Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in National Rugby League read more

I used to enjoy reading Big League for the team announcements, and Rugby League Week magazine for the game analysis and stories. Unfortunately with the onset of digital media, those printed versions weren’t able to change to the new medium and now it’s all different. As you’ve said mate, it’s not reporting on what’s happening it’s trying to win clicks by saying outlandish things so they can charge more for ads.

Im sorry your friend had to go through such a hard time. I’m with you in trying to avoid certain media sources as they are toxic. Daily Telegraph and anything Murdoch owned is not worth the bytes it’s stored in.

posted in Contracts read more

@cochise said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@JD-Tiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@cochise said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@JD-Tiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@cochise said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@happy_tiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

So every club starts offering extra year contracts to near retired players (with TPA’s )
Gee that’s not going to get rorted by the clubs with more money and bigger chances of winning premierships
May as well shove the copper pipe and barbed wire up the WT’s clackers now and remove the copper pipe
It’s a full moon tonight isn’t it

So players aren’t allowed to retire when they have an injury they feel is too difficult to overcome? He has been assessed by NRL doctors and will take 2 years to overcome that injury, the Rabbits then approached the NRL and asked for permission to give him a job that will take 10 years to make the value of his contract. This is how it should work!

It wasn’t a new injury, it was an infection from an old injury he had surgery on. If it was a new injury then I could stomach that. But as usual, the NRL set the rules, then open a window where they can use their discretion. If it was a fair dinkum situation, there’d be no reason for a 10 year admin deal.

The NRL is so consistently inconsistent, you could set your watch by it (though no matter what time it is, they’d still say it’s different depending on what team they are dealing with).

I don’t care when his injury occurred, I don’t care if he has just decided he doesn’t want to play anymore. Once a player retires and forgoes his salary I don’t think a team should have to carry that on their cap!

I notice that no one here seems to mention the fact the Matulino didn’t announce his retirement until after the approval for the medical retirement was granted where Burgess retired irrespective of the outcome. To me that make Mats retirement look more suss than Burgess’, Mats gets the payout and Burgess doesn’t.

I’m actually happy both salaries have been removed from the respective caps, that is how it should be if a player no longer wishes to play!

Sam Burgess signed that last contract late 2018 with Souths, for dollars in the vicinity of near $1m a year, for four years, starting in 2020.

That contract influenced him staying with Souths, and not going to another club. Now Souths want out of that contract
only a month or so in. In reality even if he signed with another club back in 2018, starting in 2020, it doesn’t seem that he would have gotten there.

But this notion of offering players long term contracts late in their career, influences them to stay with the club when they could have gone elsewhere, and the fact that Souths now are allowed to change that deal to some made-up rubbish administration deal is incredibly unfair to every other club. We are still paying the penalty for offering Robbie a deal after he was leaving our club, as their reasoning was it influenced his deciding to leave (even though his contract with us was still paid out in full so their logic doesn’t add up there).

Souths have gained an advantage here in retaining Burgess, via a dodgy means that no other club is permitted. NRL have again made up special one-off rules to meet their inconsistent biased interests. Under this new V’landys, it just seems like more of the same old corrupt rubbish.

It is not Souths that want out of the deal? Burgess has retired and he retired irrespective of the NRL’s decision to count his money on the cap. Unlike us who waited for that decision before announcing Matulino’s retirement, I know what looks more suss to anyone not wearing black white and orange tinted glasses.

Your use of Farah’s case as an example of shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. The main problem in the Farah situation was that they did not disclose the role to the NRL, possibly hid it from the NRL according to various reports on the situation. Souths were open and clear with the NRL regarding both Burgess’ and Inglis’ roles after their retirements and sought approval for and assistance with setting up the deals. Why were we trying to hide it?

Disagree. It is not Souths that want out of the deal? Really? I’m sure they’d love to put his total money on their cap the next few years.

I would think it’s a good bet that WT didn’t announce Ben’s retirement as they were trying not to invoke the ire of the NRL again, saying nothing until they were sure what was going on.

posted in Contracts read more

In what position is he being considered in? Fullback? Winger? He’d probably want close to a $1m a season right? Surely not as a winger, and is it worth the risk to pay him that much to have a go at fullback, after 8 years away from the game when he was a winger anyway.

Or is the $1m a season I’m thinking too high, is the figure more like $500k. On that money, as a winger, if we couldn’t get JAC, then maybe make enquiries… but all in all I’m against it as I think the risk outweighs the potential reward - at any price.

posted in Contracts read more

@cochise said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@JD-Tiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@cochise said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@happy_tiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

So every club starts offering extra year contracts to near retired players (with TPA’s )
Gee that’s not going to get rorted by the clubs with more money and bigger chances of winning premierships
May as well shove the copper pipe and barbed wire up the WT’s clackers now and remove the copper pipe
It’s a full moon tonight isn’t it

So players aren’t allowed to retire when they have an injury they feel is too difficult to overcome? He has been assessed by NRL doctors and will take 2 years to overcome that injury, the Rabbits then approached the NRL and asked for permission to give him a job that will take 10 years to make the value of his contract. This is how it should work!

It wasn’t a new injury, it was an infection from an old injury he had surgery on. If it was a new injury then I could stomach that. But as usual, the NRL set the rules, then open a window where they can use their discretion. If it was a fair dinkum situation, there’d be no reason for a 10 year admin deal.

The NRL is so consistently inconsistent, you could set your watch by it (though no matter what time it is, they’d still say it’s different depending on what team they are dealing with).

I don’t care when his injury occurred, I don’t care if he has just decided he doesn’t want to play anymore. Once a player retires and forgoes his salary I don’t think a team should have to carry that on their cap!

I notice that no one here seems to mention the fact the Matulino didn’t announce his retirement until after the approval for the medical retirement was granted where Burgess retired irrespective of the outcome. To me that make Mats retirement look more suss than Burgess’, Mats gets the payout and Burgess doesn’t.

I’m actually happy both salaries have been removed from the respective caps, that is how it should be if a player no longer wishes to play!

Sam Burgess signed that last contract late 2018 with Souths, for dollars in the vicinity of near $1m a year, for four years, starting in 2020.

That contract influenced him staying with Souths, and not going to another club. Now Souths want out of that contract
only a month or so in. In reality even if he signed with another club back in 2018, starting in 2020, it doesn’t seem that he would have gotten there.

But this notion of offering players long term contracts late in their career, influences them to stay with the club when they could have gone elsewhere, and the fact that Souths now are allowed to change that deal to some made-up rubbish administration deal is incredibly unfair to every other club. We are still paying the penalty for offering Robbie a deal after he was leaving our club, as their reasoning was it influenced his deciding to leave (even though his contract with us was still paid out in full so their logic doesn’t add up there).

Souths have gained an advantage here in retaining Burgess, via a dodgy means that no other club is permitted. NRL have again made up special one-off rules to meet their inconsistent biased interests. Under this new V’landys, it just seems like more of the same old corrupt rubbish.

Edit: Apologies, this is the last I’ll say on this matter here.

posted in Contracts read more

@cochise said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@happy_tiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

So every club starts offering extra year contracts to near retired players (with TPA’s )
Gee that’s not going to get rorted by the clubs with more money and bigger chances of winning premierships
May as well shove the copper pipe and barbed wire up the WT’s clackers now and remove the copper pipe
It’s a full moon tonight isn’t it

So players aren’t allowed to retire when they have an injury they feel is too difficult to overcome? He has been assessed by NRL doctors and will take 2 years to overcome that injury, the Rabbits then approached the NRL and asked for permission to give him a job that will take 10 years to make the value of his contract. This is how it should work!

It wasn’t a new injury, it was an infection from an old injury he had surgery on. If it was a new injury then I could stomach that. But as usual, the NRL set the rules, then open a window where they can use their discretion. If it was a fair dinkum situation, there’d be no reason for a 10 year admin deal.

The NRL is so consistently inconsistent, you could set your watch by it (though no matter what time it is, they’d still say it’s different depending on what team they are dealing with).

posted in Contracts read more

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@hsvjones said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

It is a Joke but NRL will alway look after the fav clubs… E,g, Burgess decision so quick.

I don’t know how people say this, does everyone forget that the very same NRL cut the Rabbits from the comp for 2 years?

But suddenly Rabbits are in favour with NRL?

That was pre-Crowe, before they had money and influence, before they had James Packer in their corner. It’s the influence the NRL bows to.

posted in General Rugby League read more

@gallagher said in NRL introduce sweeping changes for 2020 season:

The 20/40 should be attempted on every occasion. You have a 40m sideline target where there is only 20m target from the 20m line to the tryline on 40/20.
As long as you don’t kick out on the full there really isn’t a deterrent.

Maybe. Typically not a lot of wingers and fullback can kick that well. Some fullbacks maybe, but not many wingers at all. back when we had Benji defending on the wing it would be perfect.

posted in Wests Tigers Discussion read more

@hsvjones said in Wests Tigers keen to take Matt Moylan off Cronulla’s books:

Moylan was knocked back by the Tigers because he wanted a 4 year deal and we were not prepared to offer that…
Very wise decision by the club but the media made out like we missed him…

What confused me was the reports that there was two meetings scheduled and we cancelled/didn’t show/withdrew from both of them? I would imagine you’d only schedule one meeting at a time, why book a second meeting after the first one was cancelled? Why would WT or Moylan bother?

posted in Contracts read more

@formerguest said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@JD-Tiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@TYGA said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

The Latrell signing is intentionally taking time as he is being paid by the Roosters since October so by the end of December it’s basically 1/4 of the seasons payments made. He’s not due back to training until January I read.
If a club signs and pays him 800k he is already paid 1/4 of his contract value by the Roosters and then the new contract.

His manager is smart whether it’s Souths, Titans, Tigers or others he has played everyone badly. The longer he takes the more he gets paid and the more options open up.

It’s very bad for his brand and probably not advisable long term but it will make sense.

So if a season is November 1 to October 31 (let’s just say for argument’s sake), then if a player signs on January 1, with 2 months already gone, surely the $1 million dollar a year rate would be for a full year, and a club would say well with 2 months already gone out of 12, it’s only 10/12 (or 5/6ths) of that rate you will actually get for the first year?? Why on earth would you pay* someone the full rate when they were not in your employment the full term?

Or is rugby league just like that?

Edit: Corrected a typo

The chooks would have already paid Mitchell his November monies and will be liable for any further payment until he is released. Same for WT if they had not released Matterson by 31 October.

The amount any new club signs a player for will be owed in full for that present season, even though only part of one.

But when you sign a player “mid-year” in like June, you are really only getting them for the remaining four months (or so) of that year, and there’s no way you’d pay them a full year 's salary for that 4 months. Surely whenever they start, the time left in the year gets considered?

I realise that usually when you sign a player mid year (like when we signed MBye for example), it was a package deal, x point whatever million dollars over however many years it was, so the total number for that first year may not be made publicised, but I think the example stands?

posted in Contracts read more

@TYGA said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

The Latrell signing is intentionally taking time as he is being paid by the Roosters since October so by the end of December it’s basically 1/4 of the seasons payments made. He’s not due back to training until January I read.
If a club signs and pays him 800k he is already paid 1/4 of his contract value by the Roosters and then the new contract.

His manager is smart whether it’s Souths, Titans, Tigers or others he has played everyone badly. The longer he takes the more he gets paid and the more options open up.

It’s very bad for his brand and probably not advisable long term but it will make sense.

So if a season is November 1 to October 31 (let’s just say for argument’s sake), then if a player signs on January 1, with 2 months already gone, surely the $1 million dollar a year rate would be for a full year, and a club would say well with 2 months already gone out of 12, it’s only 10/12 (or 5/6ths) of that rate you will actually get for the first year?? Why on earth would you pay* someone the full rate when they were not in your employment the full term?

Or is rugby league just like that?

Edit: Corrected a typo