VOTE Is the NRL Salary Cap Working?

[Ari Gold]

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?

Please, let's not go making out that Milford wouldn't get a massive pay day under this type of system. Not every player would be a one club player. Guys will still leave in search of opportunities etc. The fact that Milford wouldn't be eligible for a discount will just means clubs think they can sign him, and because most marquee players will (hopefully) be one club players, that'll make his signature more valued.

I'm sure there are many flaws to my idea, but the notion that Milford would not be financially well off regardless is not one of them.

 

[Porthoz]

Please, let's not go making out that Milford wouldn't get a massive pay day under this type of system. Not every player would be a one club player. Guys will still leave in search of opportunities etc. The fact that Milford wouldn't be eligible for a discount will just means clubs think they can sign him, and because most marquee players will (hopefully) be one club players, that'll make his signature more valued.

I'm sure there are many flaws to my idea, but the notion that Milford would not be financially well off regardless is not one of them.

Uh? Who said Milford wouldn't be financially well off?

I was talking about not being able to move for compassionate reasons...

 

[Ari Gold]

Which still doesn't make sense. Players can leave if they want, they just don't get a discount from their clubs. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

[Charmamba]

Uh? Who said Milford wouldn't be financially well off?

I was talking about not being able to move for compassionate reasons...

If it's for compassionate reasons would the discount even matter to you then?

 

[Porthoz]

If it's for compassionate reasons would the discount even matter to you then?

Doesn't mean he shouldn't be rewarded for loyalty in the future, should he stay with the club for a long time.

Ari is essentially saying that unless you formed a player, you shouldn't benefit from a cap discount, meaning that players would end up being paid much less in the future, which in a compassionate case like Milford's, wouldn't be fair for both the receiving club as well as the player himself.

It doesn't make sense to me, that you would only reward loyalty for formation.
Sure, make formation more rewarding, but make loyalty also something worth for both the clubs and players, to promote them staying put, otherwise you would pretty much be making mercenaries of every player that for whatever reason, moved from his formation club.

 

[Ari Gold]

Players wouldn't really end up getting paid less though! They would count for less under the cap, they wouldn't actually be paid less by their club!

And if you mean contract values, you are wrong to think that average players will get paid less. Nobody at the Broncos is going to say, hey Jack Reed, because you are a one club player we are going to pay you 500k and have you only count as 250k. They are going to offer his market value and hope he takes it so as to count less in their cap, or he will get his market value at the Titans. His salary wouldn't end up being less, just his cap number.

 

[Porthoz]

Players wouldn't really end up getting paid less though! They would count for less under the cap, they wouldn't actually be paid less by their club!

And if you mean contract values, you are wrong to think that average players will get paid less. Nobody at the Broncos is going to say, hey Jack Reed, because you are a one club player we are going to pay you 500k and have you only count as 250k. They are going to offer his market value and hope he takes it so as to count less in their cap, or he will get his market value at the Titans. His salary wouldn't end up being less, just his cap number.

Of course they would be paid less. If the club has to account for more of their salary under the cap, they automatically can't pay them as much as they would if they had a cap discount.

 

[Ari Gold]

Of course they would be paid less. If the club has to account for more of their salary under the cap, they automatically can't pay them as much as they would if they had a cap discount.

Your argument still makes zero sense. NRL clubs are not rich. Just because a player can count for 50% less under the cap, it does NOT mean they will make any more money. Clubs cannot afford that sort of excessive expenditure, and they certainly wouldn't do it for non elite players. Let me spell it out for you:

The Broncos want to keep Alex Glenn, but only have 300k in cap space. Alex Glenn gets offered 500k a year by the Raiders. Wanting to look after his future, he bases his decision on money. If a discount applies, of lets say 50%, the Broncos can offer him 500k a year too, but he would only count for 250k under the cap. In this instance, Alex Glenn gets paid 500k by the Broncos.

Now, let's say Glenn played a couple of games for the Warriors first. In this case, no discount would apply, and Alex Glenn gets paid 500k by the Raiders.

Explain how Alex Glenn gets paid less!

 

[Big Pete]

I really don't see any downside to allowing long term loyalty concessions. Isn't that what fans want? Being able to identify each club with their players? I know from my POV that's how I do it. It isn't the Manly Sea Eagles - it's the Lyon Sea Eagles or the DCE Sea Eagles. When those players start leaving because of money, it takes that security away from the game and affects the quality of the game.

Plus these new franchises need all the help they're going to get. I think they're going to be far more likely keeping players at the same club for 8 years than they're going to bring them through their grades. Particularly in Perth or Melbourne.

 

[Porthoz]

Your argument still makes zero sense. NRL clubs are not rich. Just because a player can count for 50% less under the cap, it does NOT mean they will make any more money. Clubs cannot afford that sort of excessive expenditure, and they certainly wouldn't do it for non elite players. Let me spell it out for you:

The Broncos want to keep Alex Glenn, but only have 300k in cap space. Alex Glenn gets offered 500k a year by the Raiders. Wanting to look after his future, he bases his decision on money. If a discount applies, of lets say 50%, the Broncos can offer him 500k a year too, but he would only count for 250k under the cap. In this instance, Alex Glenn gets paid 500k by the Broncos.

Now, let's say Glenn played a couple of games for the Warriors first. In this case, no discount would apply, and Alex Glenn gets paid 500k by the Raiders.

Explain how Alex Glenn gets paid less!

So, you're essentially agreeing with my premise... and advocating it's ok for players to be mercenaries and move around.

If in this case, Alex Glenn wants to remain a Bronco, and despite having been at the club for most of his life, because he wasn't formed there, and the salary cap discount doesn't apply to him, he must either accept a massive salary difference, or move to Canberra.

How is that fair on the Broncos or the player?

 

[Ari Gold]

Your premise was that players would get paid less. Except in rare circumstances, they won't and despite your very clear statement that they would get paid less, I still don't understand how.

As things currently are, players are forced to move clubs all the time due to salary cap pressures. Best example of late is Sisa Waqa, who did actually have to move to Canberra. Unless you remove the cap, this kind of thing is going to still happen. You can't stop them all, but I want to stop the ones that would be a real travesty. We have had nothing to do with Milford. If we end up losing him, it's far less of a shame than if Luke Brooks or James Tedesco left the Tigers.

And as I said earlier, if the idea is to promote parity and spread the talent, then allowing Milford to leave the Raiders and then become eligible for a discount does a massive dis-service to clubs like the Raiders. If, to protect those clubs, a player has to move clubs to get his market value then I don't care. Using my Glenn example, if Glenn does get some sort of concession, then the Raiders lose Milford to us, we get a concession on Milford, and they don't get to sign a Glenn who debuted for the Warriors because of the same concession.

How do you propose the Raiders be competitive in that sort of environment? That is, after all, the point of the cap. To make sure those types of clubs have their share of talent.

 

[Big Pete]

Milford wouldn't be getting those cap concessions straight up and it would be a long time before he'd be eligible.

 

[Ari Gold]

Milford wouldn't be getting those cap concessions straight up and it would be a long time before he'd be eligible.

I realise that, but I still don't like it. Part of the reason why is because under such a system, clubs still benefit with their non formation players.

If the home grown concession existed, then in say 5 years, Gillett would be discounted, Oates and Hunt would be discounted, McGuire would be discounted, Copley would be discounted, McCullough (god forbid he's still here) will be discounted.

So even if Milford did have to count fully against the cap, then it could probably still work because we'd have all these other concessions. So kind of like a reward for having so many home grown players, we can afford that marquee guy. A privilege that a team like Souths would enjoy far less, as Inglis, The Burgess Brothers, Glenn Stewart etc were not home grown.

It's actually one of the main flaws that would exist with a concession for juniors system -- clubs who have a lot can then sign that marquee name.

 

[Big Pete]

I don't see how that's a negative when clubs should be motivated to develop more stars for the game. If you put together a good team of junior players that it attracts other stars to the club - that's great but that marquee player will cost you somewhere and the Raiders would have had a better shot of keeping him.

I think you're romanticizing junior development too much. It's great that they got brought through the grades by a specific club but there are cases where players have had their careers rescued and gone onto become stars - it'd be a shame to say at the end of the day that neither the player nor the club should be rewarded to stay loyal all in a bid to make junior development the one true and only worthwhile virtue in Rugby League.

 

[Ari Gold]

Maybe I am. But to be perfectly honest, outside of Thurston I can't really think of any player who could leave their club and for me to really think it'd reduce the quality of the game by their team not having them. I honestly think Manly will be horrible next year and I don't expect the Titans will be all that much more entertaining as a result of having DCE. More competitive for sure, but as a team they still lack draw cards.

Personally, I don't really think I'd care if the Salary cap was abolished and we only have 5-6 competitors. It works well for the EPL, and the top teams produce excellent quality. But I know that it realistically wouldn't work for the game, but at the same time, I don't want to see quality lessen. At some point you have to draw a line, and whilst it might be disappointing if we lose Milford at some point, I still think the top priority is keeping things like the Tigers spine in tact (Even if I do think they might end up denying us a premiership at some point).

 

[Porthoz]

If a (quality) player wants to stay at a club for life, but wasn't formed by that club, he would have to take less money, because the club wouldn't get a cap concession on him. I don't get what you don't understand about this?

You want to give formation further incentive, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean loyalty shouldn't be rewarded as well, just not as much.

For the sake of example, Milford could earn $1M at Canberra or the Broncos 7 years from now, but while Canberra would get a cap discount of say 50% (7yrs x5% +15% formation), giving them $500K to invest in the rest of their roster, the Broncos would have an extra 15% to account for under the cap, meaning they would only have $350K to invest further. Or both the Broncos and Milford could even decide to reduce that salary a bit to allow for more cap space, without putting the player out massively for wanting to play at a club near his family and everything he cherishes.

Not rewarding longevity at all, would mean that for Milford to earn that kind of coin, he should suck it up at the Raiders, or accept that he will never come close to it in Brisbane (if they want to maintain a competitive roster).

Formation should be rewarded, but not that much!

 

[Big Pete]

I know where you're coming from and I'm on the record of saying that I would have preferred to have seen Manly keep DCE and Foran but in this hypothetical situation I believe you could keep both.

That way, the Cowboys can keep JT on without having to play plodders just to balance their squad.

And the Broncos can allow a player like Hodges to retire on his own terms without worrying about the cap.

I'd love to see either system implemented because at the end of the day, I love seeing loyalty and seeing the best combinations stick together.

It is a team game after all.

Moving the conversation right along, what do you guys make of the suggested marquee player system? Which players do you think should qualify and how would you determine it?

 

[Foordy]

I know where you're coming from and I'm on the record of saying that I would have preferred to have seen Manly keep DCE and Foran but in this hypothetical situation I believe you could keep both.

That way, the Cowboys can keep JT on without having to play plodders just to balance their squad.

And the Broncos can allow a player like Hodges to retire on his own terms without worrying about the cap.

I'd love to see either system implemented because at the end of the day, I love seeing loyalty and seeing the best combinations stick together.

It is a team game after all.

Moving the conversation right along, what do you guys make of the suggested marquee player system? Which players do you think should qualify and how would you determine it?

If your going to have a marquee system where certain players are centrally contracted or able to be paid outside the cap, then the only fair way to do it IMO is to make it one player per team, with the club deciding who from their team should be paid outside the cap.

If the NRL decide to introduce a centrally contracting system for say 10 players, then potentially 6 clubs would miss out on having players paid outside the cap and it is not fair to them.

Another flaw is that of those 10 centrally contracted players they would likely be the DCE or Inglis types. But whos to say that an Andrew Fifita type isn't more valuable to certain clubs.