"Roosters $400k Under Cap In 2020"

[UndeadShadowMan]

About a year or so ago there was a report of all the clubs TPAs and miraculously the Roosters were quite low down the list there as well.

Its not really tpa's because the sponsors are not associated with the club so it's allowed. Still a rort because Politis & his rich mates are the ones topping up the contracts. Dogluva on page 1 went into more detail about this.

 

[Dogzof95]

Remember when the Roosters signed Cronk, they could have also kept Pearce! Yep, nothing to see here move on.....

 

[KambahOne]

That's actually not the case, once the contract is void, as it has to be since he signed with the Wabbits, the NDA within it is no longer in force. Plus of course it is knowledge in the public domain, which even if the NDA was still in force nullifies it.

Go Dogs

The contract between Critchon and the Roosters would be commercial in confidence and any information the lol@souffs capologist revealed to anyone outside that process would be a breach of that process and a dereliction of duty.

 

[KambahOne]

I see the only important question as this, if the entire 30 man Chooks roster was put on the open market what would its value total? My guess and it's only a guess is close to $13.5m.

The NRL claims that the Cap has 2 reasons for its existence, helping to even up the competition being the minor one of them, which quite plainly it is a complete failure at. The other major claim is that the salary cap helps prevent clubs overspending and going broke. Here's the problem with that claim, let's say the Chooks are legally within the Cap by utilising clever outside the cap payments (Cronk's fully sponsored Harvard degree is an example). The undeniable fact is it still forces other clubs to spend the same amount (call it my guess of $13.5m) to compete, whether it is within their cap or not. It's still money in the end, whether it is included in the Cap or not, so the Cap is in effect not achieving its target of limiting the clubs spending. All it does is distinguish between the money they spend under the Cap and the money they spend outside of it. Which doesn't achieve the objective, the $13.5m (or whatever it is) still gets spent by other clubs trying to compete.

There is only one solution that I see, all payments to players must be reported to the NRL and split between what's in the Cap, what's in registered TPA's and what's in unregistered TPA's. Then published, not individual players salaries, that's a bit rude, but totals for each club, when the season starts, again at the cut off (usually 30th June) and then again at the end of the season. That way when a player signs between seasons or mid season for a club for a lesser amount under their cap then the NRL has the information on hand to compare the outside the cap payments. Plus they have a record of every time the player has registered a contract and what its total value was.


Go Dogs

It honestly would not matter if you published every players salary and TPA on a mural outside NRL headquarters, if it reveals the Roosters are within the cap, no one would believe it. You only have to look at the publication of the TPA's last year. Everyone was screaming "publish the TPA'S", so the NRL published the TPA's which showed the Roosters as one of the lowest user of TPA's which resulted in everyone screaming = "That's bullshit, they are covering it another way somehow".

The only way, the one and only way the Roosters will ever be believed is if we are caught. Nothing else will satisfy the tin foil hatters.

 

[Tazer]

Some things you just know instinctively to be true. This hogwash that all the players on masse stay for substantially lower coin because they want a premiership ring is just that.

Lets take Joey Manu as an example. The guy is a seriously talented outside back who has filled in with distinction for Teddy at FB on numerous occasions over the last few years. In fact I would say he's a better FB than 90% of the Full time ones running around in the NRL. And yet he recently signed a 3 year extension at 550K a year for the next 3 years to stay at the Roosters when he could easily expect to command 800k to play FB at another club.

Now I guess he could be just a real loyal bloke who values premiership rings over money but to my mind (and 99% of NRL supporters minds) the much more likely scenario is that he is being looked after in "other ways". That he would sacrifice potentially 750K over 3 years for loyalty stretches the bounds of credibility to breaking point. And this story repeats itself right throughout the Roosters roster.

The Roosters are rorting the cap...outside of death and taxes there is nothing more certain.

 

[KambahOne]

Maybe, maybe not, but how much less? If you sign for 3 years at $100k less per year that's $300k that you aren't going to get back. If you sign for 3 years at $200k less per year that's $600k that you aren't going to get back. How much is a premiership worth? Depending on position played and the individual how long is an NRL career with decent earnings, 5 years, maybe 10 if you are lucky. Giving up 3 years on lessor money is big proportion of that. Plus players' agents are mostly on a %, so they sure as hell won't want their player to settle for less money, they will be pushing for them to take the highest offer every time.

Honestly I think this "I will take less money to win a premiership" is grossly overrated, I'm sure it happens, but far less often than is claimed. Realistically why wouldn't the leading clubs want to minimise the knowledge of player payments, it's in their own best interests to under state the salary to reduce the demands of other players, those they already have on contract and those they are trying to recruit. For example, "If JMoz can play for minimum salary to win a premiership then why can't you?" It's mostly hype generated by certain clubs to protect their advantage.

Go Dogs

That is a very short sighted way of looking at a young players situation. Let's take Kyle Flanagan as an example. He signs and plays with us for 250-300K for two years. In that time he's learning from Cooper Cronk, coached by Robbo, trained by Fitzy, playing alongside Keary, Tedesco, he plays finals, and gets to look good granted in a good team. But when his contract is up for renewal that experience will only add to his value. And he'll be available in two years as we'll have Sam Walker and we'll be doing with him what we did with Flanagan.

 

[KambahOne]

Some things you just know instinctively to be true. This hogwash that all the players on masse stay for substantially lower coin because they want a premiership ring is just that.

Lets take Willie Manu as an example. The guy is a seriously talented outside back who has filled in with distinction for Teddy at FB on numerous occasions over the last few years. In fact I would say he's a better FB than 90% of the Full time ones running around in the NRL. And yet he recently signed a 3 year extension at 550K a year for the next 3 years to stay at the Roosters when he could easily expect to command 800k to play FB at another club.

Now I guess he could be just a real loyal bloke who values premiership rings over money but to my mind (and 99% of NRL supporters minds) the much more likely scenario is that he is being looked after in "other ways". That he would sacrifice potentially 750K over 3 years for loyalty stretches the bounds of credibility to breaking point. And this story repeats itself right throughout the Roosters roster.

The Roosters are rorting the cap...outside of death and taxes there is nothing more certain.

It's Joey Manu and we brought his family over from NZ to live here so he wouldn't feel homesick, so yeah I would imagine he feels a sense of loyalty to us.

And before everyone arcs up, bringing his family over was not part of the cap, just like it wasn't when the Raiders wanted to do it or when your club does it for Bateman if you land him.

 

[Dirty*Deeds]

"I spoke to the club yesterday and asked if they would bring in (someone)," he said.

"You won’t believe this – the Roosters are $400,000 under the salary cap for this year. I’m telling you, it’s a true story.

 

[Tazer]

Sorry....Joey. I stand corrected.

 

[Tazer]

And before everyone arcs up, bringing his family over was not part of the cap, just like it wasn't when the Raiders wanted to do it or when your club does it for Bateman if you land him.

Its interesting you should mention Bateman because he provides a fascinating point of difference when compared to Manu. The Raiders went to a lot of trouble to get the guy out from the UK (just like the Roosters went to a lot of trouble with Manu)...even paying a 200K transfer fee in order to make his NRL dream a reality You would think he would feel a sense of loyalty to the Raiders because of this but in fact just the opposite turned out to be true. He turned down a 750K offer from them to chase the big bucks elsewhere. And its not as if the Raiders aren't a realistic chance of going all the way over the next year or two with the roster they have. Nope..he's quite content to go to a team currently languishing at the bottom of the table as long as they cough up the readies.

So yeah....this is the type of anomaly that leaves the average NRL supporter scratching their heads where the Roosters are concerned. The truth is that there are a million and one ways to induce a player to stay at your club that lie outside the rules of the cap...and the more multi millionaires you have on your board the easier it becomes.

 

[KambahOne]

Its interesting you should mention Bateman because he provides a fascinating point of difference when compared to Manu. The Raiders went to a lot of trouble to get the guy out from the UK (just like the Roosters went to a lot of trouble with Manu)...even paying a 200K transfer fee in order to make his NRL dream a reality You would think he would feel a sense of loyalty to the Raiders because of this but in fact just the opposite turned out to be true. He turned down a 750K offer from them to chase the big bucks elsewhere. And its not as if the Raiders aren't a realistic chance of going all the way over the next year or two with the roster they have. Nope..he's quite content to go to a team currently languishing at the bottom of the table as long as they cough up the readies.

So yeah....this is the type of anomaly that leaves the average NRL supporter scratching their heads where the Roosters are concerned. The truth is that there are a million and one ways to induce a player to stay at your club that lie outside the rules of the cap...and the more multi millionaires you have on your board the easier it becomes.

I think Bateman is complicit with what's going on, but it's his gutter dwelling manager that is the cause of this split with the Raiders. As far as I'm aware we have no Issac Moses players on our books and if Nick has his way we never will. Nick blacklisted Moses years ago as he did with Bennett so I doubt that will change anytime soon.

 

[Trafford10]

Gee I needed a good laugh to brighten the day and this provided it.

I seem to remember that towards the end of the stay of Blake Ferguson at the Roosters he was on a modest salary due to shall we say off fields indiscretions that the Roosters over looked on the basis he was paid less. Buzz reported the fact in 2017/18 that Fergo was on a reduced contract ( prior to that on 450K per season) because of the exact same reason I just quoted and he would not have signed on with Parramatta for anything less than what he was getting at the Roosters. He signed on at Parra for 500k per season which means the money he was earning at the Chooks was less than that and they have applied the cost of his last deal with them as the total of what they are now paying the Morris boys. When the two Roosters players went down I said to hubby that it won't be an issue for the Roosters to simply go out and buy a hooker or at least some type of replacement for them just as they did with Billy Smith the centre who is missing due to injury. Don't forget that as the injuries occurred in a normal club match there is no type of compensation for their contracts in the salary cap.
Working on averages they are telling us that the Morris boys are being paid less than 500k between them per season. Yes, maybe a bit of money put in by the Sharks but honestly??? Don't forget that it is the second year of his deal so he would still be on a decent wage.

BMoz signed on with the Roosters for NRL minimum, he maybe on a bit more now because he is playing great and still runs fast. JMoz & BMoz will be on less then $500k combined, no doubt about that.

 

[JackDog]

Its interesting you should mention Bateman because he provides a fascinating point of difference when compared to Manu. The Raiders went to a lot of trouble to get the guy out from the UK (just like the Roosters went to a lot of trouble with Manu)...even paying a 200K transfer fee in order to make his NRL dream a reality You would think he would feel a sense of loyalty to the Raiders because of this but in fact just the opposite turned out to be true. He turned down a 750K offer from them to chase the big bucks elsewhere. And its not as if the Raiders aren't a realistic chance of going all the way over the next year or two with the roster they have. Nope..he's quite content to go to a team currently languishing at the bottom of the table as long as they cough up the readies.

So yeah....this is the type of anomaly that leaves the average NRL supporter scratching their heads where the Roosters are concerned. The truth is that there are a million and one ways to induce a player to stay at your club that lie outside the rules of the cap...and the more multi millionaires you have on your board the easier it becomes.

I have no doubt if you look at Rorters cap figures, they will be compliant. And if you look at their "official TPAs" they will be low. There's no way millionaire business people are going to get caught so easily.

There are so many ways a player can be "paid" outside the NRL rules. Will a player play for 5% less to be with a successful club? sure. But, 25% or more? without "other reimbursements" to top it up? I don't think so.

How can the NRL expect a fair comp, when a club's top 10 or so players play for $100k's below market value, whatever the reason.

If the NRL really wants a fair comp, they find another way to even out the talent without depending solely on nominated contract values. The fact they haven't for years suggests they are happy with the way things are.