Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Morkel, post: 2516577, member: 8215"] I understand what you're saying. You're saying that they're forcing teams to pay more of their cap towards a certain player because of their profile, because the NRL believes they are worth more, right? That even though they may be willing to play for less at a certain club, the NRL are not allowing it? That's false. Because in all of these instances, they're [I]not[/I] willing to play for less. No less than what their contract stipulates anyway. It's not like Inglis was willing to play for $190k. The NRL didn't say 'no, he's worth $590k, you have to pay him that'. His contract was about $650k. The NRL never inflated his value, he was signing for that amount! They were just trying to say that the additional money was from other sources, sources that would be paying those 3rd party $$ regardless of whether he was as Souths. When you said the NRL would not let them sign for less than their market value, that in itself is correct. But they didn't pull their market values out of their arses, they were determined by the value of the contract that they were trying to register. They weren't letting Folau sign for less than $400k because that much of his contract was secured by both the club and parties that were only paying him if he played for Parra. In essence, [I]that's how much money it took for him to play for the Eels[/I], so that's how much they deemed it should affect their cap! Melbourne [I]did not[/I] pay overs for any player. They were made to honour the value of previous contracts, the legit ones plus the dodgy side ones. That's not overs. Again, it's what they were getting paid!!! If they're getting paid that much to play for Melbourne, then that's how much of the cap should be used. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now