Salary Cap. Why is there one ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the record, there still should be a cap, it should just actually be policed and everyone's salaries should be public like in every US league and every Football league around the world. This would help prevent rorting a lot more than they do currently as right now they don't police it at all unless a whistle blower uncovers everything for them.
 
btrainben said:
For the record, there still should be a cap, it should just actually be policed and everyone's salaries should be public like in every US league and every Football league around the world. This would help prevent rorting a lot more than they do currently as right now they don't police it at all unless a whistle blower uncovers everything for them.
Click to expand...

or players declare how much money they make to the nrl and if they receive extra they get banned
 
Salary Caps are only any good if the salaries are transparent. IE, the NBA.
 
btrainben said:
There's only a salary cap for half of the teams.

The Roosters, Brisbane and Cronulla don't have a salary cap.

It's the biggest joke of a sporting competition where their cap isn't policed whatsoever and the only time the Nrl flexes its muscle is to prevent 19 year olds like the kid from Manly from making their debuts. All because of their pathetic 30 man squad rule even though the kid would be getting bare minimum match payments.

Meanwhile the Roosters can sign Tedesco, Cronk and Keary while only losing Pearce, SKD, Guerra and Watson while still being able to sign a young Origin forward who every club was after in Crichton and being able to re-sign all of their young stars like Mitchell and Radley.. And then they're also in the market for guys like Taupau etc.

The NRL does nothing about that because they're corrupt, inept and treating the public like fools. So the salary cap should be scrapped when it's not evening out the competition at all as only half the teams abide by the salary cap.
Click to expand...
No-one hates the rorters more than me but credit where credit is due. They bring in an untested NRL coach and he wins the comp in his first year, albeit with a squad someone else assembled and the SBW factor. That creates a certain level of positivity among other players about going there, so they pick up a heap of very promising juniors who can see themselves winning a comp there.

Meanwhile on our side of the fence we already have a premiership winning coach but around the same time tom toms are beating about how weird Des is and like it or not the managers are no doubt getting a lot of noise about how the admin is or isn't working. The fact that Des couldn't give a rats about the juniors means managers aren't going to steer their kids towards us. The compounding effect of that is we have to buy and maintain a top squad so that means we pay bigger dollars to retain the good players and pay overs to get new ones. That's what kills our cap.

Over at the rorters, Broncos, Storm and and and they have half a dozen or ten young blokes who are developing their game rather than just playing it as our reggies do and bit by bit they get the taste of the top grade and importantly do it probably on $100k a year. Over at the dogs we are paying $500k for our blokes because they are established and offering others even more. You only have to look at Mitchell, Manu, Radley, TKO, Napa, Matterson and prob a few others who came into grade on peanuts. Some of them have no doubt been upgraded but then again the rorters prob did it before they really hit their straps. They will have to offload a few in the next couple of years but by then the next gen will be coming through.
 
I'd like to get this out there and don't mind the criticism this gets, just want to know what people think of this.
What do you think are the pros and cons of a point system are?
Will it work?

Let's say every club gets an allocated 40 points. The top players...e.g Thurston, Cleary etc would be worth 5 points and 1 point say for shit players like Montoya for example.
All teams cannot go over 40 points per season, which ensures an even spread of playing talent across all clubs. If a club wants to pay a player $10 million a season then thay can if they want and does not affect the points the player attracts.
It doesn't matter how rich a club is they can pay their players what ever they want but must remain at 40 points or under.
Now some will say that the good players will want to go to the richest clubs to get the highest salaries for themselves, but how can they if that particular club has already hit it's 40 point cap limit, this in turn will force the player to another club and thus spread the talent and keep the competition even. At the end of each season the player gets rated and allocated a number between 1 and 5 based on age, rep experiance, NRL experiance, stats etc etc.

What do people think, reckon it will work?
 
dogwhisperer said:
I'd like to get this out there and don't mind the criticism this gets, just want to know what people think of this.
What do you think are the pros and cons of a point system are?
Will it work?

Let's say every club gets an allocated 40 points. The top players...e.g Thurston, Cleary etc would be worth 5 points and 1 point say for shit players like Montoya for example.
All teams cannot go over 40 points per season, which ensures an even spread of playing talent across all clubs. If a club wants to pay a player $10 million a season then thay can if they want and does not affect the points the player attracts.
It doesn't matter how rich a club is they can pay their players what ever they want but must remain at 40 points or under.
Now some will say that the good players will want to go to the richest clubs to get the highest salaries for themselves, but how can they if that particular club has already hit it's 40 point cap limit, this in turn will force the player to another club and thus spread the talent and keep the competition even. At the end of each season the player gets rated and allocated a number between 1 and 5 based on age, rep experiance, NRL experiance, stats etc etc.

What do people think, reckon it will work?
Click to expand...

i hate points systems because it still punishes success and who decides the points? its giving the nrl more control
 
dogwhisperer said:
I'd like to get this out there and don't mind the criticism this gets, just want to know what people think of this.
What do you think are the pros and cons of a point system are?
Will it work?

Let's say every club gets an allocated 40 points. The top players...e.g Thurston, Cleary etc would be worth 5 points and 1 point say for shit players like Montoya for example.
All teams cannot go over 40 points per season, which ensures an even spread of playing talent across all clubs. If a club wants to pay a player $10 million a season then thay can if they want and does not affect the points the player attracts.
It doesn't matter how rich a club is they can pay their players what ever they want but must remain at 40 points or under.
Now some will say that the good players will want to go to the richest clubs to get the highest salaries for themselves, but how can they if that particular club has already hit it's 40 point cap limit, this in turn will force the player to another club and thus spread the talent and keep the competition even. At the end of each season the player gets rated and allocated a number between 1 and 5 based on age, rep experiance, NRL experiance, stats etc etc.

What do people think, reckon it will work?
Click to expand...
OK, so what if every point was worth say $250k? That means the cap would be $10m or in other words the same thing we have now. Realistically based on your kinds of discriminators at the start of this season Montoya, Mitchell, Arrow, JAC, Tevita Pangai and quite a few more would all be on 1 point as they have all only played a limited number of games at that stage not been rep players. So imagine recruiting all those blokes and only having chewed up as many points as say Darius Boyd. Still sound like a workable idea? Not having a go just stating the obvious that the cap is so much more complex than anyone who isn't managing one actually knows and I don't manage one but can see the issues.
 
Oatley Dog said:
No-one hates the rorters more than me but credit where credit is due. They bring in an untested NRL coach and he wins the comp in his first year, albeit with a squad someone else assembled and the SBW factor. That creates a certain level of positivity among other players about going there, so they pick up a heap of very promising juniors who can see themselves winning a comp there.

Meanwhile on our side of the fence we already have a premiership winning coach but around the same time tom toms are beating about how weird Des is and like it or not the managers are no doubt getting a lot of noise about how the admin is or isn't working. The fact that Des couldn't give a rats about the juniors means managers aren't going to steer their kids towards us. The compounding effect of that is we have to buy and maintain a top squad so that means we pay bigger dollars to retain the good players and pay overs to get new ones. That's what kills our cap.

Over at the rorters, Broncos, Storm and and and they have half a dozen or ten young blokes who are developing their game rather than just playing it as our reggies do and bit by bit they get the taste of the top grade and importantly do it probably on $100k a year. Over at the dogs we are paying $500k for our blokes because they are established and offering others even more. You only have to look at Mitchell, Manu, Radley, TKO, Napa, Matterson and prob a few others who came into grade on peanuts. Some of them have no doubt been upgraded but then again the rorters prob did it before they really hit their straps. They will have to offload a few in the next couple of years but by then the next gen will be coming through.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the Roosters are run better than us, and it's obvious Des and Dib were the worst cap managers in Rugby League history. But there's no way on earth the Roosters team is now, or will be under the cap in the future. And any other club would have to shed players in the future because of their players needing to be given new contracts, but not the Roosters.

How can South's not even come close to matching the Roosters offer for Crichton? I know two people that work in their accounts department and managing their cap that have lodged a formal complaint to the NRL to get them to investigate and they didn't even get a response. And that was months ago. You tell me if that sounds corrupt or negligent or not.

Melbourne were also proven to have rorted the cap massively years ago. And that wasn't discovered by the Nrl, just like it wasn't when we were found to be over the cap. The fact is, the Nrl don't police their own cap so why should we have any faith in it?
 
Lets be honest every team is dodging the cap in someway! How can the sharks who have no backing etc and just survive previously with selling blocks of land around the club suddenly can offer any available player a contract and please dont give the 'moneyball' theory that Flanagan talks about, they rort. Brisbane has been doing it since day one as have the roosters, souths also (Crowe throws in a kitchen sink with all contracts) its a known fact! I wouldnt be surprised if we were and the new board got in and 'wtf! we need to get this changed' and have then just stated back end deal
 
btrainben said:
I'm not disputing the Roosters are run better than us, and it's obvious Des and Dib were the worst cap managers in Rugby League history. But there's no way on earth the Roosters team is now, or will be under the cap in the future. And any other club would have to shed players in the future because of their players needing to be given new contracts, but not the Roosters.

How can South's not even come close to matching the Roosters offer for Crichton? I know two people that work in their accounts department and managing their cap that have lodged a formal complaint to the NRL to get them to investigate and they didn't even get a response. And that was months ago. You tell me if that sounds corrupt or negligent or not.

Melbourne were also proven to have rorted the cap massively years ago. And that wasn't discovered by the Nrl, just like it wasn't when we were found to be over the cap. The fact is, the Nrl don't police their own cap so why should we have any faith in it?
Click to expand...
Responding to every person who has a gripe would require them to have another 10 people on staff and wouldn't get anywhere. In any event just have a look at the rorters side and you will see they aren't paying big bucks for a lot of them. I won't go and have a look at their side but realistically the players on say probably less than $400k would look like Mitchell, Manu, Ferguson, Keary, Matterson, TKO, Auberson, Radley, the other second rower whose name I forget and the other 3 on the bench who ever they are. So that's 11 blokes in their top 17 on around $4m combined. That leaves another $5.5m for the rest of the squad. Teddy, Cronk are on $2m between them. Then Friend, JWH and Napa are soaking up maybe $1.5m. That leaves $2m to cover off on the other 13 lower grade players or about $150k a head. Chooks problem is going to be when the contracts for their young guns come up and they have to upgrade them, plus Crighton when he comes next year. So, unless there are a few retirements they will be right on the line.

Same basic principle applies to all the clubs who have a strong junior influence, which we don't - yet. We will do as McDonnell feeds more up and comers in but currently we don't.

In an ideal world every club would be open and frank about things, but unfortunately people are not made that way. They always look for ways to gain an advantage, legal or otherwise and don't forget this is just footy, not criminal behaviour so there isn't any legislative basis for looking in every dark corner, which is why breaches most often come from disgruntled employees.
 
Spoonman84 said:
It’s only there to make the poor clubs like Dragons, Manly and Tigers remain competitive. Otherwise it would be like the Premier League where you only have the same 3-4 teams being a realistic chance of winning the title.
Click to expand...

1 word Leicester City
 
Oatley Dog said:
Responding to every person who has a gripe would require them to have another 10 people on staff and wouldn't get anywhere. In any event just have a look at the rorters side and you will see they aren't paying big bucks for a lot of them. I won't go and have a look at their side but realistically the players on say probably less than $400k would look like Mitchell, Manu, Ferguson, Keary, Matterson, TKO, Auberson, Radley, the other second rower whose name I forget and the other 3 on the bench who ever they are. So that's 11 blokes in their top 17 on around $4m combined. That leaves another $5.5m for the rest of the squad. Teddy, Cronk are on $2m between them. Then Friend, JWH and Napa are soaking up maybe $1.5m. That leaves $2m to cover off on the other 13 lower grade players or about $150k a head. Chooks problem is going to be when the contracts for their young guns come up and they have to upgrade them, plus Crighton when he comes next year. So, unless there are a few retirements they will be right on the line.

Same basic principle applies to all the clubs who have a strong junior influence, which we don't - yet. We will do as McDonnell feeds more up and comers in but currently we don't.

In an ideal world every club would be open and frank about things, but unfortunately people are not made that way. They always look for ways to gain an advantage, legal or otherwise and don't forget this is just footy, not criminal behaviour so there isn't any legislative basis for looking in every dark corner, which is why breaches most often come from disgruntled employees.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle in that the onus should be on clubs to build from the bottom up and develop juniors and young signings etc. But let's agree to disagree on the rest as it's not just a gripe, it's cap fraud and the NRL are too useless to do anything about it.
 
Rodzilla said:
MLB destroys your point, NY Yankees are the undisputed big spenders, they pick apart all other teams and they are a joke now
Click to expand...
I always thought there was a salary cap in MLB.
 
btw the yankees have the best record in the mlb and they have the most success but havent won anything recently, their players are superstars who everyone loves to come up against

this can happen in the nrl, like the roosters buy everything that moves well but rarely win
 
One last thing, Teams clearly cheat the cap as manly just got busted but have been a bottom 8 team for years. If bottom 8 teams are cheating the cap, isn't it safe to assume teams like the Roosters with a roster five times better would struggle to stay under it?
 
A cap is legally challengable due to 'restriction of trade' in terms of their is a capped limit on pay.

I am unsure of the figure and Im not even going to try to work it out, but I would imagine something like 3 million is the absolute most you could pay a player and still remain under the cap if everyone else was on minimum. Thats a dictated limit and is illegal. However, good luck to the player that complains about his 2+ million pay packet.

The same thing happened in 1994 in the NRL when we adopted an AFL style draft system. Terry Hill, of all people got the sh*ts and legally challenged the ARL (NRL) saying its illegal and he won!

The salary cap generally works, but it has had its faults.

In thE 00's it was simply too low at 3 million (then 3.5), it was squeezing talented players out of the game, to England and Unions benefit. This drew the ire of Gus Gould who was very vocal that it was too low and was going against the point of it. These problems cleared up at the turn of the decade when the cap was around 6 mil. Now we are on a good spot at 9.4, even though I'd argue that some of this should be set aside for bringing in new talent from outside (raiding Union,NFL and AFL). The introduction of the cap in Rugby league was actually to stop clubs sending themselves broke by paying more than they think we could afford (Hey Ray Dib).

Nowadays, the ultimate point of the cap is to keep the poorest team competitive with the richest. Imagine 2011 Cronulla trying to compete with 2011 Brisbane? Brisbane could literally buy the whole team to be their reserve grade if so, then it would mean that Cronulla,Manly etc would never be competitive with the Dogs, Brisbane and so forth.

I dont know about you but I'd struggle to support the bulldogs if they played chequebook footy against Cronulla, the underdogs who struggle week to week and are forced to be creative with how they do things. I dont go to footy to watch men smash under 8's. Id veer to the underdog.Same thing.

However, and this is important, like all communism, this rewards shitkicking, losers and people that run a crap ship. It disencentivises clubs that strive for excellence, genius, and getting ahead. The same way communism has failed in society by adequetely compensating doctors, scientists etc which ultimately makes people say 'Fugg working hard, Im going to do work/life balance and be a hotel caretaker'.

In league up until now, the one part of the structure that doesnt have the cap, coaching, is where we have seen the innovation and strategy improve. However i think thats capped now.

I personally think the way around this is for clubs who can afford it, have a marquee player outside of the cap. Theres an informal way of doing this atm and thats high rep payments, but still.
So at the beginning of the year we could have nominated Willie Mason in 2008 to have his 500k+1mil cap excluded. This rewards the club for building and running the leagues club, rather than plodding along being guaranteed the NRL grant and nothing else, no development or what not. This shouldnt impact competition too much, and when current teams like the GC get themselves together, they can buy one too.

Should also mean we never lose a player to Union that we want to keep again.
 
GA45 said:
I realise it’s there to protect poor clubs but why would the players want it. If the tigers fell over because of poor player payment management this day and age a billionaire would just start up another club at central coast or another booming population area. The players only get a few years at the top level as league is a tough sport and most bodies fail after a period of time. I believe a player should be able to earn as much money as they want outside this cap through sponsorship etc. Clubs should be able to help with that openly not behind closed doors like it is at the moment.
Click to expand...
The new clubs that you say will pop up have no traditional supporter base and some fans of clubs that go broke will leave the game.. Losing tradional clubs can't be recovered from easily and would lessen the value of the game overall, reducing the players cut. Thats why News props up some clubs. There's a balance there somewhere and the salary cap helps to find it.
 
I think it's a matter of levelling the playing field a bit first (for example, more QLD teams), then slowly reducing restrictions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top