Inglis to the Bombers

[Guest]

Overweight and that stupid piercing make for a great look.
I don't care where GI ends up.

He'll be fine, he has a powerband!

[Guest]

ESL is no longer an issue now that you cant park your income in guernsey or jersey or somewhere tax free and then bring it home in a big lump five years later as "super"

their contracts wouldn't even match sh!tty NRL wages

was that line in the sunny terror true that Willie Mason was in Tonga getting a passport so he can be treated as a non import in ESL?

[Guest]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...222-195ls.html

Interesting read and a lot of logic from Glenn Jackson. I don't agree with him about allowing third party deals to be unfetted. I think the broncos and their Thouroughbreads need far more scrutiny given that club and thier success of retaining so many rep players over the decades they have been operating. So I am happy the NRL is scrutinising Inglis's deal, but I agree with Jackson that sponsors should not be "interrogated" for wanting to put money into the code.

This is an issue for the IC to sort out imo. Gallop and Shubert should be mininising their rulings on issues like this till the IC is up and running.

Chook.

[TheLoneRooster]

He'll be fine, he has a powerband!

LOL, how could I forgot about that.

[me_wantee]

He'll be fine, he has a powerband!

Maybe that was the problem???

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-styl...223-195u7.html

[Guest]

All this Ingli$$ saga is extreme Lol


Is macca's going to bring out the McIngli$$ burger?
(5 paddies, 8 slices of cheese, sauce) comes with a free abo action figure

no salad, no nutrition, just a heart attack in a bun!


Crikey's crystal ball:

This dickhead will still end up at Souff$.

Put on another 10kg at KFC & Maccas in the off season

Pull a hammy in his first run....... out for 6 weeks

Mistakes Lol Sandow as lunch, gets intigestion

Mundine turns him to Islam, Ingli$ is on the lookout for 72 virgins

Burgess gets injured.

Souff$ miss the semi's


Crikey

Sounds like a golden plan!

[theGman]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...222-195ls.html

Interesting read and a lot of logic from Glenn Jackson. I don't agree with him about allowing third party deals to be unfetted. I think the broncos and their Thouroughbreads need far more scrutiny given that club and thier success of retaining so many rep players over the decades they have been operating. So I am happy the NRL is scrutinising Inglis's deal, but I agree with Jackson that sponsors should not be "interrogated" for wanting to put money into the code.

This is an issue for the IC to sort out imo. Gallop and Shubert should be mininising their rulings on issues like this till the IC is up and running.

Chook.

It will be very, very interesting to know the views of the independent commissioners given their diverse backgrounds (well that's what we're lead to believe).
Will they continue to endorse salary crap restrictions for the sake of a level playing field OR go the other way and allow every club to go their hardest in terms of corporate $$ ?

[Spirit of 66]

It will be very, very interesting to know the views of the independent commissioners given their diverse backgrounds (well that's what we're lead to believe).
Will they continue to endorse salary crap restrictions for the sake of a level playing field OR go the other way and allow every club to go their hardest in terms of corporate $$ ?

I think the NRL are happy for teams to go as hard as they want for the corporate dollar. What they are a bit cagey about are teams engineering supposedly "third party" deals to lure players.

If they had let the the Inglis deal go through it would be a free-for-all. (Oddly enough, this would probably suit the Roosters fine, but there would be other teams that would fold as a result.)

[Guest]

I think the NRL are happy for teams to go as hard as they want for the corporate dollar. What they are a bit cagey about are teams engineering supposedly "third party" deals to lure players.

If they had let the the Inglis deal go through it would be a free-for-all. (Oddly enough, this would probably suit the Roosters fine, but there would be other teams that would fold as a result.)

Is that a bad thing though? In terms of longevity versus rationalisation, how long can our game be restrained by the lowest common denomintor? How long do we protect those clubs that are financially "on the edge" in favour of the clubs that can attract that corporate dollar for their players?

It's an issue the IC are going to have to address sooner rather than later imo.

Chook.

[Guest]

LOL, how could I forgot about that.

Oops ... maybe not ...
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1225975195319

[Kingbilly]

Is that a bad thing though? In terms of longevity versus rationalisation, how long can our game be restrained by the lowest common denomintor? How long do we protect those clubs that are financially "on the edge" in favour of the clubs that can attract that corporate dollar for their players?

It's an issue the IC are going to have to address sooner rather than later imo.

Chook.

Its more than just preserving a level playing field and protecting clubs as they say, its about the market. Some thing which I already think has been blown. The market for the NRL can not support the high salaries of players in the long term without huge long term effects.
Its seen already with the cuts to funding to junior and country RL.

Maybe what should be looked at is a double tier cap situation, with the first being std and much lower and the second funded by 3rd part deals and corporate sponsorship. This could in effect give us a higher amount to pay the players without increasing the expense to the clubs and the fans.

I also do not want to pay anymore for foxtel just to fund an infalted player salaries.

[Guest]

Inglis could solve this himself very quickly. Just play for less dollars. Done

[Guest]

Inglis could solve this himself very quickly. Just play for less dollars. Done

Wont work.
Storm would then be left with a salary cap hang-over,and would refuse to release him.

[Guest]

Wont work.
Storm would then be left with a salary cap hang-over,and would refuse to release him.

Why???????

[Guest]

Why???????

Because Inglis is still contracted to the Storm for 600k.Storm have to grant Inglis a release.
Storm agreed initially to release him to the Broncos for 570k,which left them with a 30k salary cap hangover for 2011.
If Inglis asked for a release to go to another club for say 400k,Storm would be left with a 200k hangover and would not grant a release...