graham as well
And Brenko Lee if the price is right