Robbie Farah..Discussion Thread.....

[bigsiro]

If only this could be over already, club may have trouble selling memberships next season .

If club was relying on memberships the club would of been in trouble years ago. Bandwagon fans

If you want to get into a membership argument then there is certainly a place for that but good luck because there are many that surely resent your insinuation.

 

[bobo125]

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

mate your beating a dead horse.
theres people here that just dont like farah.
they have their reasons and thats all well and good, but theres nothing you can say in any type of defense of the guy- personal or professional that they will accept or even understand.
the magpies are circling looking for that tiger corpse. thats all it is….

 

[innsaneink]

I love how people use the term pay cut… When in reality it's probably more apt to say they loaned the club some money for a few years.
He'll be paid in full

Correct. Hence why he is on nearly a million for the next 2yrs. It isn't because he is that good it's because he was getting compensated for agreeing to be paid in 2yrs rather than consistently per year over several.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

\

I love how people use the term pay cut… When in reality it's probably more apt to say they loaned the club some money for a few years.
He'll be paid in full

Correct. Hence why he is on nearly a million for the next 2yrs. It isn't because he is that good it's because he was getting compensated for agreeing to be paid in 2yrs rather than consistently per year over several.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

Of course….this is correct

Wether any interest on the loan is included were not privvy too....its just whats actually happened, and the term "pay cut" are two very different things to me

=====================================
Booboo...take your pathetic Balmain - Magpies intent elsewhere

 

[hobbo]

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

mate your beating a dead horse.
theres people here that just dont like farah.
they have their reasons and thats all well and good, but theres nothing you can say in any type of defense of the guy- personal or professional that they will accept or even understand.
the magpies are circling looking for that tiger corpse. thats all it is….

:laughing:
Well it is Magpie breeding season , what did you expect ?

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

I love how people use the term pay cut… When in reality it's probably more apt to say they loaned the club some money for a few years.
He'll be paid in full

Correct. Hence why he is on nearly a million for the next 2yrs. It isn't because he is that good it's because he was getting compensated for agreeing to be paid in 2yrs rather than consistently per year over several.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

\

I love how people use the term pay cut… When in reality it's probably more apt to say they loaned the club some money for a few years.
He'll be paid in full

Correct. Hence why he is on nearly a million for the next 2yrs. It isn't because he is that good it's because he was getting compensated for agreeing to be paid in 2yrs rather than consistently per year over several.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

Point valid, however that's assuming Robbie manages his finances accordingly in that direction. Granted his economic background that could be a high possibility with the business focus he has it would be very interesting if that occurred.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

mate your beating a dead horse.
theres people here that just dont like farah.
they have their reasons and thats all well and good, but theres nothing you can say in any type of defense of the guy- personal or professional that they will accept or even understand.
the magpies are circling looking for that tiger corpse. thats all it is….

ROFL Bobo that's hilarious this highlights you really have no idea.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[jirskyr]

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

I get what you are saying, but it's not as if the club owed him money that they withheld. It was an agreement to structure payments over a certain number of years, which he agreed to.

If I take a job where I agree to 25% payment in Year 1 and 75% payment in Year 2, I can't be complaining about lack of cashflow or capital in Year 1.

Robbie technically wasn't being withheld money he was owed, he agreed to put off the largest payments until last. Why would we pay him interest on those? He has not even provided the services of the last 2 years of his contract yet.

 

[Telltails]

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

I get what you are saying, but it's not as if the club owed him money that they withheld. It was an agreement to structure payments over a certain number of years, which he agreed to.

If I take a job where I agree to 25% payment in Year 1 and 75% payment in Year 2, I can't be complaining about lack of cashflow or capital in Year 1.

Robbie technically wasn't being withheld money he was owed, he agreed to put off the largest payments until last. Why would we pay him interest on those? He has not even provided the services of the last 2 years of his contract yet.

Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that he agreed to that so the club could remain under the cap - 2013/2014.

 

[851]

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

I get what you are saying, but it's not as if the club owed him money that they withheld. It was an agreement to structure payments over a certain number of years, which he agreed to.

If I take a job where I agree to 25% payment in Year 1 and 75% payment in Year 2, I can't be complaining about lack of cashflow or capital in Year 1.

Robbie technically wasn't being withheld money he was owed, he agreed to put off the largest payments until last. Why would we pay him interest on those? He has not even provided the services of the last 2 years of his contract yet.

Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that he agreed to that so the club could remain under the cap - 2013/2014.

You are not wrong, he didn't have to except those terms, but he did to help the club out, and JT pays him back like this, nice work, not.

 

[Tiger_In_The_Gong]

I think you and Ink are making a big assumption that Robbie has not been financially disadvantaged.

As I replied to Ink on the page above, if Robbie's contract payments include an amount for interest on deferred payments, then he will suffer no financial disadvantage over the life of the contract.

If, however, no component of interest is included in his contract payments then he will have suffered a financial penalty for agreeing to defer the amounts he was owed to later years. For example, you can currently put money into good corporate bonds paying around 7%. Investing $400k in one of these would yield over $80k in total interest payments over 3 years, which gives a rough indication of how much Robbie may be out of pocket.

In a sense Mighty Tiger might be right when he speaks of Robbie taking a pay cut. If Robbie's contract does not include interest on deferred payments, then effectively he has taken a pay cut.

The fact that Robbie will be paid in full whether he stays or goes is true, but it doesn't diminish the financial sacrifice he may have made for the sake of the team.

I get what you are saying, but it's not as if the club owed him money that they withheld. It was an agreement to structure payments over a certain number of years, which he agreed to.

If I take a job where I agree to 25% payment in Year 1 and 75% payment in Year 2, I can't be complaining about lack of cashflow or capital in Year 1.

Robbie technically wasn't being withheld money he was owed, he agreed to put off the largest payments until last. Why would we pay him interest on those? He has not even provided the services of the last 2 years of his contract yet.

$400,000 of money that was owing to Robbie Farah in 2012 and 2013 was restructured into his new 4 year deal in 2014.

Thats my understanding of it, happy to be corrected.

It is money he should have been paid by now. It is money he has lost interest and other opportunities because he and Benji offered to help out the club

 

[foreveratiger]

I spoke to a Work colleague this afternoon and her brother is the Physio of the Dragons and we got talking about the Farah debacle and she said to me " What do you think happened to Brett Morris ? he helped the Dragons out a few years ago cause they were having Salary Cap issues and took a pay cut on the understanding with Peter Doust that his next Contract would be made up for it ".
He didn't want to leave and was filthy at the level of Loyalty shown in return .

I'm afraid Loyalty is dead and buried .

 

[tiger_one]

I spoke to a Work colleague this afternoon and her brother is the Physio of the Dragons and we got talking about the Farah debacle and she said to me " What do you think happened to Brett Morris ? he helped the Dragons out a few years ago cause they were having Salary Cap issues and took a pay cut on the understanding with Peter Doust that his next Contract would be made up for it ".
He didn't want to leave and was filthy at the level of Loyalty shown in return .

I'm afraid Loyalty is dead and buried .

The weird part, which I'm still getting my head around, is that loyalty, from the fans' perspective NEVER DIES!
Yet we fans want our clubs to prosper, players to stay and be united, BUT reality is that things change.

However, the way this thing with Robbie has unfolded, irrespective of what side you're thinking is on, it just should never have happened mid-contract to a club legend!

 

[foreveratiger]

I spoke to a Work colleague this afternoon and her brother is the Physio of the Dragons and we got talking about the Farah debacle and she said to me " What do you think happened to Brett Morris ? he helped the Dragons out a few years ago cause they were having Salary Cap issues and took a pay cut on the understanding with Peter Doust that his next Contract would be made up for it ".
He didn't want to leave and was filthy at the level of Loyalty shown in return .

I'm afraid Loyalty is dead and buried .

The weird part, which I'm still getting my head around, is that loyalty, from the fans' perspective NEVER DIES!
Yet we fans want our clubs to prosper, players to stay and be united, BUT reality is that things change.

However, the way this thing with Robbie has unfolded, irrespective of what side you're thinking is on, it just should never have happened mid-contract to a club legend!

They better not have a sook if Tedesco moves on to another Club in a few years time cause Karma is a…...

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

I spoke to a Work colleague this afternoon and her brother is the Physio of the Dragons and we got talking about the Farah debacle and she said to me " What do you think happened to Brett Morris ? he helped the Dragons out a few years ago cause they were having Salary Cap issues and took a pay cut on the understanding with Peter Doust that his next Contract would be made up for it ".
He didn't want to leave and was filthy at the level of Loyalty shown in return .

I'm afraid Loyalty is dead and buried .

The weird part, which I'm still getting my head around, is that loyalty, from the fans' perspective NEVER DIES!
Yet we fans want our clubs to prosper, players to stay and be united, BUT reality is that things change.

However, the way this thing with Robbie has unfolded, irrespective of what side you're thinking is on, it just should never have happened mid-contract to a club legend!

Agree T1

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[foreveratiger]

That is why this time next year…..there is a chance I might have to help out Geo with Counselling sessions in regards with Taupau, if he leaves?

 

[innsaneink]

I spoke to a Work colleague this afternoon and her brother is the Physio of the Dragons and we got talking about the Farah debacle and she said to me " What do you think happened to Brett Morris ? he helped the Dragons out a few years ago cause they were having Salary Cap issues and took a pay cut on the understanding with Peter Doust that his next Contract would be made up for it ".
He didn't want to leave and was filthy at the level of Loyalty shown in return .

I'm afraid Loyalty is dead and buried .

The weird part, which I'm still getting my head around, is that loyalty, from the fans' perspective NEVER DIES!
Yet we fans want our clubs to prosper, players to stay and be united, BUT reality is that things change.

However, the way this thing with Robbie has unfolded, irrespective of what side you're thinking is on, it just should never have happened mid-contract to a club legend!

**_They_** better not have a sook if Tedesco moves on to another Club in a few years time cause Karma is a…...

They?

 

[tig_prmz]

I love how people use the term pay cut… When in reality it's probably more apt to say they loaned the club some money for a few years.
He'll be paid in full

that's a terrible example.

he could've used the 400K and invested it in his restaurant, property, given to his family etc. he didn't have to loan it to the WT. however, he CHOSE to invest it in the WT hoping he could stay a one club man and possibly win a premiership here.

agree with the first sentence though- it's definitely not a pay cut and he'll be paid in full regardless of what happens.

 

[innsaneink]

I love how people use the term pay cut… When in reality it's probably more apt to say they loaned the club some money for a few years.
He'll be paid in full

that's a terrible example.

he could've used the 400K and invested it in his restaurant, property, given to his family etc. he didn't have to loan it to the WT. however, he CHOSE to invest it in the WT hoping he could stay a one club man and possibly win a premiership here.

agree with the first sentence though- it's definitely not a pay cut and he'll be paid in full regardless of what happens.

So you think he ''took a paycut''…or ''offered a loan'' to the club, so he could remain a one club player?
Not to help the club out of the salary cap mess it was in at the time thats been widely reported just about everywhere?
Rightio then

 

[tig_prmz]

I love how people use the term pay cut… When in reality it's probably more apt to say they loaned the club some money for a few years.
He'll be paid in full

that's a terrible example.

he could've used the 400K and invested it in his restaurant, property, given to his family etc. he didn't have to loan it to the WT. however, he CHOSE to invest it in the WT hoping he could stay a one club man and possibly win a premiership here.

agree with the first sentence though- it's definitely not a pay cut and he'll be paid in full regardless of what happens.

So you think he ''took a paycut''…or ''offered a loan'' to the club, so he could remain a one club player?
Not to help the club out of the salary cap mess it was in at the time thats been widely reported just about everywhere?
Rightio then

i didn't say that.. in fact i said the exact opposite.

 

[happy_tiger]

Wasn't this the same coach whose first argument in his interview at the WTs was he would look at standing Farah down as captain

So coaches can change their minds , go figure

Never heard that story… Do tell?

Jets vs Tigers next Sunday old fella!!!

Jets in a canter

The reason I heard that the board /Mayer weren't happy with Brown was he wanted to possibly take the captaincy from Farah

It was widely discussed on the Forum Watto

Now Brown has changed his mind

All I was saying

What makes you think he would be Captain at the Knights to take it off him…totally unrelated issue...correlation doesn't mean causation...

What has Brown changed his mind about?

Missed the point old man

JT wasn't allowed to change his mind at all and was massacred by the haters ,yet basically the first thing Brown is doing is changing his mind and no calls for him to be taken to the guillotine and be beheaded