Woods taking a pay cut to help out both dogs and sharks

Apparently woods has taken a pay cut to help out the bulldogs with their salary cap before heading to Cronulla . Correct me if I’m wrong but this is against the rules.

I distinctly remember we weren’t allowed to do the same to keep Kevin Kingston in 2010. You cant reduce salaries to sort out salary caps. The reason for this rule is simple... it effectively disadvantages the player’s original club (I.e. tigers) because they could have decided to keep woods at the time if it had been for that reduced amount. As such, they lose him and another club (I.e. Cronulla) gets to take advantage of this.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/06/26/why-aaron-woods-took-a-pay-cut-to-become-a-shark/

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Is anyone surprised.
    • No, but this is a major issue. It can’t be ignored. It is cheating the cap. It undermines the whole purpose of the cap and gives two teams an advantage over the other clubs.

    • Not to mention Parra players weren't allowed to take pay cuts to keep Peats and / or Paulo
  • Yes you are correct in the sense you can't reduce your salary to stay at a club.

    However that doesn't stop Wood's "requesting" a release to take up an opportunity on less money. The article doesn't specify that the dogs will have to continue paying part of his sharks salary. But it does say earlier in the year Dogs were shopping him around, hence the reason I put his "request" in quotation marks.

    • If the dogs are paying any of his salary, even if it’s $1, then it is cheating. They enticed him away from the tigers by offering him more money.

      Let’s make something clear, Woods failed for nsw, but he is a good nrl player, with big game experience, and was captain of the tigers. He also has a good motor for a big man and has a very handy offload.

      There is no way around it this scenario regardless of how you look it means the Bulldogs disadvantage the tigers.

      • Again you are correct, if the dogs are paying anything it is against the rules that govern our game.

        But if the dogs aren't paying anything, and Wood's has just taken a pay cut to move to the sharks (to be paid in full by them), then technically the dogs haven't done anything wrong.

    • I hope the NRL salary cap auditor isn't that stupid.
  • For 3 & 1/2yrs? Don't think so!
  • I say we still should have made a big play for woods

    But nooooo we mite be getting Shaun's lane so much BETTER NOT

    if you ask me I think trex is 100 times better but I hope he retire with beau scott

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Yehez replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"I don't fully disagree. Getting 10 wins is not far from finals. Last few seasons 12/13 wins got you 8th. So really we should be able to add up to 5 wins this year IMO.
But if we don't and we stay at 10/11, but there are excuses, I'd accept it. As I…"
14 minutes ago
Blue Eel replied to ParramattaLurker's discussion Trial #2 / Pre Season Challenge Week 3 Team List v Sydney Roosters
"When do we consider that wonderful chant from last year. The future is now! Considing Russell is on the move at the end of this year.
Do we call it first few games, half way through the year, with 5 games to go. Do results or position on the ladder…"
57 minutes ago
Mitchy replied to LB's discussion V'Landys on Hello Sport
"Mate I get it but it was a frustrating time watching him play and knowing he was on huge $$$; he either aims up and becomes 'elite' or he filters off like a few have over time."
58 minutes ago
Hell On Eels replied to LB's discussion V'Landys on Hello Sport
"V'landys said the "whole point of Vegas" was to promote the Watch NRL overseas app. He then went onto plans for their 300K UK viewers (around $70m AUD pa). Then, there's broadcasting, wagering and other sponsors and stakeholders. He sees dollar…"
59 minutes ago
More…