NRL Fantasy 2020 Part 90 - Tumbleweed edition

I think clubs moving players on as an issue is very much overstated.

It seems like it's only a problem around top-tier players (i.e. genuine first graders likely earning $400K+)
I don't believe a single club wants those players to be performing below their contracted value, and if they're earning at or above that value then it's unlikely that the club doesn't want them playing in the 17.

It's also difficult to shift a player that is underperforming or has been relegated to Reserve grade.
E.g. Russel Packer or Josh Reynolds for example. Those players may be (reported to be) somewhat shopped around, but at the end of the day it's up to the player to want to shift, and often the clubs end up subsidising the players salary to play at another club. That's an unwanted hit for the club and fans.

I struggle to think of many examples where a player has been "done-over" by a club. The only one that springs to mind is where there's a real falling out between Coach and Player (e.g. Robbie Farah vs Jason Taylor) - that seems like a pretty rare circumstance and one where both parties ended up losing.

Seems to me that players & player agents typically have more power than clubs when it comes to contracts - they can shift when they're playing over their contracted value, but stick around and claim their contracted value when they're playing far below it. Look at how much power Joseph Suaalii seemed to have despite being 17 and untested at NRL level...

Honeysett wrote:The NRL is looking into players signing for more money at a rival club whilst in contract and they're going to be told they have to wear it and can't year more money in their first year.

Brilliant now do the same to clubs who tell players they'll play in reserve grade if they don't move on. Same situation in my mind. Perhaps you could tell a player to move on, however you have to pay him whatever he misses out on and it doesn't count towards the cap. Haven't thought it through but could be a good start

Problem with the 2nd point, is how do you differentiate between a player going to reserve grade because the club overpaid for a dud (eg half the Tigers recent big money signings) or because the club is "punishing" that player.

I do like the idea that players can switch clubs but not contract values. So if Aloiai wants to go to Manly, he has to do it on his Tigers contract value. You could still get around it a bit by backloading deals to make up for it, but would mean you could place a bit more reliablity on longer term contracts.

Milchcow wrote:

Problem with the 2nd point, is how do you differentiate between a player going to reserve grade because the club overpaid for a dud (eg half the Tigers recent big money signings) or because the club is "punishing" that player.

I do like the idea that players can switch clubs but not contract values. So if Aloiai wants to go to Manly, he has to do it on his Tigers contract value. You could still get around it a bit by backloading deals to make up for it, but would mean you could place a bit more reliablity on longer term contracts.

I do wonder if this concept will actually achieve anything.

- The player is no worse off for leaving early (or better off IF it causes some contract backloading) - but still transfer to a club that they perceive as valuing them more.

- The destination club is considerably better off (they get a player for an extra year at a potentially undervalued price).
For example, Aloiai is reported to be on $350K, and Manly is reported to be offering ~$550K. Manly get the guy they want a season early and for $200K less than seemingly what they would be prepared to pay.
Seems even more incentive for the destination club to encourage the player to break their contract early.


I would think the most equitable outcome would've been: Player stays on their original contracted salary (e.g. $350K), the Destination club pay the salary they signed them on for each season (e.g. $550K) with the difference (e.g. $200K) going to the club that is losing the player X years early.

e.g. in the case of Jason Saab:
Next two years gets $120K (as he was contracted at the Dragons) and year 3 gets $300K - less of an incentive for the player.
Manly pay $300K for each of the next 3 years to have him - a minor disincentive for the destination club - and also helps prevent backloading of contracts.
The Dragons get $180K from Manly for the next 2 years - a level of compensation for the club losing the player.

Not that my opinion matters

my tv broke wrote:Essentially a transfer fee ? Probably a reasonable idea but I'm sure there would be complications.

Yeah, I guess it probably becomes a transfer fee of sorts. Seems there's a little bit of that going on anyway.
Like you say, there'll be complications, it's always going to be an imperfect system (not sure it's even the biggest issue in the NRL).

IN OTHER NEWS;
Latrell Mitchell has returned to training ahead of schedule.

“He looks in good shape and it is probably his best off-season in a few years, despite the injury. He hasn’t had to contend with rep footy at the end of the year and a short turnaround and he is very keen and fresh.

“He took it easy this week but he will ramp it up and should be running full tilt when the boys come back from their Christmas break in January.” - Souths assistant coach Jason Demetriou.

Despite taking it easy, it sounds like someone is ready to knock some houses down and it's only December!

No Worries wrote:Would have to count towards the cap all clubs would pay overs to players on long term deals then punt them after 1-2 years and do it again. I'm not sure the current system from a club moving players on is broken as long as the player gets what they signed for in reserve grade or at another club (the difference paid by the club doing the punting)

Say a player like Luke Garner, as an example, let's say the Tigers signed him for 3 years and then want to move him on after one. He's been told he will stay in reverse grade for two years which for a player like that no one is going to pick him up after that contract finishes. So he jumps to a different club to get a run, often times on a smaller contract but with a potential for first grade.

The club has all the power in that situation, there needs to be improvements to both ends. Josh Mansour as another example is at the other end, he's been told he's not needed in first grade - he wants to play on so he'll need to leave to finish his career.

I just wish there was a contract and everyone plays to that contract. Both parties agreed to it, put clauses in the contract for more money if you play well.

Warriors will be based in Australia for the first 4 rounds at a minimum.

Each team over the next two years should play their game against NZ in NZ. Let the Warriors play a full season in NZ.

Honeysett wrote:Warriors will be based in Australia for the first 4 rounds at a minimum.

Each team over the next two years should play their game against NZ in NZ. Let the Warriors play a full season in NZ.

I think it was NRL.com that published an article that Warriors to play 21 season at hjome. But when you read into it, it was just saying they had scheduled games in NZ. I agree let the Warriors play a full season at home and when people start bitching about advantages, remind them of Bulldogs, Rabbits, Tigers and Roosters who have all played finals at home grounds despite not having the home ground advantage.

Debelin will be found innocent. Hayne too. Here’s some advice. Don’t go to bed with footballers for money, girls. Mum wouldn’t like it.

Honeysett wrote:
Say a player like Luke Garner, as an example, let's say the Tigers signed him for 3 years and then want to move him on after one. He's been told he will stay in reverse grade for two years which for a player like that no one is going to pick him up after that contract finishes. So he jumps to a different club to get a run, often times on a smaller contract but with a potential for first grade.

I know it's an example, but the Luke Garner being shopped around rumour simply doesn't make any sense.
Last year the Tigers played the following players in the 2nd row:
Leilua (20 games)
Garner (16 games)
Lawrence (2 games) - RETIRED
McIntyre (2 games) - Signed with the TITANS

Other players that they have previously played there in their squad (that spring to mind):
Elijah Taylor - Contract ended, not re-signed
Chris McQueen - RETIRED
Michael Chee-Kam - 7 games at INT (after 6 2RF starts last year).

The Tigers simply don't have any 2RF cover to be in a position to actively shop around a player they seem pretty comfortable playing.
Not to mention he's probably on a <$300K salary (given Aloiai and Matterson were on $350K contracts with more first-grade experience)

So even if they did, it does SFA to their cap space this year, and next year they have $1.6Mil coming off the cap in Packer and Reynolds alone.

I'd suggest that a much-loved sea-side club who is known to want him (but can't actively engage due to Garner being signed through to 2022) might be the source of these rumours.
Especially given the Jason (no-show at training) Saab early exit to Manly (despite 2years left on his contract), followed by Aloiai suddenly declaring he will never wear the Tigers shirt again (despite a year left on his contract).

Honeysett wrote:
The club has all the power in that situation, there needs to be improvements to both ends. Josh Mansour as another example is at the other end, he's been told he's not needed in first grade - he wants to play on so he'll need to leave to finish his career.

Penrith have said that Charlie Staines will get the wing berth, and they've brought in Robert Jennings as cover.
Given that Mansours contract ends next year, I think they are doing the right thing by him (in saying they will allow an early release IF requested) as he will be more desirable to other clubs this year (fresh off 22 games), than next year (where he is less likely to be a regular first grader).

Honeysett wrote:
I just wish there was a contract and everyone plays to that contract. Both parties agreed to it, put clauses in the contract for more money if you play well.

In reality, most players and clubs do stick to their contracts most of the time.
Sounds like incentivised contracts are becoming more popular.

So Carrigan and Haas starting props?

Is Lodge definitely gone? Officially he is still at Broncos in 2021 at this point right?

Souths have signed Tautau Moga for 2021. 

For mine he will add good depth. He’s had a horror run with injuries so hopefully that’s behind him. He would’ve come cheap.