News Bulldogs set for signing spree as Gould’s hit list revealed amid clean-out: Transfer Whispers

[B-Train]

Having to spend 95% of your cap is the stupidest rule in league, all it does is inflate the cost of players who aren't worth that much.

While making it harder for teams at the bottom to save cap space and spend it wisely on players that are actually worth it.

 

[kamaryn]

Having to spend 95% of your cap is the stupidest rule in league, all it does is inflate the cost of players who aren't worth that much.

Blame the players' union

 

[John Matrix]

While making it harder for teams at the bottom to save cap space and spend it wisely on players that are actually worth it.

100% as time goes on its going to get worse and worse, it will be harder to fit a full roster in.

 

[Menteek]

Based on the above, it's more proof that the NRL fucked everything up by raising the cap so much and adding a 17th team. They've killed the market. It's shit timing for us when we finally have so much cap space and no one to spend it on. That's why we've ended up with so many scrap heap type signings to try and get to 95% of the cap.

surely the dogs and many others will have to tell the nrl to stfu regarding spending 95%…. It’s not possible or viable to sign anyone on the current market just to be at 95% it’s ridiculous?

Unless Gus has signed some players under contract currently at other clubs how can we possibly spend money just to please the % we have to reach…. It’s like a suicidal attempt to stuff us over with the cap as we’ve recently just started to get out of that shit storm

 

[D- voice]

So not the 950k that @TheSexDogs is crapping on about.

Just before we signed him I was told by a very reliable source $650-700k, a chance to play fullback and improve it.

 

[Marki]

You can't be serious mate, be assured the numbers you are quoting are way above the real figures.

Are they more than 10% out?

 

[Marki]

Most of these signings are underwhelming and hard to get excited about...

From the clubs perspective, there isn't much left on the market for 24, they want versatile players on short terms deals... Most of them are hard workers and solid defenders..

From most fans perspective, these players are in the back end of their careers, injury prone, unwanted by other clubs and are backups at best. It'd be more exciting if we took a chance on more younger Reserve Grade stars like Preston with upside.

The truth will be somewhere in the middle. Some of these signings will work out, others will be moved on before their contract expires. Obviously Ciraldo wants more vets to try and be competitive short term.. Either way, they're stop gap moves until better players become available.

The fact we've had to overhaul the baulk of the roster and didn't see this coming is what gives me no faith in this administration.

There seems to be no forward or redundancy thinking. It's sign and hope

 

[Marki]

mate it was reported we got that fullback for $650
Don’t lie to us all.

Dude.....he signed with the Dogs not the Roosters!

At 650, Penrith would have kept him.

 

[Marki]

surely the dogs and many others will have to tell the nrl to stfu regarding spending 95%…. It’s not possible or viable to sign anyone on the current market just to be at 95% it’s ridiculous?

Unless Gus has signed some players under contract currently at other clubs how can we possibly spend money just to please the % we have to reach…. It’s like a suicidal attempt to stuff us over with the cap as we’ve recently just started to get out of that shit storm

The answer is sign a top (and I mean top) player in a 1 or 2 year deal on 1.5M a year.

Then all of a sudden, the Munsters, Mitch Moses, Fifita, Tino players would be lining up at your office and fighting each other to sign.

They are your stop gap players.

You then discard them for value players after 1 or 2 years

 

[Marki]

Just before we signed him I was told by a very reliable source $650-700k, a chance to play fullback and improve it.

Well it won't be hard to outperform Perham, so 900k it is.

 

[diddly]

If a club spends 95% of its cap can the remaining 5% be used the following year? which is about half a million

Can a club use the unspent 5% to pay contracted players more this year and less next year - meaning more is available to spend on new players next year?

 

[Kempsey Dog]

Based on the above, it's more proof that the NRL fucked everything up by raising the cap so much and adding a 17th team. They've killed the market. It's shit timing for us when we finally have so much cap space and no one to spend it on. That's why we've ended up with so many scrap heap type signings to try and get to 95% of the cap.

Always happens to us. Last time we were successful and locked up plenty of players long term was in 2014/2015. Then the NRL came out and changed the rules of the game on the recommendation of Bennett and Robinson.

 

[OldDogFan]

100% as time goes on its going to get worse and worse, it will be harder to fit a full roster in.

At which time V'lad the game fůcker will want to add extra teams to dilute the talent even further. Hr doesn't care, as long as the media bucks keep rolling in.

 

[D- voice]

surely the dogs and many others will have to tell the nrl to stfu regarding spending 95%…. It’s not possible or viable to sign anyone on the current market just to be at 95% it’s ridiculous?

Unless Gus has signed some players under contract currently at other clubs how can we possibly spend money just to please the % we have to reach…. It’s like a suicidal attempt to stuff us over with the cap as we’ve recently just started to get out of that shit storm

The strong stays strong and the weak get weaker
For many years I've warned that the biggest blight on the game is the forced 95% spending of the salary cap,
The reason it forces struggling teams that can't fined good talent to spend the cap on trash while strong established teams has the privilege to keep most of their players supposedly under the cap/sombrero.
The NRLOL want us to believe that the salary cap evens up the playing field

 

[Philistine]

Dude.....he signed with the Dogs not the Roosters!

At 650, Penrith would have kept him.

Not necessarily. The way Penrith's production line of juniors works, they need to unload 1-2 players per year to stay under the cap. Once they let it be known that they might not be able to keep you, the writing is on the wall for you. Do you take their low ball offer in the knowledge that they don't really want you, and the next offer in a couple of years time will be lower still, or do you start again somewhere else? I'll bet they never told Cleary or Fisher-Harris they might not be able to afford to keep them.

 

[Marki]

If a club spends 95% of its cap can the remaining 5% be used the following year? which is about half a million

Can a club use the unspent 5% to pay contracted players more this year and less next year - meaning more is available to spend on new players next year?

No to first question.. You simply forfeit the last 5% and work on 500k less cap.

Yea to second question but within certain limits which aren't well published or known. Probably at NRL discretion.

It's what keeps bottom teams pegged to the bottom. Otherwise it would only ever be a 3 year stint for bottom placed teams to be at the bottom and they would have to make remarkable recruitment fuck-ups to not climb the ladder.

But since these rules came in, we have seen Knights, Tigers, Dogs and now Dragons occupy the bottom 4 or 5 spots for a good 5 or more years....

It's the biggest blight on the game.
Probably worse than the cap itself.

 

[D- voice]

Are they more than 10% out?

Well it won't be hard to outperform Perham, so 900k it is.

Marki you don't want facts you after an argument

 

[Marki]

Not necessarily. The way Penrith's production line of juniors works, they need to unload 1-2 players per year to stay under the cap. Once they let it be known that they might not be able to keep you, the writing is on the wall for you. Do you take their low ball offer in the knowledge that they don't really want you, and the next offer in a couple of years time will be lower still, or do you start again somewhere else? I'll bet they never told Cleary or Fisher-Harris they might not be able to afford to keep them.

It's why I admire Ivan Cleary so much....

It's relatively easy enough to build a team to a GF or premiership.

But the hardest job in rugby league is for the coach to pick which of your good players you need to sacrifice in order to keep a team successful.

Bellamy and Cleary have been masters at this. Bennett and Robinson seem as though have had leeway in their cap through cheating or TPA's. Bellamy also cheated in the late 00's.

Cleary often doesn't get the credit he deserves.

 

[D- voice]

Not necessarily. The way Penrith's production line of juniors works, they need to unload 1-2 players per year to stay under the cap. Once they let it be known that they might not be able to keep you, the writing is on the wall for you. Do you take their low ball offer in the knowledge that they don't really want you, and the next offer in a couple of years time will be lower still, or do you start again somewhere else? I'll bet they never told Cleary or Fisher-Harris they might not be able to afford to keep them.

Absolutely, but the truth is hard to believe for some people that don't want to believe for whatever reason !!!
Well administered clubs KEEP the nucleus of their team unless forced to let go.

 

[Marki]

Marki you don't want facts you after an argument

No argument. Just perspective.

Most media outlets had Crighton signed with us on around 825k a season. Someone called it 900k (around 10% of the reported figure) which I think is fair enough.

Then others state it was more like 650 which is near 25% lower than the reported figure and complete bollocks.

So I call out the BS.