Tigers and Storm Player Loan Swap

[Tiger_Steve]

Well frankly Storm should get their salary cap in order before lodging official requests to the NRL that exceed their cap.

You would thini that it's basic stuff for a club. It's not the NRL's fault.

As much as I look for opportunities to stick it to the inept, reactive, backwards, poorly led NRL, I’ve got to agree with you on this one.

 

[TrueTiger]

Looks like its back to the drawing board to find a solution to getting a specialist hooker again...

 

[Tweed_Tiger]

Wonder how long it would take Momo to make another 16k off the Tigers.

 

[Curaeus]

So Melbourne get the math slightly wrong and the NRL, utterly bereft of the ability to innovate or be flexible, can't find any way around the Storm's $15,000 cap error. Not as if anyone is trying to cheat. Seems we are still a chance of getting young Grant with Momo staying put.

The NRL need to draw a line in the ground.... Next time another team will be over by more... If you give an inch they'll take a yard

:::

Spoiler Text

:::

If everyone played by the same rules and if the NRL were not incompetent, maybe!

 

[Coastie_Tiger]

Wonder how long it would take Momo to make another 16k off the Tigers.

Was thinking the same thing, what about letting Momo go down there train ect (unofficially) get Grant up here and once storm are cap compliant make the switch official.

 

[NT_Tiger]

Typical head in the and approach by the NRL. That said it might still work out ok for us.

I disagree entirely. For once the NRL is heads up looking at the issue squarely.
Heads in the sand would mean they turn a blind eye to a 'darling' team and let them get by with a breach. They haven't done that.
Unfortunately we miss out as a result but it is anything but head in the sand.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Would the bunnies have been way over the cap if WT were not paying and including the vast majority of Farah's contract payment in their cap? Of course they would have and I cannot see any difference.

 

[The_Patriot]

Typical head in the and approach by the NRL. That said it might still work out ok for us.

I disagree entirely. For once the NRL is heads up looking at the issue squarely.
Heads in the sand would mean they turn a blind eye to a 'darling' team and let them get by with a breach. They haven't done that.
Unfortunately we miss out as a result but it is anything but head in the sand.

When this all started not one person thought that Momirovskis contract should be paid for by the Storm.

Head in the sand is to be a stickler for the rules rather than look at the situation. We are lending this player to the Storm, why should they pay him what we determine he is worth. Its only a loan.

Both clubs have determined the players to be of equal value.

Lots of ways to look at and rule on this but the NRL chose one, the only one that puts a stop to this revolutionary and game changing idea.

 

[The_Patriot]

Would the bunnies have been way over the cap if WT were not paying and including the vast majority of Farah's contract payment in their cap? Of course they would have and I cannot see any difference.

Exactly.

Great point!

 

[NT_Tiger]

Typical head in the and approach by the NRL. That said it might still work out ok for us.

I disagree entirely. For once the NRL is heads up looking at the issue squarely.
Heads in the sand would mean they turn a blind eye to a 'darling' team and let them get by with a breach. They haven't done that.
Unfortunately we miss out as a result but it is anything but head in the sand.


When this all started not one person thought that Momirovskis contract should be paid for by the Storm.

Head in the sand is to be a stickler for the rules rather than look at the situation. We are lending this player to the Storm, why should they pay him what we determine he is worth. Its only a loan.

Both clubs have determined the players to be of equal value.

Lots of ways to look at and rule on this but the NRL chose one, the only one that puts a stop to this revolutionary and game changing idea.

Fair enough and well said, but by sticking to the cap rule they have (as other have said) cut off the potential for future rorts.
I can understand them taking a conservative approach for this very reason. Both interested clubs had enough time to come up with work-arounds and obviously the NRL considered the cap as the bottom line.
The NRL are in a no win situation with this, they were going to cop criticism however they went, (and you can bet every club was watching this through a microscope) but they have drawn a line in the sand.
I tend to blame Storm for not coming up with a suitable internal work-around. Their cap, their problem.

 

[Tiger5150]

Would the bunnies have been way over the cap if WT were not paying and including the vast majority of Farah's contract payment in their cap? Of course they would have and I cannot see any difference.

Its actually pretty easy to see the difference. The situation you quote, the Bunnies didnt swap a player with us. If they did then both clubs would have to negotiate the amount of money paid to ensure that the cap was not exceeded. In the case that you quote, it was ble to be be coordinated and negotiated such that it didnt exceed the cap.

To simplify it, Farah was owed $900K in his last year. Im pretty sure Tigers paid $ 300k and Rabbits paid $600K but what if $600 would put them over? Then Tigers would have to pay $350k to make it work. If it was a straight swap , this is not possible.

It is actually pretty straightforward.

 

[The_Patriot]

Typical head in the and approach by the NRL. That said it might still work out ok for us.

I disagree entirely. For once the NRL is heads up looking at the issue squarely.
Heads in the sand would mean they turn a blind eye to a 'darling' team and let them get by with a breach. They haven't done that.
Unfortunately we miss out as a result but it is anything but head in the sand.


When this all started not one person thought that Momirovskis contract should be paid for by the Storm.

Head in the sand is to be a stickler for the rules rather than look at the situation. We are lending this player to the Storm, why should they pay him what we determine he is worth. Its only a loan.

Both clubs have determined the players to be of equal value.

Lots of ways to look at and rule on this but the NRL chose one, the only one that puts a stop to this revolutionary and game changing idea.

Fair enough and well said, but by sticking to the cap rule they have (as other have said) cut off the potential for future rorts.
I can understand them taking a conservative approach for this very reason. Both interested clubs had enough time to come up with work-arounds and obviously the NRL considered the cap as the bottom line.
The NRL are in a no win situation with this, they were going to cop criticism however they went, (and you can bet every club was watching this through a microscope) but they have drawn a line in the sand.
I tend to blame Storm for not coming up with a suitable internal work-around. Their cap, their problem.

Maybe we aren't giving the storm enough credit. Let's see if they get what they want eventually anyhow.

I've already stated elsewhere I don't think this is the NRL, more the NRL reacting to complaints from other clubs.

Can see the potential to rort this but surely two lower end contract players pose no real threat to the integrity of the game.

 

[supercoach]

It’s never over to the fat lady sings. Still time for the Storm to slice 16g off their cap. Get Cam to slice about 1% of his contract. Anyway till I hear Pascoe say it’s a dead deal I will live in hope, because a real no9 will make a massive difference to our season

 

[JC99]

Apparently we are still chasing Grant to come over for a season even if Momirovski can’t go to Storm. Somehow I don’t think Storm would agree to that though

 

[Tim Sheens]

Would the bunnies have been way over the cap if WT were not paying and including the vast majority of Farah's contract payment in their cap? Of course they would have and I cannot see any difference.


Its actually pretty easy to see the difference. The situation you quote, the Bunnies didnt swap a player with us. **If they did then both clubs would have to negotiate the amount of money paid to ensure that the cap was not exceeded**. In the case that you quote, it was ble to be be coordinated and negotiated such that it didnt exceed the cap.

To simplify it, Farah was owed $900K in his last year. Im pretty sure Tigers paid $ 300k and Rabbits paid $600K but what if $600 would put them over? Then Tigers would have to pay $350k to make it work. If it was a straight swap , this is not possible.

It is actually pretty straightforward.

It is indeed pretty straightforward and it shouldn't matter how many players are involved.

The bunnies played that year with a player earning some $950k, which if everything reported is remotely close, had WT paying paying $700k plus of that. If those sort of monies can be negotiated as to the relative value of each club to allow such a ridiculous disparity in the two cap amounts, why can't it be done with two players to sort out $16k?

 

[diedpretty]

Would the bunnies have been way over the cap if WT were not paying and including the vast majority of Farah's contract payment in their cap? Of course they would have and I cannot see any difference.

the bunnies weren;t over because both sides came to an agrreement on who would pay what that kept both sides under their prospective caps. This situation could have been the same except the idiots in Melbourne can't add up and would be over the cap under the proposed deal. I'm amazed that a team that could carry 2 sets of books and rort the NRL the way they did can't find a way to reduce their cap by 16k. And we think our club are amateurs???

 

[diedpretty]

Typical head in the and approach by the NRL. That said it might still work out ok for us.

I disagree entirely. For once the NRL is heads up looking at the issue squarely.
Heads in the sand would mean they turn a blind eye to a 'darling' team and let them get by with a breach. They haven't done that.
Unfortunately we miss out as a result but it is anything but head in the sand.


When this all started not one person thought that Momirovskis contract should be paid for by the Storm.

Head in the sand is to be a stickler for the rules rather than look at the situation. We are lending this player to the Storm, why should they pay him what we determine he is worth. Its only a loan.

Both clubs have determined the players to be of equal value.

Lots of ways to look at and rule on this but the NRL chose one, the only one that puts a stop to this revolutionary and game changing idea.

I think you're wrong. Momo's market value is what we are paying him. At the end of this year it might be different but for now its what his current contract value is. Same with Grant - his market value is his current contract amount. You can't just adjust the figures to fit a situation you want to happen.

 

[TYGA]

Is there a time restriction on the swap?
Couldn't we just wait another month - or however long it takes - to pay up the $16K for Momirovski? Give him time to heal with his injury also.

Or if I'm incorrect with my thinking. Can someone clarify the issue please?

Spot on that’s what’s happening. Grant gets released first we pay another 3 weeks of Momirovskis contract and he then fits under the salary cap of the Storm. It’s a risk for the Storm as there has to be trust WT will make it happen.

 

[diedpretty]

Is there a time restriction on the swap?
Couldn't we just wait another month - or however long it takes - to pay up the $16K for Momirovski? Give him time to heal with his injury also.

Or if I'm incorrect with my thinking. Can someone clarify the issue please?

Melbourne are also paying for Grant at the same time. In the time it takes us to pay Momo anoother 16k the storm will have paid Grant another lets say 8 k which still leaves them 8 k over. By the time they become cap compliant we will be a few rounds in to the comp.

 

[The_Patriot]

Typical head in the and approach by the NRL. That said it might still work out ok for us.

I disagree entirely. For once the NRL is heads up looking at the issue squarely.
Heads in the sand would mean they turn a blind eye to a 'darling' team and let them get by with a breach. They haven't done that.
Unfortunately we miss out as a result but it is anything but head in the sand.


When this all started not one person thought that Momirovskis contract should be paid for by the Storm.

Head in the sand is to be a stickler for the rules rather than look at the situation. We are lending this player to the Storm, why should they pay him what we determine he is worth. Its only a loan.

Both clubs have determined the players to be of equal value.

Lots of ways to look at and rule on this but the NRL chose one, the only one that puts a stop to this revolutionary and game changing idea.

I think you're wrong. Momo's market value is what we are paying him. At the end of this year it might be different but for now its what his current contract value is. Same with Grant - his market value is his current contract amount. You can't just adjust the figures to fit a situation you want to happen.

Yes but thats what we are paying him. We are willing to give him up for a player of lesser value. Thats our choice and should come off our cap. He is our player not a Storm player.