2017 Brisbane Broncos Thread - we hate them for their freedom

Dip wrote:

At the ground it didn't really look like a skinny 10, but that the refs were letting the defence go early.

Probably what is was then. Onscreen defenders just seemed to be getting up quick.

Both teams were offside all night.

RCG and Macca were taking the piss at times.

Not a complaint, just an observation. Us older guys will remember the 5m rule, and after a penalty, defenders were further penalised by having to retreat 10m. These days the defence in normal play is often taken back about 12-13m ( measuring to the back foot anyway), so after a penalty they are actually closer than they would be following a normal tackle.

ryno_ wrote:

Im a massive NFL fan, so delays in a game to get the right call don't phase me. I can see how it might be difficult to force into a game without a natural stoppage after every play though... Like if the clock is still running or play isnt dead, do we let the captains stop play once a half on a whim? Or if you make only point scoring plays challengable, that draws a some what arbitrary line between a knockon on the try line and a knock on 10m out. Or if the captain wants a challenge a non-decision, but cant because the ref has played on, thats a step backwards. @Mearcats did you see any of the second grade games where they trialed the captains challenge? Work?

I think the system we have now is the best framework possible, just needs some refinement. Which is fine, the bunker is only barely a year old.

@Ryno, I didn't personally but my cousin has affiliations with the SC Falcons and they trialled it there for a few games. Reckoned the technology in the lower wasn't up to scratch to be able to handle it but seemed pretty convinced that it'd work a treat in the top flight with the bunker technology etc.

I think having a captains challenge can work in conjunction with the bunker. They do it in hockey (although another stoppage riddled North American sport) and works well there...

The bunker generally isn't the problem. It's when it can be used that's annoying.

See, this is the kind of thing that I Dont understand

How can the NRL say that a club cant sign ben barba for less than 600k per year, yet someone like thiaday who is an australian rep and qld rep can take a huge pay cut to play at the club, especially when there are clubs around who would certainly pay him what he is "worth".

Parker was apparently getting paid a pittance throughout his career too, how is that allowed, when the NRL blatantly comes out with a statement about barba and how much he is worth and how much minimum he is allowed to get paid.

Its fucking shit

Pieman wrote:See, this is the kind of thing that I Dont understand

How can the NRL say that a club cant sign ben barba for less than 600k per year, yet someone like thiaday who is an australian rep and qld rep can take a huge pay cut to play at the club, especially when there are clubs around who would certainly pay him what he is "worth".

Parker was apparently getting paid a pittance throughout his career too, how is that allowed, when the NRL blatantly comes out with a statement about barba and how much he is worth and how much minimum he is allowed to get paid.

Its fucking shit

Weird this comes up now when the resigning was in September 2015. Maybe Thaiday saying he was taking a cut was a bit of wishful thinking on his part to make himself feel better, and realistically $400K a year was market value in a year he was dropped to the bench for a while. For a 30 year old to be getting the security of a 3 year contract, that was probably about right. I think that's evidenced by the fact that no-one was complaining about cheating the cap back then. In fact, there were only 2 comments on this article in the courier mail about it, and one of those said it was paying too much. Hindsight is a great thing. It turns out $400K has been a good value signing for the club.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl/sam-thaiday-agrees-to-threeyear-12m-extension-with-broncos/news-story/1524095cf433b8408682c3ba43e3db6d

No comment on Parker, if what he said he got for his last contract signed after 2013 was true (a bit of $200K/Yr), that's massive unders. I'm not sure how much the NRL keeps it's ear to the ground when it comes to announced contracts. Maybe what the NRL doesn't want to admit is that they are aware that Barba (same with Folau) perhaps got offers of $X from another club, so they know if they sign a short term contract for $Y with a different club, that they are trying to load the contract. That might or might not have happened with Parker. Sure he might deserve more, but if he comes out and says I'm not moving clubs, then of course he's going to get low-balled by any decent negotiator.

Pieman wrote:See, this is the kind of thing that I Dont understand

How can the NRL say that a club cant sign ben barba for less than 600k per year, yet someone like thiaday who is an australian rep and qld rep can take a huge pay cut to play at the club, especially when there are clubs around who would certainly pay him what he is "worth".

Parker was apparently getting paid a pittance throughout his career too, how is that allowed, when the NRL blatantly comes out with a statement about barba and how much he is worth and how much minimum he is allowed to get paid.

Its fucking shit

Parker is a one-club player who openly said he didn't want to play anywhere else and doesn't have a player agent.

Barba has had 4 professional football teams in 5 years.

You arent comparing apples with apples.

Pieman wrote:See, this is the kind of thing that I Dont understand

How can the NRL say that a club cant sign ben barba for less than 600k per year, yet someone like thiaday who is an australian rep and qld rep can take a huge pay cut to play at the club, especially when there are clubs around who would certainly pay him what he is "worth".

Parker was apparently getting paid a pittance throughout his career too, how is that allowed, when the NRL blatantly comes out with a statement about barba and how much he is worth and how much minimum he is allowed to get paid.

Its fucking shit

I too like to sling shit at the Broncos at any opportunity and I admire your effort. I gave you a thumbs up for it.

I'm going to respond to the issue which seems to be inconsistency by the NRL stepping in to state fair market value of a player. I have argued against the NRL on this in the past but I think I've changed my tune.

They are consistent. They only put a market value on a player who has left the game, played another code then returned (usually mid season). Folau, Burgess, Hayne, now Barba, probably others I have missed.

What is fucking shit is 3rd party payments and how it effects the salary cap which is a different argument entirely and that's where Parker and Pieday become relevant to the conversation.

ryno_ wrote:

Parker is a one-club player who openly said he didn't want to play anywhere else and doesn't have a player agent.

Barba has had 4 professional football teams in 5 years.

You arent comparing apples with apples.

Out of interest, what is limit of how many clubs you can have before the NRL gets to decide your minimum salary for you?

If Barba had only played for 3 clubs in 5 years would he be able to sign on for whatever value he decided was worth it?
Or is it only 1 club players that are allowed to choose their own worth?

Or is it only players coming from rugby this applies to? They stepped in for Israel Folau at one point to say he wasn't getting paid enough.

Milchcow wrote:

Out of interest, what is limit of how many clubs you can have before the NRL gets to decide your minimum salary for you?

If Barba had only played for 3 clubs in 5 years would he be able to sign on for whatever value he decided was worth it?
Or is it only 1 club players that are allowed to choose their own worth?

Or is it only players coming from rugby this applies to? They stepped in for Israel Folau at one point to say he wasn't getting paid enough.

I think the bolded is closest to the mark... They did the same thing with Gasnier, didnt they?

I think Gasnier was the catalyst for it. He came back early, played half a season for the Dragons for allegedly $50K, won a premiership, signed a longer term contract for an inflated amount to make up for only receiving $50K in 2010, then proceeded to retire before his contract was up.

Dip wrote:I think Gasnier was the catalyst for it. He came back early, played half a season for the Dragons for allegedly $50K, won a premiership, signed a longer term contract for an inflated amount to make up for only receiving $50K in 2010, then proceeded to retire before his contract was up.

I still maintain that he would have been paid for something in a brown paper bag in a few years down the track.

What's to stop anyone doing it later on? Example, hey Darius sign for $350 k a year and for 5 years after you finish your career we'll give you a job worth $600k a year and all you can to do is show up once a month for staff drinks,

Honeysett wrote:

I still maintain that he would have been paid for something in a brown paper bag in a few years down the track.

What's to stop anyone doing it later on? Example, hey Darius sign for $350 k a year and for 5 years after you finish your career we'll give you a job worth $600k a year and all you can to do is show up once a month for staff drinks,

Yeah it's a really tough one to police I imagine. I know at the moment Hodges and JYY are definitely working for the Broncos, and I'd expect Lockyer as well, but by the same token, why wouldn't you want them working for you, so you can't really stop that happening.

Also if say Thaiday and Marshall say they want to spend more time than most working on their off-field promotions, why shouldn't the club be able to say something like "yeah okay, but if you're going to Sydney every week to do the footy show, that makes you less valuable to us if we have to give you permission to miss sponsor's events or recovery sessions, or have a problem with the effect of travel on your body or injuries so we will pay you less". I'm not saying that happens, but really would it be any different to the Bulldogs saying they want to pay Hoppa less because he won't play Sundays? Different reason and the extent is different, but it's really the same effect - that their personal choice agreed to in their contract means they are sometimes doing less for the club than other contracted players.

Honeysett wrote:

I still maintain that he would have been paid for something in a brown paper bag in a few years down the track.

What's to stop anyone doing it later on? Example, hey Darius sign for $350 k a year and for 5 years after you finish your career we'll give you a job worth $600k a year and all you can to do is show up once a month for staff drinks,

After he retired I believe Robbie Kearns had a very highly paid non-playing role in the Melbourne Storm back office.

Please. Most people were bagging Thaiday's Aus selection. Now, because he's a rep star we should be paying the big dollars.

Pick one side of the fence, will ya's??

He's on the way down, reckons he has to work for his money with third party offers - which generally at the Broncos means starring in cringe worthy ads and collecting brown paper bags in car-parks.

ryno_ wrote:

Parker is a one-club player who openly said he didn't want to play anywhere else and doesn't have a player agent.

Barba has had 4 professional football teams in 5 years.

You arent comparing apples with apples.

Its a player signing a contract. Its clearly royal gala and granny smith.
If the go with it actually is - "players coming from another code" then they should come out and say that.

From what has been said, its just "player x has to sign for a minimum amount" and "player y doesnt have to"

Not a comment on the Broncos, but the NRL saying Barbra can't/won't be registered/signed (whatever they've said, I haven't seen the official quote) on less than 600k is a joke.

By doing that they are basically setting his price and REWARDING Barba for multiple indiscretions by ensuring a team has to pay him big bucks. Seriously, 600k for a Coke head who continually stuffs up. What they should be doing is saying a club can't sign him for MORE than a certain amount for a period. Make him come back and play on the minimum.

I agree with the sentiment about players who are Aus/origin reps taking way unders, yet guys like this are valued so much higher, it's creates a total unlevel playing field with what is supposed to be a field levelling cap.

Yeah they said that on channel 9 this morning. Totally agree.
It's hard tho, What stamping him with a minimum does is prevent a contender from picking him up and paying him nothing to help them win a comp. punishes the player but rewards a club.