2016 Brisbane Broncos Resurrection Thread

iSIs wrote:

iSIs wrote:

Y'all just Broncos supporters because of Brokeback Mountain.

BOOM!!!

Bump for new page even bitches.

Annnnd again!

So corey parker was only on 200k??
lol

Pieman wrote:So corey parker was only on 200k??
lol

On the books, yes.

or 800k over 3 years if the media had decided to take the whole of the relevant paragraph...

Honeysett wrote:

On the books, yes.

so how was that legal? 200k per year, or 230k per year over 3 years, plus what? 400k per year in TPA?

Clearly, his market value was more than 230k.....

Onya broncos!

Maybe he lied in the book.

Dip wrote:Maybe he lied in the book.

Just like Webcke

Dip wrote:Maybe he lied in the book.

Why would he do that?

He either lied in his book for some unknown reason, or the bronco's pulled a swifty over the NRL by paying him 230k a year.

Jack Stockwell is on 350k.

Pieman wrote:

Why would he do that?

He either lied in his book for some unknown reason, or the bronco's pulled a swifty over the NRL by paying him 230k a year.

Jack Stockwell is on 350k.

I haven't read his book but didn't he say that due to negotiating his own contracts and not having a manager to negotiate and play other clubs off against the Broncos; that he is fully aware that he could have been paid more??

If that's the case and the Broncos are such a preferable organisation to play for, how should the NRL assess the situation?

What is the point of having a market driven cap if the fans are subjectively demanding/dictating how each player is to be accounted for in the salary cap.

Because Parra were not allowed to sign Izzy

Because souths were not allowed to sign Burgess for fuck all in his first year

Because paying a player their market worth, in theory, should keep the competition even.

Personally, I would love to see their wages made public, similarly to American sports.

Pieman wrote:Because souths were not allowed to sign Burgess for fuck all in his first year

Souths issue with Burgess was the fact it was putting them over the cap and as for Parra, the NRL's decision appears to be spot on given recent events.

Has there been any other examples of the NRL applying a nominal amount to any contracts (genuine question)?

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Souths issue with Burgess was the fact it was putting them over the cap and as for Parra, the NRL's decision appears to be spot on given recent events.

Has there been any other examples of the NRL applying a nominal amount to any contracts (genuine question)?

Just because they don't doesn't mean they aren't meant to. The reason why they should is clear when the test 13 is only getting $250k on the cap. Its a joke.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Souths issue with Burgess was the fact it was putting them over the cap and as for Parra, the NRL's decision appears to be spot on given recent events.

Has there been any other examples of the NRL applying a nominal amount to any contracts (genuine question)?

Not if they paid him fuck all in the first year and heavily back ended the contract and paid him more as the cap raises and other players gradually leave - not all leave at once. They didnt let them do that, thats what they wanted to do.
Izzy was the big one.
What about gaz? They heavily back ended him then retired - this sparked the izzy thing didnt it?

Justify it how you want, being allowed to pay the best lock in the game the QLD and AUS lock who has played 350 NRL games 230k a year - at the peak of his powers - on the cap is a fucking rort.
Especially when other clubs would have been offering him 3x that.

He was on 230k, that would make him close to the lowest paid bloke in the top 25 at the broncos (on the cap), thats fucking laughable

Pieman wrote:

Why would he do that?

He either lied in his book for some unknown reason, or the bronco's pulled a swifty over the NRL by paying him 230k a year.

Jack Stockwell is on 350k.

I don't know why he would do that, or even if it is true. I also haven't read the book and don't know what he meant by it, or what his contract says.

1. Maybe he lied because he doesn't want people to know what he makes
2. Maybe his told the truth, and the Broncos got a bargain
3. Maybe he told the truth and the Broncos have circumvented the cap
4. Maybe he is talking about base salary, and has incentives that made his salary somewhere you guys might expect (e.g. an additional $100K if he plays origin, and a further $100K if selected to play for Australia, or an extra $5 for every metre he runs and $12.50 for every tackle - I don't know).
5. Maybe he is talking about after tax dollars.
6. Maybe he gets paid much more but his wife gets to his bank account before he does, so thinks he only gets $200k/Yr
7. Maybe that's his salary after making a salary sacrifice to super and a donation to the Scientology Church or another charitable organisation.
8. Maybe he thinks he'll make more money by taking a lower salary and coming across as a good guy, ala Pat Rafter, then making money through endorsements and a speaking tour with Andy Bichel about being a living legend.
9. Maybe he got no other offers because teams with NSW players would be intimidated by him so it wouldn't be as good for team dynamics.
10. Maybe it was a front ended contract and he got $700K in 2015 and $200K in later seasons.

Dip wrote:

I don't know why he would do that, or even if it is true. I also haven't read the book and don't know what he meant by it, or what his contract says.

1. Maybe he lied because he doesn't want people to know what he makes
2. Maybe his told the truth, and the Broncos got a bargain
3. Maybe he told the truth and the Broncos have circumvented the cap
4. Maybe he is talking about base salary, and has incentives that made his salary somewhere you guys might expect (e.g. an additional $100K if he plays origin, and a further $100K if selected to play for Australia, or an extra $5 for every metre he runs and $12.50 for every tackle - I don't know).
5. Maybe he is talking about after tax dollars.
6. Maybe he gets paid much more but his wife gets to his bank account before he does, so thinks he only gets $200k/Yr
7. Maybe that's his salary after making a salary sacrifice to super and a donation to the Scientology Church or another charitable organisation.
8. Maybe he thinks he'll make more money by taking a lower salary and coming across as a good guy, ala Pat Rafter, then making money through endorsements and a speaking tour with Andy Bichel about being a living legend.

Yeah so he either lied for some unknown reason
Or the bronco's pulled a swifty over the NRL

in the book he is talking about how he didnt have a manager and may have cost himself some money by it - he was harping on about all the rep stuff etc then when he negotiated his last contract he was disappointed that he only got 230k.

Pieman wrote:

Yeah so he either lied for some unknown reason
Or the bronco's pulled a swifty over the NRL

in the book he is talking about how he didnt have a manager and may have cost himself some money by it - he was harping on about all the rep stuff etc then when he negotiated his last contract he was disappointed that he only got 230k.

Well that sounds like he wasn't a very good negotiator, and the Broncos knew he wasn't prepared to relocate, so low balled him. That's not the Broncos pulling a swifty on the NRL though.

Yeah im mostly just shit stirring, its the NRL's fault for allowing the contract to be registered - after they denied the original burgess one and the izzy one

Pieman wrote:Yeah im mostly just shit stirring, its the NRL's fault for allowing the contract to be registered - after they denied the original burgess one and the izzy one

Even with those we don't really know how it went down. Withe the Burgess one it is reported they wouldn't register his contract as it put Souths over the cap, until they got rid of Walker and McQueen.

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-registers-sam-burgess-contract/tabid/10874/newsid/91245/default.aspx

Who know what happened with the Izzy one. Given everything that has come out this season, would anyone really be surprised if back in 2012 it went something like this:

Eels: Here's Izzy's contract for $400K/Yr
NRL: You can't do that, you've only got $200K left in the cap
Eels 10 minutes later: Here's his new contract for $200K/Yr. Izzy was prepared to take less as he has now found a new 3rd party sponsor for $200K, not affiliated to the club at all. The company is called Sharpe Pirtek enterprises Pty Ltd.
NRL: Really fellas? Really? Under the circumstances I think we'll include $400K in the salary.
Daily Telegraph: NRL are the reason we couldn't sign Izzy because of their unfair arbitrary ruling!