Official Wade Graham

Wiz

Jaws
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,907
Reaction score
1,515
Gun game from the young lad

Keep it up please
 

ben

Great White
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
3,300
Reaction score
151
Location
lismore
I thought he went well. Beat the first defender most times, defended well and nearly scored. Is he playing for a contract maybe?
 

RivShark

Bronze Whaler
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Messages
239
Reaction score
109
I think Wade just benefitted from starting the match, rather than from the bench.

I think at times coming from the bench (particularly when it's a role you havnt been accustomed to playing) players at times don't seem to fall in to the flow of the game and their impact is minimal.

Generally they either they get a bit lost or they try to do too much. I think Wade falls in this category.

He knows how to play the starting back row role better than any other role, let's hope he can maintain a good run of form heading in to September. He certainly deserves it.
 

Blix

Great White
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
3,447
Reaction score
128
a good game, great……still nowhere near the paycheck.

And a couple of decent games in a number of years is still subpar……for mine….
 

Blix

Great White
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
3,447
Reaction score
128
It’s like 350k isn’t it…..

And yeah i don’t think he has been playing anywhere near worth that…not even with his one good game….
 

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
28,582
Reaction score
5,074
Location
IN A BAR
Plus a portion of what he is on wouldn't even count towards the cap for the veteran allowance, isn't that still a thing?
It’s still a thing.
Disregard it, don’t factor it into how you think about any one player.

It’s just part of the cap every team has, if we don’t have it pencilled against Wade we’d just have it on someone else
 

RivShark

Bronze Whaler
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Messages
239
Reaction score
109
It’s still a thing.
Disregard it, don’t factor it into how you think about any one player.

It’s just part of the cap every team has, if we don’t have it pencilled against Wade we’d just have it on someone else
But it's only for 10 year plus players isn't it?

How many 10 year players are in our squad? If it wasn't Wade using it up, I don't think we would have another eligible player to use it. Wade's the only players remaining from 2016.

If he's on a hypothetical 350k, and 100k (or what ever the value is) is not included in the cap then essentially (for salary cap purposes) you're only paying that player 250k.

I can't imagine he would be too far above the minimum wage, if you subtract that.

Yes, he is still getting paid that total value. But relative to the teams salary cap, his performance is probably proportional I would say.
 

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
28,582
Reaction score
5,074
Location
IN A BAR
But it's only for 10 year plus players isn't it?

How many 10 year players are in our squad? If it wasn't Wade using it up, I don't think we would have another eligible player to use it. Wade's the only players remaining from 2016.

If he's on a hypothetical 350k, and 100k (or what ever the value is) is not included in the cap then essentially (for salary cap purposes) you're only paying that player 250k.

I can't imagine he would be too far above the minimum wage, if you subtract that.

Yes, he is still getting paid that total value. But relative to the teams salary cap, his performance is probably proportional I would say.
No it’s not for that, you’ll have to Google or find where I’ve explained it here before as I’m too busy at the moment haha
 

BurgoShark

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
12,141
Reaction score
3,514
But it's only for 10 year plus players isn't it?

How many 10 year players are in our squad? If it wasn't Wade using it up, I don't think we would have another eligible player to use it. Wade's the only players remaining from 2016.

If he's on a hypothetical 350k, and 100k (or what ever the value is) is not included in the cap then essentially (for salary cap purposes) you're only paying that player 250k.

I can't imagine he would be too far above the minimum wage, if you subtract that.

Yes, he is still getting paid that total value. But relative to the teams salary cap, his performance is probably proportional I would say.
No.

Anyone developed by the club, or 8 years with the team, or 10 years total in the NRL.

Basically at least 2/3 of the roster is eligible. Probably more. Nicho is the only regular who definitely wouldn’t be. McInnes isn’t this year, but will be for 2024.

Ramien and Tracey are debatable, since they left and came back. Same for the guys who debuted elsewhere but became regulars at the Sharks (BHU, Sifa, Hunt). I reckon they could argue that the Sharks developed these players though.

As bort said, it’s just part of the cap that everyone gets. It doesn’t work like it did back when Gal was saving is $300k.
 
Last edited:

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
28,582
Reaction score
5,074
Location
IN A BAR
What he said!

Only clarification is the players developed by the club still need 8 years with them (ie sign at 15 and now 23 would do it even if 23 is their first year in top 30)

You’d think if Ramien/Tracey had been contracted to sharks at one level or another for 8 years theyd tick box but nrl may be strict and reset it.

Basically… some kind of contract with Sharks for 8+ years, or nrl top 30 for 10+ years

Sorry Riv I was working and couldn’t answer fully at the time
 
Top