Do we go all in for Munster?

[bradyk]

I'm not sure about this and I should like to hear from somebody who actually understands the rules.

From the NRL web site:

Since 2018 clubs have been required to spend at least 95 per cent of their salary cap each year and that rule is in place to guarantee player payments.

"95 per cent of their salary cap" could mean 95% of what they contracted to spend rather than 95% of $9.4M. This is the only reading that makes any sense to me, although looking for sense from the NRL is a bit like looking for the philosopher's stone. If the clubs have to spend 95% of $9.4M, this forces some clubs to spend overs on second rate players, and completely negates what the cap is supposed to be there for.

I think it's pretty clear, they have to spend 95% of their salary cap. I don't like the rule personally, but we can use it to our benefit in the Munster scenario. In theory front loading would counter the rule, but that's where the grey area is in regardless to how much of that you can do.

 

[Heckler]

He could have been ours had Noel Cleal or No Clue rejected him as he was offered to us by The GREAT Jason Hetherington.

 

[Philistine]

I think it's pretty clear, they have to spend 95% of their salary cap. I don't like the rule personally, but we can use it to our benefit in the Munster scenario. In theory front loading would counter the rule, but that's where the grey area is in regardless to how much of that you can do.

I'm not clear what you think is pretty clear (this is beginning to sound like "who's on first"). Are you saying it is 95% of $9.4M? I can't imagine a sports administration with even a glimmer of intelligence coming up with such a rule. Having said that, this is the NRL we are talking about.

 

[The DoggFather]

1.3, Storm's offer is less than 1m. I'm not worried about the Dolphins unless/until they start signing mercenaries on big money on 1 year deals. Munster's a 2024 signing, not 2023 (Dolphins struggling in recruitment, having to pay big money and long term contracts, they need to spend 95% of the salary cap on 2023).

Well If you want to believe the media, Storm offered 750k and Plichards 1.2mil

 

[bradyk]

I'm not clear what you think is pretty clear (this is beginning to sound like "who's on first"). Are you saying it is 95% of $9.4M? I can't imagine a sports administration with even a glimmer of intelligence coming up with such a rule. Having said that, this is the NRL we are talking about.

This year with the salary cap being 9.4m, every club spent 95%, 8.93m, before a ball was kicked. Next year and 2024 will be the same with whatever the new salary cap number is.

 

[Novdoggie]

No because 7% goes to Anasta