The NRL is reportedly set to place salary cap implications on the Manly Sea Eagles after they signed Matt Lodge to a train and trial deal.

Lodge was released by the Sydney Roosters a couple of weeks ago, but in a surprising move, the Northern Beaches-based club confirmed the move was only to place Lodge on a train and trial deal.

As the season is past Round 10, Lodge is allowed to play first grade on that contract, and that's exactly what he will do this weekend after being named on the bench for the Sea Eagles, who will take on the Cronulla Sharks come Sunday afternoon in the Shire.

It was around this time last year that Lodge had been released from the New Zealand Warriors, only for multiple chasing clubs to be forced to wait for his remaining value for the season to come down so they could fit him into the salary cap.

He eventually signed a short-term deal with the Roosters, and extended that for a season earlier this year after spending the summer on another train and trial deal with clubs waiting for the 2023 salary cap to be finalised under the still-being-negotiated collective bargaining agreement between the NRL and Rugby League Players Association.

There are no such headaches this time at the Sea Eagles though, with the club gaining Lodge on just $1200 per week through the train and trial deal.

But it reportedly hasn't sat well at NRL HQ - News Corp's David Riccio told NRL 360 on Fox Sports that there will likely be implications for the Sea Eagles salary cap-wise if they continue to use Lodge in first grade.

โ€œIf he's selected this weekend and continues to play for the Manly Sea Eagles there will be a value placed on Lodge that has salary cap implications going forward.โ€

It means the Sea Eagles could be blocked from using Lodge in the top grade, with match payments to him likely to equal that of his minimum value ascertained when he was looking for a deal at this time last year.

That could push the Sea Eagles over the cap for the season, preventing Anthony Seibold from naming him.

1 COMMENT

  1. Surely the NRL should have made Manly aware of this when Manly submitted his contract for registration ?

Comments are closed.