Football department salary cap

[1910]

I'm all for them taking a massive percentage from the kitty to split among the teams, it's their game. I'd like to see it split more fairly. Broncos generate far more cash than a team like the Tigers, do they get the same amount back?

They're not the only ones contributing to the game. 130% of the cap while everyone below the NRL level struggles to survive. It's just like cricket 25 guys and AC doing well and stuff everyone else.

 

[1910]

That’s the falsehood. Grants aren’t welfare they are payments from revenue for tv rights, sponsorship and so forth that the clubs actively contribute to. NRL doesn’t have to sustain increases in grants. Clubs should get a percentage of revenue. If net revenue (after reasonable costs) doesn’t improve then club payments reflect this.

As for your argument re spending as said before not for NRL to tell financially independent clubs how to spend your money. Does your boss get to tell you how to spend your wage? NRL can suggest and highlight facts but to put another cap is ridiculous. But is it that money doesn’t work or simply that other issues determine outcomes more (I.e the obsession with fairytale endings and how that may influence outcomes...).

Btw go ask titans about not having resources works for them?

When teams have to ask for grants early and NRL have to take over ownership and clubs aren't running a profit then it is welfare.

As I have pointed out the three biggest spending clubs- Parra, Dogs and Eels- when did they last win anything? Three of the last four premiers- Cowboys, Sharks and Souths have been outside the top 8 for spending.

All three around 5 million.

So Titans probably take confidence from that.

If you could prove the more you spend the more you win I'd say you have to do it but it's clear you don't have to do it- you have to be smart and resourceful.

More money could be used elsewhere in the game.

 

[Nashy]

When teams have to ask for grants early and NRL have to take over ownership and clubs aren't running a profit then it is welfare.

Mate, we're talking about the fact the money is the clubs, not the NRL. Stop twisting everything, **** it's infuriating to read.

 

[Nashy]

They're not the only ones contributing to the game. 130% of the cap while everyone below the NRL level struggles to survive. It's just like cricket 25 guys and AC doing well and stuff everyone else.

No one denies the need for money to be pumped into the game. But that's not what is being discussed.

 

[1910]

No one denies the need for money to be pumped into the game. But that's not what is being discussed.

That's my point, their take doesn't have to be so big. What else could it be used for? If you cap spending and the grant was less then you can use that money elsewhere.

If spending keeps going up what will the next deal be? 150% of the cap?

 

[1910]

Mate, we're talking about the fact the money is the clubs, not the NRL. Stop twisting everything, **** it's infuriating to read.

I know it's their take but what I am saying if you're on the arse of your pants begging for it and asking for it early to pay bills you're being propped up. Wouldn't your goal be to not be begging for your money?

If a club gets their grant and it complements your business because you're well run then fine. Maybe Eels spending so much off the field isn't helping them needing financial help.

 

[Nashy]

I know it's their take but what I am saying if you're on the arse of your pants begging for it and asking for it early to pay bills you're being propped up. Wouldn't your goal be to not be begging for your money?

If a club gets their grant and it complements your business because you're well run then fine. Maybe Eels spending so much off the field isn't helping them needing financial help.

I don't see what this has to do with what is being discussed. No one disagrees that some of these clubs are run like shit.

The grant should be based on the actual income you bring into the game. I didn't call for the grant to go up, I'm trying to explain to you, from many points ago, that the clubs are entitled to their grant, and should continue to be entitled to it, so long as they continue to make the money.

I get the need for grass roots, and grass roots does get money. But why should the Broncos lose out on grant money, when they pump millions into junior development, where the Roosters don't pay a cent.

 

[Morkel]

That's my point, their take doesn't have to be so big. What else could it be used for? If you cap spending and the grant was less then you can use that money elsewhere.

If spending keeps going up what will the next deal be? 150% of the cap?

No. The only reason is is 130% now is because clubs piss money away and expect the NRL to hand them more. So no, it shouldn't go up to 150%. It should be 100%. Essentially, the NRL supplies the clubs with the cap-worth of players, it's up to the clubs to train them, and pay for it via sponsorships, memberships, etc. If clubs aren't able to do that within their own means they don't deserve to survive. Club spending doesn't need to, and shouldn't, be draining the money that should go towards other areas of the game that need it more.

And why should clubs have a cap on spending when the NRL itself doesn't? It's well reported that their staff numbers have fucking ballooned, their overall spending has ballooned, and not on useful stuff. Jobs for the boys and expensive consultants. If you're worried about the money being wasted, that's where it should start.

 

[1910]

I don't see what this has to do with what is being discussed. No one disagrees that some of these clubs are run like shit.

The grant should be based on the actual income you bring into the game. I didn't call for the grant to go up, I'm trying to explain to you, from many points ago, that the clubs are entitled to their grant, and should continue to be entitled to it, so long as they continue to make the money.

I get the need for grass roots, and grass roots does get money. But why should the Broncos lose out on grant money, when they pump millions into junior development, where the Roosters don't pay a cent.

Surely it's all connected. I would hope that it's all being discussed before deciding on an off-field cap. I would have thought that all of these things would influence the decision.

 

[1910]

No. The only reason is is 130% now is because clubs piss money away and expect the NRL to hand them more. So no, it shouldn't go up to 150%. It should be 100%. Essentially, the NRL supplies the clubs with the cap-worth of players, it's up to the clubs to train them, and pay for it via sponsorships, memberships, etc. If clubs aren't able to do that within their own means they don't deserve to survive. Club spending doesn't need to, and shouldn't, be draining the money that should go towards other areas of the game that need it more.

And why should clubs have a cap on spending when the NRL itself doesn't? It's well reported that their staff numbers have fucking ballooned, their overall spending has ballooned, and not on useful stuff. Jobs for the boys and expensive consultants. If you're worried about the money being wasted, that's where it should start.

If they're getting 130% now, they're not going to settle for less next deal. When has a deal ever gone backwards?

Football staff has exploded off field and I am sure HQ is no different. I would have no argument if they cut some people.

 

[Nashy]

Surely it's all connected. I would hope that it's all being discussed before deciding on an off-field cap. I would have thought that all of these things would influence the decision.

You're putting a lot of faith into the people that run this game.

 

[1910]

You're putting a lot of faith into the people that run this game.

I am not a financial person but if you're deciding that we need a cap on off-field spending because of this arms race going on then you need to look at grants, on field cap and other expenditure and how money is being spent.

 

[Nashy]

I am not a financial person but if you're deciding that we need a cap on off-field spending because of this arms race going on then you need to look at grants, on field cap and other expenditure and how money is being spent.

I don't think it's any of their business. Everything you put forward plays really nicely into the argument that we need another Super League.

 

[Number6]

I think most of us have same goals. Well run clubs that don’t suck too much money so it can be spent on growing the game and other more important goals than giving certain clubs welfare.

The issue here is philosophy of strategy. One is communism/hard socialism. Tell them what they can spend so everyone is equal vs social capitalism which is you get your share and whatever you do beyond that is your problem. I know which one I prefer and which has the runs on the board for promoting growth comrades...

The issue with clubs asking for early money or more grants isn’t really relevant. Answer is no (or yes but at high interest to disincentive it happening again). If you make an off field cap with luxury tax (and limit growth if grants) clubs are still going to want to spend and make bad decisions and come with hands out. Now they just have to churn an extra 37% back to NRL.

As for evidence once again not relevant. I agree spending may not be efficient and clubs and their directors should take a look at this and NRL can highlight and study it if they like but by that reasoning does NRL get to put a cap on club marketing or ceo salaries. Sure off field isn’t only area of potential waste.

 

[Renegade]

(separate issue) the problem is if you say well **** it if you can't survive you don't belong, everyone loses in the end. i don't think a 6 team comp would make much money.

the nrl/top level rugby league doesn't and shouldn't operate on a free market basis because the system isn't akin to one, it's not as if any organisation can start up a new club and say hey guess what, we're now playing as the insert name here.

a better analogy is we're like an organism - we can survive if one or two things go but it's in our best interests to keep everything afloat, otherwise the domino effect will eventually kill us all.

 

[Nashy]

(separate issue) the problem is if you say well **** it if you can't survive you don't belong, everyone loses in the end. i don't think a 6 team comp would make much money.

the nrl/top level rugby league doesn't and shouldn't operate on a free market basis because the system isn't akin to one, it's not as if any organisation can start up a new club and say hey guess what, we're now playing as the insert name here.

a better analogy is we're like an organism - we can survive if one or two things go but it's in our best interests to keep everything afloat, otherwise the domino effect will eventually kill us all.

That's only an assumption that's never been tested. They've never had the balls to tell clubs to piss off, and open a franchise in another location to see how a new team, in a new location, with new fans, facilities etc. would work.

 

[Renegade]

That's only an assumption that's never been tested. They've never had the balls to tell clubs to piss off, and open a franchise in another location to see how a new team, in a new location, with new fans, facilities etc. would work.

it's a fairly safe assumption to make though, it's not like we're the US and have a population of 300mill wherein you can transport sides to another populous city and pick up fans.

if the broncos theoretically were kicked out, would you support another side? I know I wouldn't.

 

[Nashy]

it's a fairly safe assumption to make though, it's not like we're the US and have a population of 300mill wherein you can transport sides to another populous city and pick up fans.

if the broncos theoretically were kicked out, would you support another side? I know I wouldn't.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with moving of clubs, I think it's a cop out for new areas to get an old shitty club. But, in discussions, especially with Sydney folk, it's a softer blow to add 'relocation' into the mix.