Could the Storm saga be good for the game? (positive thread)

[QUEENSLANDER]

Im not sure if this has been brought up in this or another thread but it looks like the NRL is finally thinking about doing something to fix this salary cap farce.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/new-salary-cap-plan/story-e6frexnr-1225860995509

A concession system that would kick in once a player has spent five seasons at one club would provide discounts of up to 50 per cent on contracts, reward loyalty and encourage clubs to develop players.

 

[Kimlo]

Hope they implement it.
We could of kept players like Berrigan, Tate, Petero, etc with these cap concessions.

 

[Huge]

According to Bruno Cullen he took that same plan ( or very close to it ) to the NRL for the last three years but his pleas fell on deaf ears.The thing is, a plan along those lines has been put forward by many interested parties but the NRL has consistently rejected anything like those plans. They don't want them because several influential Sydney clubs have the real power in the NRL. I realize this is just a personal opinion but Gallup is a spokesman (like his predecessors) for a Sydney cabal.

The Broncos have been trying for the last 15 years to get some fairness in the system but have been knocked back on every occasion. These concessions for clubs who develop the playing talent have been spoken of and included in the original superleague vision. Long sighted planners could see a time when we had a core group of clubs, each developing players and competing in the same league. If Sydney clubs had of banded together, pooling resources (players particularly) and fielded a high class combination team(s) then the 'vision' would have been realized.

The Sydney teams who buy rather than develop have always been the stumbling block. Melbourne ( they have'nt always been cheats ) have shown that it is possible to field a great team even if league is not played in the town your in. Sydney clubs have no such excuse. They have the same access to young players as any other club so why can't they grow their own !!

 

[Nashy]

I hope they don't plan on implementing this to allow Melbourne to get around the rule that they must drop players.

 

[Huge]

I don't want Melbourne to get away with anything either. I just can't bring myself to think of the players,individually, as cheats. Management ,yes but the players are just regular people doing the best they can with what they've got. Maybe one or two knew the cap was being rorted but even if they did they were powerless to do anything anyway. Remember, that was Gallups defence of his administrations efforts to police the cap.They said they were powerless without proof so what chance an individual player if a big well funded organization cannot do much.

I blame admin and not the playing staff. To me, as individuals I will not call them cheats.

 

[Meat77]

I think Gallop has already more or less said that they have to shed some players to solve their mess

 

[lynx000]

I don't want Melbourne to get away with anything either. I just can't bring myself to think of the players,individually, as cheats. Management ,yes but the players are just regular people doing the best they can with what they've got. Maybe one or two knew the cap was being rorted but even if they did they were powerless to do anything anyway. Remember, that was Gallups defence of his administrations efforts to police the cap.They said they were powerless without proof so what chance an individual player if a big well funded organization cannot do much.

I blame admin and not the playing staff. To me, as individuals I will not call them cheats.

Once again I agree Huge.

 

[Anonymous person]

the discounts need to be MUCH higher than those percentages that they suggest. 10% for staying for 5 seasons? thats half a regular players career, and youre only discounting them 10%? thats pocket change.

i think they need to do the following:

- 50% of salary not counted towards cap for players who come through the teams juniors, right from day 1.
- premiership winning and state of origin playing players can have their contracts upgraded a certain amount (say $50k per year or something) and that upgrade is not counted in the salary cap.
- now this one im not sure how youd do it, but in Union and Cricket for example, players selected for the rep teams have 2 contracts - one with their regular club, one with the rep team. why not do something like this for say the top 25 players every year? this would be exempt from the cap.

so a player like K.Hunt couldve been on say a $400k contract with the Broncos, 50% of which is exempt because he came through our juniors, and then a further say $200k/year contract with the NRL if they deem him to be in the top 25 players. then after playing origin and winning a premiership, he could pocket another say $100k in contract upgrades exempt from the cap. so that means he could be getting $700k a year, but only 200k of that is counted towards the salary cap every year.

this would mean that winning a premiership isnt a death sentence for a team, neither is having a host of your players get picked for origin. success shouldnt be punished.

 

[Meat77]

I don't think your first two ideas can get off the ground AP but the third one is certainly worth some consideration.

I don't see any barrier to the NRL dipping into the profits from Origin or whatever to top-up player wages for the elite guys, and that would certainly lead to 2 or teams all having multiple rep players which seems to be what everyone is after.

 

[Kimlo]

the discounts need to be MUCH higher than those percentages that they suggest. 10% for staying for 5 seasons? thats half a regular players career, and youre only discounting them 10%? thats pocket change.

i think they need to do the following:

- 50% of salary not counted towards cap for players who come through the teams juniors, right from day 1.
- premiership winning and state of origin playing players can have their contracts upgraded a certain amount (say $50k per year or something) and that upgrade is not counted in the salary cap.
- now this one im not sure how youd do it, but in Union and Cricket for example, players selected for the rep teams have 2 contracts - one with their regular club, one with the rep team. why not do something like this for say the top 25 players every year? this would be exempt from the cap.

so a player like K.Hunt couldve been on say a $400k contract with the Broncos, 50% of which is exempt because he came through our juniors, and then a further say $200k/year contract with the NRL if they deem him to be in the top 25 players. then after playing origin and winning a premiership, he could pocket another say $100k in contract upgrades exempt from the cap. so that means he could be getting $700k a year, but only 200k of that is counted towards the salary cap every year.

this would mean that winning a premiership isn't a death sentence for a team, neither is having a host of your players get picked for origin. success shouldn't be punished.

Nah the proposed changes are better than yours. They stop a team from being too overpowered but help the game retain stars in general and juniors. 10% is substantial, for a player like Hunt it's an Extra 40k but it would go like this.
He was in his 5th year for us so he'd get a 440k offer straight up with it increasing to 480k for years 3 and 4 + if rep payments triple that's an extra 60-80k. All up that's about 160k extra makes a huge difference for a player who is considering leaving.

I would prefer if they made the increases to 20% for 5 years and 30% for 6 years than 50% for 8+ years.

 

[Anonymous person]

i dont think they are better, thats why i offered my alternative.

10% is nothing. when players are leaving for other codes, its not because theyre getting 10-20% extra - its because theyre getting 75-80% or more extra. 10% is nothing, chump change. the difference between $400k and $440k is nothing compared to the difference between $400k and $700k.

10% for 5 years service would do absolutely nothing to retain our star players and juniors. just think about it:
option A: sign for $200k, make a name for yourself, upgrade to $300k, maybe $400k within 5 years if youre a superstar (otherwise you will not make it near the $400k mark), then be rewarded for 5 years of loyalty with an extra $40k.
option B: sign for $200k, make a name for yourself, go to Union/AFL and get $600k a season straight away.

option A still isnt even remotely competitive.

 

[Black Philip]

i dont think they are better, thats why i offered my alternative.

10% is nothing. when players are leaving for other codes, its not because theyre getting 10-20% extra - its because theyre getting 75-80% or more extra. 10% is nothing, chump change. the difference between $400k and $440k is nothing compared to the difference between $400k and $700k.

10% for 5 years service would do absolutely nothing to retain our star players and juniors. just think about it:
option A: sign for $200k, make a name for yourself, upgrade to $300k, maybe $400k within 5 years if youre a superstar (otherwise you will not make it near the $400k mark), then be rewarded for 5 years of loyalty with an extra $40k.
option B: sign for $200k, make a name for yourself, go to Union/AFL and get $600k a season straight away.

option A still isnt even remotely competitive.

Agreed. If a player who looks to be a future star has just come through the junior ranks at a club, I doubt he is gonna think "Ok, I just have to stick it out for 10 years, then I will get a big pay day just like athletes in every other code are getting." It's still not enough to keep them in RL if they can be earning a packet elsewhere.

 

[Coxy]

My view is, and always will be that the best solution is a points-based value for players, with a squad not to exceed a certain amount. Money paid is largely irrelevant, except that the points value dictates the minimum wage for that player (thus preventing players taking pay cuts to stay).

As a player progresses through the ranks from juniors to Test level, their points value goes up. The formula for which would need to be calculated fairly carefully, and the maximum allotment also considered.

In order to help clubs cope with players making sudden rises, their points value to a club is as at the time the contract is registered with the NRL. So, A. Glenn signed his 2 year contract with the Broncos as a regular first grader (last year). He is valued as such next year, despite playing Test football this year. However, if the Broncos were to release him and he went to another club, it'd be a new contract, so he'd be valued as a Test player.

Concessions for loyal players could still occur. As an added incentive to stay, their points value stays a percentage below their maximum points level if they remain with the one club, with that percentage rising along with the time they have been at the club. However, as soon as they leave the club, their value goes up.

Thus if a team wants to buy internationals/Origin players from another club, that's fine, but it makes it harder for them to retain depth. But if they have no depth and need a star player, they can pay whatever they want to entice them there.

If a team is developing their stars (a la Melbourne), then they too can pay what their players deserve, and their overall squad value is slightly lessened because they did raise them.

It won't stop a club throwing, say, $700K at Greg Inglis to leave Melbourne, but it will mean they can't throw $700K each at Inglis, Slater, Smith and Cronk and keep them.

 

[Anonymous person]

that sounds like a good idea, and i think it removes the main problem i see with people suggesting 'player tiers' - opinion. if you simply have categories like 'Fringe First Grade, Regular First Grade, State of Origin Player, Test Match Player, etc' then it leaves nothing to opinion. once you start classifying based on 'skill' and performances, the water gets murky as for example most people on here would have said K.Hunt would be the top tier, but i would say he would be maybe second or third from the top. whos right? well theres no logical way of deciding. but with your suggestion, theres no doubt where a player would fit.

 

[Coxy]

That's the idea. The hardest thing with it is to find a way to accurately "score" players, apply a team total, and thus ensure every squad is able to have a good mixture of stars and newbies, not allow teams to hoard the stars, and doesn't unfairly disadvantage rich teams, teams that develop talent and teams that have limited junior bases.

Very tricky balance to get right.

But, if the NRL publishes every registered player's points value, and associated discounts, there is absolutely zero opportunity for cheating.

 

[Dexter]

Very similar to a notional cap which makes the most sense to me. That and loyalty discounts in combination.
The hardest thing is as you said how to put a value in players.
Some players end up playing tests or SoO only because of injury or play for NZ like Glen who really isn't a Test match player yet.
Anyway I agree that type of system would prove to be far better than the current cap.

 

[Jeba]

With your system Coxy, what would you do for someone like Luke Priddis, who used to be a rep player but these days is far from it??

 

[Coxy]

With your system Coxy, what would you do for someone like Luke Priddis, who used to be a rep player but these days is far from it??

The points would be evaluated every year. I would say for someone like him who only really played rep in 2001 before Buderus leapfrogged him he'd simply be in the bracket of an experienced first grader (300+ games).