Queensland player Greg Inglis (right) in action during Queensland’s defeat over New South Wales in the 2nd State of Origin match between against New South Wales at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Wednesday, June 16, 2010. (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Greg Inglis is doing himself no favours. He is either naïve and stupid, incredibly greedy and ill advised, or both. History will not be kind to him.
The Melbourne Storm made him who he is, bent over backwards to accommodate him (much to their own detriment), and stood by him in his hour of need.
The same way that anybody would expect their club to stand by their golden child.
Furthermore, when the Storm salary cap scandal broke, they were derided by all and sundry for allowing a great number of fringe (and some not so fringe) players to leave to ensure they held on to “the Big Four”, the jewels in the crown. According to CEO Ron Gauci, this is something that the club achieved.
Now given all this, what would make you want to leave that environment? It is quite admirable – nay remarkable – that the club released him at all. They could have just as easily turned around and said, “Why don’t you use some of your $600k salary to fly her back down to Melbourne for the weekends?” The club however did the admirable thing and released him. Love conquers all…
However, in the Storm’s claim that they were under the cap for 2011, the implication is that his $120k legal bill was covered. While the Storm paid the bill, the money is attached to Inglis as a salary cap liability. It is a payment in kind, a substitution of a good or service for your regular salary. The Storm effectively gave Inglis a $120k pay rise for 2011.
Inglis (and his advisors) need to be aware of the fact that if they walk away from the deal they have at the Storm, they simply can’t get the same kind of deal elsewhere. After all, it was these kinds of deals that got the Storm into trouble in the first place! If you want out, then there is a $120k salary cap liability going to follow you.
As club didn’t choose to let him go, and that he put in a request to be released, the Storm are right to dig their heels in. Furthermore, no club in this situation should be liable under the salary cap. Players need to learn that they are responsible for their own actions, both on and off the field, financially and otherwise.
For Anthony Mundine to suggest that “a brother has been dudded” is frankly disgusting. Inglis has been afforded the best legal representation money can buy, given lucrative long term contracts and had external third party deals sourced for him. Given that it was he who requested his release, who has really been dudded in all of this?
He has walked away from the club that found him, turned him into one of the game’s superstars, and stood by him in his hour of need. He has reneged on a lucrative deal with the Broncos, when it was a “more than money” decision to move there in the first place.
Inglis has been far from dudded, it is he who has been doing the dudding.
Life will be very different for Inglis away from the relative anonymity that he enjoyed in Melbourne, and perhaps only now are we are getting a glimpse of the real Greg Inglis.
Maybe he is more trouble than he is worth.
Timnaik
Guest
Yep.
Ian
Guest
Timnaik You'd be a Herald Sun reader then?
Ken
Guest
I think you misunderstood what I said, I agreed Folau was within the rules. Although in almost any definition he is a NSWelshman, he did move to QLD as a teenager and played his first senior footy there (before moving to Melbourne a couple of years later) and that satisfies the rules of Origin. Don't tell the AFL that he is a QLDer though, they have painted a tale of him coming back to Western Sydney because he was homesick after spending 2 years in QLD... Anyway, it was Inglis that I was pointing out as an example of just ignoring the rules, he was born, raised and played his first senior football in NSW. I never really had a problem with Hunt, Civoniceva, Lam, Mason etc who were born elsewhere but grew up here. It probably would have been better for the international comp if Hunt had claimed his NZ heritage but he was here early enough to have loyalties on both sides and played his first senior football in QLD so qualified accordingly. Uate falls into this category too having been here since he was in his early teens.
AdamD
Roar Rookie
Ken.. Folau moved to Queensland as a young lad much like Sterlo moved from QLD to NSW as a young lad. Folau grew up in a place called Logan in Queensland ( just south of Brisbane) and attended school at Marsden State High in the Logan area!! he is a Queenslander! get over it!
Timnaik
Guest
"The case was unfortunately a witch hunt by local Melbourne Media keen to sell stories that League players are evil..." er... Ian leaguies are evil.
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
Hmmm makes you wonder... Anybody remember Jason Taylor admitting he was present at a meeting where Souths officials discussed ways of circumventing the cap? The look on this face when he realised he had said too much was priceless!
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
I never suggested one way or another as to his guilt or innocence, however it is worth noting that he was not required to enter a plea. His guilt or innocence was not actually determined. As for the Courier-Mail headline, I wouldn't read too much into that, sensationalism sells papers, and a story this sensational in a town the lives and breathes the Broncos? The headline is expected, and actually a bit tame and unimaginative. If he was an English footballer, their tabloids would be far less kind!
Danny_Mac
Roar Guru
The benefit to both parties would be earning capacity, in the context of high-profile sports stars, a tarnished reputation can and will directly impact your earning capability (just ask Stephanie Rice). The benefit for the club is the player is available to fufill his contractual obligations (i.e. he's not in jail, or having to fulfill a community based order) and can be used as a (positive) marketing tool to promote the club. The point I was trying to make is the this is actually a salary cap issue. In the eyes of the NRL, any cost incurred by the club (or a 3rd party sourced by the club) forms "payment" and is to be counted as such under the cap. In reality the Storm may have been happy to wear the $30k in question as a legitimate business expense (and it is doubtful that Inglis would be subject to FBT etc), but again the NRL view it as part of Inglis' "earnings", as it was paid for outside of his cash earnings. And finally, there was nothing stopping Inglis refusing the clubs offer and choosing his on legal representation, something better suited to his budget perhaps? Whilst there is higher media scrutiny of sports figures, in the eyes of the law they are no different to any other person, in the same way that my employer can't force particular representation upon me, even if it is considered to be a "better" choice than my own. The club may not like this option, as it restricts their ability to limit damage, but in relation to the salary cap, it is the preferential option, as 100% of the cost comes out of the player's "cash earnings".
blackstar
Guest
not accoriding to inglis.
berra boy
Guest
that rant would be okay if it also mentioned player managers...
berra boy
Guest
what - roy masters in fairfax questioned the motives of news limited.... wow, that's never happened before!
berra boy
Guest
isn't he really a new south welshman?
berra boy
Guest
i know where the salary cap auditor should be looking next...
T. Ortiz
Guest
You can't go down that road John. Sterling spent about as much time in QLD as Hunt did in NZ. There's also Ken Nagas, who was born and raised in QLD, but represented NSW. James MCManus the Newcastle winger was originally from Scotland, but played for the Blues too. You blokes also seem to forget you have 5 times the amount of players to choose from in the first place!
John
Guest
What about Karmichael 'kiwi' Hunt, he is about Australian as the haka. No one in their right mind can say that that guy was a Queenslander but then again neither was Toni Carroll, Brad Thorn, Ben Teo certainly isnt and they've earmarked him as well. Qld only serve their own interests even if it means blatantly breaking the rules or going back on their own words, you only have to look at the folau situation to see that
Norm
Guest
I'm with you Dan, Broncos will just have to cop it.
Jason
Roar Guru
Guilty? About as guilty as someone who accepts a diversion order, has to attend a behavioural change program and pay $3,000 to a women's health service can be.
Ian
Guest
Are you saying he's guilty? I'd suggest the media frenzy around NRL players at the time Inglis appeared on the front page of the HS did much to imply guilt even with no evidence. He has not been convicted, yet you go on as if he is. As Roy Masters says in his Age column this morning. http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/how-a-30000-quibble-is-sending-ripples-right-through-rugby-league-20101108-17kjm.html "Why have the News Ltd-owned Broncos gone cold on Inglis? The headline in the city's weekend News Ltd monopoly paper said of Inglis, ''Get Lost''. The club imposed a deadline on him two weeks ago, then moved it. The Broncos would be reluctant to take action against the NRL - still half-owned by News Ltd - over its salary cap rules."
Pikelet
Guest
That's right Chris K, we are to busy winning shields to worry about that stuff. Besides If he pledged his allegiance to NSW, he would probably still be waiting for an Origin jersey right? (ask Mundine). You know Greg, always looking out for no.1. Ps. Greg played under 18's in Bundaberg and his parents told him he should play for QLD. PPs. 6 straight next year!!!
Jim Jim
Guest
I'm not sure I agree Dan. The Storm had a vested interest in the outcome of Inglis' court case by virtue of the fact that their reputation was at stake as much as Inglis'. To suggest that a QC bill (if it indeed is only a QC bill, as it seems a bit steep to me) is a "payment in kind" is not quite correct. Unlike employers in the regular sense, professional sporting clubs have an interest in ensuring that their players do not tarnish the reputation of their clubs while 'off the clock' as well as while on duty. While you could argue that some employers have similar needs, the reality is that they are not as heavily focused upon by the media and it is unfair to compare your own employment to that of a professional sports man. You cannot expect a player to have to necessarily pay the whole amount when the Storm (more than likely) leapt at the opportunity to give Inglis the best possible defence they could in an attempt to salvage some form of respect and reputation of their own out of the saga. I'm not saying that Greg Inglis should not be liable for any of the debt, but likewise the Storm should also not escape some form of liability. Where is the long term benefit to Inglis? Presumably, if he was found innocent, he and the Storm are surely only spending money to rescue and restore their respective reputations from undue prejudice, not to derive a benefit from them. The player is essentially not deriving a reward and to classify it as a payment in kind is untenable. In short, I would have to agree with Jay. It is not a fee for service, but more so a legitimate business expense. If Inglis agreed with the club to pay the money back then that is fair enough and it can be recovered by way of damages for breach of contract. But it is somewhat of a misnomer to cloud this issue with the salary cap as it is not actually the case.