Salary cap fix

[Guest]

I recon Mat Elliott has the right idea. He believes that all NRL players should have a value placed on them by a independant party. The club itself can pay their players what they like as long as the combined independant values don't breach the cap.
This means that the clubs can organise any third party agreements they like without running into trouble with the cap and at the same time it restricts them from loading their team with superstars.

[BUDDY]

I don't think what the elite players are getting paid is actually very far away from 'what they're capable of earning.' If it was, they would have already moved to rugby.

It's paranoid to fret about a mass exodus to rugby union - we have lost 'super players' before, and the game has grown stronger. In the same year we lost Karmichael Hunt to AFL, it was one of the best seasons ever.

And there aren't that many that have crossed to rugby, so the gap between RL wages and so called 'earning capacity' cannot actually be very big.

What they are capable of earning in AFL or union is not the point. They are not the elite players in that code and it is ridiculous to think that they can leave rugby league and be one of the top earners in another code. But for the record K-Hunt is reported to get $1M. How much will Folau and Slater be worth compared to their current salary cap worth? The top earners in AFL, union and soccer in this country earn much more than league. Aloisi was earning $1.2M, Ablett > $1M, Giteau > $1M. What is rugby leagues top earner under the current legal rules? Even going to Super League they can earn more than they do in the NRL.

To say we have had our best year is another ignorant remark and the BS that Gallop comes out with. Look at the Brisbane side they put up against us a few weeks back. Look at the poor quality games. A close game does not make it a great game. The Dragons are arguably the best tream at the moment (ignoring Melbourne). They are the most boring team to watch. If we had 50 of those 100 players currently in Super League, how much better would the quality of league be? If we lose Folau, Slater and Thurston to union and a few others to Super League it will thin out the quality even further. Our game will lose in depth and quality of players. The quality of games in NYC proves that too.

[Kingbilly]

That's right HC. So we need to somehow allow the elite players to earn what they are capable of earning. Splitting $4.1M between 25 players restricts their earning capacity. An increase will atleast allow the better players to earn what other codes or Super League may be offering and therefore keeping them in the NRL.

The problem here is that people forget that the capacity should be determined by the market, not by comparisons.
e.g. Just because an NRL player is a sensational athelete and would excel at NFL, that doesn't mean he should earn $10million dollars playing NRL, because he could earn that playing NFL. Remember Super 14 has a much larger market than NRL
I believe we are exceeding what the market can sustain for and extended period of time.

Basically its the high earning NON CONTRIBUTORS (ie media personalities) calling for increased salaries, TV rights etc.

But as much as I love RL I DO NOT want to pay any more for my Foxtel nor do I want to sit through an extra 10-20 mins of ads to watch it on free to air TV, just to pay a player more money.

[Guest]

the NRL needs to subsidise the entire cap to each team, if its 5million, then give each club 5 million, no club can say they cannot spend the cap then.

The NRL needs to give some clarity as to "what is a club junior", my thoughts would be Harold Matthews up, otherwise kids in huge junior leagues miss the boat and will not be developed by other clubs.

Clubs are then given an 2 options
1/ they can have 3 junior players + 1 elite players wages not come under the cap

2/ 2 Elite players wages not come under the cap, to the tune of no more than 1 million total.

This way we are promoting development by the clubs and say in Melbournes case Slater is your elite, Inglis, Smith and cronk are your 3 juniors listed, 250 k for each of these players would not be included in the cap, hence the better players stay in the game at the club that developed them.

To qualify these players must have been registered in the Harold Matthews for the resepctive club, no exceptions, this would deter clubs from poaching junior talent and force clubs to develop these kids at a young age to get full value for their money, not when they are 20 and the hard work had already been done.

Thats 6 Million, 5 million frrm the Nrl and up to an extra 1 million from the club.

If some clubs still fall by the wayside, its their own fault, they dont deserve to be in the NRL.

Also players with 10 unbroken years or 250 games for one club are exempt from any cap.

I will say they, even if the cap were raised, players would still want more and the clubs would still look to cheat it, it is the nature of the beast.

[BUDDY]

The problem here is that people forget that the capacity should be determined by the market, not by comparisons.
e.g. Just because an NRL player is a sensational athelete and would excel at NFL, that doesn't mean he should earn $10million dollars playing NRL, because he could earn that playing NFL. Remember Super 14 has a much larger market than NRL
I believe we are exceeding what the market can sustain for and extended period of time.

Basically its the high earning NON CONTRIBUTORS (ie media personalities) calling for increased salaries, TV rights etc.

But as much as I love RL I DO NOT want to pay any more for my Foxtel nor do I want to sit through an extra 10-20 mins of ads to watch it on free to air TV, just to pay a player more money.

How much more are you paying for your Foxtel to watch Abblett, Giteau or Fowler? It is up to the clubs to be able to afford the player. The TV rights will be more in 2013 and if we are going to pay more as a result it is not because Slater can earn $1M.

[Guest]

I recon Mat Elliott has the right idea. He believes that all NRL players should have a value placed on them by a independant party. The club itself can pay their players what they like as long as the combined independant values don't breach the cap.
This means that the clubs can organise any third party agreements they like without running into trouble with the cap and at the same time it restricts them from loading their team with superstars.

EXACTLY WHAT I AM PROPOSING-each player has a value placed on them,this way its impossible to CHEAT.

[redwhiteandbluester]

What they are capable of earning in AFL or union is not the point. They are not the elite players in that code and it is ridiculous to think that they can leave rugby league and be one of the top earners in another code. But for the record K-Hunt is reported to get $1M. How much will Folau and Slater be worth compared to their current salary cap worth? The top earners in AFL, union and soccer in this country earn much more than league. Aloisi was earning $1.2M, Ablett > $1M, Giteau > $1M. What is rugby leagues top earner under the current legal rules? Even going to Super League they can earn more than they do in the NRL.

To say we have had our best year is another ignorant remark and the BS that Gallop comes out with. Look at the Brisbane side they put up against us a few weeks back. Look at the poor quality games. A close game does not make it a great game. The Dragons are arguably the best tream at the moment (ignoring Melbourne). They are the most boring team to watch. If we had 50 of those 100 players currently in Super League, how much better would the quality of league be? If we lose Folau, Slater and Thurston to union and a few others to Super League it will thin out the quality even further. Our game will lose in depth and quality of players. The quality of games in NYC proves that too.

Your point appears to be that RL's elite players 'deserve' $1m because that's what other codes' stars are getting? Somehow, we have an obligation to align our top earners with Rugby, AFL and Soccer? Why? As KB said, why not match the wages of American baseball or English soccer?

With regard to 2009 being a good year, it's a matter of opinion, but I think you would be in the distinct minority to say that 2009 was a bad year of poor quality football.

The Super League problem will exist no matter how large the cap is - ageing players will still be squeezed out for younger, cheaper players as long as the cap exists with no meaningful provisions for long serving players. Your one/two marquee player system does not address the exodus to England.

[stephenj]

the bloody broncos were the start and the cause of all this rubbish, cheating mongrels!

[BUDDY]

Your point appears to be that RL's elite players 'deserve' $1m because that's what other codes' stars are getting? Somehow, we have an obligation to align our top earners with Rugby, AFL and Soccer? Why? As KB said, why not match the wages of American baseball or English soccer?

With regard to 2009 being a good year, it's a matter of opinion, but I think you would be in the distinct minority to say that 2009 was a bad year of poor quality football.

The Super League problem will exist no matter how large the cap is - ageing players will still be squeezed out for younger, cheaper players as long as the cap exists with no meaningful provisions for long serving players. Your one/two marquee player system does not address the exodus to England.

Why not? We restrict our players earning capacity because of what imo is a low salary cap for 25 players brought in for the survival of some clubs. Soccer now have a two marquee player system. AFL and union have a higher cap and dispensations allowing their elite sportsman to earn probably what they are worth. If we implement either of these two then the true earning capacity of our elite players will be met. We will not lose so many players and the games will be far better than that amazing 2009 year. Is Rugby League not the premier football code in Australia? Will we not have a better TV deal that the others in a couple years time? Why can't we compare our players to the other football codes in this country?

Do you really want to bring NFL or European soccer into this argument?

[Kingbilly]

How much more are you paying for your Foxtel to watch Abblett, Giteau or Fowler? It is up to the clubs to be able to afford the player. The TV rights will be more in 2013 and if we are going to pay more as a result it is not because Slater can earn $1M.

I def agree that it applies to AFL as well, but the cost of the TV rights for Super 14 is spread over a much larger market.

Probably applies to all sports and maybe I am picking on RL a bit, I just think there are some very unrealistic expectations regarding salaries and the market with RL

[Pass the Ball]

Keep the cap..

Three players from each team can earn up to $150K extra, from third parties..

Your Thurstons and Inglis' can get their $400 from the club plus $150 from others..

$550 should keep the best in the game they love...

Clubs are then not burdened with the increased wages.

[redwhiteandbluester]

Why not? We restrict our players earning capacity because of what imo is a low salary cap for 25 players brought in for the survival of some clubs. Soccer now have a two marquee player system. AFL and union have a higher cap and dispensations allowing their elite sportsman to earn probably what they are worth. If we implement either of these two then the true earning capacity of our elite players will be met. We will not lose so many players and the games will be far better than that amazing 2009 year. Is Rugby League not the premier football code in Australia? Will we not have a better TV deal that the others in a couple years time? Why can't we compare our players to the other football codes in this country?

Do you really want to bring NFL or European soccer into this argument?

Why not? Why doesn't David Gallop spend this afternoon flushing $50 bills down the toilet? Why are you proposing spending money for the sake of it to address a problem that is not particularly great? Two marquee players would not have solved the Storm, and if cap cheating is indeed endemic, two marquees will not solve that either.

I mentioned NFL and soccer to highlight how arbitrary it was for you to bring other sports into the argument.

[stsae]

from what i've heard the league make $150 mill a year from t.v rights s.o.o and other avenues yet only $50 mill of that goes back to the clubs in the form of grants ,so make it 66 mill instead gives all clubs the dollars they need to keep the cream of the talent at prices other codes are offering them at the same time even the best players from the u.k could be enticed to come here to play instead of the other way around ,and each club would have at least 3 top end marquee players plus the cap would be TRANSPARENT because every player has a market value price .If a club already has 3 marquee players and the value of another player goes up to $400,000 + on renewing his next contract,the club has to either re shuffle on who their marquee players are or let him go to another club.spread of talent.

Here is the problem.

Gullup himself said on the footy show 2yrs ago, the game brings in $140mill+ a year. 3mill then was the grant from NewsRL. That leaves 90mill+ unaccounted for.

FFS weve provided Melba 60mill+ for the last 5yrs. News try to pretend its them who provide Melba, but its OUR game that does.

If EVERY club got its share of the pie, if that share covered the cap, surely NewsRL could then CONTROL the payments to players, thru tax records etc???

Then every player can earn whatever they can OUTSIDE the cap thru 3rd party payments. Its the EASIEST way to bring outside money into the game and what every other code does, private sponsors for players..

Its a simple solution. Fark News off.

[BUDDY]

Why not? Why doesn't David Gallop spend this afternoon flushing $50 bills down the toilet? Why are you proposing spending money for the sake of it to address a problem that is not particularly great? Two marquee players would not have solved the Storm, and if cap cheating is indeed endemic, two marquees will not solve that either.

I mentioned NFL and soccer to highlight how arbitrary it was for you to bring other sports into the argument.

I'll have some of what you are on. I am comparing apples with apples, not apples with gold nuggets. Rugby League's competitors for TV money and sponsors are the other three codes IN AUSTRALIA. We have to provide the best game possible and that involves keeping our best players within the NRL. How do you know that the two marquee player system wouldn't help the issues we had with the dogs and storm? The current system we have is obviously not working.
Do you think they all just wanted to play for Melbourne? I'm sure you do
Do you think if the storm offered Slater and Smith $1M that Cronk and Inglis would not go somewhere else if they were offered $1M?
The other three codes have been innovative in their approach not dinosaurs like our News puppets. As I said, they offer their best players the opportunity of earning what the market wants to pay them within much higher parameters. Our players are not offered that same opportunity.

[Guest]

the cap is great - there must always be a cap

unless you want to have a comp like the EPL, where there are only 3 or 4 winning chances every year.

and unless you want to pay $100 to go to a game

interest in the NRL is unprecedented, mainly because anyone can beat anyone on a given day