Let me premise this by stating that I am in no way a salary cap expert. Far from it. However, the furore surrounding Parramatta’s need to be salary cap compliant has generated an enormous amount of debate on both mainstream and social media. Confusion has reigned when the speculation has turned to who can be shed in achieving compliance. Whilst I won’t enter into discussing the specifics of whom I would like to explore the difficulties surrounding the decision.
The first thing to understand is that the Top 25 salaries are exactly that – the top 25. When a player is released during the season, the cap doesn’t become a top 24. Another player (the next highest salaried player), is moved into the top 25. This means that a new contract amount gets added to the Top 25 to replace the contract that’s been released.
To elaborate further, you get no salary cap relief by releasing a player from the lower end of your cap. Likewise you gain nothing by moving on any number of players at the lower end. Relief is only possible by shedding a player on a significant contract.
Yet it’s still not that simple. All players have received a significant proportion of their salary by May. From the moment that they commenced pre-season training, their contract has commenced and they have been paid. We are talking about half of a season at this stage. So the cap cannot be reduced by anything near the value of their contract.
Furthermore, there has to be the possibility of another club picking up the tab for most of the outstanding amount of their contract. Any potential gain from this is still further diluted by the movement of the player from the second tier up into the Top 25.
Therefore, when names are suggested about players to be offloaded to achieve relief they must:
a) Be on a large enough contract that their movement offers cap reduction after another player is moved into the top 25, and after you remove the value of the contract already paid for the year.
b) Be highly sought after so that another club is prepared to offer (and be able to afford to offer) a significant proportion of their contract.
Its not so easy to become mid year compliant. I wouldn’t like to be making such decisions.
Sixties
This is a complicated scenario. How is it that it was reported in the media first? More NRL leaks? By destroying Parramatta Greenberg will destroy the NRL. This is going to continue escalating into a massive story that will eventually destabilize the NRL. If you haven’t watched the James Bond movie “Tomorrow Never Dies” for a while, now is a good time to watch it again. We are living it. What will the players think of not letting anyone go and waiting for next year? The NRL will implode by then anyway. I will be surprised if Greenberg is still at the helm by the end of the year. Greenberg, you need to go and read /watch Moby Dick and see what happens when you endlessly try to destroy something without mercy.
A better analogy might not be ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ but the circumstances surrounding impeachment proceedings against Brazilian President, Dilma Rousseff.
60’s that’s the whole point that so many do not understand, we got into strife under BA’s first year when hit with so many injuries & we expended all the 2nd tier, & got hit there, also the NYC was over there & also had to name one player to travel with the 17man squad who couldn’t play anyway, the NRL says we have to have 17, but we did not have 17 fit players, only 16 & was still over & got fined.
We release a player on $90k, we automatically have $85K added to the 2nd tier player who takes his place, gain equals $5k.
Using Peats as the example he signed really on overs as we needed to sign better players at the time & no one wanted to come here on what their real worth was, I understand he is on around $500K plus he had TPA’s a couple rolled over & he lost at least a car as a result, but he has already received half his last seasons pay, say $250K we would likely not get someone to pay out that amount so say at best he moves on for $200K, we have to pay him the rest of the contract plus fill a top squad position from the lower grade, assume that’s Pritchard as he has played for us this year & is already there, it may mean one more, & that puts the $85K dent, so we only end up with $115K relief from losing his services.
It does look great but the club at least can play for points, & I do not see any other player outside of Norman who would get us a better set of numbers, but he is more vital to the club for the future,
Thanks Chris but I think a good percentage of the eels fan base are well and truly across these sorts of things now. How simple life was just a fortnight ago when there was interest in the team list on Tuesday and excitement for the upcoming game albeit with the threat of the sanctions still to come, but since then nothing but carnage for the team, club and eels and NRL fans.
I’m a mere drop in the ocean when it comes to any sort of NRL profile as I’m just a diehard eels fan but the number of communications I’ve had over this from eels and non eels supporters is just unreal. This includes people I rarely see or speak to getting in touch over this and even as just a fan I finding it draining let alone with trying to keep up with the constant media “news”. It was even Hamish and Andy’s lead in topic the day the sanctions were announced. What must it be like for those with a strong connection and in particular BA and the players?
The talk of Semi going anywhere and everywhere, Norman to the panthers/dogs, the NRL yes and no on Watmough, Peats being asked to move on, Junior’s idiocy, the rafts of information and disinformation etc etc etc has surely put to rest the line that the players were immune to what was/is going on and remained a tight, united group focused on nothing else but the next game. There must be flaws in that argument by now and it will impact the performance of the team for sure.
I still can’t believe the mess that this has become and so disappointed with the NRL’s leadership on this. It was obvious weeks ago that the stories being leaked were being done so in order to get the NRL community ready for an expectation of high penalties. They delivered on that but nothing else other than a high level of speculation as to what happened and how the numbers were put together. They have left it be played out mainly in the papers and as far as I am aware have not made any comments to try and reign in or unsubstantiated accusations.
It is a mess and we fans, eels fans in particular deserve better. We need the NRL to come out with the basis of the penalties so that we can understand and rationalise the decision making process and resultant penalties and move on to getting back to what footy life was a fortnight ago.
Sorry i dont see greenberg as the devil,whoever got his job was going to face the same scenario, the people running the club are the culprits and everyone else the victims , the club is a multi million dollar business being run by people out of their depth who whilst having good intentions just dont have the intelligence and greenberg will be there for the long haul like it or not
… But power struggles are messy and murky affairs where no party is ever truly innocent…
I feel that the NRLs sting last week was a carefully-crafted and stage-managed operation to oust the Parramatta board from power – or, at least, those whom it sought to de-register from the board – by driving a wedge between the Parramatta fan-base and the five de-registered board members and club officials: through media leaks, an interview on 2GB beforehand, cold calls to Michael Cronin and Peter Sterling to push alternative potential leadership, from Bernie Gurr and others, and sizeable breaches that have yet to be examined. It was quite obvious that relations between the Parramatta board and the NRL before the sting were at a loggerheads, and quite possibly strained to the point of having become irreconcilable – Parramatta had threatened legal action against the NRL earlier in the year.
However, the NRLs attempt at a swift and bloodless coup backfired within 24 hours when Ian Schubert raised the possibility that its purported estimates of Parramatta’s breaches were inaccurate. Suddenly, supporters channelled their frustrations back at the NRL, and the vitriol previously levelled at the de-registered five turned into hope for the future – this having somewhat dissipated again at suggestions of player cuts to get under the salary in time for Friday night’s match against South Sydney that the NRL refuses to budge on. (After all, Schubert’s claims can only be evaluated through the internal appeals process – at least to begin with – with Parramatta’s response having to be submitted by 3 June, while matches remain to be played, and points accrued, in the meantime, under the NRLs unwavering stance.
I suppose that the NRL had hoped that the backlash against the Parramatta five would lead to a new board that would seek redress entirely from its own internal procedural channels and not the legal system. Perhaps, then, the new Parramatta board would have lodged its internal appeal against the breaches and the NRL may quite willingly have halved its points deduction and fine. As it is now, the matter is headed for the courts.
Court proceedings may help to clarify many things in the matter. Personally, I’d like to know the extent of Parramatta’s breaches, and all those responsible for them brought to light – this may finally help quash the internecine factional disputes that have plagued the club for so long. It may also expose the farce that is the NRLs third-party system (though I don’t hold much hope for that; not unless Kate Mcclymont and others are successful in their investigations on the subject). It may further expose improprieties on the part of others. Perhaps even the NRL: for good governance should always start at the top of every industry and then trickle down to its constituent parts. Whereas, the manner of the NRL sting was most disappointing and undemocratic, and has made a mockery of procedural fairness. It’s one thing to chase suspected cheating, and quite another to go beyond the law. Indeed, the relationship between Todd Greenburg and Scott Seward raises serious conflict of interest issues; and, so, the testimony of the latter should be on the public record.
In a cruel twist to the tale – perhaps – the Parramatta five had finally brought the club’s salary cap into line. But the whistle-blower took whatever joy it brought away from the coach and players – and from us, the Parramatta faithful.