Rooney's windfall could trigger player exodus

[Russo]

If Gasnier goes to RU in France that is when we may see the floodgates open as the concern for me is when current Test stars head overseas whilst in the prime of their careers. Yes we do have plenty of youngsters coming through but before long we will see these overseas clubs sending scouts to our junior carnivals and signing kids before we even see then in the NRL.

A prime example of this is that currently at the Australian under 18 basketball championship there are more than 15 scouts from the USA out here watching, and we see the trouble that sport is in in Austrlia.

So yes it is a big concern that we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand about, what is the answer don't know.

 

[Je$ter]

Yeah Russo but basketball is a completley different kettle of fish. **** playing for the NBL off, if i was a baller i'd be busting my arse to get a scholarship to a division I school in the USA. Free education, playing basketball at a higher level than NBL arguably and a better shot at NBA.

I think if the NRL is to solve the euro invasion form both ESL and union, they need to fix up the third party sponsorship deals. If SBW or Lockyer or Thurston are thrown massive amounts of money by brand x, they can't agree to terms unless it ocmes under the teams salary cap. Teams would have a lot better shot at player retention and 'loyalty' if this was a free for all. For example, if Nike swings a cool 1m in SBW direction and says 'we'll keep you on the books if you stay at the doggies,' do you reckon he is gonna whinge and moan about his salary?

 

[Dexter]

If third party deals become a free for all the salary cap may as well be scraped. Manly has a sponsor who could buy most clubs a few tims over so he could throw sponsorships round and buy whoever he wanted.
The answer IMO has always been to have fewer sides but that arguement has been had.

 

[Hamm.0]

Too true Dexter. the cap is necessary, our sport and in fact, economy just isn't big enough to allow otherwise.
FTR, I do believe the NRL realises it needs to increase the cap, however for obvious reasons this has to be done over a few seasons.

 

[Kimlo]

If third party deals become a free for all the salary cap may as well be scraped. Manly has a sponsor who could buy most clubs a few tims over so he could throw sponsorships round and buy whoever he wanted.
The answer IMO has always been to have fewer sides but that arguement has been had.

That's why you have a separate cap for sponsor ships, which would in reality "increase" the cap.

 

[Bannermania]

If third party deals become a free for all the salary cap may as well be scraped. Manly has a sponsor who could buy most clubs a few tims over so he could throw sponsorships round and buy whoever he wanted.
The answer IMO has always been to have fewer sides but that arguement has been had.

The NRL opened the floodgates with this one when they needed the help of Channel Nine in closing Andrew Johns' deal before he went to Union(which he never would've)

They have no-one else to blame but themselves.

 

[Dexter]

If third party deals become a free for all the salary cap may as well be scraped. Manly has a sponsor who could buy most clubs a few tims over so he could throw sponsorships round and buy whoever he wanted.
The answer IMO has always been to have fewer sides but that arguement has been had.

That's why you have a separate cap for sponsor ships, which would in reality "increase" the cap.

I beleive the NRL is already doing this. Third party deals are capped at 150k which can be spent on nominated elite players. This is from the NRL site which explains how clubs can pay players from outside the cap. The way this reads to me is if a company who doesn't sponsor a club but wants to use a high profile player for advertising, guest speaking etc then that money isn't included in the cap. This could explain a lot with how clubs keep players with the business connections they have.

What about money paid from other people or companies?
The basic guide is that if a player is receiving money from any person as a way of inducing him to play for the Club, then that money will be included in the Salary Cap.

Income that a player earns from parties not related to his Club is generally not included in the Salary Cap, however the details of the agreement must be advised to the Club by the player. The Club must then get approval for the agreement from the Salary Cap Auditor in order for the Remuneration to be excluded.

In 2006, the NRL also introduced an allowance for players who enter into Third Party Agreements with club sponsors. IN 2007 three of the top six players are allowed to earn up to an extra $50,000 each from sponsorship leveraging but the total payments under these sponsorship leveraging agreements must not exceed $150,000.00 per club.

 

[Coxy]

In other words you can get as much sponsorship/endorsement money as you like provided that:
a) the payer is not a club sponsor
b) the player reports it to the club
c) the NRL approves that it's not part of the salary cap

 

[Dexter]

Yep, it sounds kinda easy when you break it down like that but the hard part is lineing up the payments B4 the contract is signed, keeping them quiet and hoping the relationship with the player doesn't sour and he spills the beans.

 

[renouf]

It's an attractive offer to go and play over there, travel europe and earn big bucks...

 

[Guest]

Another one bites the dust, Mark Gasnier has signed for french rugby union.
If i was St George ill let him rot in reserve grade.

 

[Kimlo]

take his captaincy if so.

 

[Jeza23]

take his captaincy if so.

Then who do you give it to? Not Ryles because he is going too!

Hornby would get it I guess even though he doesnt really want it.

 

[gUt]

I think the difference is that Hodgson has seen his contract out, Gas is cutting and running.

Peter Doust said in the paper that the players should be able to play in both comps. It would be awesome if they did, would give me a footy code to follow in the summer.

 

[Hamm.0]

it would also cut the length of their playing career in half.

I'm disappointed in Gasnier. Good on him, but I din't think a player of his calibre would give it up to chase the coin.

I know he is looking after number 1 and I understand the choice, however....

 

[Guest]

doordan23 wrote:
Another one bites the dust, Mark Gasnier has signed for french rugby union.
If i was St George ill let him rot in reserve grade.

Why would St George let their best player rot in reserve grade? That was a little bit silly...

St George have no one to blame but themselves. They agreed to have a clause in his 5 year contract that he can get out of it anytime he wants, they were stupid enough to do that in the first place! Mark Gasnier is simply looking out for his future. It's not like as though he got on 2 knees and begged St George for a release like many players do, he was actually allowed to do so.

And why would you take away his captaincy? What did he do wrong?

You going to take away Brett Hodgson's captaincy because he is going to England next year?

Gasnier's been crying about switching for years.
His got to get over himself, the same with everybody else who say that League players have 10 years to make money, get over it..... To earn what they earn in 1 year we have to work 5-10 years anyway so it balance's out.
Drop him, if he doesnt need league, then league dont need him, plus the dragons can use him as a scape goat for other player's.
Leave the game while still under contract, then your in reservce grade.

 

[Hamm.0]

That is one thing. This will be an interesting experiment for both the NRL and Gasnier himself. Gasnier is of an elite level in our sport, it will be interesting to see how he fares in a foreign Union comp.

 

[Guest]

Awesome article from Tallis.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 14,00.html