Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[the_third]

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?

Leagues clubs are just as under the pump revenue wise. Grants may be down across the board.

 

[JD Tiger]

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.

 

[the_third]

Early team tips, sounds interesting, what has Madge got up his sleeve in regards to players leaving

Team tips: Scans have revealed cartilage damage to Josh Aloiai’s knee after initial fears he had torn his anterior cruciate ligament. David Nofoaluma has been cleared of injury while Sam McIntyre will need to pass concussion protocols to play this week. Alex Twal (illness) and Luke Brooks (suspension) will return to the side. This will be a farewell game for Tigers legends Benji Marshall and Chris Lawrence, and coach Michael Maguire hinted “a few other guys” also might be playing their last game in the famous strip.

Interesting. Maybe Mqueen will have a run.

hope he names Packer and Reynolds

 

[JD Tiger]

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 think they will try to negotiate with the clubs and the players through that union, come to an agreement as a whole, and do it that way.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

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.

I hear what you are saying, but if the RPLA and NRL are at an impasse you have players with contracts that ought to be honoured, and an organisation that may not able to be afford to provide the cap dispensation.

In an ideal world, players would realise they share the bad times with the good and they the 10% cut. But players and their managers (I have no doubt the player managers will be a huge source of the unrest,) will baulk.

 

[JD Tiger]

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.

I hear what you are saying, but if the RPLA and NRL are at an impasse you have players with contracts that ought to be honoured, and an organisation that may not able to be afford to provide the cap dispensation.

In an ideal world, players would realise they share the bad times with the good and they the 10% cut. But players and their managers (I have no doubt the player managers will be a huge source of the unrest,) will baulk.

Yeah, the players and managers will probably baulk, I'd say you will be right there. Then the NRL will have to find another way to cut costs. They wanted to reduce the playing roster, but met opposition and couldn't make it happen, this may go the same way.

I don't know much about Unions, but I'm surprised the NRL gives the RLPA such a prominent voice, and they don't just instead rule them with an iron fist. It's not like the players will go on strike.

 

[JC99]

Early team tips, sounds interesting, what has Madge got up his sleeve in regards to players leaving

Team tips: Scans have revealed cartilage damage to Josh Aloiai’s knee after initial fears he had torn his anterior cruciate ligament. David Nofoaluma has been cleared of injury while Sam McIntyre will need to pass concussion protocols to play this week. Alex Twal (illness) and Luke Brooks (suspension) will return to the side. This will be a farewell game for Tigers legends Benji Marshall and Chris Lawrence, and coach Michael Maguire hinted “a few other guys” also might be playing their last game in the famous strip.

Interesting. Maybe Mqueen will have a run.

He’s already in England playing over there. Left a couple weeks ago

 

[Sco77y]

RLPA showing it has no idea again.

Hoping the @THE_POM wasnt at NRL HQ !

Clint Newton thinks himself and the RLPA are some sort of revelation, I'm sure. But they just come across as childish and uneducated. Whenever they're brought up in the media there just never seems to be any negotiating, rather the RLPA just stubbornly defends its position for the sake of it.

 

[Strider]

Early team tips, sounds interesting, what has Madge got up his sleeve in regards to players leaving

Team tips: Scans have revealed cartilage damage to Josh Aloiai’s knee after initial fears he had torn his anterior cruciate ligament. David Nofoaluma has been cleared of injury while Sam McIntyre will need to pass concussion protocols to play this week. Alex Twal (illness) and Luke Brooks (suspension) will return to the side. This will be a farewell game for Tigers legends Benji Marshall and Chris Lawrence, and coach Michael Maguire hinted “a few other guys” also might be playing their last game in the famous strip.

Interesting. Maybe Mqueen will have a run.


hope he names Packer and Reynolds

Same. If they aren't named I'll be gutted haha.

 

[Andyvee]

Early team tips, sounds interesting, what has Madge got up his sleeve in regards to players leaving

Team tips: Scans have revealed cartilage damage to Josh Aloiai’s knee after initial fears he had torn his anterior cruciate ligament. David Nofoaluma has been cleared of injury while Sam McIntyre will need to pass concussion protocols to play this week. Alex Twal (illness) and Luke Brooks (suspension) will return to the side. This will be a farewell game for Tigers legends Benji Marshall and Chris Lawrence, and coach Michael Maguire hinted “a few other guys” also might be playing their last game in the famous strip.

Interesting. Maybe Mqueen will have a run.

McQueen is killing it in ESL. He scored a scorching 30m try in his first game. That one run beat his total run metres, line breaks, tackle busts and tries for the entire 3 seasons at Wests.

https://www.facebook.com/rlsuperleague/posts/4886386538041936

 

[Geo]

Lol if 1 run defines killing it we should have never let Eddy Pettybourne go

 

[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

 

[JD Tiger]

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

Ah okay. Is the NRL talking about reducing the grant they pay to the clubs, not reducing the salary cap? If so, then yes I did get that wrong.

Hopefully if so, the Wests Ashfield management can manage the fiscal side of the organisation well, and keep us competitive by being able to afford to spend our full cap.

Troubling times though, for sides that fall below and can't afford to spend their full cap could well be in direct threat of being pushed out within a few years.

 

[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

Ah okay. Is the NRL talking about reducing the grant they pay to the clubs, not reducing the salary cap? If so, then yes I did get that wrong.

Hopefully if so, the Wests Ashfield management can manage the fiscal side of the organisation well, and keep us competitive by being able to afford to spend our full cap.

Troubling times though, for sides that fall below and can't afford to spend their full cap could well be in direct threat of being pushed out within a few years.

I’m not saying this IS what the NRL is doing, they obviously haven’t said anything but it is an option and I think it is what the poster that you were responding to meant by “Leagues club grants make up the balance “.

IMO it is risky but not a bad option. I think the NRL from top to bottom is overblown and needs fat stripped at all levels.

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

BROWN LAUNCHES WARRIORS PLAYER CLEANOUT
Nathan Brown has already started to clean out the Warriors, with forwards Isaiah Papali'i and Bunty Afoa both told their services won't be required for 2021.

Papali'i has played 14 games this season without making a huge impact and is off contract.

Afoa has a deal with the Warriors for next season but is coming off a knee reconstruction and has been told to look around.

The Warriors are set for mass changes under Brown and recruitment manager Peter O'Sullivan, already having snared Euan Aitken (Dragons), Kane Evans (Eels), Jack Murchie (Raiders) and Ben Murdoch-Masila (Warrington Wolves).

The club also has several other players in its sights - and will try to move at least another two or three players on.

 

[Newtown]

BROWN LAUNCHES WARRIORS PLAYER CLEANOUT
Nathan Brown has already started to clean out the Warriors, with forwards Isaiah Papali'i and Bunty Afoa both told their services won't be required for 2021.

Papali'i has played 14 games this season without making a huge impact and is off contract.

Afoa has a deal with the Warriors for next season but is coming off a knee reconstruction and has been told to look around.

The Warriors are set for mass changes under Brown and recruitment manager Peter O'Sullivan, already having snared Euan Aitken (Dragons), Kane Evans (Eels), Jack Murchie (Raiders) and Ben Murdoch-Masila (Warrington Wolves).

The club also has several other players in its sights - and will try to move at least another two or three players on.

It looks like their will be a mass of ordinary NRL players looking for clubs next season.

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

This guy would look good in WT'S colours

https://coupler.foxsports.com.au/api/v1/article/amp/nrl/nrl-premiership/teams/titans/nrl-2020-gold-coast-titans-young-tonumaipea-rejects-contract-melbourne-rebels-melbourne-storm/news-story/34eedb4a3f636da9a88e42cf6935a9bc

 

[balmain boy]

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

No. If the cap is reduced then all salaries will get reduced by the same %

How can that occur legally of contracts are signed/executed? Or are you referring to salaries paid to officials?

As was done for this season all players will need to take a paycut for next season. Revenues are down all over the place. I guess they don't want these talks interfering with the current season but delaying them til the end of the season makes recruitment untenable. The players union should be already all over this, and willing to take a certain level of a cut. With so many people losing their jobs, operating on reduced hours etc they can't complain about a 10% pay decrease for playing sport.

The NRL is already cutting 25% of it's employees. The players will have to do what's fair. The public certainly won't sympathise with some bonehead footy player on 500k unwilling to work for 450k to help keep others in their jobs.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

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

No. If the cap is reduced then all salaries will get reduced by the same %

How can that occur legally of contracts are signed/executed? Or are you referring to salaries paid to officials?

As was done for this season all players will need to take a paycut for next season. Revenues are down all over the place. I guess they don't want these talks interfering with the current season but delaying them til the end of the season makes recruitment untenable. The players union should be already all over this, and willing to take a certain level of a cut. With so many people losing their jobs, operating on reduced hours etc they can't complain about a 10% pay decrease for playing sport.

The NRL is already cutting 25% of it's employees. The players will have to do what's fair. The public certainly won't sympathise with some bonehead footy player on 500k unwilling to work for 450k to help keep others in their jobs.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Hopefully this works in our favour.

 

[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 .