News Bulldogs chief wants rep bodies to chip in for injured players

[djdeep4172]

Canterbury have called on the NRL and other governing bodies like New Zealand Rugby League to start helping cover the costs, including paying wages, for any players injured while on representative duty.

The Bulldogs confirmed Chris Smith will be sidelined for at least three months, which could turn into the season if further scans confirm a full tear of his anterior cruciate ligament, after he broke down in the All Stars game.

Smith joins Dogs teammate Kieran Foran in the long-term injury ward after the veteran five-eighth suffered a shoulder injury playing for New Zealand last November and is also out of action until midway through the season.

Canterbury CEO Andrew Hill said it was unfair his club now had some $1.5 million worth of talent on the sidelines just two weeks out from the season proper because of their involvement in games the club had nothing to do with.

"Rep teams borrow our car, bang them up, return them and say, 'Thank you','' Hill said.

Under NRL rules, Canterbury can spend an amount equal to Smith's wages, understood to be around $200,000, outside the cap on a replacement player.

But Hill said Smith's $200,000, along with the $350,000 allowed for Foran's replacement, still had to come from the Canterbury coffers - and it was time other organisations bore some of the responsibility.

"The responsibility needs to be shared because at the moment the club takes 100 per cent of the risk,'' Hill told the Herald.

"We would never stop our players taking part in a representative game. But whoever borrows that player should be responsible for them, and if something goes wrong and they should pick up some of the costs. We talk about improving the game but this is one area that needs to be looked at.

"Yes, we've been given $350,000 cap relief for Kieran, and Chris's wage depending on the severity of his injury, but we now have to find that extra money to spend, which will depend on the outcome of any potential insurance claims.


"A simpler shared responsibility could be the NRL and NZRL pay Chris and Kieran's wage until they're fit to return to the field.''

Canterbury are one of the wealthier NRL clubs with the backing of a powerful leagues club, and Hill wondered how some of their rivals in a less fortunate financial position could possibly cope with suddenly finding more $500,000 to spend on replacement players.

Another issue is the complicated insurance policies, which requires players to miss at least 12 games and the significant excess which in most cases equates to ''tens of thousands of dollars''.

Given Canterbury's plight, other clubs are said to be already concerned about one of their superstar big-earners breaking down with a serious injury during the Origin series and only receiving a maximum $350,000 in cap relief.

Hill has already reached out to NRL boss Todd Greenberg about the Smith situation.

Canterbury took the NRL to task at the start of the year for setting a $350,000 limit on cap relief for those players injured on rep duty. The Bulldogs argued a fairer system was a payout based on the percentage of a player's wage.

 

[Spoonman84]

I honestly wouldn't bother campaigning that hard to get it changed.

We have just been very unlucky to get hit twice within six months with injuries and if the rules get changed it just helps out all the other clubs.

Let them feel the pain like us.

 

[c-b-b]

I know it's been said before but Dib, Castle and Hasler should be shot for Forans deal.

Andrew Hill is saying its about $1.5 million between the two players and Smith is on around $200k.

 

[GDR]

I honestly wouldn't bother campaigning that hard to get it changed.

We have just been very unlucky to get hit twice within six months with injuries and if the rules get changed it just helps out all the other clubs.

Let them feel the pain like us.

you could say unlucky, or I would rather say just dumb...

everybody knew that this would happened to Foran before we signed him.. we have to live with the errors of the previous admin and coach ..

as for Smith, that was unlucky .. btw 200k seems a bit high for him also IMO.

 

[Alan79]

I honestly wouldn't bother campaigning that hard to get it changed.

We have just been very unlucky to get hit twice within six months with injuries and if the rules get changed it just helps out all the other clubs.

Let them feel the pain like us.

It will no doubt be changed at some point when a favoured team needs a higher percentage of salary cap relief to replace an injured player. So I'm glad that we're actually having a say about this. I didn't think that the individual clubs had to spend their own money on players injured in rep games either. I thought it only fair that it comes from the profit made by the NRL by staging the games. It just shows that the NRL only have financial interests in these games. They're not interested in providing the spectacle for fans, it's all about grabbing a few extra dollars.

Hill makes a great analogy about this with the statement about cars. And it actually reminds me of the fact that my nephew let his mate borrow a car that he wrote off. The turd never paid for the car and insurance didn't cover it, so my nephew was without a car because he was good enough to let an asshole borrow it. In my nephew's case the mate didn't have the money, while in the case of the Bulldogs the NRL does actually have the money, they just don't want to spend it.

In my nephew's case his former mate was actually ashamed enough that he made himself scarce after proving he's a turd and they're not mates anymore.thevcar wasn't so expensive that he couldn't have paid it off. In the case of the NRL, they've gone on to borrow more cars off us at the next opportunity that they could. And if we'd denied them it would be our club in a worse position.

Unfortunately it's not right to deny players the chance to represent in these pointless matches when they're chosen as stated by both Pay and Hill. It would make us less appealing to sign for. So we're screwed either way. I'd prefer that we get a better outcome than to live in hopes that another club might eventually suffer from this.

 

[oldpuppy]

Rep teams borrow our car, bang them up, return them and say, 'Thank you','' Hill said.

I told Andrew Hill to use my Ferrari analogy . Instead he butchered it.

 

[Spoonman84]

you could say unlucky, or I would rather say just dumb...

everybody knew that this would happened to Foran before we signed him.. we have to live with the errors of the previous admin and coach ..

as for Smith, that was unlucky .. btw 200k seems a bit high for him also IMO.

Oh yeah I agree with that I was talking more in a general sense that it's pretty uncommon for a club to cop 2 long term injuries in rep games in such a short time frame.

 

[Spoonman84]

It will no doubt be changed at some point when a favoured team needs a higher percentage of salary cap relief to replace an injured player. So I'm glad that we're actually having a say about this. I didn't think that the individual clubs had to spend their own money on players injured in rep games either. I thought it only fair that it comes from the profit made by the NRL by staging the games. It just shows that the NRL only have financial interests in these games. They're not interested in providing the spectacle for fans, it's all about grabbing a few extra dollars.

Hill makes a great analogy about this with the statement about cars. And it actually reminds me of the fact that my nephew let his mate borrow a car that he wrote off. The turd never paid for the car and insurance didn't cover it, so my nephew was without a car because he was good enough to let an asshole borrow it. In my nephew's case the mate didn't have the money, while in the case of the Bulldogs the NRL does actually have the money, they just don't want to spend it.

In my nephew's case his former mate was actually ashamed enough that he made himself scarce after proving he's a turd and they're not mates anymore.thevcar wasn't so expensive that he couldn't have paid it off. In the case of the NRL, they've gone on to borrow more cars off us at the next opportunity that they could. And if we'd denied them it would be our club in a worse position.

Unfortunately it's not right to deny players the chance to represent in these pointless matches when they're chosen as stated by both Pay and Hill. It would make us less appealing to sign for. So we're screwed either way. I'd prefer that we get a better outcome than to live in hopes that another club might eventually suffer from this.

I completely agree with what you are saying the current system is ridiculous. I just don't see the point of us getting it changed for some other club to avoid what we have gone through.

 

[GDR]

Oh yeah I agree with that I was talking more in a general sense that it's pretty uncommon for a club to cop 2 long term injuries in rep games in such a short time frame.

yes it is uncommon, unless the law of averages is increased with a notoriously injured player..

 

[Heckler]

I'm happy Hill has a voice and uses it to be heard by others and not by himself unlike the previous fraud that paraded around as our CEO.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I completely agree with what you are saying the current system is ridiculous. I just don't see the point of us getting it changed for some other club to avoid what we have gone through.

I don't know about you but I' have zero confidence that we won't continue on the bad luck track. After all we would look pretty stupid if we copped a 3rd and hadn't complained about the previous 2. Everybody would be up in arms, demanding the board's blood, bitching about poor administration. Like an insurance policy, when you pay for it and don't use it, until you need it.

Go Dogs

 

[Scoooby]

At least hill is speaking up an trying to be heard.!!

 

[Alan79]

I completely agree with what you are saying the current system is ridiculous. I just don't see the point of us getting it changed for some other club to avoid what we have gone through.

I'm of the opinion that it's a good idea to point this out now. Hopefully if the NRL admin change the rules when a favoured team needs it, it sets something of a precedent to call for a change in leadership. The clubs provide the NRL with an income stream and it's my opinion that they need to be looking after every club. It just seems like they currently show favouritism to a few clubs. I'd prefer that no club suffers really. I might not love opposition clubs, but every fan of the NRL are here to support their club, and it just seems like it's only a few clubs that get every possible outcome going their way.

I think that this goes beyond just this issue. Things like medical retirement currently come down to the discretion of the NRL. I've seen rules about promoting juniors not on development contracts skirted for the Roosters. I've seen that the dragons had to fight to get salary cap dispensation for De Belen. It all adds up to a strong appearance of bias in my eyes.

Now imagine for a minute that a player that we need comes on the market prior to the season. I don't care personally if we had to dish up our own money to pay for them, but it would really piss me off if we can't compete for the signature because the NRL only allowed about a third of Foran salary to be exempt under the cap. You don't have to be Nostradamus to guess that the usual suspects like the Roosters, Melbourne, Souths or Brisbane will somehow have cap space to make a play for a marquee player.

It would be great if we or another club with understrength rosters are able to compete for the same signatures if money we had tied up in a player that was injured in a nothing game was freely available.

 

[Spoonman84]

I don't know about you but I' have zero confidence that we won't continue on the bad luck track. After all we would look pretty stupid if we copped a 3rd and hadn't complained about the previous 2. Everybody would be up in arms, demanding the board's blood, bitching about poor administration. Like an insurance policy, when you pay for it and don't use it, until you need it.

Go Dogs

We are going to have a really small amount of players in rep football for the rest of the year so it will be another club left carrying the can next time.

Where has complaining got us? No where. Chance's are Foran would have been injured for us this season anyway with his track record so we would have still been in this position .

I'm sure it will give everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling inside if we get this rule changed and Tedesco goes down in Origin and the Chooks get a million to play with.

 

[Spoonman84]

I'm of the opinion that it's a good idea to point this out now. Hopefully if the NRL admin change the rules when a favoured team needs it, it sets something of a precedent to call for a change in leadership. The clubs provide the NRL with an income stream and it's my opinion that they need to be looking after every club. It just seems like they currently show favouritism to a few clubs. I'd prefer that no club suffers really. I might not love opposition clubs, but every fan of the NRL are here to support their club, and it just seems like it's only a few clubs that get every possible outcome going their way.

I think that this goes beyond just this issue. Things like medical retirement currently come down to the discretion of the NRL. I've seen rules about promoting juniors not on development contracts skirted for the Roosters. I've seen that the dragons had to fight to get salary cap dispensation for De Belen. It all adds up to a strong appearance of bias in my eyes.

Now imagine for a minute that a player that we need comes on the market prior to the season. I don't care personally if we had to dish up our own money to pay for them, but it would really piss me off if we can't compete for the signature because the NRL only allowed about a third of Foran salary to be exempt under the cap. You don't have to be Nostradamus to guess that the usual suspects like the Roosters, Melbourne, Souths or Brisbane will somehow have cap space to make a play for a marquee player.

It would be great if we or another club with understrength rosters are able to compete for the same signatures if money we had tied up in a player that was injured in a nothing game was freely available.

I really don't get the NRL playing favourites with Roosters, Melbourne, Souths or Brisbane. People just don't like to admit that they are smarter then most clubs and are pushing the envelope.

There is absolutely zero excuses for us not to be bending the cap like those clubs and they are clever enough to work around the dumb rules of the NRL.

Sitting back pointing the finger at the likes of the Roosters will have us in the darkness for years to come.

Clubs like ours have made so many dumb decisions over the last few years which plays right into the big clubs hands.

We have a blank canvas next year hopefully we get smart and become a big club again.

 

[Alan79]

We are going to have a really small amount of players in rep football for the rest of the year so it will be another club left carrying the can next time.

Where has complaining got us? No where. Chance's are Foran would have been injured for us this season anyway with his track record so we would have still been in this position .

I'm sure it will give everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling inside if we get this rule changed and Tedesco goes down in Origin and the Chooks get a million to play with.

The natural question arising from this line of thoight is would you be impressed if they change the rules because the Roosters complained when we bent over and said we didn't want them to waste lube on our club? Because I just see it as par for the course for them to change the rules when those clubs that seem to have more media appeal than us ask.


I didn't quote the following message, but while I acknowledge that our former administration screwed our roster with poor decisions, they also had a tendency to not kick up a stink if things went against us. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so perhaps this is part of a larger strategy to let the NRL know that we aren't going to sit down and cop every questionable decision on the chin.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

If you get stung by something, do something about it. If it helps others, that's generally a good thing, even if they are your competitor. Our club has in times past been a mover and shaker, and that has earned us a certain amount of respect behind closed doors in clubland. Nothing wrong with that. The alternative seems like a kind of "cut off your nose to spite your face" dealy-bob, and that rarely turns out to be a winning strategy.

 

[Spoonman84]

The natural question arising from this line of thoight is would you be impressed if they change the rules because the Roosters complained when we bent over and said we didn't want them to waste lube on our club? Because I just see it as par for the course for them to change the rules when those clubs that seem to have more media appeal than us ask.


I didn't quote the following message, but while I acknowledge that our former administration screwed our roster with poor decisions, they also had a tendency to not kick up a stink if things went against us. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so perhaps this is part of a larger strategy to let the NRL know that we aren't going to sit down and cop every questionable decision on the chin.

Let the Roosters get the rule changed if happened to them because we have already been bent over. We tried to get it changed and we got knocked back. The Foran decision is done and dusted we don't get any advantage if they change it now.

I'm not sure being vocal or quite in the media has that much of an effect its just about being smart behind the scenes and knowing how to get around the NRL rules.

 

[oldpuppy]

I really don't get the NRL playing favourites with Roosters, Melbourne, Souths or Brisbane. People just don't like to admit that they are smarter then most clubs and are pushing the envelope.

There is absolutely zero excuses for us not to be bending the cap like those clubs and they are clever enough to work around the dumb rules of the NRL.

Sitting back pointing the finger at the likes of the Roosters will have us in the darkness for years to come.

Clubs like ours have made so many dumb decisions over the last few years which plays right into the big clubs hands.

We have a blank canvas next year hopefully we get smart and become a big club again.

Personally I want this club to be smart again too . I understand your point about being able to push the envelope. However unlike the other clubs, I feel there's a difference between exploiting the rules and breaking them.
Let's not forget 10 years ago that Melbourne had 2 sets of books.
I also have a hunch that the roosters are currently enjoying the moment and it will take only just one paper brown bag that's not filled properly to blow the whistle on them.

 

[wendog33]

I can see both sides of these positions.

Whatever the decision: it won't be benefitting us you can be sure of that.