Josh Hodgson signs with Eels for 2023

[Botman]

I’m still waiting for that list of players who have moved to new clubs on their current contract without freight

I’m sure there is heaps of them, because only over market contracts get freight paid I’m told, and surely not all these player movements are over market contracts so just really eager to hear the name

[BJ123]

I’m still waiting for that list of players who have moved to new clubs on their current contract without freight

I’m sure there is heaps of them, because only over market contracts get freight paid I’m told, and surely not all these player movements are over market contracts so just really eager to hear the name

Yep it rarely happens. The only ones I can think of recently and this is only according to claims that have been in the media….. Matterson to Eels, Croft to Broncos, Flanagan to Dogs, korisau to Panthers and maybe Hetherington to Dogs (but I know Panthers were originally happy to cover some of his payments). Some reports had Latrell without freight (but who knows with Roosters contracts).

I’d imagine there’s a few second stringers that nobody cares about.

Often says more about the buyer than the seller.

[Finchy]

Don Jr, is that you? Stop upgrading players when there's no need to

This is reasonable on stuff like Croker/Whitehead. But Simonsson as pointed out had moved into a permanent starting spot. That requires an upgrade in salary!

Even the Croker and Whitehead contracts the key issue is the length of those. Fact is they’re taking on the equivalent of a management role with responsibilities that come with that and it’s part of their pay packet. Try paying your lower level staff much more than the experienced managers leading them and see how well that works out for you dealing with humans.

People rating contracts purely on what’s happening on the field at this moment… smh

I agree. Whilst the length and amount of Croker and Whitehead’s contracts are clearly inflated, it’s clear that they’ve effectively got bonuses for the captaincy and media/club commitment roles rather than pure on-field output. There’s many jobs where the higher up the ladder you go the more you get paid but less work you do, albeit your role has greater responsibilities and scrutiny.

[Canberra Milk]

Wasn't Fogarty captain at Titans? He wasn't on a high salary. Come on, the "captaincy bonus" should be $50k/year at best. There are many, many clubs where young precocious talent is paid more than the seasoned veterans. Because they're better players than the seasoned veterans

[Raiders666]

I’m still waiting for that list of players who have moved to new clubs on their current contract without freight

I’m sure there is heaps of them, because only over market contracts get freight paid I’m told, and surely not all these player movements are over market contracts so just really eager to hear the name

Yep it rarely happens. The only ones I can think of recently and this is only according to claims that have been in the media….. Matterson to Eels, Croft to Broncos, Flanagan to Dogs, korisau to Panthers and maybe Hetherington to Dogs (but I know Panthers were originally happy to cover some of his payments). Some reports had Latrell without freight (but who knows with Roosters contracts).

I’d imagine there’s a few second stringers that nobody cares about.

Often says more about the buyer than the seller.

Ooof....That's a great reply lol

[Botman]

oooof? What oooof?
He's fundamentally agreed with my post and managed to name 6 players since 2019
And lets drill down on that.

1. As i recall one of the main reasons Matterson wanted out of the Tigers was because the Eels were willing to pay him more than the 450k the Tigers were paying him. If no freight was paid, it's probably because like Fog, he got more.

2. Croft and Flanagan are a bit in the same bucket, their current didnt want them, they didnt want to be at the current club and they moved to new clubs who were in desperate to take a swing at young halves... i think in that circumstance, the new club is more concerned about securing the talent who they're hoping will be a key spine player for the next 10 years (didnt work out)

3. Dont really know or remember much about the Hetherington/Api deals but fine, ill give you them though i suspect if it was publicly mentioned that the panthers were willing to cover some of Hetherington's money, that's exactly what happened.

4. Latrell was in the final year of his deal, there was no on going obligation for the roosters beyond 2020, and they'd already paid him 2 months salary when he moved. So they paid freight on that deal. Souths only had to match the roughly 700k left on the final year of his deal. But there is no way for Souths to leverage the roosters to pay freight for years in which there is no contractual agreement

So of the 6 names, i feel good about scrubbing two, and probably 3 from that list. So far since 2019, given alllll the movement, we might have identified 3-4 players. As said, almost all these deals involve freight. It's just the cost of doing business in today's NRL.

[greeneyed]

What it shows is that where contracts are over market, freight has to be paid, where they’re not, it’s not. In Bailey Simonsson’s case we were led to believe by the media that the Eels wanted the player and the player wanted to move to Sydney. It was reasonable to assume that could be done without freight in the circumstances and reasonable to be surprised when reported that freight had to be paid as the contract was above market. I still find it surprising it was over market, but it now is what it is.

[Botman]

No, what it shows is that we've had probably 70+ transactions of this type in the NRL since 2019, superstars, stars, solid FGs, young guys, fringe players... players of all shapes and sizes, on big time money deals, to first professional contracts and players signed as journeyman, and bar MAYBE a 3-4 cases, dead cap is part of the transaction now unless in rare circumstances.
It's just BAU now. Has been for a few years now. The discussion point for the new club STARTS with "how much freight are you willing to pay?" not "are you willing to pay?"... the better the contract the less you'll pay, but it's a tax that gets paid in all but rare circumstances. It time people got used to that. It is indeed, what it is.

You can assume that freight is never paid on an at market or below market deal. History suggests otherwise. Too many of these deals go down, they simply cant all be over market, unless you're telling me no club manages their cap well, because all clubs have bought and sold on this market.

Assumptions aside, what we do know is:
- We are paying x amount of Simo's Y because we want Cotric. We have no idea what x or y are. Not even a rough media estimate.
- This type of arrangement has become the norm for moving players under contract in the NRL baring rare circumstances.
- The club feels the upgrade of Simo to Cotric is a worth whatever the net outcome is of the cap is.

Unfortunately since we've only got half the picture, it's hard to know if the club has made a good or bad decision on that. One of many reasons why i think salaries should be public. Fans have a right to know these things when they're spending the money they do on memberships etc.

If X is 25k and Y is 250k, i think that's a reasonable contract to expect Simo to be on give his position. And that sort of freight across a 10m cap is inconsequential really. It's a nothing burger.
If it's 100k over 400k, then that's a different kettle of fish. But the fact freight is being paid gives us no information on this at all.
We've got a little information on Cotric, we know he's on roughly 600-650k, and the Dogs are willing to chip in 150ish-k. But we only know that detail because we're talking significant money, this stuff always leaks when it's significant salary and freight... i would humbly submit that given we haven't even had a hint of speculation about what numbers are on this Simo's deal, it's probably not worth this hand wringing.

[greeneyed]

This is pretty simple economics... if a price is paid by one contracting party to pass on their obligations under a contract to another party, then the value specified in the fixed contract is above the current market value. By definition. It has to be. But there is no hand wringing. As just posted, it now is what it is.

[Billy Walker]

I’m giving this one to GE on a split points decision.

[Botman]

This is pretty simple economics... if a price is paid by one contracting party to pass on their obligations under a contract to another party, then the value specified in the fixed contract is above the current market value. By definition. It has to be. But there is no hand wringing. As just posted, it now is what it is.

Maybe in a true open market, that would be correct. We know the NRL player market, particularly when it comes to players moving whilst under contract is FAR from a true open market, and in fact the power rests almost entirely with the player who can virtually dictate who they'll play for.

That's what your missing, that is what you don't seem to grasp about this market. There is a very large power imbalance that puts the players, their agents and the new clubs in an extremely advantageous bargaining position and leaves the existing club over a barrel.
Which is why we're going to get Nick Cotric back btw... the tigers probably offered the better deal but Nick Cotric said "no thanks, ill go to canberra" and so the Bulldogs dont get to negotiate the best deal for the player and contract, they have to do business with us because that's where the player has determined he will play. So here they are, dealing with us, on our terms, or keep the player (which they realistically cant do).

This is why the deals always land the way the player wants it to and almost always the new club is getting the better end of the deal. This is just how business in the NRL is done now. It's best you all get used to it, in 3-5 years from now these dead cap hits wont even register with you until it's a truly hideous contract that is being move

[greeneyed]

Sorry, I'm not missing anything. I'm quite capable of analysing a market, including a labour market. You're drawing a very long bow in suggesting it, and reaching conclusions about things which I've not even said.

[Botman]

Sorry, I'm not missing anything. I'm quite capable of analysing a market, including a labour market. You're drawing a very long bow in suggesting it.

All evidence to the contrary.
You're treating this like we're trying to move this in an open market... Simo's contract can't be moved to any club unless he is willing to go there, reportedly thats Sydney clubs so immediately the market is cut from 15 teams to 8 teams. Boom 50% of the market unavailable to you, this isnt the NBA or NFL, you cant trade them away for the best deal...
And then the teams themselves must want/need the player, that takes out another 4-5 teams (Penrith, Roosters, Souths, Manly, Bulldogs... none of those guys would want or need Simo). That leaves at most 3-4 teams we can negotiate with, and probably in reality only 1 or maybe 2 clubs.

The Raiders have an asset we'd like to acquire (Nick Cotric), and do that we need to move an asset ourselves (because have only room in our squad for 30 assets, or 29 as the Raiders seem to prefer to leave a space open for some reason) except the problem is we're in a situation where only 20-25% of the market AT BEST (and again, in reality the options of teams which Simo would play for and wanted Simo is probably 2 at most) is available to us, and worse for us, they know that too.

So even if the contract is perfectly reasonable and inline with the total market... why would the new club, in the position of power they command negotiating against a motivated seller, in a high competitive market place that is artificially evened through a salary cap, do their competitor a favour and take the sticker price? You wouldn't, even if you love the asset and think it's worth the sticker price, like a car yard you KNOW they can and will do better, because you're in position of power, you get to walk away and they're stuck with the asset they want/need to move.

It's that simple. It wouldn't matter what his contract was, they would want AND get the asset at a cost they're happy to pay. And their in the position of power to dictate what they will pay because we're the ones that have another deal hinging on this one. He may be on an incredibly over inflated contract, we dont know what he's on. Im simply saying in this market, the way it operates and the power imbalances, pay freight is just BAU and not some iron clad proof the contract is over market.

[Seiffert82]

Half the time the freight paid seems to be largely made up of the salary already paid by the players current club.

What this also shows is that the Raiders weren't at all desperate to get rid of Hodgson. Certainly not to the point of paying too much of his salary for the Tigers to take him for a season.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

[Botman]

Yep, and I really didn’t think the club had the stones to stick to that and they’d fold due to crumbling relationships, and I’m rather thankful to say i was wrong about that.
I still think he is a very good footballer who can add a lot to our team.

I’m looking forward to another season of seeing Josh Hodgson play for the raiders, really hope Crawley coming back can help unleash him as an attacking force again

[Roger Kenworthy]

That time when pignickrickbotrot tried to debate economics with GE.

I agree it's not a free market when players become available at short notice. How can it be when 75% of your buyers are already ruled out due to the salary cap? Then you also have the factor of the salary cap. The Broncos may be willing to cover his entire salary, and generate easily enough revenue to do this responsibly. However they're constrained in what they can pay players due to the salary cap.

[Northern Raider]

I'm not really sure what the argument is between GE and Piggles so I'm going with them both being wrong.

[Botman]

Also even IF the broncos want him, and can afford him under the cap, if he wants to be in sydney not brisbane, that's it. It's over
As the club trying to negotiate the best deal to move him, we cant even use them as leverage, because they're just straight up not an available option. We can get tough like we did with Hodgson but then we dont get Nick Cotric... it's why i really dont understand the hand wringing about this from GE, the club has actually (to my surprise!) shown they wont take bad deals that are detrimental to the club's chances... they actually held firm with Hodgson. So if they've done this Simo deal, the net +/- of Simo for Cotric must be in their view worth the upgrade

And that's all that really matters here, not how much frieght we're paying for Simo, or what the Dogs are paying for Cotric. But rather when all ins and outs are tallied, what is the net cost of Cotric? 400k is a bargain, 600k is a gross overpay
I suspect it falls somewhere in that range but until salaries are public the best we can know is whatever it is, the club was happy and motivated to do it... and so how where you think that falls probably aligns with how you feel about the decision makers at the club right now.

[gerg]

It's difficult to say whether GE or Bot is correct when there is no consistent data to draw upon. Until salaries are available for the public to see its difficult to form an opinion one way or another. At a guess, I'd say that there is plenty of wheeling and dealing between clubs with one party often paying freight, and nobody hears about it because all parties are in furious agreement. I believe it's only when negotiations get stuck that one of the many involved parties starts leaking information to force a result ... and this is when the public get wind of it.

[Botman]

Edit: bah I’m done with this

Let’s let this topic get back to the Hodgson situation. All that can be said on the other matter has been said

[Billy Walker]

GE takes the win via a submission move

[Matt]

GE takes the win via a submission move

The rare tap-out via disinterest.

[Billy Walker]

GE takes the win via a submission move

The rare tap-out via disinterest.

The Bots a wily foe, he might feign disinterest but we all know he’s keeping his powder dry till his next battle. I’m willing to fork out $59.99 to Foxtel to watch the Botman v GE rematch regardless of the topic!

[Wiki Special]

I can't remember, did we pay freight when Edrick and Leilua left?

[Matt]

I can't remember, did we pay freight when Edrick and Leilua left?

Weren't they both off contract?

[Botman]

I can't remember, did we pay freight when Edrick and Leilua left?

Weren't they both off contract?

I dont remember about Edrick, that's 2016 and frankly the league was in a different state back then... but Leilua left a year early but as i recall he got a.... sizable and extremely regretable upgrade for the tigers... i remember reading that had politely declined a club option for... lol... 850k a season for 2022 after his disasterous 2021 campaign.

[Postman Pat]

Edrick left early, never forgiven for his hands in that final.

No idea if we paid any freight but I’d guess so.

[RichmondRaider]

Needs more utility curves

[RichmondRaider]

Yeah disappointing lack of supply and demand curves in this thread

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

[Matt]

I can't remember, did we pay freight when Edrick and Leilua left?

Weren't they both off contract?

I dont remember about Edrick, that's 2016 and frankly the league was in a different state back then... but Leilua left a year early but as i recall he got a.... sizable and extremely regretable upgrade for the tigers... i remember reading that had politely declined a club option for... lol... 850k a season for 2022 after his disasterous 2021 campaign.

So, contract in Raiders favour, which we declined, thus making him off contact.

[Botman]

No, i was referring to the tigers politely declining his 2022 option for what was reported as 850k... if that was his option amount, i have to assume his contract value in the years prior was north of 750k which is certainly more than we'd have been paying him
So even though he left this club with a year to run on his contract, i dont believe we'd have paid any freight because the new club paid him more than he was contracted to earn here

[Matt]

No, i was referring to the tigers politely declining his 2022 option for what was reported as 850k... if that was his option amount, i have to assume his contract value in the years prior was north of 750k which is certainly more than we'd have been paying him
So even though he left this club with a year to run on his contract, i dont believe we'd have paid any freight because the new club paid him more than he was contracted to earn here

Oh, I C

[MrPosh]

Genuine question, here, but does a player's contract value have to be paid? Could a player opt to forego some salary in order to secure a move they want?

For example, let's say Hodgson is on $900k for his final year at Canberra.

If he opted to sign for Parra for $600k for three years - because he's happier exchanging the lower salary for three years of security. If that starts immediately - and all parties are happy (and I get the point that in most cases the player probably wouldn't be) can that $300k be written off or is there a salary cap obligation.

[Crash Ball]

Genuine question, here, but does a player's contract value have to be paid? Could a player opt to forego some salary in order to secure a move they want?

For example, let's say Hodgson is on $900k for his final year at Canberra.

If he opted to sign for Parra for $600k for three years - because he's happier exchanging the lower salary for three years of security. If that starts immediately - and all parties are happy (and I get the point that in most cases the player probably wouldn't be) can that $300k be written off or is there a salary cap obligation.

If he gets a release from Canberra first then they stop paying him under the cap.

[Billy Walker]

Genuine question, here, but does a player's contract value have to be paid? Could a player opt to forego some salary in order to secure a move they want?

For example, let's say Hodgson is on $900k for his final year at Canberra.

If he opted to sign for Parra for $600k for three years - because he's happier exchanging the lower salary for three years of security. If that starts immediately - and all parties are happy (and I get the point that in most cases the player probably wouldn't be) can that $300k be written off or is there a salary cap obligation.

The issue with that Posh is that if you unpack if further Hodgo ends up $600k out of pocket when you add in $300k of psychiatrists bills and therapy sessions he will need after he realises he gave up $300k to join a club like Parra.