Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Morkel, post: 2609006, member: 8215"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 255 (members: 0, guests: 255)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now