The Dolphins discussion

[Big Pete]

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.

Isn't the ESL equivalent basically just paying out the entire contract? Which is how the Warriors lured Sam Tomkins?

The biggest thing they need to fix is when a player is off-contract. It's absurd the Kalyn Ponga situation was allowed to occur.

 

[Wolfie]

Isn't the ESL equivalent basically just paying out the entire contract? Which is how the Warriors lured Sam Tomkins?

The biggest thing they need to fix is when a player is off-contract. It's absurd the Kalyn Ponga situation was allowed to occur.

Pretty much. They pay transfer fees quite regularly in England but it is generally for players under contract.

 

[BroncsFan]

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.

I would prefer it to work as cap relief.

In the Ponga case Cows would get some cap relief, which helps them to compete with the Knights paying overs or forces the knights to pay even more to poach away a player they haven't had any involvement in.

I believe it was reported that Knights got him for $500k so let's go with that... if 10% salary compensation is provided to Cows then they can match the Knights offer of $500k, but only ~$450k or so is seen on the cap. If they go the full hog and match the $500k on the cap then they can offer Ponga up to $550k to stay and not be worse off than the knight's cap.

If Ponga still chooses to go to the knights then his salary cap relief resets back to zero i.e. he would have to be at the knights for x years before they can then get their 10% salary cap relief. It can start to become an incentive for one club players again.

If you move somewhere at 20 or so your cap relief opportunities reset... so a guy like Carrigan who will be in like his 5th or 6th year of NRL by the time this contract expires could be getting 15-20% cap relief from the broncos vs Dfifi who moved away and now has to reset at the titans. It allows us to compete with vultures trying to lure players away when they've become household names... and say after 10yr it could become 50% salary cap relief, for someone like Lockyer we could have been offering him $1m and only $500k would be on the books... he's not moving to another club, but him staying at the broncos for so long gets rewarded by the player and the team.

They would have to find those sweet spots for bumps in the salary cap relief because 50% cap relief across the board is a huge bump on the salary cap... but even capping it at 20% ends up being $200k relief on a $1m salary and if somehow every player on your squad was able to fall into that 20% bracket then that is only $2m extra on the current $10m salary cap, which isn't all that much across a 30 player squad.


Transfer fees work in soccer, because it's basically a trade system. The players moving around are all under contract when they move. The next Ronaldo wants his pay day, but is stuck in the Portuguese league for the next 3yrs. Real Madrid come in and say we'll give you $20m to break that contract and we can take him now. It becomes a viable way for club's to make money and keep themselves afloat. Dortmund is basically a development club... young players sign with them knowing they will get good game time in a good team and then be allowed to move on in a few years.

In NRL most players are moving when they are out of contract or they're forcing moves mid contract. I would prefer a trade system to deal with mid-contract moves, but transfer fees can't work for a player looking to move when he's out of contract... in soccer the clubs get zero remuneration if a player leaves once their contract expires, which is the only way it can work.

What if 18yr old Joe Blog has zero chance of making grade but a team wants to give him a chance when his contract expires. Forcing the next team to pay a concession on a player you had no intention on using could prevent Joe from ever playing and that would be illegal.

I think the transfer fee only works if a player wants to leave mid-contract... like Walsh wanted last year. Warriors and Walsh want to start early... cool give us some cash and you can have him... but we're not talking Real Madrid here, the transfer fees in NRL land would be a couple 100k at the absolute max.

 

[Sproj]

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.

Yes so obviously some rules will need to be in place, maybe bring in fixed term contracts for juniors, it means clubs will have to be very careful which kids they nurture and might mean some clubs will have to cast a smaller net but then an incentive (who knows what that would be) could be provided to clubs that do nothing for grassroots to develop their own juniors instead of poaching. Like a kid at 15/16 needs to be given a set contract with set amounts up to 18/19 and the contract doesn’t need to be that much but perhaps have something like learner driver requirements where they have to log in general terms hours at the club, just something to prove and document they are one of that club’s juniors.

 

[broncsgoat]

Dolphins aren’t in the league until next year so no

 

[1910]

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.

I take your point but where do you stop, do the Broncos need to pay the Raiders, Titans and Bulldogs something for development of James?

Is it just the previous club or all the clubs they have been at?

 

[1910]

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.

That's one of the biggest issues, the definition of poaching changes depending on who you support.

I think if you can find a 17 year old and he plays NRL then you've done a great job- that's terrific development and work by the club. I don't care where he lives or born.

People seem to alternate between thinking that's great and I want all locals players born and lived at Red Hill.

If I heard a club say we are going to only concentrate on our area and never sign a player from outside it I would say you're dead in two years.

 

[Wolfie]

That's one of the biggest issues, the definition of poaching changes depending on who you support.

I think if you can find a 17 year old and he plays NRL then you've done a great job- that's terrific development and work by the club. I don't care where he lives or born.

People seem to alternate between thinking that's great and I want all locals players born and lived at Red Hill.

If I heard a club say we are going to only concentrate on our area and never sign a player from outside it I would say you're dead in two years.

My own personal opinion is once your contract is up its not poaching. If a player decides he doesnt want to remain at a particular club anymore i dont see why a club should be entitled to any kind of compensation. Yep, it sucks when the time and money has been put into them, but its just the way the game is structured.

 

[IceWorks]

Just introduce a draft and be done with it.

 

[Renegade]

Just introduce a draft and be done with it.

wasn't the argument back in the day about restraint of trade? but i'm unsure how that sticks if the AFL can operate a draft?

 

[Foordy]

wasn't the argument back in the day about restraint of trade? but i'm unsure how that sticks if the AFL can operate a draft?

either the decision was limited to rugby league ... or the AFL operate their draft differently to what the ARL did.

who knows what would happen if someone in the AFL challenged the draft in court

 

[scobie]

My own personal opinion is once your contract is up its not poaching. If a player decides he doesnt want to remain at a particular club anymore i dont see why a club should be entitled to any kind of compensation. Yep, it sucks when the time and money has been put into them, but its just the way the game is structured.

Maybe having an age limit would solve that problem. So basically if someone is off contract before they're 21 say, and they sign somewhere else, then compensation comes into it. Any player leaving from age 22 on, no compensation. I also think a restricted free agency up to that age would help too. So if your club matches any offer put to you by an outside club you have to stay. People will say it becomes restraint of trade then but if it's written in to every players first contract, then that's the way it would have to be.

 

[1910]

Maybe having an age limit would solve that problem. So basically if someone is off contract before they're 21 say, and they sign somewhere else, then compensation comes into it. Any player leaving from age 22 on, no compensation. I also think a restricted free agency up to that age would help too. So if your club matches any offer put to you by an outside club you have to stay. People will say it becomes restraint of trade then but if it's written in to every players first contract, then that's the way it would have to be.

I don't think you can do that, what if I want to move to the Dragons to be closer to mum or my wife gets a new job- like Cronk and all the Cowboys have to do is match the offer and I have to stay for three years- seems a way to end up with a miserable player.

 

[1910]

wasn't the argument back in the day about restraint of trade? but i'm unsure how that sticks if the AFL can operate a draft?

NSWRL was an internal draft- players were no longer under contract and this was how you could change clubs. You're now going to the Magpies.

That was the restraint.

 

[Sproj]

It is hard to provide compensation without a draft.

 

[theshed]

I think that the solution is that clubs should get greater cap exemptions for developing players. What exactly counts as developing is a tricky one but even something as simple as debuting a player should give you some % of cap exemption for up to 2 years after debuting or something.

I’m pulling these numbers out of my ass but the general idea feels solid.

As far as keeping them long term, that’s on the club to navigate the negotiations properly and make it a place they want to to stay, ultimately you can’t keep them all.

 

[Sproj]

I think that the solution is that clubs should get greater cap exemptions for developing players. What exactly counts as developing is a tricky one but even something as simple as debuting a player should give you some % of cap exemption for up to 2 years after debuting or something.

I’m pulling these numbers out of my ass but the general idea feels solid.

As far as keeping them long term, that’s on the club to navigate the negotiations properly and make it a place they want to to stay, ultimately you can’t keep them all.

I don't think anyone has an issue with already established players being able to leave if they want with no compensation, as long as the deals are all legit and not 500k for Paps dodgy.

We are talking about compensation for development and that really should happen and as you say, the best way of doing this is through salary cap discounts for those a club has developed but what that looks like, it is not a discussion that will result in a solution in one half afternoon. This is where the NRL have never been strong, planning longer than Vlandys can scratch his butt.

 

[Big Pete]

I take your point but where do you stop, do the Broncos need to pay the Raiders, Titans and Bulldogs something for development of James?

Is it just the previous club or all the clubs they have been at?

If we use the Ryan James example, the Gold Coast would have to pay Melbourne since he was originally a Storm junior. Canberra wouldn't have to worry about paying the Gold Coast Titans because they signed him when he was 29.

The issue as far as I can tell deals exclusively with U/21s and how clubs put their time, effort and careers on the line only to reap little reward. So the conversation should be focused on addressing that because ultimately you want to create more talent to bring more sponsors, advertisers and clubs into the game.

I do think a system needs to be put in place first before you can even consider it. Right now, it's all uneven with NSW clubs having representation from U/16s but none of the Queensland or NZ teams having the same pathway. That goes all the way up to U/21 and there was a concerning report that Brisbane only had half a dozen Colts level players under contract. I'd want them and the other non-NSW affiliated clubs to address that first so we have an equal system.

One change they could make quickly is fixing the transfer window which is far too loose. Again, the Ponga situation should have never been allowed to have happened.