So Called Salary Sombrero

[Nathan Aboud]

Since the Cronk signing people obviously keep thinking we are cheating the salary cap.... Calling us the salary sombrero's in which if you look the team we fielded from 2013 to now, I cannot possibility see how we could be cheating the salary cap.

Keep in mind, from 2013 we have seen some players debut such as Napa, Evans, Mitchell and SST.

My point is with all of these players that have moved on from 2013, how have we not got a lot more money saved in our cap to buy more? Why should we still need to release players from Wyong to find extra money?

[milanja]

It is the same with the “,roosters get no crowds, call”. Even our ex players use both statements to get a laugh.

brisbane always get questioned over the salary cap too, successfull teams do, and that is why we are always competitive and hated.

[PeeGee]

It is the same with the “,roosters get no crowds, call”. Even our ex players use both statements to get a laugh.

brisbane always get questioned over the salary cap too, successfull teams do, and that is why we are always competitive and hated.

True. Though I find it odd that Melbourne are never really targeted but whinging fans. If anyone is gonna be over its them.

[milanja]

True. Though I find it odd that Melbourne are never really targeted but whinging fans. If anyone is gonna be over its them.

Probably because they have been caught, so people are happy enough that the job was done, but waiting for roosters and broncos to be next, yet it doesn’t happen, especially when teams like the raiders have to shed players to stay under the cap, while the chooks sign two players worth about 2million.

Dont forget how even some on this forum question the broncos for their signing power, but find nothing odd about us at all.

[Hawkeye]

It's been said by officials that we were $600k under the cap last year, so we have that extra to spend next year. On top of that you can now add the losses from 2017 of SKD, Guerra, Carter, Evans, Watson and possibly Pearce ....seems to adequately account for Teddy and Cronk's big contracts for next year.

[mightyrooster]

It's an unconscious bias which comes from media indoctrination and conditioning. If you hear it often enough people automatically think it's truth. It's the blurred line where myth becomes fact.
The sharks sign Dugan, Moylan and claim they still have enough room for Pearce but no-one raises an eyelid, because they lost Bird and Maloney - despite the fact they have about 5 or 6 Origin reps on their books and want to sign another one! The Roosters though must be cheating and the loss of a Guerra, SKD, Watson, Evans, Copley, Carter and likely Pearce is conveniently forgotten.

[dice]

NRL has created a rod for their own back with 3rd party agreements and other exemptions. Every club is over the cap. The only outstanding question is by how much?

Personally, I favour a points or ratings system. Each player is given a point rating and a team roster can not go over total number of points. Players are then free to earn as much as they like without any shenanigans. The only dilemna would be who decides on a player's rating. If there is an extra buck in it for the players then I am sure the Players Association could figure it out.

This would also pave the way for players to extend their careers and strengthen the second tier competitions. e.g. significant points discounts for players over 30.

[Ray Stehr]

Manly supporters are always having a dig at us which always makes me laugh, they have very short memories.

[Kingbilly]

I don't care. The main reason being all Clubs are paying under the table payments.
Those in the bottom 8 are just paying overs for idiots

[roosterproud]

thye dogs and faiders need extra cash to pay out (overs) for players. something uncle Nic said to me was 'we dont pay overs'. The $600k we saved last year (2017)can only be used in that year. My under standing is a few playes got added dollars to this year or extended contract for 1 year. eg Manu.

[Insider]

I don't care. The main reason being all Clubs are paying under the table payments.
Those in the bottom 8 are just paying overs for idiots

Of course they are,anyone who thinks the salary cap is strictly adhered to are completely delusional. Cash is King.Only the dopes have been caught.

[roosterproud]

apparently the icing on the cake which secured Cronk was the business degree at harvard or somethin similar, at the cost of $30 k, but that slipped in as an educational payment. use the rules

[stsae]

apparently the icing on the cake which secured Cronk was the business degree at harvard or somethin similar, at the cost of $30 k, but that slipped in as an educational payment. use the rules

Cronkite will end up an educated flog after his cameo in RWB methinks, flogproud oldmate.

[ism22]

True. Though I find it odd that Melbourne are never really targeted but whinging fans. If anyone is gonna be over its them.

That’s because they are the NRL’s project to try and expand into AFL territory. If commentators speak against them they’ll get sacked. Bigger parties at play with that one...

[Intercept]

NRL has created a rod for their own back with 3rd party agreements and other exemptions. Every club is over the cap. The only outstanding question is by how much?

Personally, I favour a points or ratings system. Each player is given a point rating and a team roster can not go over total number of points. Players are then free to earn as much as they like without any shenanigans. The only dilemna would be who decides on a player's rating. If there is an extra buck in it for the players then I am sure the Players Association could figure it out.

This would also pave the way for players to extend their careers and strengthen the second tier competitions. e.g. significant points discounts for players over 30.

Dice, I might have this wrong but I think the salary cap is supposed to prevent clubs spending more than they can afford and going broke. It was intended to be used in conjunction with a draft - the draft being the mechanism to create a more even distribution of talent. I think many get the two issues confused when discussing the cap.

I personally think the draft is needed and that the cap should be a percentage of each club's income - if set at the right level that would prevent clubs going broke. But not limiting the dollar number a player can earn might be the carrot to get the RLPA on board with a draft. Sure, more successful clubs can spend more but isn't that the natural state of affairs anyway?

Any sense in that do you reckon?