@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Yeah I mentioned that before , but I reckon many of the players have signed contracts where it is based on a % of what the cap will be
Unsigned players it will help of course , but TPA's then become even more important
Apperantly the RLPA or NRL won't agree to players putting % in contracts unless its performance based. Reason is every contract figure must be agreed and stay under the cap. % figures could put a team over the cap if all players had the clause which could make the NRL require exemptions.
Honestly I don't see how that works as an issue? You make it a % of what is available.
If you do percentages properly you still end up with 100%, no different from adding wages under a fixed figure, except percentages contract/swell with a mobile ceiling.
So if you have $2M committed for next year, you offer the remaining guys a % of the leftover cap space once it is confirmed. And you make sure it all adds up to 100% of that space.
If each player had a 10% bonus based on x increase clubs could go over.
If the players had % of remaining the clubs would ensure they get maximum signings and void players getting an increase.
Some clubs have spent over $9.5M for next season already.
Also need to remember the RLPA is trying to increase squad sizes and min salary which they plan for a portion of the increase cap to go towards.
I get what you are saying but the clubs would be stupid to do that. If you give everyone say 10% bonus based on a specific increase in the cap, what exactly does the increase need to be to trigger the bonus?
Say you have 10 players earning over $200K and you promised them all 20% extra dependent on the salary cap. That's minimum $40K per player x 10 = minimum $400K. So the total cap 2018 has to be minimum $400K over what you already planned to spend in cash. It's daft to take that kind of risk (and we know it won't be just $400K, because guys like Tedesco would be on far more base salary).
Instead what clubs should do is you guarantee players a salary based on the "very likely" salary cap minimum, say $8.2M. It's what they do right now, just you bank on the minimum increase for 2018\. Then you promise them X% of any increase over that cap, and you obviously don't hand out more than 100%.
Any player that signs on will then be guaranteed an increase if the cap permits it. Anyone dumb enough to sign on for a straight salary not bound to the cap changes, will either be short-changed (if the cap goes up a lot) or possibly overpaid and cut or shifted by the club (if it doesn't go up).
The idea that clubs might already have allotted $9.5M in cash without the NRL guaranteeing it, it's either very very stupid or very ballsy. Ballsy perhaps because you might be able to fight the NRL into allowing exemptions because they didn't get the cap set early enough.
But I assume you can't just shift players from your team because you got your numbers wrong and the NRL didn't provide enough guidance. The players are entitled to their pay and you should do your due diligence. Your other option is to write into contracts that you can release players if the cap doesn't go up as much as you planned. Now show me a player who is going to sign a contract where they are allowed to be moved on in case of salary cap fluctuations.
I do salaries at work, we essentially have a budget = a salary cap. I may have missed something really obvious in all of this, but I can only see bad management forcing clubs to overshoot the 2018 cap.
