The Dolphins discussion

[theshed]

That’s right and it may not work but it would nice to at least some sort of effort and acknowledgment put in for clubs that develop.

Careful with your wording, 1910 will go on a spiel about how broncos don’t develop players and we should thank some backwoods bush league club for developing them through under 10’s

 

[Sproj]

Careful with your wording, 1910 will go on a spiel about how broncos don’t develop players and we should thank some backwoods bush league club for developing them through under 10’s

He can if he wants, I just won’t respond and will continue this civil conversation we are having now.

 

[Big Pete]

Wouldn't it be considered a restraint of trade? For instance if the Broncos decided that their time, expertise and money into Fifita was worth some ridiculous figure, let's say $700,000 how could the Titans hope to afford that and the $1.3 Million contract?

It doesn't even have to be Fifita, what if a club like Sydney just stock-piles talent and if you want Robert Toia for instance it's going to cost you as much if not double his salary?

We've seen how teams have 'managed' the salary cap, you're going to tell me they're going to be honest with transfer fees?

 

[Renegade]

without really thinking about it and it's been flagged before by quite a few people, a salary cap discount for homegrown players/players with x amount of time association with the club.

makes development worthwhile. allows you to keep your players you've put time into. ultimately you won't be able to keep everyone you want but even in sports like football (soccer) there's no cap and you cant keep everyone as sooner or later they'll want game time.

 

[1910]

I think the point is that it’s to reduce NRL clubs taking young players from other NRL clubs. Instead encouraging them to scout and transition their own talent to the NRL team.

That's what I am saying, will it do that? Or will they just pay the money and go on their way?

When you had transfer fees players still got taken from everywhere- clubs just paid it.

 

[1910]

That’s right and it may not work but it would nice to at least some sort of effort and acknowledgment put in for clubs that develop.

You'd have to decide who you reward the junior club or the NRL club. What if a player isn't signed to an NRL club and just playing in MM for Toowoomba?

 

[1910]

Wouldn't it be considered a restraint of trade? For instance if the Broncos decided that their time, expertise and money into Fifita was worth some ridiculous figure, let's say $700,000 how could the Titans hope to afford that and the $1.3 Million contract?

It doesn't even have to be Fifita, what if a club like Sydney just stock-piles talent and if you want Robert Toia for instance it's going to cost you as much if not double his salary?

We've seen how teams have 'managed' the salary cap, you're going to tell me they're going to be honest with transfer fees?

I don't think already NRL contracted players would need a transfer, they are off contract and can do whatever they like. I assumed the issue is players in the age group 16-19.

 

[1910]

Careful with your wording, 1910 will go on a spiel about how broncos don’t develop players and we should thank some backwoods bush league club for developing them through under 10’s

Thought about not even responding because its so ridiculous- honestly do better.

 

[1910]

without really thinking about it and it's been flagged before by quite a few people, a salary cap discount for homegrown players/players with x amount of time association with the club.

makes development worthwhile. allows you to keep your players you've put time into. ultimately you won't be able to keep everyone you want but even in sports like football (soccer) there's no cap and you cant keep everyone as sooner or later they'll want game time.

What do you do about the Warriors, they could field a whole team on a discount? What counts as home grown?

If for example the Broncos need to have Brisbane players to get a discount they're not getting any except Carrigan. That system doesn't reward you for finding and cultivating talent from the Gold Coast or Sunshine Coast that you might have put a lot of work into. Even Mam is from Cairns- He has been with the Broncos since he was 15.

If you get a discount if they're signed by 16- that would give clubs massive discounts but lead to clubs just madly signing kids so they get a discount if they play NRL.

 

[Foordy]

Wouldn't it be considered a restraint of trade? For instance if the Broncos decided that their time, expertise and money into Fifita was worth some ridiculous figure, let's say $700,000 how could the Titans hope to afford that and the $1.3 Million contract?

It doesn't even have to be Fifita, what if a club like Sydney just stock-piles talent and if you want Robert Toia for instance it's going to cost you as much if not double his salary?

We've seen how teams have 'managed' the salary cap, you're going to tell me they're going to be honest with transfer fees?

You can sort of get around that by having fixed values for the transfer fees.

You could do it by experience level, I.e. colts cost you a transfer fee of x; while NSW/QLD Cup leve is a transfer fee of y

Or you could go with fixed transfer fees based on positions, with spine, outside backs and forwards costing different transfer fees.

Having said that, my preferred option would always be to give teams that develop a decent salary cap discount for said player, something like a 25% discount for that player while apart of that teams top 30. Should that player leave, the discount would disappear, and even if that team got the player back, it would be at the regular rate.

You would need a specific definition of what constitutes being in a teams system and how long a player needs to be there before his NRL debut to be eligible for their team to receive the discount

 

[theshed]

Thought about not even responding because its so ridiculous- honestly do better.

Fair

 

[Renegade]

What do you do about the Warriors, they could field a whole team on a discount? What counts as home grown?

That would be upto the NRL or whomever to determine that. I don't think it's as hard as it's made out to be, there's homegrown rules in football wherein either the player has been there from ages 15-21 or had arrived from elsewhere at 18 and spent 3 years at the club, thus then making him homegrown.

The main difference that I can see, is that in football the club literally owns the academy and thus the teams themselves, wherein in league junior clubs are merely associated with a team, rather than fully funded?

As for the warriors - great. We would want them to have a team of home grown players. It would be a bad reflection on them and the game itself if they can't produce their own players. If their own development meant they had an extra 200k in the salary cap to use elsewhere, good for them?

 

[Sproj]

The salary cap discount is another idea I’d like to see explored. As we can see from this discussion, it isn’t a simple issue and that’s fine, but just because something is difficult and will take time, it doesn’t mean it should just be discarded.

 

[Wolfie]

It's not relevant, he isn't complaining about a 20 year old who the Cowboys put two years of work into he is talking about players that start at six and are working through.

Financially you can't be compensated, all the money that would have been spent on him since he was six you're not going to arrive at a figure that compensates that- and you're not going to make a figure that would make the Dolphins say that's too much we won't get him.

It would only be a nominal fee- maybe 10% of his contract has to go to the club- that you have to pay and it really wouldn't come in to play too much I wouldn't think for a pure club's junior that has played through since he was a kid.

I am not against a transfer fee but I don't think it would stop much and great Penrith get $50,000.

Penrith could give that $50k to the player's junior club, the money would be well used there.

Makes no difference imo. The Panthers never stopped to think that another club put time into a player they were planning to keep ( no matter how short a time ) and keep developing, they just did what was best for them. Even if we arent talking Kikau, they have take somebody like Fisher Harris from New Zealand where he would have been in another clubs system for 10 years before Penrith snapped him up to play SG Ball. I dont believe there is a club in the country that couldnt be accused of hypocrisy when it comes to player recruitment.

And dont get me wrong, i've got no issue with any club taking a player off contract. They just cant seriously have expected Katoa was going to stay around as a back up player with Cleary in front of him.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Fair

Gotta drive in hard with the shoulder when tackling 1910....

A bit of niggle doesn't go astray.

 

[Big Pete]

I don't think already NRL contracted players would need a transfer, they are off contract and can do whatever they like. I assumed the issue is players in the age group 16-19.

I figure you'd have to include Colts players as well since those are the players that are typically poached and the players the clubs have usually invested the most amount of time, resources and expertise into.

It just highlights how difficult it would be.

Let me highlight a case study.

In 2013 the Cowboys signed Ponga to a four year contract with his final year guaranteed to be an NRL contract. The Cowboys invested three years into him but not even a month into his NRL contract the Knights poach him on marquee money. Do the Knights owe compensation or because Ponga is an NRL player they're off scott free?

It's not like Ponga's deal was unique either, it's extremely common for young prospects to sign long term deals where they're promised NRL spots in the latter parts of the deal.

 

[Sproj]

I figure you'd have to include Colts players as well since those are the players that are typically poached and the players the clubs have usually invested the most amount of time, resources and expertise into.

It just highlights how difficult it would be.

Let me highlight a case study.

In 2013 the Cowboys signed Ponga to a four year contract with his final year guaranteed to be an NRL contract. The Cowboys invested three years into him but not even a month into his NRL contract the Knights poach him on marquee money. Do the Knights owe compensation or because Ponga is an NRL player they're off scott free?

It's not like Ponga's deal was unique either, it's extremely common for young prospects to sign long term deals where they're promised NRL spots in the latter parts of the deal.

Maybe the answer is started in this case study. The Cows have put three years development into him. Once a player is on an NRL contract he’s free game but should be compensated for the three years development. Again this argument I’m putting forward will probably be able to easily be picked apart and that’s fine but off the top of my head:

A player needs to be compensated up to the age of 19/20. If a club poaches a player at 20/21, so be it (this could easily be adjusted / re-visited).

So if a club picks up a player at 15 or younger let’s say, then the kid is essentially that clubs junior (again this will likely be easily argued but just go with it). Club A (in this case Cows let’s say) put three/four years development into player X. Club B (obviously in most cases the Roosters) comes along and poaches this kid before he turns 20.

Club B now has to pay Club A let’s say a compensation figure of $50k a year, so club A gets 200k (for the four years l) or 150k (for the three years) and they can add this to their salary cap and club B loses it off theirs. This is a strong disincentive to poach.

Additionally, on top of the transfer fee, for every year a player is at a club from say 16, they get a discount up to the age of 19 of 50k a year to a maximum of 200k as a discount in the salary cap.

There are likely holes left, right and centre in this but it rewards a club for development and retention and penalises a club for poaching, at least to some extent.

 

[Wolfie]

I wonder how we define poaching? If a player is off contract, then i'm struggling to see how they have been poached. Its all so complex its not funny.