The governing body once made rules to stop Meninga from standing at 5/8 at scrums - they can do what they like if they hate you!
Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Moderator: GH Moderators
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
What are the odds we sign Edwards so that Wighton can play on the wing and Sam stays at half?
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
from what i can see in the training vid's wighton looks to be training at 5/5 hence the talks of us chasing a descent fullback
raider 4 life
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
well actually they stopped him standing offside at 5/8th
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Edrick The Entertainer
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
That depends on what we have left in the cap. We have 3 spots to fill, if we only have 300k, which seems likely, then signing 1 player for Rapanas 170 and 1 player for minimum only allows us 200k to spend on Edwards.Coastalraider wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 6:03 pmThere was an interpretation in another tread that said the funds were to be used as the sole funds to sign a ‘replacement’ player.
Hence my argument for signing a 3rd stringer with that money, which by default releases the matching sum to spend on any player we want - ala Edwards.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
This is what i cant figure out... How the **** is any of this **** enforceable in a game like RL. Its so constant in its movement, in it's positioning. We could potentially sign a winger, for arguments sake, forget Edwards... what if we signed DWZ, as a winger... and then we just **** name him and put him in #2 all season, and have him play as a fullback. I mean what arbitrary Bull are they making this call on? If we said we liked Edwards and wanted to sign him but only as a winger, that might be valid... and then 2 weeks later that might change.
What if we signed George Jennings with potential exemption money? Are we prohibited from every having him line up at fullback? If he's playing on the wing, Wighton gets hurt, we move him to fullback and he kills it, we cant just go with that then?
It's just such a **** asinine and ridiculous rule... if you're going to give a cap exemption to replace players in the top 30 who are injured on Rep duty... just **** give it to the clubs and let them make their own call...
if we want to use that exemption money on a half or fullback, or **** water boy, that's our business. And if we end up playing ol Pigman on the wing for 3 months because of poor planning and we get housed every week, so be it. That's on us
This is the type of **** that drives me CRAZY, it's the DUMBEST **** imaginable. No other league in world sport would operate in this manner. We either have the exemption and can use it as we please to supplement our squad to cover the loss in ANY which way we choose, or it shouldnt exist.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Succinctly nailed my point Piggy, cudos
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
succinctness is clearly my speciality.
FWIW, i did text an old friend in penrith, admittedly he's been a little out of the loop for a few years now... which probably means he's got no more idea than you or i, but he'd be shocked if Edwards was moved. The smallest grain of salt type situation on that one though.It's the off season, right? All speculation is a good speculation.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
I'm not sure I agree. IIRC they were so affronted by the idea that a centre, especially one as scary as Mal, would monster the opposition's weedy 5/8 they tried to impose a positional rule. I have no recollection of offside having anything to do with it.bonehead wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 7:30 pmwell actually they stopped him standing offside at 5/8th
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
-
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2220
- Joined: June 13, 2007, 4:52 pm
- Favourite Player: Kenny Nagas
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
That’s how I remember it too.Lui_Bon wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 10:17 pmI'm not sure I agree. IIRC they were so affronted by the idea that a centre, especially one as scary as Mal, would monster the opposition's weedy 5/8 they tried to impose a positional rule. I have no recollection of offside having anything to do with it.bonehead wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 7:30 pmwell actually they stopped him standing offside at 5/8th
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
- Seiffert82
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 27845
- Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Bay56
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Yeah, I forgot about that episode! They legitimately have had it in for us over the years. Bizarre.Ruben Daley wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 7:35 amThat’s how I remember it too.Lui_Bon wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 10:17 pmI'm not sure I agree. IIRC they were so affronted by the idea that a centre, especially one as scary as Mal, would monster the opposition's weedy 5/8 they tried to impose a positional rule. I have no recollection of offside having anything to do with it.bonehead wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 7:30 pmwell actually they stopped him standing offside at 5/8th
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Remember when they also banned our tactic of shaping to kick a penalty goal from one side of the field, but intentionally kicking it to a sneaky unmarked player on the opposite side of the field to score a try? According to the ARL (at the time I think) that was a no-no. Apparently missing a penalty goal is against the rules too.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
They also banned Tim Sheens card system calling plays from the sidelines. They’d banned it after 40 minutes. Coaching from the sidelines. But the Broncos get a coach on the field and a water boy who acts as an extra organisational player.Seiffert82 wrote:Yeah, I forgot about that episode! They legitimately have had it in for us over the years. Bizarre.Ruben Daley wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 7:35 amThat’s how I remember it too.Lui_Bon wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 10:17 pmI'm not sure I agree. IIRC they were so affronted by the idea that a centre, especially one as scary as Mal, would monster the opposition's weedy 5/8 they tried to impose a positional rule. I have no recollection of offside having anything to do with it.bonehead wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 7:30 pmwell actually they stopped him standing offside at 5/8thLui_Bon wrote: The governing body once made rules to stop Meninga from standing at 5/8 at scrums - they can do what they like if they hate you!
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Remember when they also banned our tactic of shaping to kick a penalty goal from one side of the field, but intentionally kicking it to a sneaky unmarked player on the opposite side of the field to score a try? According to the ARL (at the time I think) that was a no-no. Apparently missing a penalty goal is against the rules too.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Seiffert82
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 27845
- Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Bay56
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Yeah, it's a joke.greeneyed wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 7:56 amThey also banned Tim Sheens card system calling plays from the sidelines. They’d banned it after 40 minutes. Coaching from the sidelines. But the Broncos get a coach on the field and a water boy who acts as an extra organisational player.Seiffert82 wrote:Yeah, I forgot about that episode! They legitimately have had it in for us over the years. Bizarre.Ruben Daley wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 7:35 amThat’s how I remember it too.Lui_Bon wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 10:17 pmI'm not sure I agree. IIRC they were so affronted by the idea that a centre, especially one as scary as Mal, would monster the opposition's weedy 5/8 they tried to impose a positional rule. I have no recollection of offside having anything to do with it.bonehead wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 7:30 pm well actually they stopped him standing offside at 5/8th
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Remember when they also banned our tactic of shaping to kick a penalty goal from one side of the field, but intentionally kicking it to a sneaky unmarked player on the opposite side of the field to score a try? According to the ARL (at the time I think) that was a no-no. Apparently missing a penalty goal is against the rules too.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Matt
- Don Furner
- Posts: 38868
- Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
- Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
- Location: Canberra
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
DING DING DING DING DINGjulian87 wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 6:02 pmYeah Im hoping this is the go. Surely the cap situation isn’t as dire as some are saying it might be.Coastalraider wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 1:37 pm But it doesn’t have to be. We don’t need to spend the money ON Edwards to get the cap benefit FOR Edwards. Let’s sign a replacement player to fill the void of losing Ravalawa on up to $170k, he takes up one of the remaining spots on our 30 man roster (which has to happen anyway) and that frees up $170 that we WOULD have had to spend on another player to meet the minimum squad size.
I like to think we’re banking on that 180k or whatever it is being exempted for one signing of the next 3/4 spots. The other 1/2 being minimum wages and then what’s left getting Edwards over the line.
I don’t like Edwards as much as most. In fact if this whole thing has legs I actually agree with Penrith’s thinking of using DWZ there as I think he suits them more
And they were better when he moved there last year. But he is a genuine fullback and at this point would improve us.
The original Wighton to 6 experiment was one of the worst coaching blunders I’ve seen in this club. It fenced him in and he was horrible. But from memory he was matched with Campo, Buttris and Dugan? If that’s right then things have changed because Hodgson and our second rowers offer so much more than what we did back then. For it to work though Hodgson and Sezer need to really step up and do all organizing. Wighton needs to be a chime in rough and tumble 6. And it will only work if we have a fullback as good as Edwards. It won’t work with Cotric or Abbey.
Kathy, tell him what he has won!
Great post
- Matt
- Don Furner
- Posts: 38868
- Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
- Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
- Location: Canberra
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
- Sid
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: May 15, 2015, 8:47 pm
- Favourite Player: Shannon Boyd
- Location: Darwin, N.T.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
^^ I don't know the history of those rule changes, but they do sound very bizarre when you look at how scrums are now (any player can go anywhere) and as you mentioned the broncos alfie langer water boy coach... which is still against the rules but "interpreted differently"
Would have won Boogs - 2016, 2017, 2018
1 part green, 1 part machine
1 part green, 1 part machine
- Matt
- Don Furner
- Posts: 38868
- Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
- Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
- Location: Canberra
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Weirdly, I think the swearing emphasizes the idiotic NRL rule more astutely than it should.Pigman wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 8:02 pmThis is what i cant figure out... How the **** is any of this **** enforceable in a game like RL. Its so constant in its movement, in it's positioning. We could potentially sign a winger, for arguments sake, forget Edwards... what if we signed DWZ, as a winger... and then we just **** name him and put him in #2 all season, and have him play as a fullback. I mean what arbitrary Bull are they making this call on? If we said we liked Edwards and wanted to sign him but only as a winger, that might be valid... and then 2 weeks later that might change.
What if we signed George Jennings with potential exemption money? Are we prohibited from every having him line up at fullback? If he's playing on the wing, Wighton gets hurt, we move him to fullback and he kills it, we cant just go with that then?
It's just such a **** asinine and ridiculous rule... if you're going to give a cap exemption to replace players in the top 30 who are injured on Rep duty... just **** give it to the clubs and let them make their own call...
if we want to use that exemption money on a half or fullback, or **** water boy, that's our business. And if we end up playing ol Pigman on the wing for 3 months because of poor planning and we get housed every week, so be it. That's on us
This is the type of **** that drives me CRAZY, it's the DUMBEST **** imaginable. No other league in world sport would operate in this manner. We either have the exemption and can use it as we please to supplement our squad to cover the loss in ANY which way we choose, or it shouldnt exist.
- Matt
- Don Furner
- Posts: 38868
- Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
- Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
- Location: Canberra
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Its ok to score tries off missed FG attempts though.Seiffert82 wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 7:43 amYeah, I forgot about that episode! They legitimately have had it in for us over the years. Bizarre.Ruben Daley wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 7:35 amThat’s how I remember it too.Lui_Bon wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 10:17 pmI'm not sure I agree. IIRC they were so affronted by the idea that a centre, especially one as scary as Mal, would monster the opposition's weedy 5/8 they tried to impose a positional rule. I have no recollection of offside having anything to do with it.bonehead wrote: ↑January 10, 2019, 7:30 pmwell actually they stopped him standing offside at 5/8thLui_Bon wrote:
The governing body once made rules to stop Meninga from standing at 5/8 at scrums - they can do what they like if they hate you!
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Remember when they also banned our tactic of shaping to kick a penalty goal from one side of the field, but intentionally kicking it to a sneaky unmarked player on the opposite side of the field to score a try? According to the ARL (at the time I think) that was a no-no. Apparently missing a penalty goal is against the rules too.
RAPANA!!!
- Matt
- Don Furner
- Posts: 38868
- Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
- Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
- Location: Canberra
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Its a time limit thing. He is allowed on the field for 1 or 2 mins, before running off again.Sid wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:50 am ^^ I don't know the history of those rule changes, but they do sound very bizarre when you look at how scrums are now (any player can go anywhere) and as you mentioned the broncos alfie langer water boy coach... which is still against the rules but "interpreted differently"
How long does a set last?!?! Oh yeah... 1-2 mins.
AFL has a similar rule, but I have a feeling that they also have a maximum number of times on the field - excluding injuries. Someone might be able to confirm that.
- El_Capitano
- Brett Mullins
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: May 30, 2014, 1:25 pm
- Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
- Location: Sydney
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
AFL rule came into review this year after a trainer positioned himself in a empty space to discourage the opposition from kicking it there. They have a rule change on the cards.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How soon IS now?
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
They’re allowed on field for an attacking set, not a defensive set. The rule should be... you go on when a player requires attention and straight off. Or breaks in play only.Matt wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:56 amIts a time limit thing. He is allowed on the field for 1 or 2 mins, before running off again.Sid wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:50 am ^^ I don't know the history of those rule changes, but they do sound very bizarre when you look at how scrums are now (any player can go anywhere) and as you mentioned the broncos alfie langer water boy coach... which is still against the rules but "interpreted differently"
How long does a set last?!?! Oh yeah... 1-2 mins.
AFL has a similar rule, but I have a feeling that they also have a maximum number of times on the field - excluding injuries. Someone might be able to confirm that.
- Matt
- Don Furner
- Posts: 38868
- Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
- Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
- Location: Canberra
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
I agree too.greeneyed wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 9:06 amThey’re allowed on field for an attacking set, not a defensive set. The rule should be... you go on when a player requires attention and straight off. Or breaks in play only.Matt wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:56 amIts a time limit thing. He is allowed on the field for 1 or 2 mins, before running off again.Sid wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:50 am ^^ I don't know the history of those rule changes, but they do sound very bizarre when you look at how scrums are now (any player can go anywhere) and as you mentioned the broncos alfie langer water boy coach... which is still against the rules but "interpreted differently"
How long does a set last?!?! Oh yeah... 1-2 mins.
AFL has a similar rule, but I have a feeling that they also have a maximum number of times on the field - excluding injuries. Someone might be able to confirm that.
- Rick
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7516
- Joined: August 11, 2008, 3:56 pm
- Favourite Player: Daley
- Location: Darwin
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Breaks in play or when a player is on the ground.
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
I did not know it was allowed for attacking sets only GE. I think that rule is crazy. Often we see a player get themselves in a poor defensive position and cop a hip or knee to the head which knocks the defender out. A trainer initially, should be allowed straight on whether the Ref has halted play or not.greeneyed wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 9:06 amThey’re allowed on field for an attacking set, not a defensive set. The rule should be... you go on when a player requires attention and straight off. Or breaks in play only.Matt wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:56 amIts a time limit thing. He is allowed on the field for 1 or 2 mins, before running off again.Sid wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:50 am ^^ I don't know the history of those rule changes, but they do sound very bizarre when you look at how scrums are now (any player can go anywhere) and as you mentioned the broncos alfie langer water boy coach... which is still against the rules but "interpreted differently"
How long does a set last?!?! Oh yeah... 1-2 mins.
AFL has a similar rule, but I have a feeling that they also have a maximum number of times on the field - excluding injuries. Someone might be able to confirm that.
- Sid
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: May 15, 2015, 8:47 pm
- Favourite Player: Shannon Boyd
- Location: Darwin, N.T.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
The water running rules should be tightened.
I mean, you don't often see the players taking a drink when they're attacking in the oppositions red zone.
I mean, you don't often see the players taking a drink when they're attacking in the oppositions red zone.
Would have won Boogs - 2016, 2017, 2018
1 part green, 1 part machine
1 part green, 1 part machine
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
They can if there's a player down. But they're supposed to go straight off. In an attacking set, the trainer can stay on the whole set.RedRaider wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 11:13 amI did not know it was allowed for attacking sets only GE. I think that rule is crazy. Often we see a player get themselves in a poor defensive position and cop a hip or knee to the head which knocks the defender out. A trainer initially, should be allowed straight on whether the Ref has halted play or not.greeneyed wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 9:06 amThey’re allowed on field for an attacking set, not a defensive set. The rule should be... you go on when a player requires attention and straight off. Or breaks in play only.Matt wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:56 amIts a time limit thing. He is allowed on the field for 1 or 2 mins, before running off again.Sid wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 8:50 am ^^ I don't know the history of those rule changes, but they do sound very bizarre when you look at how scrums are now (any player can go anywhere) and as you mentioned the broncos alfie langer water boy coach... which is still against the rules but "interpreted differently"
How long does a set last?!?! Oh yeah... 1-2 mins.
AFL has a similar rule, but I have a feeling that they also have a maximum number of times on the field - excluding injuries. Someone might be able to confirm that.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
GE has it spot on imo, I dont think a trainer should be on the field unless the play is stopped or a player is down injured.
Make it really simple and easy
Make it really simple and easy
- Raiders_Pat
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2049
- Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
- Favourite Player: Josh Papalii
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
I don't have a problem with the trainer being allowed on the field for the entire attacking set rule... it's our fault if we don't exploit it. All of the good clubs seem to exploit the rules to their benefit and, as evidenced in this thread, it's something we once did in our glory days but don't seem to do anymore under our last few coaching regimes.
People love to whinge about Cameron Smith and the Storm's "cheating" but in reality they just play on the very edge of the rules which really is what we should be doing rather than complaining about it. We're bad at it and other clubs (Storm, Broncos, etc.) are good at it. Many elite level sportspeople get to the top of their game by playing a style that traditionalists see as cheating - when you want to be amongst the top competitors in your sport, you need to find little things that will give you an edge... most players as athletes have pushed their bodies to their limit physically so they need to look elsewhere for this edge. The boundaries of rules is a logical place to start. I do agree that the rules around the trainer being on the field as they currently stand are stupid and nonsensical but there are much bigger issues needing to be addressed within the NRL than that (such as the complete sham of a salary cap system we have in place).
As for those speculating that we only have $300k left to fill our three remaining roster spots - firstly, the minimum wage in the NRL in 2019 is $105k, so we must have at least $315k free as the bare minimum to fill those spots. Considering that the club has publicly confirmed interest in picking up another half or at least a back to address our current shortcomings, and considering the level of talent we have already looked in to buying but missed out on, I would estimate that there is at least $550k or so free for those three remaining spots (two min. wage players at $105k each plus at least $340k left over for one bottom of the barrel half/fullback).
If we do truly have only $315k left then those running the club are completely incompetent in everything to do with running a football club and we deserve no success whatsoever. The cap jumped up by over a third of it's entire value between 2017 and 2018, and our squad barely changed in that time. We lost three of our highest earners between 2018 and 2019. There definitely should be space in the cap somewhere unless Don, Ricky and co had absolutely no plan past 2018. Considering all this I'm quite confident that we will pick up a player that is at least passable as first grade standard (although knowing our club it will likely be somebody crap on big overs).
All I know for certain is that I will be extremely pissed off if we only pick up three min. wage players to fill up the remaining spots and go in to 2019 with guys like Sam Williams or Abbey in starting positions (or even Dufty for that matter). They are fringe NRL players at best and shouldn't be used regularly unless covering for a season ending injury (Oldfield is also in that category too but he's covering for Rapana for the time being). We absolutely need a buy like Dylan Edwards to compete this year. It's my view that we're also short a quality middle forward but we'll see how that pans out once the season starts.
People love to whinge about Cameron Smith and the Storm's "cheating" but in reality they just play on the very edge of the rules which really is what we should be doing rather than complaining about it. We're bad at it and other clubs (Storm, Broncos, etc.) are good at it. Many elite level sportspeople get to the top of their game by playing a style that traditionalists see as cheating - when you want to be amongst the top competitors in your sport, you need to find little things that will give you an edge... most players as athletes have pushed their bodies to their limit physically so they need to look elsewhere for this edge. The boundaries of rules is a logical place to start. I do agree that the rules around the trainer being on the field as they currently stand are stupid and nonsensical but there are much bigger issues needing to be addressed within the NRL than that (such as the complete sham of a salary cap system we have in place).
As for those speculating that we only have $300k left to fill our three remaining roster spots - firstly, the minimum wage in the NRL in 2019 is $105k, so we must have at least $315k free as the bare minimum to fill those spots. Considering that the club has publicly confirmed interest in picking up another half or at least a back to address our current shortcomings, and considering the level of talent we have already looked in to buying but missed out on, I would estimate that there is at least $550k or so free for those three remaining spots (two min. wage players at $105k each plus at least $340k left over for one bottom of the barrel half/fullback).
If we do truly have only $315k left then those running the club are completely incompetent in everything to do with running a football club and we deserve no success whatsoever. The cap jumped up by over a third of it's entire value between 2017 and 2018, and our squad barely changed in that time. We lost three of our highest earners between 2018 and 2019. There definitely should be space in the cap somewhere unless Don, Ricky and co had absolutely no plan past 2018. Considering all this I'm quite confident that we will pick up a player that is at least passable as first grade standard (although knowing our club it will likely be somebody crap on big overs).
All I know for certain is that I will be extremely pissed off if we only pick up three min. wage players to fill up the remaining spots and go in to 2019 with guys like Sam Williams or Abbey in starting positions (or even Dufty for that matter). They are fringe NRL players at best and shouldn't be used regularly unless covering for a season ending injury (Oldfield is also in that category too but he's covering for Rapana for the time being). We absolutely need a buy like Dylan Edwards to compete this year. It's my view that we're also short a quality middle forward but we'll see how that pans out once the season starts.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
The thing is... it would be EASY for the NRL to fix the rule on trainers. It drives the rugby league public mad. They hate it. Changing it would create no issues at all for player safety. There can be additional water runners in hot weather if that is a concern. But it is EASY to fix! But as usual, the NRL is reactive. They address the squeakiest wheel only. And are horribly inactive otherwise. It is appalling how bad the administration of rugby league is in this country.
The loopholes in the salary cap are also easy to fix. Todd Greenberg complained last year that no one had put any alternative plan to fix the loophole. I had already thought of a simple solution to transition to a situation where TPAs were included in the cap, and the loophole eliminated. So far they've got to Step 1, after a very long time!
The loopholes in the salary cap are also easy to fix. Todd Greenberg complained last year that no one had put any alternative plan to fix the loophole. I had already thought of a simple solution to transition to a situation where TPAs were included in the cap, and the loophole eliminated. So far they've got to Step 1, after a very long time!
- dubby
- Don Furner
- Posts: 33813
- Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
- Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
- Location: Albury
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Used to be that way until Danny Shephard fell over in 27 degree "heat".Pigman wrote:GE has it spot on imo, I dont think a trainer should be on the field unless the play is stopped or a player is down injured.
Make it really simple and easy
Honestly, this is a great game, ran by self interested idiots, coached by unimaginative people
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
The spiral of silence refers to the idea that when people fail to speak, the price of speaking rises. As the price to speak rises, still fewer speak out, which further causes the price to rise, so that fewer people yet will speak out, until a whole culture or nation is silenced. This is what happened in Germany.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
- Raiders_Pat
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2049
- Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
- Favourite Player: Josh Papalii
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
I can't really disagree with any of this.greeneyed wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 4:41 pm The thing is... it would be EASY for the NRL to fix the rule on trainers. It drives the rugby league public mad. They hate it. Changing it would create no issues at all for player safety. There can be additional water runners in hot weather if that is a concern. But it is EASY to fix! But as usual, the NRL is reactive. They address the squeakiest wheel only. And are horribly inactive otherwise. It is appalling how bad the administration of rugby league is in this country.
The loopholes in the salary cap are also easy to fix. Todd Greenberg complained last year that no one had put any alternative plan to fix the loophole. I had already thought of a simple solution to transition to a situation where TPAs were included in the cap, and the loophole eliminated. So far they've got to Step 1, after a very long time!
Although I think the simplest solution to fixing the cap problem is making player salaries public. Then it would be clear to NRL fans (by simple comparison of player salaries across clubs) exactly which clubs are receiving an unfair advantage. It would also eliminate player X going from club A on $800k/year to club B on $500k/year under the cap without any significant decline in performance. This seems to happen all the time in the NRL and only an idiot would believe a player would sacrifice $300k+ annually purely for the glory of winning a premiership. We all know that clubs illegally pay players outside of the cap in all sorts of roundabout ways (faux employment of spouses etc.) but it's not in the NRL's interest to properly investigate it when their big clubs do it (Broncos, Roosters, Storm, etc.). People can kick up a stink about it but nothing will happen as it's all speculation. Making salaries public removes that speculation - it gives fans, and especially the media, something solid to complain/write about.
NRL players earn more than the average Australian at minimum wage and the average NRL player would probably get paid more than many people in high level corporate positions whose salaries are public so I don't see any problem with it. Having your salary published in a public space should be a part of the package of being a highly paid elite sportsperson IMO.
- Raiders_Pat
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2049
- Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
- Favourite Player: Josh Papalii
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Obviously this coupled with some solid, sensible rules around third party agreements, because there's currently so much grey area around it all.Raiders_Pat wrote: ↑January 11, 2019, 5:21 pm Although I think the simplest solution to fixing the cap problem is making player salaries public.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
Making salaries public would be interesting but it wouldn't solve anything. Players could go to the Roosters for half of what they go to Canberra for and they will just report it as the player wanting to win or be near the beach.
- Raiders_Pat
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2049
- Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
- Favourite Player: Josh Papalii
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
And I don't think the solution is to include third party payments under the cap... they're supposed to be "third party" after all. I think it should be around making all third party agreements public so it's obvious where these deals have been negotiated by the club or supporters of the club. There should also be rules around players losing third party deals once moving to another club as a breach of the cap. Making salaries and major corporate deals public makes it easy for the public to scrutinise.
Re: Raiders player signing speculation 2019
The most sensible thing to do is absorb TPAs into the salary cap. Make an allowance for it... then allow clubs to decide how the player is paid. Ensure that annual grants to the clubs exceed the cap. It is very simple.