Cult
International Rep
Contributor
- Oct 17, 2013
- 12,840
- 14,848
I don't think he would. Apparently he hasn't even seen the responsesI hope you don’t take the fact that only a few people are responding to you as some kind of endorsement.
I don't think he would. Apparently he hasn't even seen the responsesI hope you don’t take the fact that only a few people are responding to you as some kind of endorsement.
He's easily one of the more set up players after he retires. He has bought, fixed up and sold numerous houses, making a shit load of money as a hobby. The house him and his wife designed was put on the market a few months ago and was in the top 5 listings in Australia.
Just because he's not interested in a job in the media doesn't mean he will struggle. He gets less applause because he is the first one announced without warning every week. Nobody is at their seats or even paying attention at that point. He's never booed where I sit, but I guess I don't sit anywhere near you.
I have been wondering (and I have little detail on either situation) but how is what Souths have done with Inglis different to what Wests wanted to do with Farah?
I think the only difference is Wests made it a part of the contract so that post playing portion was viewed as a negotiated severance payment.
Souths also told the NRL about it unlike the TigersRight, I see. But isn’t that basically what Souths have done with Inglis? Didn’t they say they have been using him in this role already and this was always the plan with him or something like that? On the surface it sounds pretty much the same thing doesn’t it? It seems similar anyway.
Right, I see. But isn’t that basically what Souths have done with Inglis? Didn’t they say they have been using him in this role already and this was always the plan with him or something like that? On the surface it sounds pretty much the same thing doesn’t it? It seems similar anyway.
I love that you emailed the NRL!Im not sure about what Souths have said tbh.
I read what I could on the cap when i suggested last week that I thought we could ' retire' Boyd the same way.
I also emailed the NRL and asked the question . The response was a club should not be encumbered if a player voluntarily retires.
It's a loophole for sure which is quickly closing .
It's to stop clubs from paying a $1 million player $100k this year and then $100k for 9 years after they retire.I don't see the issue with retiring players being taken off the cap. They aren't playing anymore, you're not getting their value as a player which is the whole point of the cap. If a club wants to pay them after they retire to sweeten the deal there's nothing stopping them doing that.
In other words, the NRL gave Souths the verbal ok and stupidly thought everyone would be like “yeah sweet, this is unfair but Greg is a legend so all good”. Now that people have asked for transparency they need to go through the motions to make it appear legit.
You think the guy Greenburg gave a character reference to in court gets special treatment?
It's to stop clubs from paying a $1 million player $100k this year and then $100k for 9 years after they retire.
What's stopping them just saying to a player "keep signing one-two year deals and we'll take care of you after you retire"?