PigRickman wrote:yeah backload or stepped salary increases is pretty common. Like i said, Lolo's 10 year deal probably started at 800ish and by year 10 he's on 1.3
But yeah, that's the first time ive seen it made public that anyone has gotten a fixed % of cap. And 16.5% is quite a figure!
I just dont understand why DCE's manager hasnt been screaming that from the roof tops, if i had a son playing professional RL, i would be spending this morning googling who DCE's manager is and trying to get my son under him.
Hey Pig, my mate works with that company that has DCE, had a beer with one of the Orr's b4 the origin too and funnily enough I asked this, my mate in particular, every single player he has is on a % of cap deal
PigRickman wrote:yeah backload or stepped salary increases is pretty common. Like i said, Lolo's 10 year deal probably started at 800ish and by year 10 he's on 1.3
But yeah, that's the first time ive seen it made public that anyone has gotten a fixed % of cap. And 16.5% is quite a figure!
I just dont understand why DCE's manager hasnt been screaming that from the roof tops, if i had a son playing professional RL, i would be spending this morning googling who DCE's manager is and trying to get my son under him.
Hey Pig, my mate works with that company that has DCE, had a beer with one of the Orr's b4 the origin too and funnily enough I asked this, my mate in particular, every single player he has is on a % of cap deal
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
It's completely standard on the upper-end contracts, but don't tell Pigman
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
So why is it specifically mentioned in DCE's blurb, with the caveat that most league exec thinks its insane.
And yet not mentioned what so ever in any other?
if its standard, it's standard, but this is LITERALLY the first public mention of it. Seems very odd to me that if it's just part of the deal that it's not widely known.
PigRickman wrote:So why is it specifically mentioned in DCE's blurb, with the caveat that most league exec thinks its insane.
And yet not mentioned what so ever in any other?
if its standard, it's standard, but this is LITERALLY the first public mention of it. Seems very odd to me that if it's just part of the deal that it's not widely known.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
I love the idea too and I believe it’s in place already but it can’t be easy to implement because most players would still have been on fixed salaries. So you’d be offering signings/re-signings a percentage of the remaining cap. Except for the minimum pay guys who you have to pay a fixed figure to.
So that year when the cap was unknown you’d have to say ‘Whichever is more out of $500K or 5% of the cap’.
Incidentally, the whole NRL financial team should’ve been sacked that year.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
I love the idea too and I believe it’s in place already but it can’t be easy to implement because most players would still have been on fixed salaries. So you’d be offering signings/re-signings a percentage of the remaining cap. Except for the minimum pay guys who you have to pay a fixed figure to.
So that year when the cap was unknown you’d have to say ‘Whichever is more out of $500K or 5% of the cap’.
Incidentally, the whole NRL financial team should’ve been sacked that year.
Yeah that’s a good point. I think the easiest way to do it would be to work out what % their current salary is, then work from there.
So the scenario would be “You’re current salary is $150, which is 2% of the cap. We’re looking at bumping you up to 4% of the cap, which would be min $300k, up to $350k, dependant on where the NRL settles on the salary cap.”
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.
Nickman's love of NSW
NSW has done a superb job - 18/12/2020
NSW has been world-class with their approach to date, that's a fact. - 04/02/2021
I love the idea too and I believe it’s in place already but it can’t be easy to implement because most players would still have been on fixed salaries. So you’d be offering signings/re-signings a percentage of the remaining cap. Except for the minimum pay guys who you have to pay a fixed figure to.
So that year when the cap was unknown you’d have to say ‘Whichever is more out of $500K or 5% of the cap’.
Incidentally, the whole NRL financial team should’ve been sacked that year.
Yeah that’s a good point. I think the easiest way to do it would be to work out what % their current salary is, then work from there.
So the scenario would be “You’re current salary is $150, which is 2% of the cap. We’re looking at bumping you up to 4% of the cap, which would be min $300k, up to $350k, dependant on where the NRL settles on the salary cap.”
True. I'd be working out each player's salary as a percentage anyway, if I were an NRL club, because you'd be more easily able to weigh up value, i.e. we've got 20% of the cap tied up in the front row.
edwahu wrote:I'm pretty sure even an NRL club has someone that can work that formula out in excel. Although then there is the Bulldogs.
Mate I whipped up one just for giggles. Even included a formula where if you were asking for more than 15% and your name was Josh Hodgson, it would just shut down without saving
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.
Nickman's love of NSW
NSW has done a superb job - 18/12/2020
NSW has been world-class with their approach to date, that's a fact. - 04/02/2021
If it's Hodgson, we've made a very grave error in signing Williams. And also, we're **** at hooker.
That would be sub-optimal to say the least
Gotta say i really appreciated COM's post about Georgey boy too, and feel the same way. Like all english guys i have no preconceived ideas of what he is or isnt, but hope is fun. Im excited to see what he can bring to the table.
I love the idea too and I believe it’s in place already but it can’t be easy to implement because most players would still have been on fixed salaries. So you’d be offering signings/re-signings a percentage of the remaining cap. Except for the minimum pay guys who you have to pay a fixed figure to.
So that year when the cap was unknown you’d have to say ‘Whichever is more out of $500K or 5% of the cap’.
Incidentally, the whole NRL financial team should’ve been sacked that year.
Yeah that’s a good point. I think the easiest way to do it would be to work out what % their current salary is, then work from there.
So the scenario would be “You’re current salary is $150, which is 2% of the cap. We’re looking at bumping you up to 4% of the cap, which would be min $300k, up to $350k, dependant on where the NRL settles on the salary cap.”
I accept what T_R says that this (a fixed % of the cap) is a common place solution, but I think it is a lazy mans solution. The player managers are laughing as they no longer have to negotiate, they simply wait for the NRL to lift the cap and watch the extra fees roll in. The Club CEO's should grow a spine and once they have negotiated an agreed payment then it is adjusted for CPI and rep selection and nothing more. This allows flexibility for the Clubs and allows for up and comers to be upgraded and hopefully kept.
My issue with fixed percentages is that player performance varies over time. Hypothetically, Say a Club is looking to buy in an experienced player to both play well and boost the culture of the Club - lets call him Sia. The Club needs these qualities so much that they decide on paying him 10% of the cap in the first year and this will remain regardless of where the cap rises to. Unfortunately the Club CEO agrees with a Player manager to lock in such a player on 10% of the cap. Five years on and after giving good service, the player is still on 10% of the cap when there are other up and comers who need to be retained. There is no room left in the cap for the up and comers. If the initial agreed dollar amount had been adjusted for CPI then the player has kept the 'real' amount of his initial contract but as the cap expanded past the inflation rate, it also allowed for others to be upgraded. Yes it will take more negotiating by the CEO. Yes the player manager will not get as much without doing any work what so ever. But it is better for the Club and it reflects the change in value of a player to a club no longer locked in by fixed percentages.
I’d be surprised if there were a large number of players on a fixed share of the cap. It may have become more common to escalate in line with the cap increases when we didn’t know how the cap was escalating. I suspect the Raiders didn’t do that... otherwise we wouldn’t have been in cap trouble when the cap increases were smaller than anticipated.
It’s been a busy week at Headingley, but the Rhinos won’t be calming down their recruitment drive anytime soon. The Rhinos are still eyeing up a new halfback for next season. Canberra Raiders’ Aidan Sezer is the latest name to be thrown into the mix, after reports claimed that he is keen on a move away from the NRL.
greeneyed wrote:I’d be surprised if there were a large number of players on a fixed share of the cap. It may have become more common to escalate in line with the cap increases when we didn’t know how the cap was escalating. I suspect the Raiders didn’t do that... otherwise we wouldn’t have been in cap trouble when the cap increases were smaller than anticipated.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
greeneyed wrote:I’d be surprised if there were a large number of players on a fixed share of the cap. It may have become more common to escalate in line with the cap increases when we didn’t know how the cap was escalating. I suspect the Raiders didn’t do that... otherwise we wouldn’t have been in cap trouble when the cap increases were smaller than anticipated.
If the Raiders had followed the practice of escalating in line with cap increases (in contracts), they wouldn't have been in cap problems later when the cap increased by less than expected. It looks like the Raiders locked in escalations based on an assumed set of increases in the cap... which were higher than the actual increases. That's how it could be a different result.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
7. Cade Cust (Sea Eagles) $85,000 plus match payments
Has only played 6 NRL matches but has proven a perfect foil for million-dollar man Daly Cherry-Evans. In those six games Cust has chalked up six try assists, six line break assists and three tries. Also earns a $3000 match payment for every match played for Manly.
No to Packer. I don't think we need Taylor- he'd be a bench forward and Havilii is probably better value. He'd just be clogging things up.
Cade Cust... I guess that would mean our current halves/backups are on the way out. I think this would be a very good get, if true. It would provide what seems to be a genuine FG option in case of injury or Williams not working out. An up and comer with an unknown ceiling might be better at keeping standards high and pressure on than Sam, who is ok but been tried and found wanting so often he's probably not a genuine threat to take your job in FG by now.
greeneyed wrote:I’d be surprised if there were a large number of players on a fixed share of the cap. It may have become more common to escalate in line with the cap increases when we didn’t know how the cap was escalating. I suspect the Raiders didn’t do that... otherwise we wouldn’t have been in cap trouble when the cap increases were smaller than anticipated.
If the Raiders had followed the practice of escalating in line with cap increases (in contracts), they wouldn't have been in cap problems later when the cap increased by less than expected. It looks like the Raiders locked in escalations based on an assumed set of increases in the cap... which were higher than the actual increases. That's how it could be a different result.
I think fixed percentages lock in rewards for existing players but cause cap problems when trying to keep up and comers or new rep players. Recently Tapine, Jack and Nic have earned rep jumpers. They deserve to be rewarded. If other players retain their percentage of the cap then there is no room to reward the new rep players.
Paying on percentage of the cap is lazy and takes away flexibility imo.