WiLLiE's GaL
Shrek Is King's Queen
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 0
Million-dollar kid could expose farce corroding game
By Phil Gould
February 13, 2005
The Sun-Herald
I was recently asked, if I could sign one player in the game today, who would it be and how much would I pay him? I replied Sonny Bill Williams and he is worth $1 million a season.
Obviously, no one can pay Sonny Bill $1m a year. But that is what he is worth. I have no doubts that this great young player would provide value for his club and for rugby league at that figure.
But the most money any responsible NRL club could pay him under the salary cap is about $300,000 a year if it wants to retain other quality players and ensure the club has the depth and talent to be successful for years to come.
If any club, including the Bulldogs, signs him and puts up $300,000 as his contract amount, it will have to live with the rumours and jibes that it is paying him under the table.
Williams is the hottest property in the game today. But
he is the latest in a long list of top-line players now finding how restrictive and unreasonable the NRL salary cap system is.
Sonny Bill wants to stay with the Bulldogs but faces the very real prospect he may have to leave to earn his true contract value. Not only are the Bulldogs in danger of losing their star player, but rugby league may lose him to another code if someone doesn't change this farcical situation.
So, for the umpteenth time, let's talk about the salary cap. Why? Because although the salary cap laws continue to cause headaches, and although we keep highlighting the need for changes, the NRL continues to dance around the issue.
This affects the players and the fans, and these are the most important people in our game.
In recent years we have seen players retire, forced to move clubs (some interstate), move to England or go to rugby union, simply because salary cap imbalances have forced the issue.
To highlight how ridiculous the salary cap laws have become, let's look at a situation involving Sonny Bill, who recently featured in a TV commercial promoting a sports drink. He was one of several star athletes in the ad.
Because this sports drink was produced by a particular drinks company, and this company also happened to be a sponsor of the Bulldogs, the NRL salary cap auditors have ordered all money earned from the ad should be included in the Bulldogs' salary cap.
Williams and the Bulldogs are not the first to be disadvantaged by this ridiculous interpretation of the rules, which virtually says that such endorsements are always a scheme to get around the salary cap.
I hope the Bulldogs are strongly challenging the interpretation. But don't you find this ridiculous?
Why wouldn't we want sponsors using our players in TV commercials? It is free advertising for the game. Other codes welcome the exposure without the ramifications.
The NRL should welcome it, no, wait a minute . . . the NRL should be encouraging it, no, wait another minute . . . the NRL should be selling this idea to potential sponsors and advertisers.
I argue time and time again that players such as Sonny Bill, Andrew Johns, Darren Lockyer, Craig Wing etc are entitled to earn as much money outside the salary cap as they can without it affecting the club's salary cap and other players.
I also argue that if a club finds a talented youngster like Sonny Bill and brings him along in junior grades to the point where he becomes an international and helps his club win premierships, the club should never be put in a position whereby it can't afford to keep him without having to let other players go to make up the dollars.
I have argued the same way for the Broncos and Lote Tuqiri, the Knights and Andrew Johns, the Cowboys and Matt Bowen. The list is endless.
If clubs are forced to put every cent earned by the top players into the salary cap it reduces the wage pool available for all other players.
At this point, let's ignore the Bulldogs' salary cap drama from a few seasons ago because many will argue that perhaps their strength was unfairly gained. I do not subscribe to that theory. I think their success has had more to do with the development of talent rather than the overinflated payments some of them were receiving.
But the Bulldogs are now in the same situation faced by grand finalists of the past, such as the Knights, Dragons, Eels, Storm, Panthers and Roosters. Just because their team is highly successful, their players become more valuable and the rules of our game say they must lose players.
The success of a team should not affect the ability of the team to retain the players who have helped it to achieve that success and with whom the fans of that club now have a special bond.
The success of a team and the money it pays its stars should affect the scope of the successful club to buy good players from other clubs below them on the ladder, until such times as the successful club reduces its spending to within set limits.
For example, the Bulldogs could re-sign all their players but should not be allowed to buy someone like Andrew Ryan from the Eels. The Broncos should be allowed to keep a Tuqiri but not buy a Scott Prince from the Cowboys. And before you say what about my club - the Roosters - yep, I agree. The Roosters should not be allowed to buy a player like Joel Monaghan from the Raiders but should not have had to lose Bryan Fletcher, Shannon Hegarty, Peter Cusack, Brett Mullins, Simon Bonetti, David Kidwell, Chad Robinson etc because of salary cap restrictions.
But this is the system under which we live.
The top clubs are penalised for developing a player from junior ranks to international stardom. They have to get rid of their top players, so to replace them they buy the top players from the struggling clubs. How does that help the game?
Players such as Willie Mason, Braith Anasta and Williams are Bulldogs through and through and the club should not be restricted in retaining them because of a salary cap. The penalty for success should be that the Dogs cannot buy players from other clubs until they get their payments back under the set salary cap amount.
This will help the lower clubs and it keeps Bulldogs fans happy. Everyone wins.
------------------------------------------------------------------
so what does everyone think about gould's article...was he high when he wrote it?
By Phil Gould
February 13, 2005
The Sun-Herald
I was recently asked, if I could sign one player in the game today, who would it be and how much would I pay him? I replied Sonny Bill Williams and he is worth $1 million a season.
Obviously, no one can pay Sonny Bill $1m a year. But that is what he is worth. I have no doubts that this great young player would provide value for his club and for rugby league at that figure.
But the most money any responsible NRL club could pay him under the salary cap is about $300,000 a year if it wants to retain other quality players and ensure the club has the depth and talent to be successful for years to come.
If any club, including the Bulldogs, signs him and puts up $300,000 as his contract amount, it will have to live with the rumours and jibes that it is paying him under the table.
Williams is the hottest property in the game today. But
he is the latest in a long list of top-line players now finding how restrictive and unreasonable the NRL salary cap system is.
Sonny Bill wants to stay with the Bulldogs but faces the very real prospect he may have to leave to earn his true contract value. Not only are the Bulldogs in danger of losing their star player, but rugby league may lose him to another code if someone doesn't change this farcical situation.
So, for the umpteenth time, let's talk about the salary cap. Why? Because although the salary cap laws continue to cause headaches, and although we keep highlighting the need for changes, the NRL continues to dance around the issue.
This affects the players and the fans, and these are the most important people in our game.
In recent years we have seen players retire, forced to move clubs (some interstate), move to England or go to rugby union, simply because salary cap imbalances have forced the issue.
To highlight how ridiculous the salary cap laws have become, let's look at a situation involving Sonny Bill, who recently featured in a TV commercial promoting a sports drink. He was one of several star athletes in the ad.
Because this sports drink was produced by a particular drinks company, and this company also happened to be a sponsor of the Bulldogs, the NRL salary cap auditors have ordered all money earned from the ad should be included in the Bulldogs' salary cap.
Williams and the Bulldogs are not the first to be disadvantaged by this ridiculous interpretation of the rules, which virtually says that such endorsements are always a scheme to get around the salary cap.
I hope the Bulldogs are strongly challenging the interpretation. But don't you find this ridiculous?
Why wouldn't we want sponsors using our players in TV commercials? It is free advertising for the game. Other codes welcome the exposure without the ramifications.
The NRL should welcome it, no, wait a minute . . . the NRL should be encouraging it, no, wait another minute . . . the NRL should be selling this idea to potential sponsors and advertisers.
I argue time and time again that players such as Sonny Bill, Andrew Johns, Darren Lockyer, Craig Wing etc are entitled to earn as much money outside the salary cap as they can without it affecting the club's salary cap and other players.
I also argue that if a club finds a talented youngster like Sonny Bill and brings him along in junior grades to the point where he becomes an international and helps his club win premierships, the club should never be put in a position whereby it can't afford to keep him without having to let other players go to make up the dollars.
I have argued the same way for the Broncos and Lote Tuqiri, the Knights and Andrew Johns, the Cowboys and Matt Bowen. The list is endless.
If clubs are forced to put every cent earned by the top players into the salary cap it reduces the wage pool available for all other players.
At this point, let's ignore the Bulldogs' salary cap drama from a few seasons ago because many will argue that perhaps their strength was unfairly gained. I do not subscribe to that theory. I think their success has had more to do with the development of talent rather than the overinflated payments some of them were receiving.
But the Bulldogs are now in the same situation faced by grand finalists of the past, such as the Knights, Dragons, Eels, Storm, Panthers and Roosters. Just because their team is highly successful, their players become more valuable and the rules of our game say they must lose players.
The success of a team should not affect the ability of the team to retain the players who have helped it to achieve that success and with whom the fans of that club now have a special bond.
The success of a team and the money it pays its stars should affect the scope of the successful club to buy good players from other clubs below them on the ladder, until such times as the successful club reduces its spending to within set limits.
For example, the Bulldogs could re-sign all their players but should not be allowed to buy someone like Andrew Ryan from the Eels. The Broncos should be allowed to keep a Tuqiri but not buy a Scott Prince from the Cowboys. And before you say what about my club - the Roosters - yep, I agree. The Roosters should not be allowed to buy a player like Joel Monaghan from the Raiders but should not have had to lose Bryan Fletcher, Shannon Hegarty, Peter Cusack, Brett Mullins, Simon Bonetti, David Kidwell, Chad Robinson etc because of salary cap restrictions.
But this is the system under which we live.
The top clubs are penalised for developing a player from junior ranks to international stardom. They have to get rid of their top players, so to replace them they buy the top players from the struggling clubs. How does that help the game?
Players such as Willie Mason, Braith Anasta and Williams are Bulldogs through and through and the club should not be restricted in retaining them because of a salary cap. The penalty for success should be that the Dogs cannot buy players from other clubs until they get their payments back under the set salary cap amount.
This will help the lower clubs and it keeps Bulldogs fans happy. Everyone wins.
------------------------------------------------------------------
so what does everyone think about gould's article...was he high when he wrote it?
