VOTE Is the NRL Salary Cap Working?

[Kimlo]

Time for a discussion guys.

Let me just get one thing out of the way first... Don't make accusations of illegal activity without a valid source!

Now onto the topic itself, is the salary cap working? The idea was with a salary cap all teams would be getting an equal share of talent, but do you believe this has worked in practice? Does a team like the Roosters really have a "fair" share of talent?

This article is a good read - http://www.news.com.au/national/roosters-roster-proves-the-nrl-salary-cap-isnt-working-and-its-time-to-consider-how-it-can-change/story-e6frfkp9-1227279974680

Check it out and share your thoughts.

How would you improve the system? Vote in the poll and comment away!

 

[Kimlo]

Now for my thoughts.

I believe the system works to a certain extent, it certainly stops a club like us having 17 internationals, but clubs like Canberra will always struggle to sign a genuine superstar (or even keep them) with other clubs offering better lifestyle for the same or more money without using the cap directly.

The issue here, in my opinion, is third part agreements which don't count under the cap. Someone like Uncle Nick running the Roosters would have a whole heap of business connections to secure third party deals, so much so they could realistically be paying players 3-4 million outside of the cap while a club like Canberra would be lucky to get half a million in third party deals.

So how do you fix that? If you ban third party deals which is almost impossible to police, we'll end up losing all our best players to rival codes.
If you increase the salary cap and ban TPA, you still end up with a hard to police situation, after all, they're third party deals and the NRL can't just check the players bank accounts every week.

One though I had, was all TPA would need to be disclosed to the NRL (as they already are) and whatever the disparity is between the highest TPA value a club could get, and the lowest, the NRL itself should compensate for this with salary cap concessions equivalent to that value. This allows less marketable clubs to still have a fair chance of offering the same amount as richer clubs.

Another way of doing it is to simply have a permanent 30% discount on juniors brought through the club system. This would force clubs to focus on their development long term, and makes weaker clubs much more competitive in keeping their star players.

Over to you guys!

 

[Foordy]

I would like to propose an extra option in the poll, something like: "Yes - but there is room for improvement"

I think the salary cap works relatively well, the fact that so many different clubs have won the premiership over the last 15 years is evidence of that. (no club has won back to back since we did it in 92/93)

However there are definately still some improvements that could be made. The most important, IMO, is some form of cap concessions to help clubs retain players they have developed.

I have heard fans of some other clubs complain about the rules surrounding TPAs and how their club is disadvantaged due to location or free to air coverage etc. They may have a point, so some tweaks to the rules surrounding TPAs may be appropriate. But you can't get rid of TPAs entirely, unless you want to risk losing the biggest names from the code.

 

[Kimlo]

That article is claiming a boss from another club reckons the top 17 at the Roosters are worth more than the entire salary cap.

Assuming it's totally legal, they must have a lot of TPAs to be able to keep all those players.

How is a club like Canberra ever going to match that?

Is there any way to introduce a points system so each team is allowed say 100 points and each player is ranked. Under a system like that guys like Inglis, Thurston, Farah, Smith, DCE, Cronk, etc would be worth 9-10 points and guys like Ben Hunt might be worth 6 or 7. The plus there is they could boost (or even remove) the salary cap, but there's so much room for corruption or even just plain bad ratings, someone like Thaiday could be given a 7 point value while someone like SBW might be given an 8. I struggle to see a fair way to weight players in a system like that, unless all clubs give a rating which is then averaged.

 

[Ari Gold]

The salary cap is not working. More broadly, the intention behind the salary cap is IMO wrong.

There is too much focus on parity in this game. It reduces quality immensely. I'm going to use 3 examples - Manly, Titans and then the Tigers. Manly have been a high quality side for sometime and good to watch. This is partially because they developed DCE and Foran nicely as a combination. Next year both are leaving, and I am almost certain the brand of football Manly will offer next year will be low quality, low entertainment. They'll quite simply have no halves.

A team in a similar predicament is the Titans, DCE's destination. For a few years, they too have been playing a turgid brand of football. They are not only an unsuccessful team but also a bland, unentertaining one. Your idea of entertainment may differ, but certainly the crowd figures back this up. Not only for the Titans, but the game more broadly.

Even if you agree with the Salary Cap, it's still not working effectively. The Raiders have to pay massive overs to sign star players, and even then they back flip. Because they are Canberra, they will have to pay a premium for non elite players too. This does not create parity, it just creates overpaid, marginally talented Canberra Raiders.

One of those backflipping players is Tedesco. The Tigers have been turgid for a few years, but they are on the brink of something special IMO. Tedesco, Moses, Brooks and Farah (though some years older) is the most exciting young spine in the competition IMO. 3/4 of them are very young and I think could be the backbone of a highly successful, highly entertaining team for years to come. However, the salary cap may break them up. If it does, how can we possibly call this a success for the game?

On a final note, crowd figures are down. I think they are down from figures 10 years ago too. TV ratings are too I believe. Now, you could argue this is because of the cricket World Cup, but this has delayed the AFL season, so right now it's only been cricket we've been up against. And games are live now too (Well, in NSW at least).

All the salary cap really does is reduce the quality of teams and create a bland, unexciting product. The focus on parity (this includes bullshit reffing too) is hindering the game rather than helping it IMO.

 

[Kimlo]

How many teams would last without a salary cap. Do you think clubs who aren't financially well off and end up with rubbish teams will maintain crowd numbers?

If we cut 4 or 5 clubs out, the TV deal loses significant value, so that's a real problem.

Do you propose no cap, or more junior concessions ?

 

[Ari Gold]

Tiered concessions for one club players only, dependant on number of years at club at age of debut. So, a player like Luke Brooks, who debuted as an 18 year old for the Tigers and had been a junior, would, as far as I am concerned, can get a 50% discount. I'd be absolutely fine with that.

Then, for a guy like, say, Matt Parcell, who was never really in our system, would only get a small concession. They would be the two extremes, but I'd only apply it to one club players. So guys who started elsewhere and left in search of an opportunity would never apply, regardless of how long they stayed at the club. So a guy in that situation, say a Jonathan Thurston or a Hinchcliffe, I don't think they deserve want. Sure, the Cowboys and JT are kinda synonymous with each other, but the Cows never brought JT through their system. Personally speaking, I'd consider it far less disappointing if JT left the Cowboys than if the Tigers spine got broken up.

Even if Milford is with us for 10 years, I don't think we deserve a concession for that. Whereas Manly, who have had their halves since debut do deserve it as far as I'm concerned.

Essentially, by making concessions one club players only, it hurts rich clubs MORE because they can't buy the talent.

 

[gordjw]

I'm on board with that, although I would have been okay with applying it to long serving imports too. Tallis, JT, Fittler, for example, are all players who became famous and long-serving away from their debut club.

Your last point is a very good one though, and restricting concessions to juniors might be the key to making it all work.

 

[Charmamba]

If you bring a player through your own system, there should be discounts from day one and only improve the longer they stay..

 

[Porthoz]

I would like to propose an extra option in the poll, something like: "Yes - but there is room for improvement"

I think the salary cap works relatively well, the fact that so many different clubs have won the premiership over the last 15 years is evidence of that. (no club has won back to back since we did it in 92/93)

However there are definately still some improvements that could be made. The most important, IMO, is some form of cap concessions to help clubs retain players they have developed.

I have heard fans of some other clubs complain about the rules surrounding TPAs and how their club is disadvantaged due to location or free to air coverage etc. They may have a point, so some tweaks to the rules surrounding TPAs may be appropriate. But you can't get rid of TPAs entirely, unless you want to risk losing the biggest names from the code.

I agree with this post in regards to the purpose of the salary cap. I've also added the fourth option to the poll.

Although I am more in the "no salary cap" camp, I'm not sure it would work in Australia, and how most clubs would survive in an environment where clubs like Broncos, Chooks or Warriors would be able to get most of the talent, and win most competitions.

Most clubs already struggle for crowds as it is, so I doubt making them even less attractive would work.

So, we must maintain a system that ensures the talent is spread and every club has at least a theoretical chance of winning a competition.
TPA's are of course one of the major issues, where a club like the Raiders struggles to attract the stars, because no one wants to live in Australia's arsehole, besides not having the business support allowing them to afford the same offers as the more connected clubs. And you can't get rid of the TPA's, as that would really mean losing our best players to competing codes...

A concession system would help, but not solve the problem.
I think a longevity/loyalty system works best, as opposed to the one club player system from Ari's example, because that would be punishing players like Milford, who move to a different club for other reasons than financial reward.
Longevity would still do the required filtering, where we could for example provide a 5% discount from the cap for each year a player has been at the club, and possibly also cater for formation, by providing an initial 15% discount for a player coming through the ranks as opposed to recruited elsewhere.

Should the NRL make-up the difference between what the incumbent club can offer and what a more powerful club is able to table? Possibly, but the next question will be... how far do we prop clubs up, and where should we say "enough is enough!"?

 

[Foordy]

You could possibly go with something like this for cap concessions.

After 5 years with the same club 5% cap discount.. An additional 5% for every year after that to a maximum cap discount of 50%

If you played NYC for a club and then debut in first grade with the same club then you get a 15% discount from your first season. Once you hit 5 years service with that club you get an additional 5% (so a total of 20% discount after year 5) going up in 5% increments per year thereafter to a maximum of 50% discount.

-----

So the player coming through your system would obviously hit is maximum cap concessions 3 years earlier than the other player.

 

[Financeguy]

I think the salary cap works to an extent but there is always room for improvement.

I like the idea above about tiered discounts to players who have come through the clubs system, they just have to make sure the qualification system is clear.

One of my pet peeves is listening to supporters whinge about other teams being over the cap. As a Broncos supporter I have heard it for far too long against my team by other club supporters who would have no idea. Roosters seem to be the easy target at the moment due to the great squad they have put together over the last few seasons.
Politis has been around the Roosters for eons, as has Mark Bouris and the Packers yet 2012 they ran 13th, year before 11th. They just have a good squad atm, I honestly don't believe they have suddenly decided to break any cap rules.

The argument of "Insert current team playing well" must be rorting the cap just bores me.

The Broncos are in as good a position as any club to push the cap to its limits. If I was a supporter of the Raiders or Sharks, maybe I would have a different opinion of the cap.

 

[Ari Gold]

I think a longevity/loyalty system works best, as opposed to the one club player system from Ari's example, because that would be punishing players like Milford, who move to a different club for other reasons than financial reward.

Bias aside, I don't really think that we deserve to have Milford at a concession. I mean, let's say he wasn't home sick and is about to come on the open market this year. Any rich team could sign him and eventually get a discount for him. I genuinely don't think we deserve to get a concession for Milford. We didn't develop him, debut him etc.

It'd be like the Roosters getting a concession for Jennings or something down the line. It'd defeat the purpose IMO.

 

[Porthoz]

Bias aside, I don't really think that we deserve to have Milford at a concession. I mean, let's say he wasn't home sick and is about to come on the open market this year. Any rich team could sign him and eventually get a discount for him. I genuinely don't think we deserve to get a concession for Milford. We didn't develop him, debut him etc.

It'd be like the Roosters getting a concession for Jennings or something down the line. It'd defeat the purpose IMO.

First of all, it is not about rewarding the club, but about punishing the player, as clubs would be less likely to want a player they can't get a concession for down the track.
Second, I still support a concession system for players brought through their ranks, but I also support a loyalty system which would help clubs maintain a roster and allow players to stay where they love to be, without losing on potential earnings at other clubs with more room in their cap.

 

[Ari Gold]

It would suck for Milford, but I don't think that's the concern. The concern is protecting the Canberra Raiders of the world. They don't help themselves with signing coaches like Stuart, but they have enough trouble attracting talent as it is. You allow for the Milfords of the world to leave them and then get a discount later on, it's going to hurt them too much. Sucks for Milford, but the Raiders are ultimately more important. And unless we just kick them and the Sharks out (I'm not against this) then something needs to be done. These two clubs are proof that the salary cap in it's current incarnation doesn't work.

 

[Kimlo]

Worth nothing, Milford sacrificed huge money to come here, so in this case a concession would have done nothing.

 

[Porthoz]

It would suck for Milford, but I don't think that's the concern. The concern is protecting the Canberra Raiders of the world. They don't help themselves with signing coaches like Stuart, but they have enough trouble attracting talent as it is. You allow for the Milfords of the world to leave them and then get a discount later on, it's going to hurt them too much. Sucks for Milford, but the Raiders are ultimately more important. And unless we just kick them and the Sharks out (I'm not against this) then something needs to be done. These two clubs are proof that the salary cap in it's current incarnation doesn't work.

Without players, clubs wouldn't exist. Making this a code where there is no place for compassion or accounting for the individual's well-being would be counter-productive.
Sure, protect clubs from mercenaries, reward formation and loyalty, but take individual's circumstances into account.

What happens when the club is not interested in a player any more, are they also forced to keep him?

 

[Big Pete]

I actually like the current system where a club is rewarded for keeping a player on for 10 years and have apart of their contract covered under other tiers of the salary cap.

That in conjunction with a junior dispensation would work fine.

That would also cover clubs like South Sydney who went ahead and signed Luke Keary when he was unsigned at Burleigh. I think it'd be a shame if say in 2020 they've got to push them out because they can't afford to keep him, Walker, Johnston, Crichton, Whitelaw, McInnes and whoever else.

My big concern with the salary cap is the proposed war-chest idea which will see certain players in the game or outside of the game, offered big salaries by the NRL independently of the clubs. On one hand, I think it's a great way of attracting these players to our code but on the other it'd be impossible to manage it and make it fair to all clubs.