Tigers should plea to nrl

[Pedro_m]

We got a salary cap exemption to play Brooks in his first match, so I think asking for players to be taken off the cap that don't play for our team is not unreasonable. Really the NRL should be looking after the salary cap as it's not that hard, have your top 25 players on a list and their annual amount next to them if the tally at the bottom is less than the cap it's a pass. The 2nd tier cap seems confusing and shouldn't be there, if a team needs to use it's 26th player the team is probably down the bottom of the ladder anyway.
Just my opinion

 

[pHyR3]

i think people here are really confusing what backloading is and what used to happen with our club (and may still be happening).

A backloaded deal simply says, we pay brooks 200k this year, 300k 2016, 500k in 2017\. keeping in mind the salary cap is also going up as should his worth/ability as a player.

what happened with players lik fifita, gibbs and beau ryan is we had a contract to pay them (for example) 200k in 2013 and 2014\. if in 2012 we decide no we don't want them, they look for another club. they found the sharks who lets say are prepared to pay 100k. The players MUST receive 200k from somewhere because they have been guarunteed that in the contract. this means we have to now pay 100k out of our cap + 100k will be paid by the sharks from their cap to give them 200k.

now, i dont know whether this is what happened with blair. If a player asks for a release then we don't have to pay them anything.

as for this 'deal' with the NRL. will never happen, simply ridiculous. can you imagine the outcry if we were allowed to breach the cap??? fans would go into meltdown here if it was revealed the sharks were allowed to have a 7 million dollar cap next year and the rest of the NRL get 6.5 million. its our own fault for not managing the cap properly. seems like there have been knock on effects, it should be better in a couple years..i hope.

You are right in your definition, problem is we did both these things.

Just because a player ask for a release does not mean you won't be paying for part of his contract. If Blair knew the position we were in (i.e desperate to create room in the cap) it would be him in a stronger position when negotiating a release. He could go to the ceo and state that he has found a club that is willing to sign him for next year and he will take the deal as long as the Wests Tigers top up his contract. In Blairs case I actually think the club told him he could look for a deal elsewhere which means we would have had to top up his contact anyway.

good point, however i dont know whether that would come under the cap. it might well do but potentially not as well.

 

[cochise]

i think people here are really confusing what backloading is and what used to happen with our club (and may still be happening).

A backloaded deal simply says, we pay brooks 200k this year, 300k 2016, 500k in 2017\. keeping in mind the salary cap is also going up as should his worth/ability as a player.

what happened with players lik fifita, gibbs and beau ryan is we had a contract to pay them (for example) 200k in 2013 and 2014\. if in 2012 we decide no we don't want them, they look for another club. they found the sharks who lets say are prepared to pay 100k. The players MUST receive 200k from somewhere because they have been guarunteed that in the contract. this means we have to now pay 100k out of our cap + 100k will be paid by the sharks from their cap to give them 200k.

now, i dont know whether this is what happened with blair. If a player asks for a release then we don't have to pay them anything.

as for this 'deal' with the NRL. will never happen, simply ridiculous. can you imagine the outcry if we were allowed to breach the cap??? fans would go into meltdown here if it was revealed the sharks were allowed to have a 7 million dollar cap next year and the rest of the NRL get 6.5 million. its our own fault for not managing the cap properly. seems like there have been knock on effects, it should be better in a couple years..i hope.

You are right in your definition, problem is we did both these things.

Just because a player ask for a release does not mean you won't be paying for part of his contract. If Blair knew the position we were in (i.e desperate to create room in the cap) it would be him in a stronger position when negotiating a release. He could go to the ceo and state that he has found a club that is willing to sign him for next year and he will take the deal as long as the Wests Tigers top up his contract. In Blairs case I actually think the club told him he could look for a deal elsewhere which means we would have had to top up his contact anyway.

good point, however i dont know whether that would come under the cap. it might well do but potentially not as well.

It most definately come under the cap. Kf we continue to top a players salary it gets included in our cap.