Moa to the Warriors Hayne to the Roosters

[Rooster_6]

Seriously R6, that is your response?

Now you even think you know it all about a fictitious character...

How do you think TPA's work with the salary cap?

I think we all understand how TPA's work with the salary cap.

The disagreement is about how much they affect a palyers salary.

The case that clubs can 'open doors' makes sense and is logical, I don't think it's as big or anywhere near as prevelant as people want to think but at least it makes sense.

Your case on the other hand is that players are willing to take second & third jobs using their intellectual property/brand to do promotional work for companies so they can accept less money at their first job, it's irrational and devoid of logic. If I took a second job doing some adds for Lowe's and my boss asked me to take a pay cut because of it I'd laugh at him as would you and everyone else on this forum.

[Red.]

In my opinion it's pretty straight forward.

If there was no salary cap there would be no TPAs.

The contentious issue is whether you consider it cheating or just good business.

[Double]

In my opinion it's pretty straight forward.

If there was no salary cap there would be no TPAs.

The contentious issue is whether you consider it cheating or just good business.

How is it cheating if the NRL approve all TPA's and the avenue is there for all clubs?

Scenario: Grig Englis (again)...

As was rumoured, Englis is happy to sign at the lols for $1.2m season/ 3 year contract. It is in the lols best interests to sign Englis at the minimum counting towards the cap. Obviously. If the shortfall in his salary can be made up with TPA's (non affiliated sponsors, no logo/club/nrl association) Choice bro!

Unfortunately, a player of Englis stature in the game and subsequent earning potential dwarfs the funds readily available from just TPA's. Enter Marquee Player Allowances (MPA's). Total of $600k per club not counted towards the cap. If the lols have only the single marquee name on their books (Englis), then it is in the lols next best interest to sign Englis on $600k + the entire marquee allowance permitted for the season = $1.2m.

However the lols also have another marquee player returning from an overseas sojourn, Surgi who will need part of the funds from the marquee allowance to top up his new contract, say $100k over and above the TPA's he has in place. It is now in the lols best interests to boost Surgi's contract by taking funds from the marquee allowance (and away from Englis) so that the contracts paid to both Englis and Surgi under the cap remains at the absolute minimum possible. The lols can organise a TPA for Englis to cover the loss of those funds.

Why is it beneficial to structure contracts in this way?

Officially, the players contract is $600k a season +TPA's eg, in the case of Englis. Englis is aware that his bargaining power equates to $600k should he wish to leave the club. Englis is also acutely aware that the equivalent value TPA's may not be available at his new club, nor is he in any way guaranteed to retain said TPA sponsors, eg Slater... Australian Bananas might not need an ambassador to help sell their product in Qld if he moved to the Broncos. Potential suitors know this is also the case.

Possession is 9/10ths...

That's not to say players like Englis and Surgi will never leave a given club, but what it does ensure is that any club wanting them will invariably need to pay through the nose for them to ensure contract security, the player will look for funds to be paid by the club under salary cap provision. The player can afford to sign on at a reduced first year fee if the club is willing to write into the contract that payments for future seasons increase proportionally with the salary cap funding increases as a negotiating tool/concession.

Balancing this kind of scenario at least in part for 25 players and retaining a core group of players over several seasons is not a simple task.

[Rooster_6]

How is it cheating if the NRL approve all TPA's and the avenue is there for all clubs?

However the lols also have another marquee player returning from an overseas sojourn, Surgi who will need part of the funds from the marquee allowance to top up his new contract, say $100k over and above the TPA's he has in place. It is now in the lols best interests to boost Surgi's contract by taking funds from the marquee allowance (and away from Englis) so that the contracts paid to both Englis and Surgi under the cap remains at the absolute minimum possible. The lols can organise a TPA for Englis to cover the loss of those funds..

That's how it's cheating, clubs can't organise funds outside of the marquee allowance as you suggest.

[roosterproud]

all you have to be is the drongos and get $800k more than any other team over the cap. This was in the terms of the contract when stuper league relinquished ownership of the game.

[Double]

That's how it's cheating, clubs can't organise funds outside of the marquee allowance as you suggest.

From the website;

These agreements may not be negotiated by the club as an incentive for a player to sign a contract, nor can they be guaranteed by the club.

Notice I said organise a TPA (implying set up a meeting), and not funds. There is nothing in the statement quoted above that precludes a club organising an appointment with a potential sponsor on behalf of a player. And to be perfectly clear, once the player has met with that sponsor the club cannot then assist with the negotiation, nor facilitate or guarantee payment in any way.

http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencece...4/default.aspx

[Pass the Ball]

I think we all understand how TPA's work with the salary cap.

The disagreement is about how much they affect a palyers salary.

The case that clubs can 'open doors' makes sense and is logical, I don't think it's as big or anywhere near as prevelant as people want to think but at least it makes sense.

Your case on the other hand is that players are willing to take second & third jobs using their intellectual property/brand to do promotional work for companies so they can accept less money at their first job, it's irrational and devoid of logic. If I took a second job doing some adds for Lowe's and my boss asked me to take a pay cut because of it I'd laugh at him as would you and everyone else on this forum.

Even if in your mind you know it all, you continue to demonstrate that you do not have any understanding how TPA's work with the salary cap.

TPA's are paid on top of money from the salary cap. Remember that if the salary cap for each team is $6.8 million then the average salary for the 25 players of all squads is $272K. If one player gets $750K then there is less money for the rest of the squad.

I am going to take a super long shot here and assume that you are not a high profile, in-demand sports star with a manager trying to negotiate a $1 million+ salary, so comparing what we are talking about with your situation is quite ridiculous.

TPA's are there to boost a players earnings, not so that they can work extra for less money as you seem to imagine.

[Guest]

Your case on the other hand is that players are willing to take second & third jobs using their intellectual property/brand to do promotional work for companies so they can accept less money at their first job, it's irrational and devoid of logic. If I took a second job doing some adds for Lowe's and my boss asked me to take a pay cut because of it I'd laugh at him as would you and everyone else on this forum.

I totally agree with what you are saying here. They are seperate deals from seperate entities and should be treated as such. If they are not seperate then the deals become much murkier. I think this only changes when a player really wants to work together with a particular team to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. If I was a player looking to for a deal that represented my value as a player why would I want to make outside deals and do outside (extra) work to get what I was already worth?

[Double]

... If I was a player looking to for a deal that represented my value as a player why would I want to make outside deals and do outside (extra) work to get what I was already worth?

Ok look at it this way and let's leave TPA's out of it all together for the moment...

Player A thinks he's worth $X. Unfortunately, Player A is usually the only one who thinks this is the case. If Player A insists on a deal of the equivalent of what he thinks he's worth, and he wants a club to pay this amount to him entirely under the salary cap, then he can do a couple of things;

• prove it on the field by signing a 1 yr deal,
• be willing to move to any club including overseas if required.

Don't fool yourself into thinking clubs can get away with paying unders for players... a player may decide to accept unders in lieu of a dangled carrot, but if the carrot never materialises then they cut their loses quickly and move on. A player's earning potential is in nobody else's hands but their own but some lack a full dose of reality to realise it and accept it. TPA's help clubs bridge the gap between a player's sense of worth and the real world, as it makes no difference to the club financially.

[Guest]

Its not going to be a one glove fits all situations kind of thing. It all depends on who the player is and whether or not he is demand.

[Double]

Yep. Some clubs can be desperate to fill certain positions so mediocre player's benefit, while good off-contract players sometimes aren't quite good enough to replace existing personnel at other clubs.

[John Corey]

Purple zooperdoopers are the best.