Originally Posted by Nou Camp
my bad
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
We have to sign 20-23 players on full A-League contracts. Of those 20-23, 3 must be 20 years old or younger as of 31 December.
Vujica and Alessi are both u20 but we need one more.
Not to be confused with the optional 3 x Pro-NYL contracts (like Lundy last year). The contracts are min wage, 2 years in length and the player must be no older than 20 (by 31 December) in the second year.
Pro NYL players are contracted to the club, unlike regular NYL who are considered amateur and can leave any time.
Like all NYL players, pro NYL can play and train with the HAL squad. On paper they are part of the NYL squad.
According to the Herald and un-named FFA source.
And no Kokko is 22.
Last edited by borat; 17-08-2016 at 12:46 PM.
I asked Lawrie a week ago 2 questions.
1. Do we need to sign another u20?
He answered "yes we do"
I followed up with
2. How can we sign Kokko, u20 and Chinese player with 21/23 contracted at the time.
No response
For mine he doesn't answer because the ball is in play here and Miller confirms it. They are trying to offload a player/s as the first option, then if not looking for a loophole like Brennan to mature age rookie.
In the grand scheme of things it won't really matter if we are allowed to rort this. I mean they just changed the guest rules for 1 player. They have been changing the rules for years at the behest of SFC and Victory.
I think it's clear to all who Miller is looking to move out. If it was easy, we'd be rid of Brennan, Pavicevic and Cooper - rightly or wrongly.
The Championship Chronicles - The Jetstream's review of the 2007/08 season. www.newcastlefootball.net/chronicles
this.
And....
cooper, brennan and Pav may find themselves a tidy little cash contract in china I reckon
So he was a salary capped player last season, and moves to the rookie position this season.
I don't see the problem.
He probably could have been a rookie player last season too, but the club needed to make up the 20 player quota.
This season it's more beneficial for him to be in the rookie position, which technically his contract would allow (signed as a rookie).
There are so many ways to rort this cap if you need to that it should be run by the ATO.
I think the point is he can't be considered a rookie when he was a contracted senior player last season. It kind of defeats the main qualifier of the rule.
WE DON'T DO WALKING AWAY !
This.
You need to be an amateur for the previous 18 months. The point of the mature age rookie was to encourage clubs to not ignore the NPL and sign the best performing players. It's meant for your Luke Remmington/Kale Bradbury's.
Not to shuffle your decks to sign a Chinese development player.
Who cares how we manage it. If it happens, it happens. God knows other clubs get all kinds of rule changes just for them, so let's just be happy if something goes for us.
We did sign the "best performing" NPL player - he was lorded as the new Gareth Bale
the rules are so flexible it beyond a joke, its just nice to see that we might finally be using some of the flexibility
Because I think it's short sighted to cynically fill the Mature Age Rookie position and ignore the NPL. IMO it will damage our relationship at a time when it's already rocky.
If the club want a player to leave they should pay them out. Not rort the salary cap.
Ha true. 2nd best player in Tassie.
So your actually advocating that we don't take advantage and exploit the rules as we see fit??
It's not a rort if it's in the rules.
Paying someone out eats into the cap and limits the ability of the club to invest in the team.
If you pay him out say 55k and replace him the new player essentially costs you their wage plus the bloke you sacked. So a 75k new player costs you 130k of cap space.
You'd be better off moving Brennan out from under the cap and using that 130k to get a 130k player.
The "rort" isn't being used to ignore the local NPL, it's being used to spend money more wisely in the squad.
Brennan if not gone sooner will not be here next year and the club can go back to ignoring the local NPL without any fuss.
Its not in the rules, thats exactly what I am saying. And rorting the salary cap, no matter how minor, is not something we should be particularly proud of. If this was SFC or WSW we would be spewing that they can bend the rules whenever they like. And they do it a damn sight better than we can.
If we don't want to pay out 55k (would be now 41-46k after 3 months) players then we shouldn't stupidly be signing them to 2 year contracts in the first place. We shouldn't be signing your Clut's and Hoole's if we don't have enough squad places. Its 46k and we are owned by a multi millionaire. Its nothing to do with salary cap space or 130k when we haven't used either marquee position. We are being tightarse over 46k and being dodgy in the process.
If thats infact what does happen, as I doubt it will, or that the FFA will actually approve it despite what "unamed FFA official" may or may not have said. I mean why is Miller openly talking about moving players on before the season even starts if everything was peachy and we had the squad spot available. Why wouldn't McKinna just come out and say it, why would the FFA official be unnamed. Just announce at the next press conference that Brennan has been moved to the MA Rookie if everything is above board.
The FFA statement at the time said
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/...j1vyywqy5lcn3gClubs can pay a Mature Age Rookie outside the Salary Cap to encourage talented players in the National Premier Leagues. This player must be over the age of 21, not played in a fully professional competition for the last 18 months and last played football in Australia. This player must be paid at least the Minimum Salary
Anyway lets see how this plays out over the next 2 weeks
Last edited by borat; 17-08-2016 at 10:36 PM.
Lie Cheat Steal
That should be the clubs motto
Whatever it takes.
I am all for us exploiting shit like this.
Let's hope it is just the start of these ****s being streetwise
Lawrie said he doesn't know what the club did last year.
Not sure how the current management can be responsible for having Brennan on the books.
If he isn't wanted they are responsible for keeping him on the books though.
Their choice to keep an unwanted player and not free up a squad spot to bring someone in who is wanted because they won't pay him out or are unable to move him on
Posting Permissions
