Cronk/Pearce Watch

No Worries wrote:

You would think they will have to pick up someone so they don't end up like Newcastle and be too far under the cap and risk a fine.

its amazing to think that a side that contains

JWH
Napa
Friend
Cordner
Cronk
Keary
Fergo
Mitchell
Topou
Gordon

Would be at risk of getting a fine for being too far under the salary cap

lol

Pieman wrote:

its amazing to think that a side that contains

JWH
Napa
Friend
Cordner
Cronk
Keary
Fergo
Mitchell
Topou
Gordon

Would be at risk of getting a fine for being too far under the salary cap

lol

You forgot Tedesco

haha whoops ..

Pieman wrote:

its amazing to think that a side that contains

JWH
Napa
Friend
Cordner
Cronk
Keary
Fergo
Mitchell
Topou
Gordon

Would be at risk of getting a fine for being too far under the salary cap

lol

There are others that look worse, I'm not sure why roosters always get the bad wraps.

Ice wrote:

There are others that look worse, I'm not sure why roosters always get the bad wraps.

Who looks worse?

Mighty Fishes wrote:

Who looks worse?

haha yeha, you chuck tedesco onto that list and someone like aubesson who has been at the club for a decade and would be on a fairly decent amount too

PLUS the best part of a million a season is free now that Pearce is gone as well.

who do you think looks worse? The Storm are the only ones I can think of and brisbane at a stretch. In saying that, Brisbane are def not worse

Cronulla with the additions of Moylan and Dugan are close prob

i reckon i could throw cows in their too, from your list adding in tedesco and throwing in guys likely on comparable wages


Tedesco - JT. i would suspect JT to be earning more here
JWH - matt scott. again i suspect scott would be earning more
Napa - Mclean. Signed form the storm, would have likely inflated his already solid value, again lean towards more for cowboys player
Friend - granville. i would say granville is worth more at this stage, his new deal kicked in post 2015, so he wouldn't be on peanuts but probably still below value, so i'd say friend is on more
Cordner - Taumalolo - lolo paid more by a mile
Cronk - morgan, cronk would be on more
Keary - coote - similiar
Fergo - o'neil - o'neil re-siigned after getting his origin gig and was in the form of his career, i'm gonna say similar at worst here
Mitchell - hess, hard to tell how much either are on but its probably comparable
Topou - feldt, it'd be similiar but topou likely on more
Gordon - cooper would easy be on more

there are still some good player smissing for both sides (SST, liu, Lowe, asiata etc)

and i'm certainly not suggesting the cows are over the cap but i think the whole roosters have to be over the cap take is getting tiresome and to easy to whinge about

Fair enough, I agree with most of them - I think we have gone off the original point that even with all those unreal players, the Roosters should now have roughly a million to spend and if they dont replace pearce they would be at risk of being fined for being too far under the cap.

Pieman wrote:the Roosters should now have roughly a million to spend and if they dont replace pearce they would be at risk of being fined for being too far under the cap.

lol no

Why the lol no mate? lol

The fit cronk in under the cap - they have lost a player who was on the best part of a million. They need to buy someone for roughly 500k in order to fill out 95% of their cap, or they risk a fine.

Pieman wrote:Why the lol no mate? lol

The fit cronk in under the cap - they have lost a player who was on the best part of a million. They need to buy someone for roughly 500k in order to fill out 95% of their cap, or they risk a fine.

Follow the logic (not your strong suit, I know) of the statement that the Roosters are now $1M under the cap.

That means that they were at the cap with Pearce and Cronk
Which means they are $1M under the cap before Cronk
Which means they are $1.8M under the cap before Tedesco & Cronk

They also spent cash extending the following players;
Cornish. Fergo (your idol). Gordon. Matterson. Napa. Pearce. Radley. Smith. Tupou. Tupounia.

Napa, Pearce and Matterson would have been pricey extensions

They only released the following players to free up cash;
Carter. Evans. Guerra. SKD (mid). Knight. Watson. Ill assume Gordon and Tupou could have been downgraded to save money.

Fuck all.

Do you really think a team extended all those players, freed up minimal cash via player release and still managed to sign both Cronk and Tedesco and be under the cap prior to releasing Pearce?

Laughable.

Theres no way they fit Cronk under the cap. They were always going to have to release players to fit him in.

didn't the roosters basically let it known to everyone that they had the cap space to keep both ? there was also a news report last night that suggested the chooks had a million dollars cap space now

i'm not suggesting that the report is true but you're attacking pieman basically for passing on some reports that have been in the media since they first signed cronk, he hasn't just pulled this one out of his arse, he actually trying to say how ridiculous it is that they have that space given the team they have


this pieman V's a few select bronco fans rubbish that seems pop in every discussion probably could have been left at sportal

leaguegod wrote:

this pieman V's a few select bronco fans rubbish that seems pop in every discussion probably could have been left at sportal

It keeps the offseason and my lunch break ticking along tho

Yeah I agree with Pieman on this one. Cronk was registered only a couple of weeks ago. This means they were within the salary cap at that time, and that includes Pearce, who right now is still a registered player with the Roosters. If he now leaves, then obviously that forgone salary is cap space.

The funny bit is them being under the cap when they signed Cronk in the first place.

What will really get Pieman's gander is if the Roosters announce they've released Pearce, and with that free money they sign the Safiti Brothers and Kalyn Ponga from Newcastle...

Dip wrote:Yeah I agree with Pieman on this one. Cronk was registered only a couple of weeks ago. This means they were within the salary cap at that time, and that includes Pearce, who right now is still a registered player with the Roosters. If he now leaves, then obviously that forgone salary is cap space.

The funny bit is them being under the cap when they signed Cronk in the first place.

Yeah your last sentence summarises the original sarcastic comment, that has now somehow morphed into a numbers based discussion....

Anywho, something I mentioned in the Knights thread that got lost amongst some other discussion and that I still haven't got an understanding of is, what is the purpose of the minimum cap spend and what does it actually achieve??

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Yeah your last sentence summarises the original sarcastic comment, that has now somehow morphed into a numbers based discussion....

Anywho, something I mentioned in the Knights thread that got lost amongst some other discussion and that I still haven't got an understanding of is, what is the purpose of the minimum cap spend and what does it actually achieve??

A - players association negotiate it to get players get paid more
B - owners cant run out a team of players on minimum wage to make money
C - more or less forces teams to be of minimum "x" quality, so there arent games not worth watching

ryno_ wrote:

A - players association negotiate it to get players get paid more
B - owners cant run out a team of players on minimum wage to make money
C - more or less forces teams to be of minimum "x" quality, so there arent games not worth watching

As I mentioned previously, the minimum salary is all the RLPA should have been interested in.
How a team then assembles their roster and what each player/manager negotiates their contract value at after that should be up to them.

The NRL doesn't allocate the entire cap to a club do they, so it's not like a private owner is ever going to pocket cash out of the arrangement??

As for point (C), I don't see that it achieves that at all.
Clubs have far more obvious incentives to retain/recruit the best players and quite frankly all I see this achieving is forcing clubs to front load salaries, which in turn will create the farcical situation where a team is stacked with talent but still under the cap for a certain season because they have prepaid the bulk of their guns salaries in previous years.

As I said, I've yet to see a valid reason for the RLPA negotiating this arrangement and I can already see dramas being created from it.

haha yeah its all guess work with the numbers, and a bit of making some stuff up to suit an argument (as usual) and some semi sorta educated guessing.

What we do know that has been reported is that they were saying they could keep Cronk/Keary/Pearce/Friend all in the same side so that means they were under the cap or were able to get under to cap to keep them. Fuck knows what the numbers actually are. Fuck knows how much is under TPA etc as well.

haha yeh @dip I have been saying it for ages. By the time those guys have 100 or so games under their belts and they are genuine first grade stars - the Roosters/Bronco's and co will 100% come in and sign them. Hopefully newcastle turns back into a side where players want to play, there is no reason it cant in the future.

My first through about why there was a minimum cap is to keep teams even for viewing purposes.
I dont see how an owner could make money out of it as one would assume that ever dollar needs to be accounted for and it couldnt just go X amount has gone to the owner or is filed under Misc.

I assume it was negotiated by the RLPA to pay players more money. Eg. You must have 25 top squad players and you must pay 95% of your salary cap to these players every single year.

(thats just a guess I dont know where else the cap goes)

Makes sense from the players point of view coz they get paid