Storm forced to let players go.
- Thread starter Foordy
- Start date
Nice Ari Gold. But do you know which clubs would make up the top 8 if it was open slather?
1. Broncos
2. Bulldogs
3. Parramatta
4. Manly (unless this bickering amongst benefactors results in one or both of them walking away)
5. NZ Warriors
6. Titans
7. St George-Illawarra
8. Sydney Roosters
None of the other clubs could compete cash wise. They'd have the also rans. Eventually they'd just perish.
We need SOME kind of cap, however it needs to be raised to be competitive against Rugby Union in Australia at least.
1. Broncos
2. Bulldogs
3. Parramatta
4. Manly (unless this bickering amongst benefactors results in one or both of them walking away)
5. NZ Warriors
6. Titans
7. St George-Illawarra
8. Sydney Roosters
None of the other clubs could compete cash wise. They'd have the also rans. Eventually they'd just perish.
We need SOME kind of cap, however it needs to be raised to be competitive against Rugby Union in Australia at least.
I don't like how the current system discourages success both on and off the field. It is a real tribute to clubs like Brisbane who have been able to maintain the top 8 status year after year when they have the cap constraining them. They should at the least have a tiered system ie.your top 10 can be paid whatever then you have X amount to spend on your next 15.
I agree MB, it needs reform. But that reform should not be to scrap the whole thing. Nor should it be to introduce the illegal and unfair draft the gAyFL use.
Whatever system is in place should:
- reward clubs that nurture talent from their teens, bring them through the system and develop them into NRL players (ie, discounts off the cap for those players)
- punish clubs that have the means to produce their own talent but sign players with NRL experience from other clubs (ie, surcharges on the cap for those players)
Whatever system is in place should:
- reward clubs that nurture talent from their teens, bring them through the system and develop them into NRL players (ie, discounts off the cap for those players)
- punish clubs that have the means to produce their own talent but sign players with NRL experience from other clubs (ie, surcharges on the cap for those players)
I agree you should get an increasing scale discount toward the cap the longer a player is at a club particularly there original club, for instance a player like tongue or lockyer who have been at there club for 10+ years should be basically 100% or near to it exempt from cap payment.
Yep, agreed.
Whereas signing Israel Folau, despite him wanting to come back, should be a heavy price. eg, assuming for a moment he's getting the rumoured $400k, there should also be a 20% minimum weighting on signing a current international/Origin player from another club. So on the cap he would count as $480k.
Make teams think twice about who they sign huh? And make players think twice about chasing dollars at other clubs...more incentive to stay.
eg, Folau could've got, say 20% of his salary not count to the cap at Melbourne, or 20% extra loading at the Broncos...Broncos therefore could only offer say $300K, Melbourne $400K....no brainer really, no matter how much he loves his mummy.
Whereas signing Israel Folau, despite him wanting to come back, should be a heavy price. eg, assuming for a moment he's getting the rumoured $400k, there should also be a 20% minimum weighting on signing a current international/Origin player from another club. So on the cap he would count as $480k.
Make teams think twice about who they sign huh? And make players think twice about chasing dollars at other clubs...more incentive to stay.
eg, Folau could've got, say 20% of his salary not count to the cap at Melbourne, or 20% extra loading at the Broncos...Broncos therefore could only offer say $300K, Melbourne $400K....no brainer really, no matter how much he loves his mummy.
Yeah I agree. I would love to see tiers to the cap and a weighting system that rewards loyalty of both the club and the player, to many great players have had to piss off to England for a last pay day. Steve Menzies for instance going this year is one of the most disgusting things this game will ever see, he is an icon of the game was 1 game off breaking Lamb's record and deserved to finish here like he and Manly wanted.
- Mar 13, 2008
- 6,522
- 2,807
Coxy said:
Some clubs honestly should perish, especially in Sydney. Teams that rely on leagues club, draw poor crowds etc. don't really do much for our game IMO. Lets say you took away the Tigers, Sharks, Penrith and Souths. Instead of having 16 teams available to sponsors, you have 12, which should drive up advertising revenues. Furthermore, the quality of each team will increase with less nuffies getting contracts and more stars on each team (which would thus increase crowd figures and hence gate takings). Also 16m of salary cap wages could be redistributed for the other 12 clubs to pay, improving salaries and chances of retention.
I honestly don't see why less teams is bad (other than less games each week for tv purposes). Besides, if you can get yourself 10-12 financially stable clubs with high quality rosters and games, you can then spend real money and efforts trying to expand into places like Perth and Adelaide, instead of wasting money and concern on the financial instability of the Sharks, Knights etc.
You are right in that the cap needs to still exist, but it needs to be high enough so that players can remain with their career-long clubs without having to earn less money than they could in other codes/leagues, and where it's a lot harder for rival clubs to attract players on a $ increase alone. And if the ability to pay a higher sum of wages is that big of a concern to a club, then perhaps they are one of the clubs that don't belong.
In the current state, I would say it's near on impossible to expand and improve the comp, largely because we already have so many clubs of financial concern, and too many clubs in general. Besides, given how many star players are leaving for what primarily is money, surely the current distribution of the $64m can be better re-allocated to allow more stars to stay in the game.
PS - In a reduced team competition top 5 is surely the way to go. If you are that worried about lost finals revenues, make the grand final best of 3, which would increase $ dramatically and also further the odds of the best team actually winning.
