Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[Tiger5150]

I read some where that there will be a bit of movement in the off-season as 4-5 clubs have spent all of 2021 cap but because it’s being reduced by 10% some teams will have to release players to get under the cap


We'll see. I can see the NRL giving clubs who have spent their cap dispensation.

If the $ aren't available there is no option but to cut.

They might let them do it from their own pockets (leagues club grants etc.)

Do I understand this correctly? Are you guys saying the NRL might let clubs spend more than their allocated salary cap if they can afford it?

If clubs have already committed to the cap for next year under the previously agreed cap allocation, and they cannot eke out a deal with the players union in regard to reducing the cap next year, the NRL may have to allow clubs to top up the reduced grant out of their own pocket. I'm only specifically referring to the difference in the cap reduction.

The players all have contracts that were signed upon, legally binding. Clubs cannot just write off 10% of every players salary, unless there are very specific clauses in those contracts which I highly doubt there are.

I hear what you're saying, but that was still a 'yes'.

No way would that be fair. For example, Tigers and Dragons for example, you teams can not buy that final player you want as you are working to the reduced new cap, and have to buy a cheap minimum wager instead. But Roosters and Souths, you have already spent your full cap, you can have that 10% extra no worries... ?

Not even Greenburg could have kept a straight face trying to pretend that one is fair.

You have this wrong. You (and others) are conflating the salary cap and the NRL grant. It has only been in the last few years that they have been linked. Previously (I think prior to the last media deal) the cap was more than the NRL grant

There would be nothing wrong with leaving the cap where it is but reducing the grant (because NRL can’t afford it). Choice would then be the clubs to spend the cap or what you can afford


I'm not sure thats right based on the media reports. All articles specifically say a cut of 10% to the salary cap of 9.5 million. There hasn't been any mention of how much the grant will be reduced by. That currently is around 13 million and covers not only the cap but also all the ancillary staff. When the new deal was done up in 2018 the NRL and clubs agreed the grant would be 130% of player payments. Should the cap fall to 8.7 million the grant would fall to about 11.3 million. However it would still be unfair for clubs who have already spent their cap to just move the additional money over from the grant .

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I specifically said it is not what the NRL is doing, the NRL hasn’t declared what they are doing. I was responding to JDs response to another post suggesting that the cap and the grant could be uncoupled.

This discussion is a result of the reduction in revenue for NRL due to COVID. Reducing the cap doesn’t help the NRL one cent. Reducing the grant does.

 

[diedpretty]

I read some where that there will be a bit of movement in the off-season as 4-5 clubs have spent all of 2021 cap but because it’s being reduced by 10% some teams will have to release players to get under the cap


We'll see. I can see the NRL giving clubs who have spent their cap dispensation.

If the $ aren't available there is no option but to cut.

They might let them do it from their own pockets (leagues club grants etc.)

Do I understand this correctly? Are you guys saying the NRL might let clubs spend more than their allocated salary cap if they can afford it?

If clubs have already committed to the cap for next year under the previously agreed cap allocation, and they cannot eke out a deal with the players union in regard to reducing the cap next year, the NRL may have to allow clubs to top up the reduced grant out of their own pocket. I'm only specifically referring to the difference in the cap reduction.

The players all have contracts that were signed upon, legally binding. Clubs cannot just write off 10% of every players salary, unless there are very specific clauses in those contracts which I highly doubt there are.

I hear what you're saying, but that was still a 'yes'.

No way would that be fair. For example, Tigers and Dragons for example, you teams can not buy that final player you want as you are working to the reduced new cap, and have to buy a cheap minimum wager instead. But Roosters and Souths, you have already spent your full cap, you can have that 10% extra no worries... ?

Not even Greenburg could have kept a straight face trying to pretend that one is fair.

You have this wrong. You (and others) are conflating the salary cap and the NRL grant. It has only been in the last few years that they have been linked. Previously (I think prior to the last media deal) the cap was more than the NRL grant

There would be nothing wrong with leaving the cap where it is but reducing the grant (because NRL can’t afford it). Choice would then be the clubs to spend the cap or what you can afford


I'm not sure thats right based on the media reports. All articles specifically say a cut of 10% to the salary cap of 9.5 million. There hasn't been any mention of how much the grant will be reduced by. That currently is around 13 million and covers not only the cap but also all the ancillary staff. When the new deal was done up in 2018 the NRL and clubs agreed the grant would be 130% of player payments. Should the cap fall to 8.7 million the grant would fall to about 11.3 million. However it would still be unfair for clubs who have already spent their cap to just move the additional money over from the grant .

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I specifically said it is not what the NRL is doing, the NRL hasn’t declared what they are doing. I was responding to JDs response to another post suggesting that the cap and the grant could be uncoupled.

This discussion is a result of the reduction in revenue for NRL due to COVID. Reducing the cap doesn’t help the NRL one cent. Reducing the grant does.

Well actually reducing the cap does because as i said the grant is tied to the cap - it is 130% of the cap. The more they knock off the cap the more it will increase what they save. For example if they knock a million off the cap the overall grant decreases by 1.3 million. If they knock 2 million off the cap the overall grant decreases by 2.6 million.

 

[diedpretty]

So in effect the clubs are actually the losers - for every percentage point knocked off the cap the club loses 1.3% of the current grant.

 

[Tiger5150]

I read some where that there will be a bit of movement in the off-season as 4-5 clubs have spent all of 2021 cap but because it’s being reduced by 10% some teams will have to release players to get under the cap


We'll see. I can see the NRL giving clubs who have spent their cap dispensation.

If the $ aren't available there is no option but to cut.

They might let them do it from their own pockets (leagues club grants etc.)

Do I understand this correctly? Are you guys saying the NRL might let clubs spend more than their allocated salary cap if they can afford it?

If clubs have already committed to the cap for next year under the previously agreed cap allocation, and they cannot eke out a deal with the players union in regard to reducing the cap next year, the NRL may have to allow clubs to top up the reduced grant out of their own pocket. I'm only specifically referring to the difference in the cap reduction.

The players all have contracts that were signed upon, legally binding. Clubs cannot just write off 10% of every players salary, unless there are very specific clauses in those contracts which I highly doubt there are.

I hear what you're saying, but that was still a 'yes'.

No way would that be fair. For example, Tigers and Dragons for example, you teams can not buy that final player you want as you are working to the reduced new cap, and have to buy a cheap minimum wager instead. But Roosters and Souths, you have already spent your full cap, you can have that 10% extra no worries... ?

Not even Greenburg could have kept a straight face trying to pretend that one is fair.

You have this wrong. You (and others) are conflating the salary cap and the NRL grant. It has only been in the last few years that they have been linked. Previously (I think prior to the last media deal) the cap was more than the NRL grant

There would be nothing wrong with leaving the cap where it is but reducing the grant (because NRL can’t afford it). Choice would then be the clubs to spend the cap or what you can afford


I'm not sure thats right based on the media reports. All articles specifically say a cut of 10% to the salary cap of 9.5 million. There hasn't been any mention of how much the grant will be reduced by. That currently is around 13 million and covers not only the cap but also all the ancillary staff. When the new deal was done up in 2018 the NRL and clubs agreed the grant would be 130% of player payments. Should the cap fall to 8.7 million the grant would fall to about 11.3 million. However it would still be unfair for clubs who have already spent their cap to just move the additional money over from the grant .

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I specifically said it is not what the NRL is doing, the NRL hasn’t declared what they are doing. I was responding to JDs response to another post suggesting that the cap and the grant could be uncoupled.

This discussion is a result of the reduction in revenue for NRL due to COVID. Reducing the cap doesn’t help the NRL one cent. Reducing the grant does.


Well actually reducing the cap does because as i said the grant is tied to the cap - it is 130% of the cap. The more they knock off the cap the more it will increase what they save. For example if they knock a million off the cap the overall grant decreases by 1.3 million. If they knock 2 million off the cap the overall grant decreases by 2.6 million.

DP the whole point of my post in response to two there discussing it, was what would happen if the uncoupled the cap to the grant? It’s a bit redundant to question if I’m wrong because the cap and grant are coupled if we are discussing what would happen if they were uncoupled.

Reducing the cap does nothing to NRLs expenditure, reducing the grant does. They have only been coupled in recent years since the last media deal. Before that the grant was less than the cap and clubs survived.

 

[Tiger5150]

So in effect the clubs are actually the losers - for every percentage point knocked off the cap the club loses 1.3% of the current grant.

Not sure that’s how percentages work DP.

 

[diedpretty]

I read some where that there will be a bit of movement in the off-season as 4-5 clubs have spent all of 2021 cap but because it’s being reduced by 10% some teams will have to release players to get under the cap


We'll see. I can see the NRL giving clubs who have spent their cap dispensation.

If the $ aren't available there is no option but to cut.

They might let them do it from their own pockets (leagues club grants etc.)

Do I understand this correctly? Are you guys saying the NRL might let clubs spend more than their allocated salary cap if they can afford it?

If clubs have already committed to the cap for next year under the previously agreed cap allocation, and they cannot eke out a deal with the players union in regard to reducing the cap next year, the NRL may have to allow clubs to top up the reduced grant out of their own pocket. I'm only specifically referring to the difference in the cap reduction.

The players all have contracts that were signed upon, legally binding. Clubs cannot just write off 10% of every players salary, unless there are very specific clauses in those contracts which I highly doubt there are.

I hear what you're saying, but that was still a 'yes'.

No way would that be fair. For example, Tigers and Dragons for example, you teams can not buy that final player you want as you are working to the reduced new cap, and have to buy a cheap minimum wager instead. But Roosters and Souths, you have already spent your full cap, you can have that 10% extra no worries... ?

Not even Greenburg could have kept a straight face trying to pretend that one is fair.

You have this wrong. You (and others) are conflating the salary cap and the NRL grant. It has only been in the last few years that they have been linked. Previously (I think prior to the last media deal) the cap was more than the NRL grant

There would be nothing wrong with leaving the cap where it is but reducing the grant (because NRL can’t afford it). Choice would then be the clubs to spend the cap or what you can afford


I'm not sure thats right based on the media reports. All articles specifically say a cut of 10% to the salary cap of 9.5 million. There hasn't been any mention of how much the grant will be reduced by. That currently is around 13 million and covers not only the cap but also all the ancillary staff. When the new deal was done up in 2018 the NRL and clubs agreed the grant would be 130% of player payments. Should the cap fall to 8.7 million the grant would fall to about 11.3 million. However it would still be unfair for clubs who have already spent their cap to just move the additional money over from the grant .

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I specifically said it is not what the NRL is doing, the NRL hasn’t declared what they are doing. I was responding to JDs response to another post suggesting that the cap and the grant could be uncoupled.

This discussion is a result of the reduction in revenue for NRL due to COVID. Reducing the cap doesn’t help the NRL one cent. Reducing the grant does.


Well actually reducing the cap does because as i said the grant is tied to the cap - it is 130% of the cap. The more they knock off the cap the more it will increase what they save. For example if they knock a million off the cap the overall grant decreases by 1.3 million. If they knock 2 million off the cap the overall grant decreases by 2.6 million.

DP the whole point of my post in response to two there discussing it, was what would happen if the uncoupled the cap to the grant? It’s a bit redundant to question if I’m wrong because the cap and grant are coupled if we are discussing what would happen if they were uncoupled.

Reducing the cap does nothing to NRLs expenditure, reducing the grant does. They have only been coupled in recent years since the last media deal. Before that the grant was less than the cap and clubs survived.

Maybe i missed your point - the cap and the grant are coupled and will remain that way. As you say uncoupling them does nothing. As for the percentages think you will find that that is the way it works - the overall grant to clubs is based on the amount of the salary cap for that year and its pegged at 130% of the cap so whatever amount you reduce the cap by you are actually reducing the overall amount of the grant by 130% of that amount.

 

[Tiger5150]

I read some where that there will be a bit of movement in the off-season as 4-5 clubs have spent all of 2021 cap but because it’s being reduced by 10% some teams will have to release players to get under the cap


We'll see. I can see the NRL giving clubs who have spent their cap dispensation.

If the $ aren't available there is no option but to cut.

They might let them do it from their own pockets (leagues club grants etc.)

Do I understand this correctly? Are you guys saying the NRL might let clubs spend more than their allocated salary cap if they can afford it?

If clubs have already committed to the cap for next year under the previously agreed cap allocation, and they cannot eke out a deal with the players union in regard to reducing the cap next year, the NRL may have to allow clubs to top up the reduced grant out of their own pocket. I'm only specifically referring to the difference in the cap reduction.

The players all have contracts that were signed upon, legally binding. Clubs cannot just write off 10% of every players salary, unless there are very specific clauses in those contracts which I highly doubt there are.

I hear what you're saying, but that was still a 'yes'.

No way would that be fair. For example, Tigers and Dragons for example, you teams can not buy that final player you want as you are working to the reduced new cap, and have to buy a cheap minimum wager instead. But Roosters and Souths, you have already spent your full cap, you can have that 10% extra no worries... ?

Not even Greenburg could have kept a straight face trying to pretend that one is fair.

You have this wrong. You (and others) are conflating the salary cap and the NRL grant. It has only been in the last few years that they have been linked. Previously (I think prior to the last media deal) the cap was more than the NRL grant

There would be nothing wrong with leaving the cap where it is but reducing the grant (because NRL can’t afford it). Choice would then be the clubs to spend the cap or what you can afford


I'm not sure thats right based on the media reports. All articles specifically say a cut of 10% to the salary cap of 9.5 million. There hasn't been any mention of how much the grant will be reduced by. That currently is around 13 million and covers not only the cap but also all the ancillary staff. When the new deal was done up in 2018 the NRL and clubs agreed the grant would be 130% of player payments. Should the cap fall to 8.7 million the grant would fall to about 11.3 million. However it would still be unfair for clubs who have already spent their cap to just move the additional money over from the grant .

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I specifically said it is not what the NRL is doing, the NRL hasn’t declared what they are doing. I was responding to JDs response to another post suggesting that the cap and the grant could be uncoupled.

This discussion is a result of the reduction in revenue for NRL due to COVID. Reducing the cap doesn’t help the NRL one cent. Reducing the grant does.


Well actually reducing the cap does because as i said the grant is tied to the cap - it is 130% of the cap. The more they knock off the cap the more it will increase what they save. For example if they knock a million off the cap the overall grant decreases by 1.3 million. If they knock 2 million off the cap the overall grant decreases by 2.6 million.

DP the whole point of my post in response to two there discussing it, was what would happen if the uncoupled the cap to the grant? It’s a bit redundant to question if I’m wrong because the cap and grant are coupled if we are discussing what would happen if they were uncoupled.

Reducing the cap does nothing to NRLs expenditure, reducing the grant does. They have only been coupled in recent years since the last media deal. Before that the grant was less than the cap and clubs survived.


Maybe i missed your point - the cap and the grant are coupled and will remain that way. As you say uncoupling them does nothing. As for the percentages think you will find that that is the way it works - the overall grant to clubs is based on the amount of the salary cap for that year and its pegged at 130% of the cap so whatever amount you reduce the cap by you are actually reducing the overall amount of the grant by 130% of that amount.

The whole point of the discussion is what would happen if they were uncoupled. There is no reason they have to stay coupled. They didn’t used to be. Uncoupling them does NOT mean nothing it would make a massive difference. Unclear to me if it would be good or bad but would not mean nothing. Clubs would have security to plan towards but potentially have a revenue shortfall that they have to make up in cost reductions or increases in revenue from elsewhere (leagues club grants etc) etc. please don’t answer again with “yeah but they are coupled”.

As far as percentages, percentages work as you know a percentage. A multiplier. If you reduce one by a a percentage you also reduce the other by the same percentage. If the cap is $10M and the grant is $13M and you reduce the cap by 20% it becomes $8M. 130% of $8M is $10.4M which is 80% of $13M (20% reduction). With respect, I won’t be asking you to do my taxes this year.

 

[hsvjones]

Does anyone know what has happened to Sailor at Dragons ?
he looked pretty good when playing in the 6 and added a lot of spark.
There was a rumour we were looking at swap deal before the AJ situation popped up at the last min.. Cannot get a game with them now

 

[jrtiger]

Does anyone know what has happened to Sailor at Dragons ?
he looked pretty good when playing in the 6 and added a lot of spark.
There was a rumour we were looking at swap deal before the AJ situation popped up at the last min.. Cannot get a game with them now

I doubt he's high on our priority list as we have an abundance of utility outside backs. we might make a move for him if JAC and/or Staines fall through but doubt he'll be coming here.

 

[WT2K]

If manly sign Foran... Schuster wants out 👀

 

[hobbo1]

If manly sign Foran... Schuster wants out 👀

There’s slim pickings for next season ..
2022 will be a smorgasbord If we can sign anyone decent .

 

[PabloX]

If manly sign Foran... Schuster wants out 👀

Fingers crossed. Didn't we show interest there last year as well?

 

[momo_amp_medo]

If manly sign Foran... Schuster wants out 👀

Would be great pickup.

 

[Tiger5150]

If manly sign Foran... Schuster wants out 👀

I rate Schuster

 

[Russell]

Is he as good as Burton?

 

[Sunnycoast_tiger]

Is he as good as Burton?

I would say better than Burton,

 

[Tiger5150]

I have seen Schuster play two games and he looked like a good NRL half already

 

[WT2K]

If manly sign Foran... Schuster wants out ?

Fingers crossed. Didn't we show interest there last year as well?

Was a rumour during this past offseason from memory

 

[Roar_Power]

Schuster is a gun, will be a great long term NRL player...

 

[Tiger5150]

Schuster is a gun, will be a great long term NRL player...

I cant imagine that Manly will screw that up that badly. If they signed Foran & lost Schuster (especially to us) they will burn Brookie down.