Another NRL club in crisis

Part of the problem at manly was they had Brett Stewart and matai on the books for 2017 and they didn't play. Some club's get too smart and it all goes belly up.

Regardless,Greenberg started the rot when Hasler started coaching the dogs and that dill Castle continued the practice, look what she is doing to union.

He did famously however bring in Dessie the zen master of back end deals

I agree Matt. It’s not like the Bulldogs have fallen on tough times, they tried a strategy that has had some success and they missed out on a premiership. It didn’t happen by accident. They planned it and executed it. There’s no ‘bad management’ per se, other than they didn’t win a premiership in the window. They did make the semis five years straight and made two grand finals which is a pretty good run these days. The consequence of that strategy is there’s a price to pay at the backend. A ‘bailout’ from the NRL is completely inappropriate and unnecessary.

Canterbury and Manly before them rolled the dice with back ended contracts. I assume they were hoping that by the end of the contract period the salary cap would be higher or the player might be persuaded to retire, or even the club accepted that they would go through some pain in the future. Both clubs got to grand finals on the back of this strategy, with Manly becoming premiers. Many club fans would accept a few years of pain if it meant a premiership during the 'window' that this type of activity creates. So I would argue that it wasn't poor management at all. Sure it looks bad now, but that might be the price paid for success. Then you have a club like the Tigers who tried it and failed.

Exactly this.

Greenberg left the Bulldogs in 2013. Not one single player on the Bulldogs 2018 roster signed their current deal while Greenberg was at the club. He literally had nothing at all to do with this.

There are two flaws to your semi final plan. 1. You can’t sign players after June 30 and 2. You can’t sign players after June 30. I know that’s technically only one flaw but it’s such a big one it’s worth mentioning twice. It would also be dependent on the clubs those players are contracted to releasing their players so they could play a semi finals campaign with an opponent. It also assumes a team that had made the eight wants players from teams who haven’t made the eight. Your point about the final year of the deals is also wrong. Take Farah as an example. The final year of his backended deal was worth 950K. The Tigers offloaded him to Souths who picked up 250K. The Tigers has the remaining 700K included in their cap. They didn’t just magically make the last year disappear. That’s the whole point of the Canterbury crisis. If they could make the final years of these deals disappear they wouldn’t have a problem. I’m all for hypotheticals but this doesn’t prove back ended deals are illegal. You might dislike back ended deals and that’s fair enough but they’re quite clearly not illegal.

Remember the first back-ended contract ? No ? Let me remind. Gasnier Round 17, 2010. Just finished a stint in French rugby. He was allowed to rejoin the Dragons, that in all fairness based on his current worth, could not normally afford such a high profile player within their salary cap. He was allowed to be registered by the NRL for much less than his current worth, a mere $50,000. Somehow, (don't tell me how), but because he was only playing an estimated 40% of the season, that it was argued as the equivalent of $120,000 for the season (just that only $50k was literally in the books for that year). If this is all ok to you, (and if you are a Dragon fan, no doubt you will be vehemently ok with it), then hypothetically, you would also be ok with a team that signs up 5 superstars from various clubs who didn't make the finals, pay them $10k each, and argue the Gasnier Rule. Sound just as fair? (Hmmm - you're thinking about it now. No worries) What this extreme hypothetical example highlights is, this team that signed 5 new players for a very small percentage of the season, could not actually normally afford even one of those players. It highlights that based on their actual collective worth, by far would exceed the salary cap, and exceeding the salary cap is... yes, illegal. It provides proof that back-ended contracts are illegal. The fact that a 4-year contract, for eg, covers the players full worth for the 4 years is irrelevant as books are audited annually. If the first year of the deal is not a fair reflection of the players worth, then the entire 4-year contract, is illegal. These kinds of contracts are also illegal because they are pure fiction. They are never designed to reach the final year. Players never get to see out their back-ended contracts, because in those final years, the clubs could never afford that. It's only a scam to be under the cap in the initial years. Did the Dragons win the title fairly in 2010 ? Are teams that carry players on back-ended contracts, simply rorting the cap?

Huh,remember Dessie? he started this crap at Manly and they`re just getting over it(the back ended deals that is). You would have thought Greenberg would have worked this out before his double dealing with Hasler,it was so good to see Hasler crash and burn,can`t see any NRL club signing him ,Just deserts too,as for Greenberg, he`ll get his as well,anyone who has there scull shaved and waxed has got something to hide,he has been trying to cripple Manly since he took over the NRL.

I haven’t heard him tut tutting but Greenberg left the Dogs in 2013. Off the top of my head Tolman, Josh Morris, Jackson and Eastwood are the only current players at the club then. Josh Morris signed a four year deal in 2014, Jackson, Tolman and Eastwood signed their current deals in 2016. He hasn’t had anything to do with the back ended deals at the Bulldogs.

That’s just plain wrong. They give the clubs grant money. The clubs negotiate contracts with the players. The NRL doesn’t. It’s a bit hard to “make the rules” in a contract you’re not a party to, particularly if they’re illegal. But who knows? Maybe I’m wrong and we’ve thought of something in 15 minutes that the NRL and it’s lawyers have never considered.

Wasn't Greenberg the CEO when some of these Hasler deals were done at the Dogs?? I might be wrong but if he were why is he now tut tutting abut their existence?

I don't know what the NRL does in the way of guidance. The salary cap is meant to aid competition, so while it's not really their responsibility, they do suffer in terms of product if a club botches things. A team that has to force offload players could well wind up with a incoherent team where players are upset that their mates have been jettisoned. But you don't want the NRL to issue breaks as this would create an incentive for clubs to overspend. If time limited contracts, upper limits and managing back-ended contracts helps the product, it might be worth looking to save the clubs from themselves. It's better than having to explain to the fans they're watching an noncompetitive game because [insert club here] is run by clowns. I got the impression that the bulldogs deliberately overspent to stockpile weapons in anticipation of cap raises. A lot of the other clubs seemed to be more conservative when it came to cap projections.

No one ever holds a gun to anybody's head and do it this way. Newcastle got into bed with tinkler and look what happened there. Manly got involved with delmege and Penn but too many old heads there are stuffing and it's being flogged around the market. St George look like being sold off. It's like business, that's the risk you take. If a club falls over and I hate to say it but it will happen. Look at Balmain and Newtown and norths - all out the door as far as top level is concerned. Look at MLB - some sold off and relocated without too much fuss. Trouble is with NRL if you are privately owned its like pouring money into a bottomless pit.

they supply the money so they can make contract rules

I can only agree with TB - our administration made the errors, it's nobody else's fault we're in crisis. They overestimated the cap (sure it would have helped knowing what the cap would be) and they signed the contracts. We don't deserve outside help nor should we ask for it. They also signed Aaron Woods which led to losing James Graham (which I still can't understand, for the money he's on we could have gotten Cooper Cronk on a 2 year deal to partner Foran). The only way clubs will learn is if examples are made of those who make these mistakes. The upside to this is the dogs should have some decent cash cows for my fantasy team over the next few years...

Most clubs would have some players with back-ended deals. Gillett has a clause in his contract that in the third year of his four contract he can to the market and test his value and if he gets a higher offer he can leave. So essentially he could get an upgrade for the last year of his contract if the Broncos match the offer from an outside club if he gets one. Also with the salary cap being unknown and players off contract last year, some of the players had clauses in their contracts, that had their salary go up with the salary caps. Players also have rep clauses in their contracts as well. So the Dragons for instance could possibly be up for another $150,000.00 - $200,000.00 dollars a year with between three and six players being touted as State of Origin players this year. This could lead to them having to shed players as they can't fit them all in. Which if you are a newly minted State of Origin player who has just won a series could be beneficial to you as you are worth more money on the open market. Because a club has mismanaged their salary cap doesn't mean the NRL has to step in and fix it. Some players are worth more to certain clubs than others. The Dragons needed a half for this season. They gave Hunt big money to go down there. The Broncos thought he wasn't worth that amount. The Knights offered big money to Ponga last year to get him to the club. The Cowboys with Morgan off contract gave him an offer that was fair. They had a choice between an Origin player and an 18 year old with less than 20 games. At present the Dragons and Knights are looking like their gambles to pay overs to Hunt and Ponga are working. The Cowboys, I would think at the end of last year thought that keeping Morgan was the best decision for their club.

Your concluding sentence is one of your most important posts of the season. The good part is that Canterbury will now have the proper internal controls and management methods to ensure it never happens again.

But my point is the NRL can’t do it if it’s illegal. The contract is between the player and the club so there’s every chance the NRL has no right to say you can’t agree to a back ended deal. The fact the NRL hasn’t even mentioned it as an option suggests to me that it is illegal. The clubs are responsible for their own governance. That would be like a company saying they have no governance responsibility and saying it’s up to their industry regulator.