[Rumour] The Hunt for Karmichael's return to Broncos.

[Mister Wright]

What has happened to the NRL's supposed war chest to buy the best talent and the biggest names around?

 

[rhino]

problem is price but he is a leader and a talker and I think we need that a little.

 

[Morkel]

What has happened to the NRL's supposed war chest to buy the best talent and the biggest names around?

It only applies to Sydney-based NRL teams...

 

[austin71]

No Deal had been done yet according to Hunts manager

 

[Splinter]

What has happened to the NRL's supposed war chest to buy the best talent and the biggest names around?

It is only there to get Folau back

 

[broncos4life]

It is only there to get Folau back

And Kurtley Beale to the dogs

 

[subsbligh]

Money wasn't the issue for the Folau deal the first time around - salary cap auditor technicality was. In fact the issue was the Eels weren't paying him enough.

Why someone didn't have the foresight to make a concession for the biggest name player in the world across two rugby codes is beyond me.

 

[Morkel]

Money wasn't the issue for the Folau deal the first time around - salary cap auditor technicality was. In fact the issue was the Eels weren't paying him enough.

Why someone didn't have the foresight to make a concession for the biggest name player in the world across two rugby codes is beyond me.

I fully supported the NRL's stance and still do. It wasn't that they weren't paying him enough, it was that they were too heavily back ending the contract. He was still, on average, going to be paid a decent amount ($500-$600k IIRC) per season, but they wanted it to only be a small amount for the first year, and then increasing so the last year was a massive amount. The NRL had just been bitten by the Dragons doing exactly that with Gasnier, except Gaz skipped out after his second year, therefore using a fraction of the cap space that a player of his standing (and true contract value) should demand.

It is a tricky one, as in, if two parties agree on a value, that's what the cap value should be. But the waters get muddied when the contract also includes a wad of unsecured 3rd party payments, which, as we know, don't count towards the cap, but have been shown in the past as a cap-dodge of sorts. For example, Souths tried to sign Inglis for $190k a season. The NRL looked at his contract and it was actually about $650k, but Souths had put all of these 3rd party deals in there. The majority of these deals though were for sponsors local to Souths, and it was decided that these were not legit 3rd party, independent deals, as they relied on Inglis being at Souths. Therefore, it was deemed that they needed to be included in the cap, because Inglis' playing for Souths is why he was being paid that money. In the end, $590k was deemed cap-inclusive. Applying that to the Eel's offer to Folau, it was similarly deemed that the average yearly value of his contract, plus the 3rd party deals, suggested his market value was actually significantly more than what the Eels had planned to include in the cap, and knocked it back.

You're seeing right now the problems with heavily back-ending deals at the Sea Eagles. And recently with the Panthers. It's actually a stupid way of doing things unless it's only slightly back-ended (as it can work around a star team-mate who is due to retire etc, freeing more cap space in later years), but it's too tempting for clubs to go for a quick fix. Which is why the NRL are reluctant to approve those deals. When you add that to the fact that, like in Folau's case, the player is really going to be paid 3 or 4 times the "cap" value, it's a dodge that the NRL have cracked down on.

 

[Porthoz]

Why? He has no playmaking skills whatsoever, as evidenced by every single game he ever played in the halves. He is not and never will be even a decent playmaker.

I think you may be confused. We are talking about Khunt, not Hoggman! :aetsch:

He may not be in the Locky or even Benny Hunt's class, but assuming he could return to a similar form to when he left us, he sure as hell would be a better 5/8 than half the comp's playmakers imo.

 

[GCBRONCO]

So many ex Broncos does that make for the Reds over the years?

 

[Big Pete]

Let's see...

Rod Davies
Berrick Barnes
Wendell Sailor
Willie Carne

Most of the ex-Broncos head elsewhere.

Hegarty plays for Rebels, Mogg and Ryan for Brumbies, Thorn Crusaders, Tuqiri Tahs, Tupou Force.

 

[Morkel]

You'd have to think that Bennett's return to the Broncos would plant at least a tiny seed in Karmichael's widdle brain...

 

[subsbligh]

I fully supported the NRL's stance and still do. It wasn't that they weren't paying him enough, it was that they were too heavily back ending the contract. He was still, on average, going to be paid a decent amount ($500-$600k IIRC) per season, but they wanted it to only be a small amount for the first year, and then increasing so the last year was a massive amount. The NRL had just been bitten by the Dragons doing exactly that with Gasnier, except Gaz skipped out after his second year, therefore using a fraction of the cap space that a player of his standing (and true contract value) should demand.

It is a tricky one, as in, if two parties agree on a value, that's what the cap value should be. But the waters get muddied when the contract also includes a wad of unsecured 3rd party payments, which, as we know, don't count towards the cap, but have been shown in the past as a cap-dodge of sorts. For example, Souths tried to sign Inglis for $190k a season. The NRL looked at his contract and it was actually about $650k, but Souths had put all of these 3rd party deals in there. The majority of these deals though were for sponsors local to Souths, and it was decided that these were not legit 3rd party, independent deals, as they relied on Inglis being at Souths. Therefore, it was deemed that they needed to be included in the cap, because Inglis' playing for Souths is why he was being paid that money. In the end, $590k was deemed cap-inclusive. Applying that to the Eel's offer to Folau, it was similarly deemed that the average yearly value of his contract, plus the 3rd party deals, suggested his market value was actually significantly more than what the Eels had planned to include in the cap, and knocked it back.

You're seeing right now the problems with heavily back-ending deals at the Sea Eagles. And recently with the Panthers. It's actually a stupid way of doing things unless it's only slightly back-ended (as it can work around a star team-mate who is due to retire etc, freeing more cap space in later years), but it's too tempting for clubs to go for a quick fix. Which is why the NRL are reluctant to approve those deals. When you add that to the fact that, like in Folau's case, the player is really going to be paid 3 or 4 times the "cap" value, it's a dodge that the NRL have cracked down on.

There's three separate issues there Morks:

1. Player third party deals - greyness of identification/classification - are they only getting this contract because of their contract with the club, or did they independently source the income themselves?
2. Player third party deals - player income - disclosure rules state all income must be disclosed to salary cap auditor.
3. Salary cap - back ending deals.

In relation to 1 and 2, it's an absolute minefield. Under the current rules, a player is supposed to report any income including, for example, money they earn on investment properties or unrelated businesses (e.g. Lockyer and his coffee shops). I highly doubt there is 100% or even close to 50% compliance in this aspect.

This is where the clubs and players work the grey to their advantage and things come unstuck. As an aside, this is why people who critise salary cap breaches as moral corruption of the highest order need be mindful (glass houses and all that).

Inglis has a deal with ASICS. Who determines if that is a reportable third party deal, and if so, to what extent? He'd have that deal whether he plays for Souths, Melbourne or in fact in another code or country because he is Greg Inglis. So does the salary cap auditor have the discretion to determine what is and isn't a reportable deal? How frequently does the auditor role change? Who's keeping an eye on the auditor? Are the decisions published to all clubs and players/agents? If not, why not? Is there a better code of conduct that the general public aren't aware of?

In relation to back ending deals - so what the Gasnier didn't get what he was apparently worth? He probably would have played for $1, but only for St George. There has to be a careful look at the intention of those rules - undervalued salaries might, but not always, indicate some degree of unlawfulness (that the club and player are hiding unlawful third party payments), and how can an auditor possibly value the subjective value of Gasnier's loyalty to St George?

It's a crock of shit, an overcomplicated system dodged by shivs (player agents), administered poorly (auditors) and only ever hurts the players and the fans when punished.

 

[subsbligh]

You'd have to think that Bennett's return to the Broncos would plant at least a tiny seed in Karmichael's widdle brain...

I thought he was one burnt by Bennett's "take a pay cut for this deal to keep this family/club/together/let's let the music play through us together bullshit and I will look after you in 3 years time" promises (like Civo)?

 

[Foordy]

Inglis has a deal with ASICS. Who determines if that is a reportable third party deal, and if so, to what extent? He'd have that deal whether he plays for Souths, Melbourne or in fact in another code or country because he is Greg Inglis. So does the salary cap auditor have the discretion to determine what is and isn't a reportable deal? How frequently does the auditor role change? Who's keeping an eye on the auditor? Are the decisions published to all clubs and players/agents? If not, why not? Is there a better code of conduct that the general public aren't aware of?

all TPAs must be reported to the NRL ... its just that in your example about Inglis, it wouldn't be counted under the cap ...

 

[Morkel]

There's three separate issues there Morks:

1. Player third party deals - greyness of identification/classification - are they only getting this contract because of their contract with the club, or did they independently source the income themselves?
2. Player third party deals - player income - disclosure rules state all income must be disclosed to salary cap auditor.
3. Salary cap - back ending deals.

In relation to 1 and 2, it's an absolute minefield. Under the current rules, a player is supposed to report any income including, for example, money they earn on investment properties or unrelated businesses (e.g. Lockyer and his coffee shops). I highly doubt there is 100% or even close to 50% compliance in this aspect.

This is where the clubs and players work the grey to their advantage and things come unstuck. As an aside, this is why people who critise salary cap breaches as moral corruption of the highest order need be mindful (glass houses and all that).

Inglis has a deal with ASICS. Who determines if that is a reportable third party deal, and if so, to what extent? He'd have that deal whether he plays for Souths, Melbourne or in fact in another code or country because he is Greg Inglis. So does the salary cap auditor have the discretion to determine what is and isn't a reportable deal? How frequently does the auditor role change? Who's keeping an eye on the auditor? Are the decisions published to all clubs and players/agents? If not, why not? Is there a better code of conduct that the general public aren't aware of?

In relation to back ending deals - so what the Gasnier didn't get what he was apparently worth? He probably would have played for $1, but only for St George. There has to be a careful look at the intention of those rules - undervalued salaries might, but not always, indicate some degree of unlawfulness (that the club and player are hiding unlawful third party payments), and how can an auditor possibly value the subjective value of Gasnier's loyalty to St George?

It's a crock of shit, an overcomplicated system dodged by shivs (player agents), administered poorly (auditors) and only ever hurts the players and the fans when punished.

Yep, all of that. There is a massive amount of discretionary powers given to the auditor, but in saying that you'd have to think that he is still answerable to someone, and would have to be able to justify his decisions. I think the Inglis case is a good example of why all income streams must be reported - in that there were clearly deals that that relied on him being at Souths, for example ambassador roles for businesses or groups that are local to their region etc, that were right to be included in their cap. A local BMW dealership? Please.

Technically, external 3rd party deals have to be sourced by the manager, not the club, but we all know that managers put that responsibility back on the club and say "what can you offer us", and then once it's arranged it just goes through the manager and the club wipes their metaphoric hands of it.

I agree that Gasnier's situation wasn't as big as it was made out to be - in that he was only ever going to play for the Dragons and therefore what he'd technically demand from any other club is irrelevant. I just think it was a red flag to the NRL, for them to be aware that it could be easily exploited.

I thought he was one burnt by Bennett's "take a pay cut for this deal to keep this family/club/together/let's let the music play through us together bullshit and I will look after you in 3 years time" promises (like Civo)?

I actually think it was the other way around. My take on it was that they had squirreled a decent amount of cap space away for Hunt, who was bound to command big $$, and that's why they didn't have the money to upgrade Petero. Which is why Hunt's defection hit so hard, because they were juggling everything to retain him. If they'd known he'd be lost to the club, I have no doubt Petero would never have left and he'd be getting paid what he was worth.

 

[broncos4life]

Yep, all of that. There is a massive amount of discretionary powers given to the auditor, but in saying that you'd have to think that he is still answerable to someone, and would have to be able to justify his decisions. I think the Inglis case is a good example of why all income streams must be reported - in that there were clearly deals that that relied on him being at Souths, for example ambassador roles for businesses or groups that are local to their region etc, that were right to be included in their cap. A local BMW dealership? Please.

Technically, external 3rd party deals have to be sourced by the manager, not the club, but we all know that managers put that responsibility back on the club and say "what can you offer us", and then once it's arranged it just goes through the manager and the club wipes their metaphoric hands of it.

I agree that Gasnier's situation wasn't as big as it was made out to be - in that he was only ever going to play for the Dragons and therefore what he'd technically demand from any other club is irrelevant. I just think it was a red flag to the NRL, for them to be aware that it could be easily exploited.



I actually think it was the other way around. My take on it was that they had squirreled a decent amount of cap space away for Hunt, who was bound to command big $$, and that's why they didn't have the money to upgrade Petero. Which is why Hunt's defection hit so hard, because they were juggling everything to retain him. If they'd known he'd be lost to the club, I have no doubt Petero would never have left and he'd be getting paid what he was worth.

Correct

 

[Porthoz]

Also agree with Morkel. Khunt definitely held us hostage, cost us players (Civo being the pinnacle), and knew well and truly he would be leaving, but wanted to make sure he didn't miss Origin.

That's why I was never as pissed about the Folau defection. At least he didn't keep us on a string, announced it timely at the risk of being banned from SOO, never really denied it was about the cash on offer, and was never at ease with the whole thing.