"Storm Cloud" book details Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal

[Ari Gold]

If any club needed a handout to help their performance it's Parra. But why should they be allowed to break the rules just because they're incompetent fools? They would likely have had every legit opportunity to get Folau under their cap if they weren't paying Sandow $550k, Lussick $450k, and by all reports, paying a non-player (Hoppa) out of their 2013 cap just to get him to agree to a future deal. If it was Manly or the Rooters attempting to sign Folau for less than $250k under the cap then everyone would be screaming blue murder.

I'm not critical of the NRL for not helping Parra bend the rules - I'm critical because they put the rule in place to begin with.

Israel Folau was willing to play in the NRL for what frankly wasn't a lot of money, and he was willing to do it with the world's shittest team ever. To which the NRL said:

NRL: No you can't play in our game and be awesome and attract fans to our code and promote our sport for so little money, we demand you be paid x amount more.
ISRAEL: But no team can afford to pay me that
NRL: Then go somewhere else
WALLABIES: Helllllooooo Israel.

If the NRL were a person it'd have been institutionalized by now for cutting itself. And I for one could not give a **** if Manly or the Roosters tried to sign Folau for a cheeseburger. As long as they don't pay him outside the cap and are offering him an environment that makes him willing to play for said cheeseburger, then fantastic.

 

[Nashy]

So tell me where in any of those articles is there a claim that he's making the numbers up as he goes along? The clubs might be pissed off that they're not allowed to fudge the cap figures, but even they haven't even claimed that Schubert is setting arbitrary values. Simply, he is assessing the whole package that's being submitted for approval, looks at the value of each component, and declares what should and what shouldn't be included in the cap. There has not been one single instance of him suggesting that a player is not getting paid enough, that the club needs to pay him at least X amount for it to be fair to a market value, and that to pay him less than that would be cheating the cap. On the contrary. As I said, these 'packages', in these examples are in the $600k - $700k range. All he's ever done is say that this is the amount that needs to be included in the cap. Expecting an auditor to believe that Folau was willing to play for less money that a typical second-year winger, and expecting that to be allowed under the cap, is stupidity of the highest order. The fact that his deal was worth $700k proves it was a sham.

I don't know what parts of AP's posts you're reading or skipping over, but it is well known that elite players in this competition have a value set by the NRL. It's to stop fuckwits like Wayne Bennett and Mark Gasnier being fucking retards.

 

[Anonymous person]

Simply, he is assessing the whole package that's being submitted for approval, looks at the value of each component, and declares what should and what shouldn't be included in the cap.

no hes not! he is saying, without ANY offer being tabled, that folaus base contract must be at least $350k-$400k. if parramatta come to him with a $300k base + $400k of third party deals then he will not accept it. he is valuing folau at $350k-$400k minimum.

FFS this is ridiculous that youre still trying to spin this lol.

 

[Morkel]

I don't know what parts of AP's posts you're reading or skipping over, but it is well known that elite players in this competition have a value set by the NRL. It's to stop ****wits like Wayne Bennett and Mark Gasnier being ****ing retards.

And I'm saying that the value they're setting is being determined by whatever contract they're putting in for scrutiny. It's not a fictitious number, it's based on Real Maths & Accounting. They're trying to argue that the value being set by the NRL is 1) Made up, and 2) Unfair. It's neither.

 

[Morkel]

no hes not! he is saying, without ANY offer being tabled, that folaus base contract must be at least $350k-$400k. if parramatta come to him with a $300k base + $400k of third party deals then he will not accept it. he is valuing folau at $350k-$400k minimum.

FFS this is ridiculous that youre still trying to spin this lol.

BS. They'd submitted an offer to the NRL. It was after it was perused that it was declined.

 

[Ari Gold]

And I'm saying that the value they're setting is being determined by whatever contract they're putting in for scrutiny. It's not a fictitious number, it's based on Real Maths & Accounting. They're trying to argue that the value being set by the NRL is 1) Made up, and 2) Unfair. It's neither.

Unless the NRL has access to the other offers that Folau has received, it IS made up. Player worth is how much people are willing to pay a player.

Also, it IS Unfair. And I cannot repeat this enough.

Shaun Johnson is on 200k right now. He's worth WAY more than that, but you don't see the NRL upping what he counts against the Warriors salary cap right now.

Furthermore, as pointed out, Darcy Lussick is on 450k. No way is he worth even half that. Should the Eels therefore be allowed to pay him that but only have him count as $5 against the cap because that's his true market value?

NRL assigning minimum player values is total, complete, utter bullshit and is extremely damaging to the game.

/rant

 

[subsbligh]

I read: NRL Salary Cap - NRL.com

Can someone explain to me where that gives the auditor power to nominate values? Or is it implied - how?

 

[Anonymous person]

And I'm saying that the value they're setting is being determined by whatever contract they're putting in for scrutiny. It's not a fictitious number, it's based on Real Maths & Accounting. They're trying to argue that the value being set by the NRL is 1) Made up, and 2) Unfair. It's neither.

lol you just dont get it.

if parramatta table a deal that is $250k/year for folau the NRL will say "No, his market value is $350k+". it has NOTHING to do with what hes currently being paid. it has NOTHING to do with what parramatta are currently offering him. it is a number that the NRL have determined he is worth per year based on his standing in the game and performance.

lets look at a hypothetical: what if lockyer happened to be a multi-billionaire before he even started first grade. 5 years into his career hes killing it, the best player in the game. the NRL values him at $400k/year. he doesnt need or want money, and is prepared to play for $50k/year. the broncos offer him $50k/year, and hes more than happy to accept it.

youre saying that the NRL would say "thats fine, sign him up". youre saying the NRL auditors would say "Darren Lockyer, the best player in the game, is worth $50k per year. Steve Michaels on the other hand is worth $200k a year, because thats what his current offer is."

do you see how wrong you are? the NRL would say "Darren Lockyer is worth at least $400k a year, you cannot sign him for $50k a year. You must pay him at least $400k a year". that is EXACTLY what they did for inglis and for folau. someone tabled an offer, the offer wasnt as high as what the NRL auditor values him at, the offer was rejected by the NRL auditor.

youre making yourself look ridiculous lol.

 

[subsbligh]

lol you just dont get it.

if parramatta table a deal that is $250k/year for folau the NRL will say "No, his market value is $350k+". it has NOTHING to do with what hes currently being paid. it has NOTHING to do with what parramatta are currently offering him. it is a number that the NRL have determined he is worth per year based on his standing in the game and performance.

lets look at a hypothetical: what if lockyer happened to be a multi-billionaire before he even started first grade. 5 years into his career hes killing it, the best player in the game. the NRL values him at $400k/year. he doesnt need or want money, and is prepared to play for $50k/year. the broncos offer him $50k/year, and hes more than happy to accept it.

youre saying that the NRL would say "thats fine, sign him up". youre saying the NRL auditors would say "Darren Lockyer, the best player in the game, is worth $50k per year. Steve Michaels on the other hand is worth $200k a year, because thats what his current offer is."

do you see how wrong you are? the NRL would say "Darren Lockyer is worth at least $400k a year, you cannot sign him for $50k a year. You must pay him at least $400k a year". that is EXACTLY what they did for inglis and for folau. someone tabled an offer, the offer wasnt as high as what the NRL auditor values him at, the offer was rejected by the NRL auditor.

youre making yourself look ridiculous lol.

Well can you explain how Lockyer (captain of the Australian team etc) was on $250K per year in his final years, which is well under market value of other comparable players at the time (e.g. Cam Smith, Thurston, would have been on at least $400K at the time if not more).

 

[Morkel]

Unless the NRL has access to the other offers that Folau has received, it IS made up. Player worth is how much people are willing to pay a player.

Also, it IS Unfair. And I cannot repeat this enough.

Shaun Johnson is on 200k right now. He's worth WAY more than that, but you don't see the NRL upping what he counts against the Warriors salary cap right now.

Furthermore, as pointed out, Darcy Lussick is on 450k. No way is he worth even half that. Should the Eels therefore be allowed to pay him that but only have him count as $5 against the cap because that's his true market value?

NRL assigning minimum player values is total, complete, utter bull**** and is extremely damaging to the game.

/rant

The Lussick & Johnson figures work towards my argument. The NRL didn't set those figures, they were set between the player & the club (and the manager). If what you're saying is true, then the NRL would have stepped in and made them pay Johnson more and Lussick less.

 

[Morkel]

lol you just dont get it.

if parramatta table a deal that is $250k/year for folau the NRL will say "No, his market value is $350k+". it has NOTHING to do with what hes currently being paid. it has NOTHING to do with what parramatta are currently offering him. it is a number that the NRL have determined he is worth per year based on his standing in the game and performance.

lets look at a hypothetical: what if lockyer happened to be a multi-billionaire before he even started first grade. 5 years into his career hes killing it, the best player in the game. the NRL values him at $400k/year. he doesnt need or want money, and is prepared to play for $50k/year. the broncos offer him $50k/year, and hes more than happy to accept it.

youre saying that the NRL would say "thats fine, sign him up". youre saying the NRL auditors would say "Darren Lockyer, the best player in the game, is worth $50k per year. Steve Michaels on the other hand is worth $200k a year, because thats what his current offer is."

do you see how wrong you are? the NRL would say "Darren Lockyer is worth at least $400k a year, you cannot sign him for $50k a year. You must pay him at least $400k a year". that is EXACTLY what they did for inglis and for folau. someone tabled an offer, the offer wasnt as high as what the NRL auditor values him at, the offer was rejected by the NRL auditor.

youre making yourself look ridiculous lol.

BECAUSE NONE OF THESE PLAYERS HAVE SIGNED CONTRACTS WORTH $250k (Folau), $190k (Inglis)! If they really were willing to play for that amount, who do they have packages worth $600k and $700k???

Why was SBW allowed to sign for $550k, whereas previously he was getting paid $1 - $2 million??? Why didn't the NRL give him a nominal, fictitious "market" value that he had to be signed at? BECAUSE $550k WAS HIS TOTAL PACKAGE. If they'd bumped it full of a million dollars worth of 3rd party deals, the NRL would have grounds to question it. But they didn't. I don't agree with it, because it means that he'll just delay signing any new contract until after he earns a heap in the off-season (unsigned), but that's the way the system works.

 

[Anonymous person]

The Lussick & Johnson figures work towards my argument. The NRL didn't set those figures, they were set between the player & the club (and the manager). If what you're saying is true, then the NRL would have stepped in and made them pay Johnson more and Lussick less.

shaun johnson is still on his first contract, thats why the NRL didnt step in and make them pay more lol. he was a nobody when he signed, this is only his third year.

why would they make them pay lussick less? you dont seem to understand what a MINIMUM value is. for lussick they might say 200k is his minimum. thats a MINIMUM, not a MAXIMUM. he can get paid $800k if he can get the deal - just not less than the 200k they value him at.

Well can you explain how Lockyer (captain of the Australian team etc) was on $250K per year in his final years, which is well under market value of other comparable players at the time (e.g. Cam Smith, Thurston, would have been on at least $400K at the time if not more).

firstly lockyer was getting the discount with us because he had been with us for 15 years.
secondly, he was MUCH older than cam smith and thurston. while they were 25, he was 30+.
thirdly, he had guaranteed third party deals set up by the broncos, which are counted under the cap.
fourthly, schubert must have agreed that that was his value. at the time of his contract extension he was 32. its not hard to see why he was valued less when you combine it with how long he had played for us, his age, and coming off a serious injury in 08.
fifthly, the salary cap was only 4.1m then, so that 250k was still 1/16th of the cap.
sixthly, again, minimum does not equal maximum. smith and co mightve been valued at 300k by Schubert, doesnt mean they cant be signed at $500k.

 

[Ari Gold]

I think AP has found someone to argue with who is just as stubborn as he is.

He's still 100% right though

 

[Morkel]

I think AP has found someone to argue with who is just as stubborn as he is.

He's still 100% right though

NEVER!!!! :)

 

[Porthoz]

I think the core of the question isn't whether the NRL assigns a minimum value to a player. It is clear they do!

The question is how they reach that minimum, and I understand that's what Morkel is trying to say. It's not arbitrary, it's determined by the total contract value sent to the NRL. In other words, the NRL determines the minimum value through assumption of what they believe the player would accept minimally, based on the package on offer.

I would suggest they may also look at the previous contract that player had and the circumstances. If a player is leaving one club for another without having an unwanted tag by the former, it stands to reason that the conditions at the new club will be more attractive, and no way would a lower salary offer rhyme with that. This would also explain how Locky's $250K deal was accepted by the NRL, although we don't know what the total value of the package was...

 

[Morkel]

I think the core of the question isn't whether the NRL assigns a minimum value to a player. It is clear they do!

The question is how they reach that minimum, and I understand that's what Morkel is trying to say. It's not arbitrary, it's determined by the total contract value sent to the NRL. In other words, the NRL determines the minimum value through assumption of what they believe the player would accept minimally, based on the package on offer.

I would suggest they may also look at the previous contract that player had and the circumstances. If a player is leaving one club for another without having an unwanted tag by the former, it stands to reason that the conditions at the new club will be more attractive, and no way would a lower salary offer rhyme with that. This would also explain how Locky's $250K deal was accepted by the NRL, although we don't know what the total value of the package was...

Sounds perfectly reasonable, and is probably a better summarised version of what I'm trying to say. However, there's no place for reason here, and there's not a single ironic lol or gtfo in there. If you want to join in this argument you need to step it up.

 

[subsbligh]

I still don't get on what authority the auditor gets to assign a value. Can someone explain that to me.

 

[subsbligh]

Is it because basically the SCA says: "I register and approve all player contracts, if you don't comply with my conditions, your contract won't get registered".

That contract is not for market value, therefore I am not registering it?

That's so much bullshit right there.