Broncos withdraw their two year offer to Greg Inglis

[ningnangnong]

MAROONS coach Mal Meninga has criticised Greg Inglis for the "underhanded dealing" that saw the Queensland Origin star controversially renege on his $1 million deal at the Broncos to join South Sydney.

As the NRL continues to probe the validity of Inglis's Rabbitohs deal, Meninga expressed his disappointment in the contractual circus and the manner in which the former Storm centre has handled the "messy" affair.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/q ... 5969217455

On ya, Mal.

 

[Flutterby]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 18srs.html

My favourite bit:

When Mark Gasnier scored a try during the NRL semi-final series, the Broncos' then chief executive, Bruno Cullen, sent a text message to Schubert which read: ''Good to see the salary cap working.''

Go Bruno [icon_lol1. [eusa_clap.gi

But in all seriousness as the article points out there are now four clubs (assuming Souths deal in it's current form is rejected) who have tried and failed to find a way to fit one of our games current great players under the cap and therefore in the NRL and they can't do it; another indicator the cap needs a massive over-haul or to go completely. Or another thought - the players need to reign in their greed and lower their salary expectations.

 

[Je$ter]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 18srs.html

My favourite bit:

When Mark Gasnier scored a try during the NRL semi-final series, the Broncos' then chief executive, Bruno Cullen, sent a text message to Schubert which read: ''Good to see the salary cap working.''

Go Bruno [icon_lol1. [eusa_clap.gi

But in all seriousness as the article points out there are now four clubs (assuming Souths deal in it's current form is rejected) who have tried and failed to find a way to fit one of our games current great players under the cap and therefore in the NRL and they can't do it; another indicator the cap needs a massive over-haul or to go completely. Or another thought - the players need to reign in their greed and lower their salary expectations.

I think it is a case of the former. Clubs are willing to give this money to players but the cap/NRL won't allow it? Restraint of trade if ever I've seen it. It would be an absolute farce if GI had to leave the code because no clubs could fit him in under the cap. The situation is farcical enough as is but it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

 

[Flutterby]

True that Jester, true that

 

[Nashy]

How does the NRL get around the whole Restraint of Trade situation?

Is it because all clubs agree, or what? What I think is bullshit is not that we could lose a player, but the fact there are 16 business' in the NRL. Being a business, they are in competition with each other, just as if it was Telstra or Optus.

Why should the better business', with better business people in control, have to be forced to be at the same level as the clubs that are poorly run?

 

[Flutterby]

Yes Nashy, it's because the clubs and the RLPA agree to have the salary cap. As I said in an earlier post if one club or the RLPA chose to challenge it in the courts (as Souths are rumoured to be considering should the Inglis deal not be accepted) then they would win - the cap would be ruled Restraint of Trade and be thrown out. I guess they have always considered that it is actually better for the competition and clubs overall to have a more even competition and clubs not going out of business - however the more topline players we lose the more the clubs/RLPA may change it's tune on this.

It's the same situation in the AFL with their Player Draft and Salary Cap - they only exist because the parties agree not to challenge it legally.

You may or may not remember a number of years back the RL was considering introducing a draft but the RLPA filed pre-emptive court action and had it ruled as Restraint of Trade so it never came into being.

 

[Big Pete]

Great post Flutter.

Obviously there is no ideal system, as a fan I'd love to see the NRL entice players to remain one club players by introducing the right systems within the cap to allow clubs to hold onto their players. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say as a fan I like to associate clubs with their players eg. Brisbane - Lockyer/Hodges/Thaiday/Parker as opposed to the Bulldogs which resembles a transit lounge.

 

[Nashy]

Loyalty cap rules come into play next year I believe.

 

[Big Pete]

Really? Where did you hear that Nash?

Would be good if it's true, as much as the Storm deserved to be punished for their methods I sympathised for them being punished for unearthing great players and getting the best out of shrubs and rejects from other clubs.

 

[Flutterby]

Yep I really do hope a loyalty ruling does come in to being - though history tells me the NRL will not implement it fully with rules around limiting the number of players you can consider "loyal", thereby forcing players who would normally remain one clubmen out instead of allowing clubs to keep all of the players they develop (basically not a LOT will change).

I think it has been a tough one to get through as there are some clubs that simply don't do any development work in order to un-earth and develop players, so they have blocked it along the way.

 

[Flutterby]

Back to Inglis - news this morning had footage of him back at training with Souths. Then it suddenly hit me - who is actually paying him at the moment? He still is contracted to the Storm, but he's not training with them so I doubt they'd be wanting to be paying him; he's training with Souths, but doesn't yet have a contract with them so legally I guess they don't have to be paying him. I'm going to assume Souths are actually paying him - but if the contract doesn't go through and they cut him loose will they get that money back? If not, what they have paid him so far - will that amount they have paid him still come off their salary cap? Given Storm still have his contract, is his current salary portion still being counted under their salary cap (whether they are or aren't actually paying him)?

 

[Nashy]

I hope he's not getting paid. At all.

About the loyalty. It was announced after the Storm fallout.

 

[Kaz]

Flutterby

He hasn't been officially released by the Storm. (so he is still a Storm player)

 

[Flutterby]

Flutterby

He hasn't been officially released by the Storm. (so he is still a Storm player)

Exactly my point so they are still his employer - but I doubt they would be paying him, seeing as he is (very publicly) training with the bunnies.

 

[Big Pete]

Cheers Nashy, I hope it does come into fruition and players are encouraged to remain as one club players. Also I hope it weeds out places like Manly and Cronulla who import excessively. The only clubs that should be allowed to import a mass amount of players are Expansion clubs, and only for a 5-10 year period, the rest should be discouraged.

 

[Mister Wright]

The NRL needs a cap, maybe a point cap would work better than a salary cap. When a player is off contract or entering the league for the first time (from Toyota Cup or ESL) they are awarded a point rating. Clubs could then fit players under the point cap, but can pay the players as much as they can get for them.

For ex:

A club is allocated 100 points to fit their 25 players in. Graduating Toyota Cup players might be valued at 1 or 2 points and marquee players or rep players might be valued at 10. A team like the Broncos could then have Lockyer who would be a 10 point player, but could earn well over a million dollars and not have it affect the team. Therefore it would be impossible to stack your team with marquee players, because if you had 5 of them they would take up half of your points cap.

I'm not advocating 100 points for 25 players, I the points to explain my point. I think a well thought out points system could work and players could earn what they are worth.

 

[Coxy]

The NRL needs a cap, maybe a point cap would work better than a salary cap. When a player is off contract or entering the league for the first time (from Toyota Cup or ESL) they are awarded a point rating. Clubs could then fit players under the point cap, but can pay the players as much as they can get for them.

For ex:

A club is allocated 100 points to fit their 25 players in. Graduating Toyota Cup players might be valued at 1 or 2 points and marquee players or rep players might be valued at 10. A team like the Broncos could then have Lockyer who would be a 10 point player, but could earn well over a million dollars and not have it affect the team. Therefore it would be impossible to stack your team with marquee players, because if you had 5 of them they would take up half of your points cap.

I'm not advocating 100 points for 25 players, I the points to explain my point. I think a well thought out points system could work and players could earn what they are worth.

Still disadvantages the poorer clubs.

 

[Nashy]

**** the poor clubs. If they were any other mismanaged business, they wouldn't survive.