News Monday Buzz: NRL salary cap deep dive — What every NRL club’s roster is really worth

[KambahOne]

Can't complain about us when the farking Scabbitohs have two players on multiple contracts.

Rabbitohs
1 Latrell Mitchell $1.1m
2 Alex Johnston $480k
3 Jaxson Paulo $300k
4 Campbell Graham $600k
5 Josh Mansour $300k
6 Cody Walker $850k
7 Lachlan Ilias $350k
8 Junior Tatola $500k
9 Damien Cook $800k
10 Thomas Burgess $550k
11 Jai Arrow $600k
12 Keaon Koloamatangi $600k
13 Cameron Murray $900k
14 Blake Taaffe $300k
15 Mark Nicholls $400k
16 Jacob Host $350k $350k
17 Liam Knight $380k $380k
TOTAL: $9.36 million
THE REST: Zane Bijorac, Jed Cartwright, Michael Chee Kam, Siliva Havili, Terrell Kalo Kalo, Peter Mamouzelos, Taane Milne, Davvy Moale, Hame Sele, Isaiah Tass, Shaquai Mitchell. Total: $1.6 million. Squad: 28 players
GRAND TOTAL: $10.96 million

 

[Chris Harding]

I still like the premise of his article....the salary cap isn't equal ...and not working at spreading out the talent ...and the bottom teams have to pay more, thereby inflating lesser players contract amounts to spend within 5% of their sc total.

A crazy system, laid bare and exposed, (no matter how false some of the figures)...the folly of it all, for all to see, and how it favours the top clubs and reinforces the heirachy of the Top 4 staying exactly as is OR will not change for quite some time.

Even worse, the bottom teams can only afford one superstar, and then the pressure is on him to get them to the finals.
Inevitably, fans start to doubt the ability of their expensive purchase when he doesn't perform as he did when surrounded by other stars, then they start threads calling for him to be sacked.

 

[dogluva]

Phil Rothfield crunched the numbers...... First sentence in article says it all.

More like



His thoughts on this are really no different to others and has just shown the way in which players are being paid overs just so a club can sign them.
So Kalyn Ponga would sign with say the Roosters for less than what the Knights are paying him? Well yeah because for the love of the game what they would pay him under the cap differs from what the Knights pay him

 

[dogluva]

So how did we value them? It’s mostly around form from last year and having sought the opinions of player agents and recruitment experts.

Well a bit of a furphy as some of the players that they have valued this way were already on contracts for a few years at the price the club paid for them. Just because a player dips in form doesn't mean a club can drop his wage......if he was on 1 million for the previous two seasons he will more than likely be on the same for the remainder..

 

[Bulldog1966]

Geez that Monday Buzz from whatever Rothfield is drinking must be strong.. Just when you thought he couldn't talk any more shit, he makes up figures guessing everyone's contract.. I wouldn't know where to start with how far off some of these figures would be...

Me neither..because I didn't read the bullshit lol
I skip a lot of the postings on here(lots of novel length articles too lately)sage advice for some others maybe...

 

[Freakzilla]

Geez that Monday Buzz from whatever Rothfield is drinking must be strong.. Just when you thought he couldn't talk any more shit, he makes up figures guessing everyone's contract.. I wouldn't know where to start with how far off some of these figures would be...

They aren't what he thinks they're on. He said that is what he thinks they're worth.

 

[B-Train]

They aren't what he thinks they're on. He said that is what he thinks they're worth.

Even then, no one cares what he values them at.

 

[wendog33]

Even worse, the bottom teams can only afford one superstar, and then the pressure is on him to get them to the finals.
Inevitably, fans start to doubt the ability of their expensive purchase when he doesn't perform as he did when surrounded by other stars, then they start threads calling for him to be sacked.

Vicious cycle and will take a few years yet for us I reckon.

Problem is I don't see Barrett as having sufficient experience, or gravitas, to see it thru...hoping he does tho.

It would be just devastating if Burto goes backwards. Gus would step in if that was to look likely.

 

[Freakzilla]

Even then, no one cares what he values them at.

Agreed and his evaluations are way off. He thinks Ponga is worth double Walsh lol.

 

[Marki]

There are overpaid players. There are underpaid players. The point is the top teams have rosters worth multiple millions more than bottom teams. The exact figures don't really matter. The salary cap isn't fair (short term). A free for all wouldn't be fair either.

The most unfair part of the salary cap is the mandatory requirement to spend 95% of it.

A team full of rubbish (Bulldogs 2019-2021) should be allowed to max their cap spend at 7M and front load contracts.

The NRL either wants them to become competitive again in 1 - 2 years time, or they dont.

Its quite obvious they dont, so they screw them down and force them to pay inflated prices for their hack players.

 

[Alan79]

I've been saying for a while now that the best way to prevent stacked clubs from being able to offer massive undervalued contracts would be to base what you could offer a player on what the club willing to pay the most could offer with maybe a 5% reduction being possible.

Let's imagine the tigers offered Cleary a million per year. Any other club wanting to make an offer has to go to at least within 5% of that. So you couldn't have clubs like the Roosters offering 25% less on the proviso that he liked to be called a cock and bringing a big talent to the club on a deal that's hard to believe.

Until something along these lines is implemented imbalance between rosters will be highly common.

 

[CrittaMagic69]

The most unfair part of the salary cap is the mandatory requirement to spend 95% of it.

A team full of rubbish (Bulldogs 2019-2021) should be allowed to max their cap spend at 7M and front load contracts.

The NRL either wants them to become competitive again in 1 - 2 years time, or they dont.

Its quite obvious they dont, so they screw them down and force them to pay inflated prices for their hack players.

The Roosters abused that old rules and ruined it for everyone else.

 

[COVENS]

Ah yes, Tino worth $850k - the same valuation as Jahrome Hughes

 

[Dannyboi88]

So is this for super coach or something these values ?

 

[Riggs80]

The most unfair part of the salary cap is the mandatory requirement to spend 95% of it.

A team full of rubbish (Bulldogs 2019-2021) should be allowed to max their cap spend at 7M and front load contracts.

The NRL either wants them to become competitive again in 1 - 2 years time, or they dont.

Its quite obvious they dont, so they screw them down and force them to pay inflated prices for their hack players.

its not also about front loading the contracts - it’s about having those players at inflated wages that cripple you to get a good player .

 

[Lemmy]

So is this for super coach or something these values ?

Nah, just the musings of a pisswreck finishing off a schooner of nail polish remover.

 

[Chris Harding]

More like

View attachment 42518View attachment 42519

His thoughts on this are really no different to others and has just shown the way in which players are being paid overs just so a club can sign them.
So Kalyn Ponga would sign with say the Roosters for less than what the Knights are paying him? Well yeah because for the love of the game what they would pay him under the cap differs from what the Knights pay him

Ya dinna put ice in good whusky.

 

[KambahOne]

I've been saying for a while now that the best way to prevent stacked clubs from being able to offer massive undervalued contracts would be to base what you could offer a player on what the club willing to pay the most could offer with maybe a 5% reduction being possible.

Let's imagine the tigers offered Cleary a million per year. Any other club wanting to make an offer has to go to at least within 5% of that. So you couldn't have clubs like the Roosters offering 25% less on the proviso that he liked to be called a cock and bringing a big talent to the club on a deal that's hard to believe.

Until something along these lines is implemented imbalance between rosters will be highly common.

What you're suggesting would need to be agreed too by every current player and every potential player coming into the code as it is a restraint of trade and could be challenged. Terry Hill did the same thing to the proposed draft back 1994 I think?

 

[ddt192]

U old drunk fkn retire already

 

[TwinTurbo]

I've been saying for a while now that the best way to prevent stacked clubs from being able to offer massive undervalued contracts would be to base what you could offer a player on what the club willing to pay the most could offer with maybe a 5% reduction being possible.

Let's imagine the tigers offered Cleary a million per year. Any other club wanting to make an offer has to go to at least within 5% of that. So you couldn't have clubs like the Roosters offering 25% less on the proviso that he liked to be called a cock and bringing a big talent to the club on a deal that's hard to believe.

Until something along these lines is implemented imbalance between rosters will be highly common.

What you're suggesting would need to be agreed too by every current player and every potential player coming into the code as it is a restraint of trade and could be challenged. Terry Hill did the same thing to the proposed draft back 1994 I think?

Not really, the RLPA represents the players and if the RLPA accepts it and it is included in the EBA with the NRL then it's a done deal, not every individual player has to agree. The RLPA (127 players) actually put up the money for Hill to mount the legal challenge to the draft.

Not that I think it will happen, forcing players to relocate when they don't want to will never be agreed to by the RLPA.

I know it gets abused, but players do often stay with / move to clubs for a whole host of reasons other than money.

Always a Bulldog