HomeIce wrote:
Maaaaate, if you had a girlfriend or wife, you'd know the money doesn't ever go to the player in the end.......
It does when you're the meal ticket haha.
How many points will parra lose
Poll
How many points will nrl deduct from parra ?
- [ 0 ]
[0%]
- [ 2 ]
- [25%]
- [ 2 ]
- [25%]
- [ 1 ]
- [13%]
- [ 1 ]
- [13%]
- [ 2 ]
- [24%]
Total Votes: 8
Poll closed
Poll closed
Honeysett- Moderator
- Posts : 8319
Reputation : 5612
Join date : 2015-09-28
It does when you're the meal ticket haha.
Ice- Posts : 1538
Reputation : 121
Join date : 2015-10-22
Your Name wrote:
This sort of thing I'd back the player as being oblivious. I get $400K from the club $200k in 3rd parties as per my contract, I fill in my tax $600K ( in actual fact I'm a registered small businesses and the $200K gets paid to it, because the tax bracket is lower. But that's a whole nother conversation).
The player doesn't know as was the case with Parramatta that the club is paying the 3rd party to pay me.
On the other hand if a boat ends up in my dads driveway that isn't on any paperwork and I don't claim as fringe benefits, then I know shit is shonky.
This is the thing that pisses me off. How can you have $200k in TPAs in your contract, when the club isn't allowed to have anything to do with them?? I agree with your point about the players being oblivious in this though, and players don't have oversight of the full rosters and all contracts, they just see money in, so never any reason to suspect the are implicit in Cap breaches, they just assume they are getting paid legitimately and rightfully so. as you allude, boats and renovation on the other hand, and something isn't quite right.
Shanbon- Posts : 2760
Reputation : 406
Join date : 2015-09-30
Dip wrote:
How much did the TPA provider pay for those boxes?
0
Thats the point Parra put it in an email while other clubs dont write that shit down.
Honeysett- Moderator
- Posts : 8319
Reputation : 5612
Join date : 2015-09-28
Ice wrote:Below is an extract and quote from an Eels player manager and this is the thing I really don't get and it is why TPA's must be stopped.
"This manager said he had a player sign with the club on a deal worth $200,000 a season with $175,000 guaranteed and the other $25,000 made up of third party agreements (TPAs).
“I’m still chasing them for the third parties,” the agent revealed.
Now, what I don't get is this. How can a Manager have a player sign with a club for $200k, with $175k guaranteed by the club (which is fine) and then the other $25K made up of TPA's, and then come out and say he is STILL chasing them (the Club, like with Foran and Manly) for the TPA's, when the club is NOT ALLOWED TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY WITH TP fucking A's.
This is not a rant about trying to say we have done nothing wrong, we have, I accept that, but the whole TPA thing is just an absolutely joke. If I am a player and my manager says "Hey Sign here for $xx, I've got $xx guaranteed and $xx in TPAs and that is the best offer" my simple question is "What is willing to offer the most guaranteed?" Because that is the best offer, cause TPAs by DEFINITION cannot be Guaranteed by anyone involved with the Club. If I'm joining a club based on some TPA top up's, you can bet your ask I am asking for a contract from the company providing the TPA, NOT the club I am signing with, because I KNOW they cant be involved in them.
I'm telling you, it is the scum bag Managers that are responsible for this mess. The 4.5%ers or whatever it is they call them. I bet you they take there cut based on the full amount, not just the guaranteed amount.
Seriously, every time a player moves clubs you here about his TPA's and how much of his contract it is, but seriously, how many of these knuckle heads are even worth a TPA? Every Tom Dick and Harry seems to be promised one, but sorry, there are only a few players from each team that are worth a pinch of shit or more in TPA's. Seriously, in the above example, no player worth $175k Guaranteed is worth $25k in TPA's, $175K wouldn't even make you a rep player or a TOP 10 player at a club, but we are supposed to believe some business honchos are willing to part with $25k for him to show up at a golf day? Please, you are having me on Player Managers.
Ahhhh, fuck it all, its just a joke. Grrrrrrr
I agree with all of this.
However if the club is not involved in anyway why is it part of their contract? What we should be doing is throwing TPA out the window, let the players make their own money. If SBW wants to be sponsored by Under Armour he can sign with them, if George Burgess wants to be sponsored by Magmums XXXL so be it. Let the players have other revenue streams that don't relate to the club. 2 rules, the club can have zero affiliation with the company and it can't compete directly with the competition either. IE, signed with Nike and the club is Adidas.
Krump- Posts : 8454
Reputation : 4770
Join date : 2015-07-31
Location : Your mums room
I'm sure Parra wished that was rule, they'd be a premiership richerjstands wrote:If parra have lost points for every game they have won whilst over the cap this season, then why aren't the points being given to the teams they have beaten?
Krump- Posts : 8454
Reputation : 4770
Join date : 2015-07-31
Location : Your mums room
Players can have revenue streams unrelated to the clubs. The issue is that their scumbag managers would rather make the clubs find them than actually find the sponsors themselvesHoneysett wrote:
I agree with all of this.
However if the club is not involved in anyway why is it part of their contract? What we should be doing is throwing TPA out the window, let the players make their own money. If SBW wants to be sponsored by Under Armour he can sign with them, if George Burgess wants to be sponsored by Magmums XXXL so be it. Let the players have other revenue streams that don't relate to the club. 2 rules, the club can have zero affiliation with the company and it can't compete directly with the competition either. IE, signed with Nike and the club is Adidas.
Dip- Posts : 1597
Reputation : 283
Join date : 2015-09-30
Krump wrote:
I'm sure Parra wished that was rule, they'd be a premiership richer
Actually they would have missed the 8 because they would get no more points as they beat the Storm in the regular season. The Tigers, who finished 1 point behind the Eels and lost to the Storm once, and the Cowboys, who finished 3 points behind the Eels, but lost to the Storm twice, would have come into the 8 for the Storm and Eels.
Edit, and Souths also who lost once to the Storm and were 2 points behind the Eels with a better +/- The Eels would have finished 10th. Better off giving the premiership to whoever the Storm beat in the prelim final.
Honeysett- Moderator
- Posts : 8319
Reputation : 5612
Join date : 2015-09-28
Krump wrote:
Players can have revenue streams unrelated to the clubs. The issue is that their scumbag managers would rather make the clubs find them than actually find the sponsors themselves
I'm pretty sure they're not allowed and that's what would come under third party arrangements.
Pieman- Posts : 3553
Reputation : 386
Join date : 2015-10-26
Honeysett wrote:
I agree with all of this.
However if the club is not involved in anyway why is it part of their contract? What we should be doing is throwing TPA out the window, let the players make their own money. If SBW wants to be sponsored by Under Armour he can sign with them, if George Burgess wants to be sponsored by Magmums XXXL so be it. Let the players have other revenue streams that don't relate to the club. 2 rules, the club can have zero affiliation with the company and it can't compete directly with the competition either. IE, signed with Nike and the club is Adidas.
What you described as an alternate is exactly how the TPA's were meant to be.
Players were supposed to sign for what ever with the club, and then they can get TPA's from businesses not involved with the club - the manager helps them get it or the player gets it on their own, or a business finds a player they want to sponsor and does it. The club was not supposed to be involved.
What actually happens is a number of different things eg - a bunch of TP's go to a club and say we want to sponsor the club - the club says - you can, sweet, but in the form of a TPA for "this much" money. The club then arranges it - and the player prob has to go to a function or 2 or be on an add for the company.
I wouldnt be surprised if TP's didnt know where their money was going half the time.
Its a fucking unfair rule and its fucking stupid.
They should adopt the nba system - having a salary cap - but if a club chooses to go over it then they are penalised a dollar for every dollar they are over.....
Then that money should be sent to the grassroots for development. That way at least the rich teams are helping the grassroots of the game instead of just poaching great players from other clubs and paying them a fortune in TPA's. Or if teams want to keep their rep players they pay for it.
No Worries- Moderator
- NRL FF Survivor Champion : I'm like the waterboy.
Posts : 10360
Reputation : 7068
Join date : 2015-07-31
Ice wrote:
This is the thing that pisses me off. How can you have $200k in TPAs in your contract, when the club isn't allowed to have anything to do with them?? I agree with your point about the players being oblivious in this though, and players don't have oversight of the full rosters and all contracts, they just see money in, so never any reason to suspect the are implicit in Cap breaches, they just assume they are getting paid legitimately and rightfully so. as you allude, boats and renovation on the other hand, and something isn't quite right.
Clubs may direct sponsors to player managers to sponsor a player directly as opposed to the club. That is where their involvement starts and ends. So when a player signs on they are signing to the base wage with an agreement the club will provide the player with interested parties up to eg. $200K. It is when the clubs don't meet this commitment in the contract that players can then walk based on TPA's. It is reported in the media that they are owed TPA's or are walking because they weren't paid (may be the sponsor didn't pay). But in actual fact in almost all cases it's because the clubs couldn't find the sponsors to pass onto the player manager to the agreed amount.
Not saying that's any less bullshit or convoluted, but that is the law in regards to salary cap.
But it's so much bullshit and so grey.
The eels got busted because they change their board every year and everyone is out to feather their own nest. Also the elect amateurs in business, which is evident by the trail they have left. Funny that a club who spruiked suck big sponsorship deals at the start of the season couldn't get anyone interested in TPA's.
Ice- Posts : 1538
Reputation : 121
Join date : 2015-10-22
Dip wrote:
Actually they would have missed the 8 because they would get no more points as they beat the Storm in the regular season. The Tigers, who finished 1 point behind the Eels and lost to the Storm once, and the Cowboys, who finished 3 points behind the Eels, but lost to the Storm twice, would have come into the 8 for the Storm and Eels.
Edit, and Souths also who lost once to the Storm and were 2 points behind the Eels with a better +/- The Eels would have finished 10th. Better off giving the premiership to whoever the Storm beat in the prelim final.
No we wouldn't have, because the taking of the premiership was after the fact. He isn't talking about taking points from Melbourne so the final 8 is different. He is just saying if the Storm are stripped of the title, then the Eels should be awarded it, just like if an athlete is stripped of the Gold Medal, it gets awarded to the silver medallist.
You can't retrospectively go back and re run the finals series.
Dip- Posts : 1597
Reputation : 283
Join date : 2015-09-30
Ice wrote:
No we wouldn't have, because the taking of the premiership was after the fact. He isn't talking about taking points from Melbourne so the final 8 is different. He is just saying if the Storm are stripped of the title, then the Eels should be awarded it, just like if an athlete is stripped of the Gold Medal, it gets awarded to the silver medallist.
You can't retrospectively go back and re run the finals series.
That you can't re run the finals series is why you can't award it to the losing finalist. If Melbourne wasn't there you don't know who would have won because they were cheating the whole way through. In all likelihood it would have been the Broncos. I mean we beat teams 1 & 3 before losing to the cheating Storm. Parramatta didn't even have to leave their home state despite playing two interstate teams that finished higher than them on the ladder.
Oz Sport Mad- Posts : 1898
Reputation : 736
Join date : 2015-09-28
Dip wrote:
That you can't re run the finals series is why you can't award it to the losing finalist. If Melbourne wasn't there you don't know who would have won because they were cheating the whole way through. In all likelihood it would have been the Broncos. I mean we beat teams 1 & 3 before losing to the cheating Storm. Parramatta didn't even have to leave their home state despite playing two interstate teams that finished higher than them on the ladder.
As an impartial and unbiased supporter, I always felt we were robbed that year
leaguegod- Posts : 1204
Reputation : 141
Join date : 2015-11-24
i think watmough's contract should be counted, retirement or not
the rules clearly state that the injury must occur after the contract is signed for it to eligible for the retirement exemption, Watmough has a dodgy Knee's for several years, i remember sterlo being worried about it when they were first looking into signing him
i think the NRL will let them take it off but parra took a flyer on him despite the injury concerns, its more bad management, they shouldn't be let off the hook for it imo
the rules clearly state that the injury must occur after the contract is signed for it to eligible for the retirement exemption, Watmough has a dodgy Knee's for several years, i remember sterlo being worried about it when they were first looking into signing him
i think the NRL will let them take it off but parra took a flyer on him despite the injury concerns, its more bad management, they shouldn't be let off the hook for it imo
ryno_- NRL FF Survivor Champion : 2018
Posts : 2230
Reputation : 490
Join date : 2015-09-27
Age : 34
leaguegod wrote:i think watmough's contract should be counted, retirement or not
the rules clearly state that the injury must occur after the contract is signed for it to eligible for the retirement exemption, Watmough has a dodgy Knee's for several years, i remember sterlo being worried about it when they were first looking into signing him
i think the NRL will let them take it off but parra took a flyer on him despite the injury concerns, its more bad management, they shouldn't be let off the hook for it imo
If they chop Watmough and 1 or 2 other fringe-ish players, that gets their squad to, say, 22. The salary cap counts the top 25 players. Will the salaries of players 26, 27, 28 then be in danger of putting them back over the cap when they drop into the top 25?
Dip- Posts : 1597
Reputation : 283
Join date : 2015-09-30
ryno_ wrote:
If they chop Watmough and 1 or 2 other fringe-ish players, that gets their squad to, say, 22. The salary cap counts the top 25 players. Will the salaries of players 26, 27, 28 then be in danger of putting them back over the cap when they drop into the top 25?
Absolutely. You still need to count the top 25 salaries, so they need to factor in the salaries of those players coming in (and up their salary to the $80K minimum if necessary).
On NRL 360 a couple of nights ago they talked about how they would try to get Watmough's "retirement" made retrospective to the start of the season so as to not include any cap, because the players mentioned (Benji and Ennis) that they had already received 7 months pay (I'm not sure of the exact method but I think it's standard the players get a few months salary in advance at a time), so they would also need to take into account that the players will have already received over half their contract money, so if they cut a $200K/season player, they are only saving 5/12 = $83K, and also have to replace him with an $80K player (x 5/12 = $33K), so in that example they are only saving $50K not $200K.
I guess that makes what happens with Watmough crucial. I suspect the NRL will allow it to be backdated, even though I agree with LG that it shouldn't. When you look at the maths that way $570K is a long way off.
dasherhalo- Posts : 686
Reputation : 175
Join date : 2015-10-23
You'd have to think that getting cap compliant in under 10 days is going to be tough without losing a big name on big dollars?
B/L- Posts : 3253
Reputation : 2512
Join date : 2016-01-12
Corey Norman to the Panthers is doing the rounds.
Personally I cant see it, but they will basically be no chance of meeting his asking price next year so may as well let him go now.
Personally I cant see it, but they will basically be no chance of meeting his asking price next year so may as well let him go now.
Guest- Guest
Hopefully we know who is leaving the Eels before round 10. No point trading in someone like Norman if they wont be playing the big 3 bye rounds.B/L wrote:Corey Norman to the Panthers is doing the rounds.
Personally I cant see it, but they will basically be no chance of meeting his asking price next year so may as well let him go now.
No Worries- Moderator
- NRL FF Survivor Champion : I'm like the waterboy.
Posts : 10360
Reputation : 7068
Join date : 2015-07-31
Radradra to do French rara