hi all,
Was reading the newspaper (I won't say where, but my friends and family can guess where ... but I shall not go into any more details) and the whole Inglis saga, when a few thoughts popped into my head and I thought I would share them with you and ask your opinions.
1) South Sydney in an attempt to sign Greg Inglis have a MASSIVE third party deal going on (including the free BMW), while I believe the third party deals are not on the official cap, there is a limit to third party payments .... YES ??
Does anyone have any answer as to how much the third party payment limit is?
****************************
2) South Sydney in an attempt to get Inglis under the cap (Ian Schubert has knocked the contract on the head) have said they will unload players.
If you were a player, would you tell South Sydney to "take that offer where the sun don't shine" and keep me!!?!?!
Frack me, no players should (and I mean PLAYERS) should be axed to simply fit one player under the cap
******************************
3) IF South Sydney do unload those players, don't they still have to PAY them for the duration of their contract, the same way we did for Brett Finch when we released him (and the bloke was still payed by us when the $torm beat us in the 2009 Sham Final)??
If they do have to continue to pay them, then would it not be impossible for South Sydney to remain under the cap AND sign Greg Inglis?
****************************
thanks all, hope this starts a little conversation and I can get some clarification as to the sticky and tricky rules of the salary cap!
Cheers!
Replies
cheers mate,
sorry that I had to place a blog with INGLI$ in it!
but it did grab attention now didn't it!!!
if this is the case, then players, clubs, managers have the potential to really cheat a system and have a player on an unlimited earning potential as long as the club knows people who can pay the players for their "services"
hmmmmmm ......
Third party deals that are independant of the club are unlimited, though third party deals that are arranged with the club are included in the cap.
So basically, if third party deals are used to lure a player to the club then it has to be included in the cap.
In the Inglis case, being signed for $190k is waaaaaay under valued compared to what he was on at the Storm. The amount he is to be contracted for cannot be under valued otherwise salary caps are useless. He has to be in the books for the amount he is worth, if he can land himself third party deals through managers or himself, then he can earn whatever he likes and it wont be included in the cap. It's only when the club gets involved that it gets included in the cap.
Or at least thats my understanding of it.
Inglis deal was blocked because Slouths are trying to fit him in the cap for $190k, which is unders for a player of his caliber. The Rabbitohs are saying that he is only registered @ $190k because the rest is made up from third party deals, but Ian Schuey does not believe that the third party deals are independant from the club - he believes the third party deals were used to lure Inglis to the club, thus it needs to be included in the cap.
The only way they can now get Inglis is if they shed a few players, I think Ian said they will not register him for less than $500k (I think that was the figure)
Hayne is receiving funds from third party sponsors involved with the club, so that money is under the salary cap. I'm not sure how much of the $500k is from third party deals, but it is definitely included in the cap.
hahaha... solly mang, mah enrish no gud!
I prolly need a few to make it clearer!! my mind and body run off alcohol.. :D
DK Eel - I found this on NRL.COM, it may make what I was trying to say a bit clearer!
Third Party Agreements
(copied and pasted from) http://www.nrl.com/news/news/newsarticle/tabid/10874/newsid/58360/n...Third party agreements are payments made by companies directly to players. There is no restriction on the amount a player can earn through third party agreements where he is being paid for his own intellectual property, without the need to employ club logos or names and where the company involved is neither a club sponsor nor are they acting on behalf of a club to secure the player’s services. An example of this is a player promoting a brand of clothing or somebody like Mark Taylor promoting air conditioners.
Many players do have third party agreements that are outside the salary cap. Currently there are about 90 players earning close to $3.5 million.
All third party agreements must be registered and approved beforehand. This is to ensure that they do not become a way for clubs or players to use sponsors or third parties to undermine the salary cap. There are provisions for club sponsors to enter into agreements with elite players and for details see the Marquee Player Allowance section.
EelmatiC - doesn't the player have to "earn" 3rd party payments.
Ie. do something for the sponsor to earn the money. Advertising, appearances etc?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next