News Why NRL has blocked three attempts by Bulldogs to get cap relief for retired skipper

[Lynchpin]

...Right, that's exactly what they needed to do but Jackson wouldn't have retired if he wasn't getting a job at the club. Gus did it his way and failed.

OR, the way Josh Jackson said it happened is exactly the way it did happen and Gus simply proceeded to deal with the situation as it was presented.
It's okay to be cynical, but Occam's razor suggests Josh decided, suddenly, that his time was done. It's not like his experience wouldn't have been useful this year.

 

[JackDog]

OR, the way Josh Jackson said it happened is exactly the way it did happen and Gus simply proceeded to deal with the situation as it was presented.
It's okay to be cynical, but Occam's razor suggests Josh decided, suddenly, that his time was done. It's not like his experience wouldn't have been useful this year.

So was Gus arrogant enough to think he could get away without the cap hit? Or blase enough to dismiss the cap hit as chump change, and now finds he needs it?

 

[TwinTurbo]

Eg. Was Cooper Cronk induced to the Roosters on the promise of post-retirement "coaching consultancies"? Or "introductions" to the local broadcaster for post-retirement media work?

Plus payment of all expenses in regards to attending Harvard University to attain MBA qualifications cost USD223,084 = AUD434k.


Always a Bulldog

 

[dekepefc]

Going by the figures being thrown around Josh Jackson is getting paid 200k as a qualified but untested strength and conditioning coach... that's alot of money for that role...

Name any other club that would hire him at 200k? That's the problem, and why the nrl need to have rules around it (so long as they apply them fairly to EVERY club)..

If dogs were smarter, they'd pay for him to study full time for 2023 or send him to u.s.a or anywhere for a year work experience... then bring him back for 2024 and beyond with an inflated salary.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Because much like the Barrett "resignation", I don't choose to believe that Jackson's decision to retire was his alone?

You can chose to believe whatever you like (the earth is flat), the rest of us will rely on the facts (the earth is spherical).

Always a Bulldog

 

[1967]

Here’s the hypocrisy & clear cut favouritism of some clubs compared with others.

The below events are what led to South’s being able to sign Latrel Mitchell ..

Source .. Sporting News .com … Steve Orme.

English Super League supporters hailed Greg Inglis’ stunning decision to come out of retirement to join Warrington Wolves on a one-year deal, the biggest signing in the competitions history.

NRL fans who flocked to social media after the bombshell announcement on Tuesday night expressed confusion and outrage over the 33-year-old’s ‘medical retirement’ from South Sydney last April.

Inglis called time on his illustrious NRL career last April despite being contracted to the Bunnies until the end of the 2020 season.

The legendary Melbourne Storm and Rabbitohs back was not medically retired, however the NRL controversially granted the Bunnies $1 million in salary cap relief.

It is understood the veteran of 263 NRL games was owed around $300,000 for the remainder of 2019 and $700,000 this season.

Under the terms of the deal between the NRL and Rabbitohs management it was agreed Inglis would be paid the remainder of his playing contract in off-field work with the club in the coming years.

The estimated $100,000 Inglis received for his off-field work following his retirement last season was counted toward the Rabbitohs’ 2019 cap.

But Inglis’ entire 2020 wage was exempt, opening the door for the Bunnies to sign ex-Sydney Roosters star Latrell Mitchell for $600,000 in January.

 

[dekepefc]

Whilst I understand the NRL's position (not that I agree with it, just that I understand it) it doesn't actually make sense. What is it that they are trying to prevent? A player retiring, not playing for the team and not getting paid to play for the team? The team derives no benefit because the player isn't playing. Why should anything be left in the Cap? What benefit does the team get out of it? Sure there is a player off their Cap but, at the risk of repeating myself, the team isn't getting the benefit of him playing either. So it's a wash, no one benefits extraordinarily.

They're trying to stop a club buying players on multi year deals towards the back end of their career with no intention to play the entire deal out, or make it easy to get out of the deal when required... it would mean rich clubs could overpay players by for instance signing a 30 year old on a 5 year deal when other clubs can only offer shorter deals cause they don't want to take on the risk they break down after a couple of years.

 

[sideswip]

its easy Jacko resigns from his current position , then takes another position

 

[Glenn L]

OR, the way Josh Jackson said it happened is exactly the way it did happen and Gus simply proceeded to deal with the situation as it was presented.
It's okay to be cynical, but Occam's razor suggests Josh decided, suddenly, that his time was done. It's not like his experience wouldn't have been useful this year.

You believe what you want. I don't believe that's what happened, same for Barrett. You think Gus wanted a player earning $800K of cap space this year when he was cooked 2 years ago?. I believe he was tapped.

 

[Glenn L]

So was Gus arrogant enough to think he could get away without the cap hit? Or blase enough to dismiss the cap hit as chump change, and now finds he needs it?

Clearly they thought they could get away with no hit to the cap otherwise why do it? I believe Jackson had him hostage in a way. He was clearly on massive coin this year and Gould had other ideas. There was no way Jackson was walking away without a job at the club after being tapped, so here we are. What I don't get is that Gould stated we had $650K left this year. You could still go after someone for $450K or was Gould telling porkies?

 

[Lynchpin]

$800K of cap space this year

You really think that's what Jackson was set to be paid on the 2023 salary cap?
Okay. Nothing to stop you believing that, I guess...

 

[Glenn L]

You really think that's what Jackson was set to be paid on the 2023 salary cap?
Okay. Nothing to stop you believing that, I guess...

What was his contract this year? He was on massive overs that's for sure. Captain of the club.
Here we go, $650,000. Well look at that. Exactly what Gus said we had left over this year.

Bulldogs hit back at salary cap conspiracy behind veteran’s retirement

Bulldogs hit back at salary cap conspiracy behind veteran’s retirement

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[InGusWeTrust]

To what end? He was retiring anyway.
Sounds like they thought they already had checked (job description, etc), the NRL had "approved" but then "forgot" to communicate the, "Oh, yeah. It's approved, but still on the cap" bit.
Amateur Hour in there at "NRL HQ" - decisions based on clique, not principle.

Unless you‘re Souths who get away with heaps. There was so much Surgess was involved in that was swept under the rug.

 

[1967]

What was his contract this year? He was on massive overs that's for sure. Captain of the club.
Here we go, $650,000.

Bulldogs hit back at salary cap conspiracy behind veteran’s retirement

Bulldogs hit back at salary cap conspiracy behind veteran’s retirement

www.foxsports.com.au

What about his $200k exemption for longevity ?

The point is if you weren’t in the room, you don’t know, they may have come to an arrangement or he may have wanted to retire.

Everyone can have their opinion, but at the end of the day it’s just speculation, those opinions aren’t based on facts, they’re based on personal beliefs which can have agendas.

Something to remember

1) He couldn’t be made to retire, if he wanted to play on they couldn’t have stopped him.
2) People who know him and have spoken to him have said from his own mouth, he wanted to retire.
3) Those saying he was pushed have no proof but their own conspiracy theory.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

The team derives no benefit because the player isn't playing. Why should anything be left in the Cap? What benefit does the team get out of it? Sure there is a player off their Cap but, at the risk of repeating myself, the team isn't getting the benefit of him playing either. So it's a wash, no one benefits extraordinarily.

Initially I thought this but here’s a scenario for you…

Player A is negotiating a contract extension with club. Club wants to give him 3 yrs @ $500k ($1.5m total) but don’t have the cap space, so tell him they’ll do 5 yrs @ $300k, thus he gets the same total amount. The catch is that he’ll announce a surprise retirement after 3 yrs. He doesn’t mind as he’s 30 when he signs. The club has only paid him $900k to this point, thus saving $600k on the cap, with that money still going to the player for working at the club cleaning the dunnies, or whatever. Importantly though, it doesn’t affect the club’s salary cap.

It would be a good way to circumvent the cap, IF they just wiped that amount off as soon as a player retired. The scenario I posed isn’t that outlandish, but it would also take a lot of forethought and planning.

Edit: Or you make it even easier and gift players property rental, cars etc. like the rorters probably do.

Thinking about JJ’s case more, it wouldn’t be that difficult to propose this to a player in their 30s. You could just say we’ll sign you for 4 yrs on $x but if you want to retire after 2 or 3 we’ll give you a cushy job at the same rate. That way there’s no drama with when retirement is decided.

 

[Glenn L]

What about his $200k exemption for longevity ?

The point is if you weren’t in the room, you don’t know, they may have come to an arrangement or he may have wanted to retire.

Everyone can have their opinion, but at the end of the day it’s just speculation, those opinions aren’t based on facts, they’re based on personal beliefs which can have agendas.

Something to remember

1) He couldn’t be made to retire, if he wanted to play on they couldn’t have stopped him.
2) People who know him and have spoken to him have said from his own mouth, he wanted to retire.
3) Those saying he was pushed have no proof but their own conspiracy theory.

There you go. The answer and the issue at hand is right there in point #1. Enticement is a wonderful thing. Also out of curiosity does anybody ever recall seeing a post retirement interview from Josh? I can't recall seeing one.

 

[Bob dog]

Zieg heil Achtung!
The NRL will never help Canterbury, next thing they will do is start instructing the public on how to think.

 

[D.O.W.]

...Right, that's exactly what they needed to do but Jackson wouldn't have retired if he wasn't getting a job at the club. Gus did it his way and failed.

Genuine question for all, Does it really matter whose idea it was to retire? The fact is, JJ ultimately decided to retire and the Bulldogs supported it. JJ is entitled to get a job post playing days. There’s absolutely no difference to Cooper Cronk, Boyd Cordner, Greg Inglis, Sam Burgess etc. Even when considering some of those blokes contracts expired, one could backload into his new club role (e.g. “Cooper, we will pay you 600k in your final year.. the remaining 300-400k, we will give you that and ongoing thereafter as our halves coach”)…. The NRL can’t stop it.

It’s irrelevant if JJ had a chat to Gus, it’s relevant JJ decided to retire. The bulldogs are entitled to use that cap money. If they aren’t, the NRL can’t have it both ways (i.e. consume cap money with no one playing).

I ask the question, can he play within the confines of the reported 200K cap NRL recognises??

 

[Glenn L]

Get Jackson back on the filled then, he here’s so may as well use him !!

Imagine how bad that would look...

 

[Powerslide]

Its far from being stupid though. Imagine you have an underperforming guy on $1m a year. You tell him to 'retire' give him a back room job with say $500K and that clears a mill from your salary cap immediately.

Jackson, out of the blue, decides to retire and walks into a well paid back room role. Don't think for a minute this was done to dupe the cap but still, if you were planning to dupe the cap its a good way to do it.

And if you bring context into it - well that opens up bigger cans of worms with lawyers at 20 paces arguing what context means.

So can understand the NRL's position. It just is what it is.

except you can look at each on its merits like is he being paid commensurate to his value in that job, and is he qualified for the role.

1. 200k is about right. Tick
2. Sports Science Degree and a shitload of experience. Tick.