2018 Salary Cap

Also whos got a ruler? Time to get the dick measuring contest out of the way.

Pieman wrote:Holy shit, for some-one who claims trolling you spend way to many words on showing your stupidity

No-one was calling your 'luxury cap' an imaginary attack on the Broncos, we're all rather bemused that your answer to a system that you believe is uneven and benefits the rich clubs like ours, is to introduce a system that is blatantly uneven and only benefits the rich clubs like ours, and it's fucking hilarious that you seem to think we're arguing this because you're on to a winner and this would somehow bring us back to the pack, we are far and away the the most financially secure NRL team in the NRL, the clubs you mentioned are asset rich sure, but we are asset rich AND the only club turning a (big) profit consistently year after year, telling us we can spend whatever we like on players is the fastest way to ensure that you see us playing every single October for the rest of your natural born life.

Hold-up, I skipped over a paragraph of your dribble because you took a throw-away line at the end to heart, but If i'm reading it right...You don't like that the Broncos are allowed to buy players... the same way all 15 other clubs do? So in your perfect world, other clubs should be allowed to continue to spend millions paying overs to lure away all of our good players, but we're not allowed to touch any other clubs players?

surmo13 wrote:

No-one was calling your 'luxury cap' an imaginary attack on the Broncos, we're all rather bemused that your answer to a system that you believe is uneven and benefits the rich clubs like ours, is to introduce a system that is blatantly uneven and only benefits the rich clubs like ours, and it's fucking hilarious that you seem to think we're arguing this because you're on to a winner and this would somehow bring us back to the pack, we are far and away the the most financially secure NRL team in the NRL, the clubs you mentioned are asset rich sure, but we are asset rich AND the only club turning a (big) profit consistently year after year, telling us we can spend whatever we like on players is the fastest way to ensure that you see us playing every single October for the rest of your natural born life.

Hold-up, I skipped over a paragraph of your dribble because you took a throw-away line at the end to heart, but If i'm reading it right...You don't like that the Broncos are allowed to buy players... the same way all 15 other clubs do? So in your perfect world, other clubs should be allowed to continue to spend millions paying overs to lure away all of our good players, but we're not allowed to touch any other clubs players?

1. The fact that all you bronco's fans took exception to it and literally turned it into a me v bronco's fans thread, means yes, you guys turned it into an imaginary attack on the broncos.
2. The system also benefits clubs like the Raiders, Panthers, Warriors - clubs who are wealthy yet limited because they cant attract the TPA's some other clubs can and cant attract the players because of they are less desirable locations than others. Money helps. It helps the clubs who dont get TPA advantages. The rich clubs now are on top every year anyway!
3. You are acting as if I said GET RID OF THE SALARY CAP.
4. I said, clubs should be able to sign who ever they want - My problem with the bronco's doing it (and using TPA's to do it) is that they shouldnt have to, as I explained before.
5. If clubs cant compete, they eventually die off - which strengthens the league! Reducing the number of teams in the comp is fuckin fine by me. If it means the Knights die, so be it. I'll become a bronco's supporter.
6. OMG the comp is so even. Every team is a chance to win the comp every year and everyone has won a comp and everyone has a 50/50 record. Its so fucking even omg.

Sorry for chucking up an idea that seemed to offend every bronco's fan on here. The idea to use a system that is used in a league that is much much more professional and popular than the NRL, and defending it.

Thanks for the feedback though fellas, ill take it on board.

Pieman wrote:

1. The fact that all you bronco's fans took exception to it and literally turned it into a me v bronco's fans thread, means yes, you guys turned it into an imaginary attack on the broncos.
2. The system also benefits clubs like the Raiders, Panthers, Warriors - clubs who are wealthy yet limited because they cant attract the TPA's some other clubs can and cant attract the players because of they are less desirable locations than others. Money helps. It helps the clubs who dont get TPA advantages. The rich clubs now are on top every year anyway!
3. You are acting as if I said GET RID OF THE SALARY CAP.
4. I said, clubs should be able to sign who ever they want - My problem with the bronco's doing it (and using TPA's to do it) is that they shouldnt have to, as I explained before.
5. If clubs cant compete, they eventually die off - which strengthens the league! Reducing the number of teams in the comp is fuckin fine by me. If it means the Knights die, so be it. I'll become a bronco's supporter.
6. OMG the comp is so even. Every team is a chance to win the comp every year and everyone has won a comp and everyone has a 50/50 record. Its so fucking even omg.

Sorry for chucking up an idea that seemed to offend every bronco's fan on here. The idea to use a system that is used in a league that is much much more professional and popular than the NRL, and defending it.

Thanks for the feedback though fellas, ill take it on board.

1. maybe because we're the focus of your dumb as rocks idea... You've whinged about our TPA advantage in every related thread from here to timbuktu, but no, your dumb as rocks idea to curtail TPA's has nothing to do with the Broncos, you didn't even mention their name when you were pitching your dumb as rocks idea, how could you possibly be referring to us, the team with whom you bring up TPA's every time you talk about them?!
2. maybe it does help them a bit, but it benifits the Broncos ten fold, because you can't stop TPA's from happening by taxing the salary cap, if players want to add to their visibility and earning potential by appearing in ads for Joe Blow's Auto, they know where to go to make it happen.
3. you basically did, you think a tax is going to deter a team capable of doing so from spending however much they choose?
4. You know the Broncos can't give every tom, dick and harry who grows up in Brisbane a contract right? and other teams have these things called talent scouts who's job it is to find talent in other areas and get in their ears about coming to play for their team by offering them more money and opportunity?
5. no idea what that has to do with anything, you don't think money from the cap tax would go to propping up other teams that are dying?
6. good fucking god stop talking

surmo13 wrote:

1. maybe because we're the focus of your dumb as rocks idea... You've whinged about our TPA advantage in every related thread from here to timbuktu, but no, your dumb as rocks idea to curtail TPA's has nothing to do with the Broncos, you didn't even mention their name when you were pitching your dumb as rocks idea, how could you possibly be referring to us, the team with whom you bring up TPA's every time you talk about them?!
2. maybe it does help them a bit, but it benifits the Broncos ten fold, because you can't stop TPA's from happening by taxing the salary cap, if players want to add to their visibility and earning potential by appearing in ads for Joe Blow's Auto, they know where to go to make it happen.
3. you basically did, you think a tax is going to deter a team capable of doing so from spending however much they choose?
4. You know the Broncos can't give every tom, dick and harry who grows up in Brisbane a contract right? and other teams have these things called talent scouts who's job it is to find talent in other areas and get in their ears about coming to play for their team by offering them more money and opportunity?
5. no idea what that has to do with anything, you don't think money from the cap tax would go to propping up other teams that are dying?
6. good fucking god stop talking

1. There are a number of teams who benefit from TPA advantages. Not just the broncos. Again, you turned this into me v broncos. If you feel that you have to so vehemently argue it, that tells me that you don't want the broncos to lose the perceived TPA advantage that they have. Also, So the NBA has dumb salary cap rules hey? Cool.

2. How dare other teams who don't have TPA advantages be allowed to utilise their good business models and financial arrangements!! 

I don't want to stop TPA's from happening. I want them to be used the way they were meant to be used, with zero association with the club. Taxing when clubs go over the cap (because thats essentially what happens now with clubs arranging TPAs) at least gives back to the league when legally going over the cap. 

Do you think that its fair how they are used at the moment?

3. No I didn't. And of course it does.

4. If players are getting poached from your own system and back yard, you aren't doing your job correctly. Especially if they are getting poached because FG spots are partially filled by players bought from other clubs. Yep, cant keep them all but you can keep the fucking good ones.

5. It is all a part of the big puzzle buddy. And sure, the tax money could be used in a variety of ways.
 
6. Make me Surmho

Pieman wrote:
1. There are a number of teams who benefit from TPA advantages. Not just the broncos. Again, you turned this into me v broncos. If you feel that you have to so vehemently argue it, that tells me that you don't want the broncos to lose the perceived TPA advantage that they have. Also, So the NBA has dumb salary cap rules hey? Cool.

2. How dare other teams who don't have TPA advantages be allowed to utilise their good business models and financial arrangements!! 

I don't want to stop TPA's from happening. I want them to be used the way they were meant to be used, with zero association with the club. Taxing when clubs go over the cap (because thats essentially what happens now with clubs arranging TPAs) at least gives back to the league when legally going over the cap. 

Do you think that its fair how they are used at the moment?

3. No I didn't. And of course it does.

4. If players are getting poached from your own system and back yard, you aren't doing your job correctly. Especially if they are getting poached because FG spots are partially filled by players bought from other clubs. Yep, cant keep them all but you can keep the fucking good ones.

5. It is all a part of the big puzzle buddy. And sure, the tax money could be used in a variety of ways.
 
6. Make me Surmho

1. Please tell me exactly how you think it is that we lose out on TPA's with your idea, because i don't think you understand what they are, our players would get the exact same opportunities to negotiate those agreements with companies, perhaps even more-so thanks to them being in a professional sports team that almost never loses... And yes, i do think cap rules that turn a 30-team competition into a 2-horse-race are fucking dumb, which is why i wouldn't want the NRL to adopt them, even though the club i support would be one of those 2 horses, because i want rugby league to be an 'any team can win it' competition so the victories are worth celebrating.

2. Third Party Agreements
Third party agreements are payments made by companies directly to players. There is no restriction on the amount a player can earn through third party agreements where he is being paid for his own intellectual property, without the need to employ club logos or names and where the company involved is neither a club sponsor nor are they acting on behalf of a club to secure the player’s services.

In other words if a club is arranging TPA's they are registered with the NRL and added to the cap, if they are arranging them and aren't registering them, then the club is cheating, and i'm not sure how you think a soft cap with tax is going to fix that.

3. the boost in profit margins that come with winning premierships is substantial, the Broncos could easily drop a significant amount into player salaries and still be making money hand over fist, a tax will not worry them in the slightest

4. Young player's get poached by other clubs from every rugby league nursery, and no,we can't just 'keep all the good ones' because there's a SALARY CAP

6. Well obviously I can't, but i am hoping that sometime soon your carer shows some concern about the delusions your dribbling all over this forum and revokes your internet access.

surmo13 wrote:

1. Please tell me exactly how you think it is that we lose out on TPA's with your idea, because i don't think you understand what they are, our players would get the exact same opportunities to negotiate those agreements with companies, perhaps even more-so thanks to them being in a professional sports team that almost never loses... And yes, i do think cap rules that turn a 30-team competition into a 2-horse-race are fucking dumb, which is why i wouldn't want the NRL to adopt them, even though the club i support would be one of those 2 horses, because i want rugby league to be an 'any team can win it' competition so the victories are worth celebrating.

2. Third Party Agreements
Third party agreements are payments made by companies directly to players. There is no restriction on the amount a player can earn through third party agreements where he is being paid for his own intellectual property, without the need to employ club logos or names and where the company involved is neither a club sponsor nor are they acting on behalf of a club to secure the player’s services.

In other words if a club is arranging TPA's they are registered with the NRL and added to the cap, if they are arranging them and aren't registering them, then the club is cheating, and i'm not sure how you think a soft cap with tax is going to fix that.

3. the boost in profit margins that come with winning premierships is substantial, the Broncos could easily drop a significant amount into player salaries and still be making money hand over fist, a tax will not worry them in the slightest

4. Young player's get poached by other clubs from every rugby league nursery, and no,we can't just 'keep all the good ones' because there's a SALARY CAP

6. Well obviously I can't, but i am hoping that sometime soon your carer shows some concern about the delusions your dribbling all over this forum and revokes your internet access.

1. I never said that a team loses out on TPA's if there is a tax on going over the cap. What it does it allows clubs to spend more on players - clubs who traditionally don't have access to the amount of TPA's some clubs do - and bolster their rosters that way. 

NBA and NRL are different sports. NBA relies much more heavily on individual players and matchups. It wouldn't work the same way in NRL which is more of a team sport IMO. Nice to know that you think its dumb tho. I don't. 

2. Yep thats how they are meant to work. But it doesn't. Clubs arrange them and they they are used as TPA and not added to the cap. They are the biggest loophole in the game.

3. Speculation. (I am speculating that clubs wont recklessly spend)

4. Most clubs keep their great juniors. 

5. Rekked

Pieman wrote:
1. I never said that a team loses out on TPA's if there is a tax on going over the cap. What it does it allows clubs to spend more on players - clubs who traditionally don't have access to the amount of TPA's some clubs do - and bolster their rosters that way. 

NBA and NRL are different sports. NBA relies much more heavily on individual players and matchups. It wouldn't work the same way in NRL which is more of a team sport IMO. Nice to know that you think its dumb tho. I don't. 

2. Yep thats how they are meant to work. But it doesn't. Clubs arrange them and they they are used as TPA and not added to the cap. They are the biggest loophole in the game.

3. Speculation. (I am speculating that clubs wont recklessly spend)

4. Most clubs keep their great juniors. 

5. Rekked

1. But you've suggested an idea that allows the Broncos to spend more on player salaries than any other team AND mantain our advantage to attract third parties to our players, how exactly is that a solution to TPA's?

2. you seem to know a lot about these dealings that are against the salary cap rules, why are you telling randoms on a forum all this inside knowledge when you should be telling the NRL integrity unit? and you didn't explain what taxing the cap will do to stop teams cheating to keep money off their cap.

3. exactly. most clubs won't. the teams that can afford to spend a lot and still maintain a profit (ie. Broncos) will do so and not think twice

4. They do, and we have a host of home-grown juniors that have gone on to representative success.

5. What? I stopped talking about 5 because you pulled it out of your arse and it makes no sense.

surmo13 wrote:

1. But you've suggested an idea that allows the Broncos to spend more on player salaries than any other team AND mantain our advantage to attract third parties to our players, how exactly is that a solution to TPA's?

2. you seem to know a lot about these dealings that are against the salary cap rules, why are you telling randoms on a forum all this inside knowledge when you should be telling the NRL integrity unit? and you didn't explain what taxing the cap will do to stop teams cheating to keep money off their cap.

3. exactly. most clubs won't. the teams that can afford to spend a lot and still maintain a profit (ie. Broncos) will do so and not think twice

4. They do, and we have a host of home-grown juniors that have gone on to representative success.

5. What? I stopped talking about 5 because you pulled it out of your arse and it makes no sense.

1. Assuming they would recklessly spend. Allowing teams who want to spend over the cap to do so again, allows sides to negate the TPA advantages as they stand currently - TPA's shouldnt have anything to do with the clubs, which they do now.
2. Ah yeah, you naive child.
3. Yep, thats just a guess and speculation. I am assuming they wont.
5. Sorry, I should have put 6 there last time. I mean, rekked to your amazingly original carer's comment. Ya got me there mate! It also made perfect sense and is all linked together.

Pieman wrote:

1. Assuming they would recklessly spend. Allowing teams who want to spend over the cap to do so again, allows sides to negate the TPA advantages as they stand currently - TPA's shouldnt have anything to do with the clubs, which they do now.
2. Ah yeah, you naive child.
3. Yep, thats just a guess and speculation. I am assuming they wont.
5. Sorry, I should have put 6 there last time. I mean, rekked to your amazingly original carer's comment. Ya got me there mate! It also made perfect sense and is all linked together.

1. this is starting to go round in circles because you're fucking moron, so let me try this one more time, TPA advantages would not be negated, they would still exist in the exact same form and function as they do currently. Any extra money over the cap spent on player wages by rich clubs that don't have the TPA opportunities would be at the very least matched by the Broncos, and they would still have the attraction of availability of TPA opportunities along with it

2. not naive, you just seem to know which clubs are doing it, which i'm sure the integrity unit would appreciate knowledge of... And despite this seeming to be your biggest gripe about the current system, thus the main reason why you want the system changed, thus the reason you thought long and hard about why this system would solve the problem, this will be the third time i ask what exactly your idea does to stop this form of cheating from happening?

3. Why? The Broncos are the most financially secure club in the NRL, the only NRL club making a consistent profit and not only that, but a profit of millions of dollars per year, and you think they wouldn't gladly pour extra money into achieving the whole reason why they exist as a company in the first place?

surmo13 wrote:

saying the exact same shit as last post

Yes buddy, we get it. We disagree.

Pieman wrote:
Yes buddy, we get it. We disagree.

yeh i do get it, the thought process behind your idea was "i don't like it so it must be changed, hey the NBA is popular, lets just lift their system"

the fact that you couldn't even answer the question on how it would fix the part of TPA's you spend an inordinate amount of time on here bitching about is A+ levels of idiocy.

B/L wrote:Also whos got a ruler? Time to get the dick measuring contest out of the way.

Don't need a tape measure to know I'm well endowed. About to receive the 2017 Fantasy Fanatics Long Schlong Gong

surmo13 wrote:

yeh i do get it, the thought process behind your idea was "i don't like it so it must be changed, hey the NBA is popular, lets just lift their system"

the fact that you couldn't even answer the question on how it would fix the part of TPA's you spend an inordinate amount of time on here bitching about is A+ levels of idiocy.

And the amount if time you have spent defending it, arguing your agenda for your team (amongst others) to keep their TPA advantage proves that you know they have an advantage and you dont want to lose it.

I said what I wanted to say - you are on here just as much as me buddy.

Pieman wrote:

And the amount if time you have spent defending it, arguing your agenda for your team (amongst others) to keep their TPA advantage proves that you know they have an advantage and you dont want to lose it.

I said what I wanted to say - you are on here just as much as me buddy.

I've backed up my reasoning for why a soft cap will only inflate the problems you want fixed with facts and the best you've got is "it'll negate TPA's because i say it will"

thanks though for confirming beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an ignorant and stupid waste of time and oxygen, i'll let you go back to your petty handbagging at ryno, i'm done trying discuss anything with you

surmo13 wrote:

I've backed up my reasoning for why a soft cap will only inflate the problems you want fixed with facts and the best you've got is "it'll negate TPA's because i say it will"

thanks though for confirming beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are an ignorant and stupid waste of time and oxygen, i'll let you go back to your petty handbagging at ryno, i'm done trying discuss anything with you

Mate I have done nothing but keep it civil with you. Jeez you are fired up. Quite comical.

What do you want me to argue? Your opinion? YOU THINK the broncos will spend some imaginary unlimited amount of money if they were taxed to go over the cap. That's your argument. Facts.. lol. I think they wouldn't spend recklessly. That's my argument on that point. That's the extent of it. What else do you want me to say????

Far out. 

With all this whining over nothing, I'm really beginning to like you.

No Worries wrote:

2018 Salary Cap
Post by No Worries on Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:49 pm
Created this to keep discussion going while the season tapers off and fantasy comes to a close.

Current situation:

NRL & Clubs have agreed to

$9.2 million base cap, which is inclusive of $100,000 motor vehicle allowance.

Additional $200,000 is available for veterans who have been at clubs for eight or more years,
or development players who are under the age of 22 and have spent at least two years outside the club’s top 30.

RLPA have pushed back and what a percentage of and profits above forecast.

For the first time there will be a BoH or Admin cap put on clubs of approx. $5.7M.

Interesting foot note any coach payouts will go towards the %5.7M, so if the Bulldogs are going to get rid of Hasler they have 8 weeks or it will count towards the cap.

1 month to the day and just in time so it doesn't count to the cap. As usual, you read it here first.

be interesting to see whether its the date its paid or the date its ruled to be due on


because it sound like we're not gonna pay him a cent now but its hard to think there isn't some sought of settlement down the road not that i think it would affect us to much witht hat cap, i'm sure our spending will go way down with a new, most likely rookie coach

leaguegod wrote:be interesting to see whether its the date its paid or the date its ruled to be due on


because it sound like we're not gonna pay him a cent now but its hard to think there isn't some sought of settlement down the road not that i think it would affect us to much with hat cap, i'm sure our spending will go way down with a new, most likely rookie coach

They have used some deceptive wording. It must be finalised, so a decision must be reached in 6 weeks. As all the accountants will tell us, you can accrue costs at month end till the invoice lands so the ledger shows the correct month when the costs were incurred, so it wont come off the cap.

How much do you think Pay is worth.

No Worries wrote:

They have used some deceptive wording. It must be finalised, so a decision must be reached in 6 weeks. As all the accountants will tell us, you can accrue costs at month end till the invoice lands so the ledger shows the correct month when the costs were incurred, so it wont come off the cap.

How much do you think Pay is worth.

Don't say the word "accrue" at this time of the month. Anybody that does monthly reporting will end up on the ground in the fetal position.