Union players not in our salary cap

[Jedhead]

It definitely has the ability to backfire. It’s essentially incentivising players to go to union first to get a better nrl contract later in their career

It doesn't though if the NRL makes sure to stipulate that any player having previously played NRL will not be eligible.

I think that caveat is fairly easy to understand and enforce.

 

[Sproj]

It doesn't though if the NRL makes sure to stipulate that any player having previously played NRL will not be eligible.

I think that caveat is fairly easy to understand and enforce.

So you then you have your most promising kids coming through with managers in their ears to go to union so they can come back later for a bigger pay day before playing NRL. Even if you push 5% of your best junior talent down that path, how is it worth it?

Regardless, you are going to be getting kids considering union who otherwise wouldn't at that junior level. Basically the NRL would be giving their direct competitor a pointless leg up.

 

[1910]

So you then you have your most promising kids coming through with managers in their ears to go to union so they can come back later for a bigger pay day before playing NRL. Even if you push 5% of your best junior talent down that path, how is it worth it?

Regardless, you are going to be getting kids considering union who otherwise wouldn't at that junior level. Basically the NRL would be giving their direct competitor a pointless leg up.

But will that happen, take Carrigan he went to Terrace and played Rugby is he really going to sign with Rugby for three years after school and play at Brothers in front of 2000 people instead of NRL? Risking that in three years you're going to be of interest to an NRL team after rotting away at club rugby.

Rugby only looks after the top tier of players; they don't do anything for the ground up.

At 18 in the NRL you can be playing NRL or even Cup in a NRL squad training with the NRL and having a better life than your Rugby equivalent. Who is playing club rugby, trying to make the Reds and earning nothing.

 

[Bongo]

I think it's a stupid idea. The only way it would work is if we were to sign them centrally and assign them to struggling clubs with a notional value but I don't even think this would work. Happy if players go to Union for insane money or desire to play rugby. I don't think we should be looking to bring players across unless they fit with the standard cap and the balance of squads. If we are doing this as a tit for tat then it's relevant that McClennan lost the job for this approach and I can see rugby doing less poaching in the future.

 

[Sproj]

But will that happen, take Carrigan he went to Terrace and played Rugby is he really going to sign with Rugby for three years after school and play at Brothers in front of 2000 people instead of NRL? Risking that in three years you're going to be of interest to an NRL team after rotting away at club rugby.

Rugby only looks after the top tier of players; they don't do anything for the ground up.

At 18 in the NRL you can be playing NRL or even Cup in a NRL squad training with the NRL and having a better life than your Rugby equivalent. Who is playing club rugby, trying to make the Reds and earning nothing.

I don't know if it will happen either but it becomes a legitimate risk of happening. Rugby Australia has just sacked their useless guy in charge, so what if the new person in charge is competent and that coincides with them creating a strategy to maximise this new rule for the NRL?

Sure, it is a hypothetical but it is a hypothetical that just doesn't need to be tested to become a reality. It is an unnecessary risk to dangle a carrot in front of some of your elite youth's managers.

And what is the potential benefit to it? Who of the current Wallabies are you going to entice over? That team sucks badly and no one wants to go there right now but is that still going to be the same if you put this option in front of your own best kids?

What All Blacks are going to want to switch to league? Those guys are well remunerated and playing in the more popular code in NZ. South Africa barely knows what rugby league is. England and Wales? Well are they going to come to the NRL to play a code they likely aren't used to and have a high chance of failure at?

So again, I might be worrying about nothing but why take the potential risk for such little potential reward?

 

[1910]

I don't know if it will happen either but it becomes a legitimate risk of happening. Rugby Australia has just sacked their useless guy in charge, so what if the new person in charge is competent and that coincides with them creating a strategy to maximise this new rule for the NRL?

Sure, it is a hypothetical but it is a hypothetical that just doesn't need to be tested to become a reality. It is an unnecessary risk to dangle a carrot in front of some of your elite youth's managers.

And what is the potential benefit to it? Who of the current Wallabies are you going to entice over? That team sucks badly and no one wants to go there right now but is that still going to be the same if you put this option in front of your own best kids?

What All Blacks are going to want to switch to league? Those guys are well remunerated and playing in the more popular code in NZ. South Africa barely knows what rugby league is. England and Wales? Well are they going to come to the NRL to play a code they likely aren't used to and have a high chance of failure at?

So again, I might be worrying about nothing but why take the potential risk for such little potential reward?

I don't think any of the negatives come about- You just say you have to be a current international to be cap exempt.

The only negative is it never even gets used. But League still wins there.

 

[Jedhead]

So you then you have your most promising kids coming through with managers in their ears to go to union so they can come back later for a bigger pay day before playing NRL. Even if you push 5% of your best junior talent down that path, how is it worth it?

Regardless, you are going to be getting kids considering union who otherwise wouldn't at that junior level. Basically the NRL would be giving their direct competitor a pointless leg up.

Sometimes I think you lose your sense of rationale just for the sake of being contrary Sproj. I really do.

 

[Mustafur]

NRL doesn't need to punch down to union, the Club game is dying everywhere, union players will naturally come to league overtime as the TV money keeps consistently increasing each new deal, which increases the Salary cap.

Back when SBW left for France in the late 2000s French Rugby was paying not that much different from now, but NRL players on the top end were making 400k, now the top players are making well over a mil.

It is inevitable what will happen in the future.

 

[theshed]

It doesn't though if the NRL makes sure to stipulate that any player having previously played NRL will not be eligible.

I think that caveat is fairly easy to understand and enforce.

What about 17 year olds with hype? Do they go to league when they turn 18 or go to union and get to be outside the cap when they turn 21?

 

[Xzei]

What about 17 year olds with hype? Do they go to league when they turn 18 or go to union and get to be outside the cap when they turn 21?

Three years is a long time outside of a league system imo

 

[Jedhead]

What about 17 year olds with hype? Do they go to league when they turn 18 or go to union and get to be outside the cap when they turn 21?

A huge risk if you ask me. Look at the likes of chicken sandwich who stayed within the game. Their future can be very precarious. I doubt many will want to even contemplate that sort of risk. But yeh there will always be the chicken sandwich. You can’t legislate for stupid.

 

[1910]

What about 17 year olds with hype? Do they go to league when they turn 18 or go to union and get to be outside the cap when they turn 21?

Does a kid care about being outside the cap? I don't think that's going to drive your price up.

If you go to Rugby at 17 and even if you play for the Wallabies which I would think is rare- how many 17–20-year-olds In the World Cup Squad? There was one under 22, and he didn't play a game.

21 years old you say I want to come to League, Jorgensen is a great example, Union kid, dad played for the Roosters and only 18. So he's going to be a target.

Is his price going to be that much more than what it would have been if he'd just gone to League at 17? I would still only think he's going to command $250k-$300k. he's not suddenly getting 800k because he's played a dozen S14 games.

I don't think it's for the 17-year-old, it's for the NRL to buy Lomu and stick it up Rugby.

 

[john1420]

Does a kid care about being outside the cap? I don't think that's going to drive your price up.

If you go to Rugby at 17 and even if you play for the Wallabies which I would think is rare- how many 17–20-year-olds In the World Cup Squad? There was one under 22, and he didn't play a game.

21 years old you say I want to come to League, Jorgensen is a great example, Union kid, dad played for the Roosters and only 18. So he's going to be a target.

Is his price going to be that much more than what it would have been if he'd just gone to League at 17? I would still only think he's going to command $250k-$300k. he's not suddenly getting 800k because he's played a dozen S14 games.

I don't think it's for the 17-year-old, it's for the NRL to buy Lomu and stick it up Rugby.

I think this is exactly right, it's really for the exceptional talent you want to entice over. But this makes it all the worse, because this will happen only once or twice or so a decade, which means 1 or 2 clubs will gain a salary cap benefit that all the other clubs won't.
It's a really bad idea, but given the leadership of the NRL, hardly surprising.

 

[1910]

I think this is exactly right, it's really for the exceptional talent you want to entice over. But this makes it all the worse, because this will happen only once or twice or so a decade, which means 1 or 2 clubs will gain a salary cap benefit that all the other clubs won't.
It's a really bad idea, but given the leadership of the NRL, hardly surprising.

It's not a benefit if anyone can do it.

It's your choice, if a club does it and they uncover some missed gem in rugby off the cap you can't sit there and say that's unfair- you should have found it.

 

[john1420]

It's not a benefit if anyone can do it.

It's your choice, if a club does it and they uncover some missed gem in rugby off the cap you can't sit there and say that's unfair- you should have found it.

Who is to say other clubs didn't find it? It doesn't take a recruiting genius to see a generational talent. It would be ridiculously naive to think multiple clubs won't uncover this gem, but there is just one gem, and so just one club will reap this benefit. And in all likelihood the gem is probably going to the highest bidder, or at least one of the higher bidders, which means one of the richer clubs and these are rarely clubs near the bottom. Thus the one club that will benefit is likely already a well performing club. How anyone can suggest this is contrary to what the salary cap is trying to achieve is totally beyond me.

 

[Santa]

No need to worry about Union, they're destroying themselves. No point risking the integrity of our cap (lol) competing with a dying entity.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/key-sponsor-harvey-norman-pulls-the-pin-on-super-rugby/news-story/a5fc2d4fe236847a7f44a7b656b2f8f5?amp

 

[Mustafur]

If they allowed each team to have one unrestricted union player the league could easily have the 17 best union players(alteast in suitable positions)in the NRL overnight given each team would have plenty in reserve to spend(in that situation we could easily go ham and get a player worth over 5 mil a season and it wouldn't be an issue just on how we operate now).

But Union isn't an issue here, it's dead in Australia and is on track to decline even in NZ as super rugby has ghost town attendances and with South Africa having left that competition the quality has dropped, Japan and France club game still has money to buy marquee players but French rugby isn't growing and the league lost money last year and the big spending is only allowed due to the fact they don't have a salary cap like NRL and a few clubs have very wealthy owners who just spend for fun, NRL makes way more revenue than those leagues already and the gap is getting bigger each year.

Union only has the international game but the club scene is dying, not really sure how a sport can function with that situation happening since the club scene is required to get the players for the international game.

If NRL keeps growing to a point it can sign top union players without difficulty on higher wages, NRL can solve the international question with league that way too.

 

[Mustafur]

Just to highlight my point further, look at this list for this year ranking all sports leagues by revenue, NRL is clear Number 1 club league competition in the world for all codes of Rugby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

and this is on a cucked TV deal, if NRL actually gets a TV deal for real value next time considering we are easily beating AFL on Pay TV viewing numbers the more lucrative option we should atleast match them overall on the next one(they still have an extra team so an extra game each round and extra game length though).

Pretty crazy we are above the Portuguese Primera liga, a league with Benfica and Porto who often make the Knockouts in the Champions league, a competition that at that stage basically has billionaire clubs playing exclusively.