Should Backended Contracts be banned.

[Cultured_Bogan]

No they shouldn't. You're effectively restricting someone's income by not letting them market their brand. We need to be smarter at sourcing external TPA's for our players.

I don't think they should either, but it's more logical to ban them before back ended contracts. As long as clubs are under the cap, it should be irrelevant who they pay and when they pay them. If clubs get themselves into a mess like ours has, it's their own fault. The good clubs know how to manage their cap.

Why is it more logical? TPA's are outside the cap and don't even factor into a clubs cap financial stream. If anything banning backended contracts forces clubs to go to the market to get players to top up/balance their salaries with TPA's. Problem is you need marketable players to do so.

I do agree that good clubs manage their cap better than the crap ones. The NRL can't keep saving clubs from themselves. No one bails out small businesses that are poorly run.

Idk CB, it was just a throw away comment. I neither support nor am against TPA's or back ended contracts. I guess where i thought the logic was, was that at least with back ended contracts its the club who pays, but with TPA's an outside agency does. Or do outside agencies pay back ended contracts? I have no idea, i really have no dog in this fight. I'll take you at your word.

Fair enough mate.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

TPA's are very thinly disguised forms of rorting. They are being used by so many clubs to gain advantage over clubs who are in no way able to financially compete. Marina Go is telling Wests Tigers supporters that our problems are centred around the CAP. That is untrue. This club's problems are centred around its distinct inability to attract TPA's which in turn would attract class players and in turn again allow the club to be still under the CAP. Is the NRL doing it's policing job? The answer is a big no.

I don't see how that is. You cannot stop someone from using their brand to maximise their revenue.

You can work two jobs in the real world. Abolition of TPA's becomes a restraint of earnings.

 

[Black_Orange_White]

Laughable. Nothing wrong with backended contracts. Not their fault the administration is short-sighted.

 

[Black_Orange_White]

The cap is there to protect clubs from themselves, and I think we could take a leaf out of the NBA's book and introduce maximum contracts. If it can clear the NBA's players association then it should get through ours.
There'd still be an argument that rich, TPA-laden clubs will be more attractive, but it would make clubs like ours more sustainable and stop Manly shelling out half their cap trying to retain two blokes.
I'd like to think it would restore a bit more player-club loyalty too.
There'd still be rep bonuses and the like on top of it, but I think a number around 7-800,000 a year would be close to fair.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

It would never get cleared. The NBA is a monopoly of basketball basically. Europe leagues cannot compete $$$ wise. Rugby League has Union, AFL to compete with.

 

[sunshine_coast_tiger]

If the NRL want to have an even salary cap to ensure an even competition they have to do something about TPAs. NRL is heading the way of the EPL , their will be the same 4-5 teams in top 4 every year if it continues.

For mine the biggest problem around TPAs is that they allow clubs to break/bend salary cap rules and have a far better roster than the Salary Cap allows.

The NRL can stop this by one of two ways if they wanted to:
1\. Ban TPAs and dock points from clubs that are found to break the rules.
2\. Allow TPAs but have a players minimum value under the Salary Cap determined by the NRL and you have to fit your top 25 under the NRL Salary Cap. This would work as for example the Broncos had TPAs in place for Darren Lockyer to make $1 million a year but put him in the cap at $300,000\. If the NRL determine he has to be put in at $800,000 a year under the cap, that would mean their is $500,000 less cap space for the Broncos for their other players.

Option 2 would work and wouldn't intefer with what an individual player could earn, if would just mean to have good players in your top 25, a lot of your top 25 would have to be lesser players. If this was brought in many squads would look worse than they currently are but the talent would be more evenly spread (which should be the NRL aim).

Option 2 would still allow players to earn more than what they are assessed at under the cap by way of other TPAs but would have them placed in the salary cap at the right money. The NFL do this best, they have a hard salary cap. They have rules about minimum amounts players have to be paid under the cap according to their status. The NFL want a team to have a small window at the top and then go through a rebuilding period and be replaced by other teams at the top. They do not want the same 3-4 teams at the top every year. The salary cap in the NFL does not stop the top players making other money outside their club from sponsers but it does stop teams stockpiling all the best talent every year.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

:roll Make up your mind GNR….fair dinkum you changed your opinion 3 times in just 3 posts,have some conviction man.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

TPA's should be banned before back ended contracts

No they shouldn't. You're effectively restricting someone's income by not letting them market their brand. We need to be smarter at sourcing external TPA's for our players.

I don't think they should either, but it's more logical to ban them before back ended contracts. As long as clubs are under the cap, it should be irrelevant who they pay and when they pay them. If clubs get themselves into a mess like ours has, it's their own fault. The good clubs know how to manage their cap.

I sort of agree with GNR , it's purely the clubs problem
If they do what ours and Parra has done , and stuff up their Clubs finances with back ended contracts , the Clubs will have to make sure that people ( coaches and CEOs ) that they hire ,have more intelligence, business acumen , and integrity than those who have put their Clubs finances and/or their future in jeopardy in these cases.

As for TPAs, I don't think it is so much just a Good Club/Bad Club situation , but more a case of where the clubs are.
Some clubs have a huge advantage over clubs simply by location or who is involved in their club eg, Broncos, Roosters, Souths, Warriors etc.
Maybe there should be a limit that a club can pay in TPAs, but I'd rather see them as part of their contract , and not a separate amount, and raise the cap a bit higher,
There's no more of a restraint of trade problem with restrictingTPAs than there is with the Cap. It's illegal as well. And if any player , was to go legal ( againsteither the NRL and theAFL) they would most likely win

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

:roll Make up your mind GNR….fair dinkum you changed your opinion 3 times in just 3 posts,have some conviction man.

Are people not allowed to change their view based on the opinions and information offered by others?

 

[underdog]

:roll Make up your mind GNR….fair dinkum you changed your opinion 3 times in just 3 posts,have some conviction man.

This whole discussion, conversation, ideas, thought process thing is new to you isn't it F2B?

(jokes mate!)
:mrgreen:

I've changed my opinion on things in here before as well, and usually it's after learning more about the process - Whereby I think GNR has done so with the help of CB in regards to the TPA's

:sign:

 

[happy_tiger]

:roll Make up your mind GNR….fair dinkum you changed your opinion 3 times in just 3 posts,have some conviction man.

This whole discussion, conversation, ideas, thought process thing is new to you isn't it F2B?

(jokes mate!)
:mrgreen:

I've changed my opinion on things in here before as well, and usually it's after learning more about the process - Whereby I think GNR has done so with the help of CB in regards to the TPA's

:sign:

Who are you trying to kid Dawg

We all know that CB uses Jedi mind control :laughing:

 

[Peaches]

Back ended contracts are a clever way of bringing in talent when you can't afford it. Though the list management and plans needs to be very clear. With the amount of CEO's we've had, it was never going to work out right. Clubs with stable boards and management use these sort of contacts very well.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[steve-o]

Back ending contracts is a selfish practice done by administrators and coaches looking for short term gains at the expense of long term strategy

 

[boonboon]

Backending contracts can be the right thing to do especially when signing a young player. If you have someone coming up from the juniors like Brooks for example. If you signed them season by season they would earn more in later seasons as they became better players so in effect backending a contract when that happens or is predicted to happen is the right thing to do. Where it becomes a problem is where it is not because a player gets better its to get a better tema in year one and damm the consequences. This is what happened in 2011 and 2012 with our club and it meant that we had to keep doing it every year to try and keep a decent squad. This needed to end at some point and the club have taken the right stand to clear some of them out. However some will always be needed as player naturally get better. What you also need to do is for players on a downward slide either do the same thing or let them go. We got into trouble when players didn't play to thier potential and when we had lots of injuries which stretched the cap every year