VOTE Should the club roll the dice on Tevita Pangai Jr again?

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

Badel:

1. NRL’s salary-cap auditor would figure a nominal value.
2. Most likely $750,000 - most recent contract
3. Nominal figure divided by 27 (rounds in regular season) = $27,777 per game.
4. Have until June 30.
5. 10 regular-season games = $277,000 in the salary cap.
6. Broncos are rumoured to have that.

I'm not sure about that math. That salary is not just for playing games. It's preseason, etc. Do they get paid separately in the finals: how does that work? Whatever the case, that's probably around the ball park.

Besides all this: do we really want some lazy **** who's skipped pre-season training in the blazing sun to lumber in and clean up nearly 30k a week for coming off the bench for 15 minutes?

Why the **** would his value be $750,000 simply because he got paid that last time?
The club he was at didn't want to keep him AT that value. Only nrl idiots or media would think that makes sense. Market value literally means what people would pay for someone/something if it was put out on the market. What club would pay that much for him at the moment? Zero!

 

[theshed]

Why the **** would his value be $750,000 simply because he got paid that last time?
The club he was at didn't want to keep him AT that value. Only nrl idiots or media would think that makes sense. Market value literally means what people would pay for someone/something if it was put out on the market. What club would pay that much for him at the moment? Zero!

Yeah if this was the case the Dolphins would be forced to pay Milf a million bucks

 

[McHunt]

Its a weak argument.

He left his contract of his own accord. Hes earning big cash from boxing. He has attitude and performance problems. Last chance saloon. Not in main or regular NRL squad if he signs. could continue - but there's no chance they enforce a 750k value on him.

He broke his contract, and the Bulldogs agreed, for some completely contrived reason.

The whole caper is suss as ****, and the Broncos can do without getting dragged into it.

 

[McHunt]

Yeah if this was the case the Dolphins would be forced to pay Milf a million bucks

Milf's contract ended.

 

[Xzei]

Badel:

1. NRL’s salary-cap auditor would figure a nominal value.
2. Most likely $750,000 - most recent contract
3. Nominal figure divided by 27 (rounds in regular season) = $27,777 per game.
4. Have until June 30.
5. 10 regular-season games = $277,000 in the salary cap.
6. Broncos are rumoured to have that.

I'm not sure about that math. That salary is not just for playing games. It's preseason, etc. Do they get paid separately in the finals: how does that work? Whatever the case, that's probably around the ball park.

Besides all this: do we really want some lazy **** who's skipped pre-season training in the blazing sun to lumber in and clean up nearly 30k a week for coming off the bench for 15 minutes?

Think its week by week nov 1 to oct 31 the following year

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

Milf's contract ended.

So what? Tpj and the bulldogs came to resolution to end the contract. It doesn't matter how much wasn't paid.

My guess is this if this part is true is it is some backwards thinking nrl idea of discouraging players to take "illegal" pay outs. It's like charging someone for buying stolen property without actually knowing if it's stolen, investigate the club that may or may not have paid them outside the cap ffs. Lazy.


And ps...

I do not want him at the broncos. There's no world where I can see this being a positive outside of him playing 3 years at souths-Logan and taking minimum wage whilst focusing on defence and a change of mind set, and even then we'd have more important ppl to spend ANY extra money on re-signing or signing. No positive to it...

 

[007]

He broke his contract, and the Bulldogs agreed, for some completely contrived reason.

The whole caper is suss as ****, and the Broncos can do without getting dragged into it.

Because he wasn't performing in multiple areas. His own PR on exit was an absolute train wreck. There's nothing suss. Dogs were pissed with him, he didn't perform, he saw an easier out and pulled the pin. Dogs were happy because they just saved 685K per season.

He didn't get a pay out and the contract was clean cut.

 

[Sproj]

He didn't get a pay out

I refuse to believe this, it just doesn’t happen this way ever.

 

[Galah]

I’m so conflicted.

 

[1910]

It’s TPJ he’s likely to play four games for Souths and be off again on his next adventure.

 

[theshed]

If you’re gonna sign TPJ, then this is by far the only smart way to do it

 

[Fozz]

Should the club roll the dice on TPJ? No.

Also: https://www.gamblinghelponline.org.au/

 

[McHunt]

So what? Tpj and the bulldogs came to resolution to end the contract. It doesn't matter how much wasn't paid.

My guess is this if this part is true is it is some backwards thinking nrl idea of discouraging players to take "illegal" pay outs. It's like charging someone for buying stolen property without actually knowing if it's stolen, investigate the club that may or may not have paid them outside the cap ffs. Lazy.


And ps...

I do not want him at the broncos. There's no world where I can see this being a positive outside of him playing 3 years at souths-Logan and taking minimum wage whilst focusing on defence and a change of mind set, and even then we'd have more important ppl to spend ANY extra money on re-signing or signing. No positive to it...

It appears to work like this: if you sign a contract for three years, and seek to break that contract and join another club, the value of that contract continues for the terms of that contract, the full three years.

I'm guessing the reason for that is to dissuade players (eg Payne Haas) signing for unders, trying to break the contract and joining another club for more money. It also cuts the other way. Like a guarantee. If you want to sign a player who's under contract, he has to keep getting the same pay. That's why we had to subsidize players like Lodge.

Tevita and the Bulldogs concocted a bullshit story where they were able justify him "retiring." As far as we were told it was a mutual agreement, the contract was ripped up, and everyone walked away grinning. The NRL doesn't see it that way. Tevita is still tied up for the length of that contract. He made an agreement with them as well. They can't force him to play, but they can force the monetary terms he agreed to. If he wants to "unretire" he plays for the price the Bulldogs put on his head for that term. If anyone else will pay it. No more, no less.

 

[Sproj]

It appears to work like this: if you sign a contract for three years, and seek to break that contract and join another club, the value of that contract continues for the terms of that contract, the full three years.

I'm guessing the reason for that is to dissuade players (eg Payne Haas) signing for unders, trying to break the contract and joining another club for more money. It also cuts the other way. Like a guarantee. If you want to sign a player who's under contract, he has to keep getting the same pay. That's why we had to subsidize players like Lodge.

Tevita and the Bulldogs concocted a bullshit story where they were able justify him "retiring." As far as we were told it was a mutual agreement, the contract was ripped up, and everyone walked away grinning. The NRL doesn't see it that way. Tevita is still tied up for the length of that contract. He made an agreement with them as well. They can't force him to play, but they can force the monetary terms he agreed to. If he wants to "unretire" he plays for the price the Bulldogs put on his head for that term. If anyone else will pay it. No more, no less.

I actually agree with a lot of this view but I would also caveat that if he does unretire, either he goes back to the Dogs or if they don't want him, they subsidise the difference to whatever the new club wants to pay, basically if he unretires and had an existing contract, he just becomes under the terms of the old contract again with the club he signed with. It would close this loop hole quick smart.

And while I HATE the mid-season transfer system and hope it is removed yesterday, I think we should take advantage of it like everyone else does until it is.

 

[McHunt]

I actually agree with a lot of this view but I would also caveat that if he does unretire, either he goes back to the Dogs or if they don't want him, they subsidise the difference to whatever the new club wants to pay, basically if he unretires and had an existing contract, he just becomes under the terms of the old contract again with the club he signed with. It would close this loop hole quick smart.

And while I HATE the mid-season transfer system and hope it is removed yesterday, I think we should take advantage of it like everyone else does until it is.

Yes, he's not worth his nominal value/number of regular games - if that's really the calculation. The Bulldogs overpaid for him on potential, which he never delivers. Plus he hasn't done a pre-season with anyone.

I guess it depends how we're travelling mid season, injuries etc.

 

[Xzei]

Hope the nrl keep this in mind when manu comes back mid season from japanese rugby,to the chickens for the cost of a size 18

 

[McHunt]

Hope the nrl keep this in mind when manu comes back mid season from japanese rugby,to the chickens for the cost of a size 18

Manu is headed to French Rugby at the conclusion of his contract. Unless he leaves prematurely, this won't apply to him. It's the same situation Herbie was in last year. Herbie won the Dally M in his position last season, so it's fair to say he didn't piss us around or vice versa.

 

[Xzei]

Manu is headed to French Rugby at the conclusion of his contract. Unless he leaves prematurely, this won't apply to him. It's the same situation Herbie was in last year. Herbie won the Dally M in his position last season, so it's fair to say he didn't piss us around or vice versa.

Its season ends in june right? Prolly still applies to him