What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2018 Salary Cap

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,420
that's not true, the bigger the nrl GRANT the bigger the salary cap.

the issue is that the cap could not be determined until the clubs knew what their grant was going to be. they've now had to digest a figure they're not happy with, and are now waiting on the rlpa to negotiate a cap figure where the difference is paid wholesly and solely by the club. some clubs are fine with this the cap being higher eg penrith some not so much eg knights titans etc

Haha it's the same thing, and no the club grant actual $ amount hasn't been agreed. What's been agreed is 130% of the cap so if cap is $10mill clubs will get $13mill grant, if it's $8.3mill they'll get $10.7mill.

We've now got a three way battle; nrl trying to keep cap down to keep club grants down, clubs trying to get cap increased so their club grant is more, and players trying to get as much as they can.
 

RazorRam0n

Juniors
Messages
2,027
Who have they resigned? Whare, Watene-Zelezniak, who else? I can't think of too many. Certainly no big-money spine players. These signings would add $3m to the club's salary bill?

those 2 were the remaining first graders un-contracted and now re-signed.

this means their ENTIRE top 25 is resigned for 2018 and most beyond.
 

perverse

Referee
Messages
25,828
Haha it's the same thing, and no the club grant actual $ amount hasn't been agreed. What's been agreed is 130% of the cap so if cap is $10mill clubs will get $13mill grant, if it's $8.3mill they'll get $10.7mill.

We've now got a three way battle; nrl trying to keep cap down to keep club grants down, clubs trying to get cap increased so their club grant is more, and players trying to get as much as they can.
Adding to the confusion is that there are some clubs (mine - the Knights - certainly) that have a vested interest in a player fire sale. It's certainly in our best interests for the cap to be as low as possible next year at this stage, and not just for financial reasons either.

We'd love it if some of the big spenders had to shed a player or two. We're sitting, ready to take advantage.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,420
Adding to the confusion is that there are some clubs (mine - the Knights - certainly) that have a vested interest in a player fire sale. It's certainly in our best interests for the cap to be as low as possible next year at this stage, and not just for financial reasons either.

We'd love it if some of the big spenders had to shed a player or two. We're sitting, ready to take advantage.

Yeh I can see some clubs would benefit from picking up players needing to be shed if cap is lower than clubs have guessed at and if the nrl enforces it. I suspect though that contracts would just be back ended. The cap is likely to go up beyond $10mill by 2020/21 so they could well back end longer term contracts.
 

perverse

Referee
Messages
25,828
Yeh I can see some clubs would benefit from picking up players needing to be shed if cap is lower than clubs have guessed at and if the nrl enforces it. I suspect though that contracts would just be back ended. The cap is likely to go up beyond $10mill by 2020/21 so they could well back end longer term contracts.
Why does everyone just assume this? Is the presumption that the TV money will always go up - and that expansion will never be on the agenda?

The gravy train will scream to a halt at some point. Our market is limited. There's only so much revenue the NRL can generate with its current footprint.
 

RazorRam0n

Juniors
Messages
2,027
So how would that take them from $7m to $10m?

think about this way....with only 2 players left, for how long have the panthers been negotiating to lock up its top 25 for 2018... WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH THEY HAD TO SPEND?

i couldn't give a rats about the figure at the end of the day. what i know is that panthers are asset rich can cover any shortfall between grant and cap and were hoping for a higher final cap figure to be competitive with the best in the game AND they have the most of their squad locked up
 

TheFrog

Coach
Messages
14,300
WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH THEY HAD TO SPEND?
This is not the fault of the clubs, it is the fault of the NRL. All clubs are entitled to know what they can budget for next season by this late stage, surely. I'd suggest the salary cap will not be enforceable in 2018, particularly with regard to signings made prior to a firm figure being announced.
 

unforgiven

Bench
Messages
3,138
People,and clubs seem to be missing that whilst the base salary cap put forward was $8.84million the actual spend on players when all included was $9.59mill

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...d/news-story/8c8cc6d24d9f407a6fb504d573839833

When you throw in tpa opportunities for the stars and rep player payments there is a very healthy salary to be earnt playing rugby league if you're good enough.


That is true but a lot of the extras you have included, including welfare officers were originally not parts of the salary cap and now have to be added, which takes the salary cap down to an actual 8.3 million spend on player salaries.
 

unforgiven

Bench
Messages
3,138
This is quite obviously an attempted by the NRL to claw back some of the $ they have to pay the clubs now they painted themselves into a corner with the 130% of salary cap club grant. This is their way out of over committing to the clubs.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,420
But if the players want those things it has to be paid for out of the nrl grant. Surely if they are legit about it not just being about more cash in players pockets the inclusion of better welfare, education and insurance investments is important. End of day clubs are getting a % so if in cap or not the total cap amount is what clubs are interested in. It's better for them if they are included as pushes the cap nearer the $10mill they want for their $13mill grant, though will cause real cap headaches for players already signed.
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
the nrl isn't the only party holding up the CBA you know? takes 2 to tango

Yep, that's why I said a fair share of the blame, not all of it.

But they "run" the competition, and have to make sure it runs well enough. Clubs all overspending on the cap because they didn't know what it would be, then losing players/points will be a disaster for the competition (even if you could say the clubs shouldn't have gambled on what the cap would be) the NRL runs, and they need to make sure it doesn't happen.
 

unforgiven

Bench
Messages
3,138
But if the players want those things it has to be paid for out of the nrl grant. Surely if they are legit about it not just being about more cash in players pockets the inclusion of better welfare, education and insurance investments is important. End of day clubs are getting a % so if in cap or not the total cap amount is what clubs are interested in. It's better for them if they are included as pushes the cap nearer the $10mill they want for their $13mill grant, though will cause real cap headaches for players already signed.

A lot of these things are already in place though, its kind of like contra in the TV rights deal, included so you can boast about a higher figure. I am surprised about the NRL including them in the cap though as it means that the NRL has to pay 130% of these items.
 

Jason Maher

Immortal
Messages
35,977
It's a shit situation. All clubs have to gamble: go high and risk a fine, losing players, or lose points, but be sitting pretty if the higher cap is ultimately approved; or go low and risk being left behind, but being safe if a lower cap is ultimately approved. It seems my club is working to a lower cap, given the repeated news that we're struggling to retain Dugan and Widdop, but of course I'm assuming a basic level of competence on the part of our management, always a dangerous assumption.
 

TheFrog

Coach
Messages
14,300
It's a shit situation. All clubs have to gamble: go high and risk a fine, losing players, or lose points, but be sitting pretty if the higher cap is ultimately approved; or go low and risk being left behind, but being safe if a lower cap is ultimately approved. It seems my club is working to a lower cap, given the repeated news that we're struggling to retain Dugan and Widdop, but of course I'm assuming a basic level of competence on the part of our management, always a dangerous assumption.
That would because you've bought Hunt.
 

Diesel

Coach
Messages
19,933
What a mess. Not surprised when you see whose running the game, the 130% offered, taken away, offered and now trying to lower the cap to reduce the 130% cap/grant.

Nice work as always
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vee
Top