Football Operations Salary Cap $7m

[Lambretta]

"There too many attacking kicks. its boring, waaaahhh"
Nrl introduces rule to discourage attacking kicks and promote ball-playing near the line/kicking short.
"There arent enough attacking kicks. Waaahhhh"

f**k, NRL fans can whinge....

Funny lot aren't we?
The rule change was brought in post 2010 after Jamie Soward kicked the ball dead from a long way out to prevent the full backs bringing the ball out into a broken field

The rule change was meant to nullify kicks designed not to attack, but to allow defences time to set

The rule change was daft and ill conceived and penalised attacking kicks as well as defensive ones

The rule change would have been alright if it only applied to kicks made from say outside the 20 or 30 metre line as that was who was being targeted. Now teams are terrified of putting in long attacking kicks because they risk handing too much of an advantage to the other side.

The upside is more running plays on the 5th tackle, so it's not all bad.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The rule change would have been alright if it only applied to kicks made from say outside the 20 or 30 metre line as that was who was being targeted. Now teams are terrified of putting in long attacking kicks because they risk handing too much of an advantage to the other side.

The upside is more running plays on the 5th tackle, so it's not all bad.

I dont see ANYTHING bad about it...

- It discourages intentionally putting it dead
- It makes kickers more cautious, so they will put it short of the ingoal and give the FB a chance to run
- It rewards the best kickers because only the most precise kicks get points/the ball back.

The only problem with these rules is that fans only look that the immediate effects (more free tackles/penaties/mistakes/whatever). They cannot see that the rules change the way teams play. The negative reinforcement of these actions (kicking the ball dead) mean teams will compensate.

(You also get the same dumb idea the other way. "I want a fast play the ball" sounds good, but it actually just means heaps of Dummyhalf running)

 

[T-Boon]

The main thing wrong with it is the resulting punishment itself.
Adding an extra tackle when one of the big problems with the game is how predicable and boring the first 3 or 4 tackles of a set are when the set starts inside the team in possessions own 20 or 30. The seven tackle set is simultaneously the most boring, predictable set of possession in the game and also an extremely influential one in terms of momentum swing. That is a terrible combo.
They would be better off either keeping it a 6 tackle set but allowing a "free play" on the first, or forcing the defence to defend with 2 or preferably 3 players inside their own half.

 

[M2D2]

The rule change should have been for balls going dead ONLY, not any play that results in the end of the set. So taking it on the full should have just been a normal set.

 

[Captain Apollo]

So there is a bit more info on the Football Department Salary Cap. Following is taken from the NRL's website -

Why NRL coaches now have extra job security
Author: Brad Walter Senior Reporter
Timestamp: Mon 5 Feb 2018, 12:00 PM

Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs officials may have avoided playing this season with up to $1 million less than rival clubs for football department spending by parting ways with Des Hasler last September.

While the Bulldogs could still be forced to pay $1 million to Hasler if he succeeds in legal action against the club, the amount won't be included in the new NRL football department salary cap.

However, any coach sacked this year will have his wages or any financial settlement counted as part of the club's $5.7 million ceiling on football department expenditure, along with the cost of hiring a replacement.

In addition, clubs who exceed the football department salary cap will be liable for a 37 per cent luxury tax on the amount they have overspent.

As a result, the football department cap is set to provide NRL coaches greater job security than ever before.

In the three years since the AFL introduced a football department salary cap, only two coaches have been sacked while under contract – Carlton's Mick Malthouse in 2015 and Brisbane's Jason Leppitsch in 2016.

Gold Coast Suns coach Rodney Eade was told at the end of last season his contract would not be renewed, while Paul Roos handed over the reins to his Melbourne assistant Simon Goodwin in 2016 after deciding to retire.

The only other changes to the AFL coaching ranks since 2015 have been Don Pyke taking over at Adelaide following the death of Phil Walsh, and John Worsfield replacing James Hird at Essendon after he resigned.

In contrast, Hasler was one of four NRL coaches shown the door last season, along with Jason Taylor (Wests Tigers), Michael Maguire (South Sydney Rabbitohs) and Neil Henry (Gold Coast Titans).

Up to five NRL clubs, including the Bulldogs, are already looking to cut football department spending to comply with the new salary cap, which includes all costs associated with the first-grade team, except player payments.

The Bulldogs and other big-spending clubs averaged about $8 million per year in football department expenditure – almost double that of the Titans.

The disparity among clubs is also demonstrated by the number of football department staff they employ, which ranges from 13 to 23 and averages 16 across the NRL.

This includes staff employed in:

• Coaching
• Performance
• Football operations
• Medical
• Welfare
• Recruitment

With football department spending having increased by more than 12% per annum for the past five years, the new salary cap is intended to ensure financial sustainability for the clubs as well as provide an equalisation measure.

The cap was first mooted during negotiations for an annual grant to clubs valued at 130% of the salary cap for players, amid concerns the surplus would be absorbed by increased football department spending.

Club chairs and CEOs agreed to a 4% CPI increase for each of the next two seasons on the $5.7 million football department cap introduced this season.

If the cap had been set higher it would have had little impact on curbing costs, while a number of clubs – including Cronulla Sharks, Wests Tigers and the Titans – are expected to increase their spending.

The salaries of head coaches and all ancillary staff are included, as are training camps and operational costs, including gym equipment.

However, capital expenditure is exempt to encourage clubs to invest in high-performance facilities or centres of excellence.

The 37% luxury tax is likely to increase in coming seasons as breaches in the AFL attract a fine equating to 75% of the amount by which a club has exceeded the football department cap.

Unlike the AFL model, clubs voted against distributing the luxury tax imposed for breaches of the football department salary cap among rival clubs.

The move is expected to save the clubs about $10 million per season but penalties for breaches will be phased in gradually until 2020 to give the big spenders time to adjust.

 

[Perth Red]

Could be one of the best things the commission has done. With a salary of $10mill and football cap of $5.7mill there really is no excuse for a club not to be able to break even on a $20mil ish revenue, that is an amount all clubs should be more than capable of achieving. Also makes it more viable for expansion clubs coming in not to have to find $30mill a year whilst they are building a new business.

Be interesting to see what the clubs with $30-40mill revenue do with their money in the future? I wonder if we will see clubs investing in women's NRL teams and other sports teams with their surplus? After all if you are running a netball team as well then wouldn't be hard to hide some football dept costs in another teams operations?

 

[Cherry_poppins]

The rich get richer what an unfair rule

So the dogs have been pumping cash into their centre of excellence but if manly stumbles (because we're owned and ran by utter f**kwits so it'd be luck for us to come into money again) onto a bunch of cash we can't get equivalent gear to them

Yeah top idea Todd Snotburger, keep looking after the dogs who obviously still pay you a fortune

 

[Diesel]

Uncle Nick, Ray Dibb & co will find a way around this. Operating under $5.7m my ass.

 

[Perth Red]

The rich get richer what an unfair rule

So the dogs have been pumping cash into their centre of excellence but if manly stumbles (because we're owned and ran by utter f**kwits so it'd be luck for us to come into money again) onto a bunch of cash we can't get equivalent gear to them

Yeah top idea Todd Snotburger, keep looking after the dogs who obviously still pay you a fortune

Capital costs are outside the cap so manly could build a CofE and have branded dumbbells no problem,

 

[Iafeta]

Why is welfare or medical on the list? Clubs should be encouraged to get great resources in these areas.

Clubs will spend up on coaching staff, and leave welfare as a side note. When we have seen so many mental health issues in rugby league, I find this concerning.

Have I read it right that sacking a coach and paying them out also goes into this cap? Some coaches are deadset duds. Yet we are artificially securing their pays whilst holding clubs to ransom on it. What of the Warriors as an example? If we try to secure a gun coach, it will cost us far far more than say Canterbury. So we often have hired hopefuls (badly, but in the case of Cleary, well). It kind of ensures the club continues to hire duds.

Have I misread this?

 

[beave]

Why is welfare or medical on the list? Clubs should be encouraged to get great resources in these areas.

Clubs will spend up on coaching staff, and leave welfare as a side note. When we have seen so many mental health issues in rugby league, I find this concerning.

Have I read it right that sacking a coach and paying them out also goes into this cap? Some coaches are deadset duds. Yet we are artificially securing their pays whilst holding clubs to ransom on it. What of the Warriors as an example? If we try to secure a gun coach, it will cost us far far more than say Canterbury. So we often have hired hopefuls (badly, but in the case of Cleary, well). It kind of ensures the club continues to hire duds.

Have I misread this?

You can spend over it but then there’s a 30% luxury tax thrown on every dollar over you spend so it will cost a fair bit.

I don’t think ex-coaches should be included on it, especially ones that aren’t performing and are in need of firing. What are you meant to do, retain him and sacrifice 1-2more years of onfield results?

They’ve gotte too cute with this bullshit.

 

[Cherry_poppins]

Imagine if merkinerbury was held with Des for another 4 years

They'd riot like the soccer fans they are

 

[Captain Apollo]

Have I read it right that sacking a coach and paying them out also goes into this cap? Some coaches are deadset duds. Yet we are artificially securing their pays whilst holding clubs to ransom on it. What of the Warriors as an example? If we try to secure a gun coach, it will cost us far far more than say Canterbury. So we often have hired hopefuls (badly, but in the case of Cleary, well). It kind of ensures the club continues to hire duds.

Have I misread this?

No you haven't mis-read it. The article I quoted in this post, which was taken from the NRL's website makes that crystal clear. Any coaches sacked this year onwards will have any payouts counted against the club's cap. In the case of Des Hasler, as he was sacked in 2017 any payout won't count against the Bulldogs cap.

I dare say in some cases it will mean untried head coaches will only initially get relatively short contracts (e.g. 1-2 years) so that it minimises any impact on the operations cap if they get sacked mid-contract.

 

[Perth Red]

Why is welfare or medical on the list? Clubs should be encouraged to get great resources in these areas.

Clubs will spend up on coaching staff, and leave welfare as a side note. When we have seen so many mental health issues in rugby league, I find this concerning.

Have I read it right that sacking a coach and paying them out also goes into this cap? Some coaches are deadset duds. Yet we are artificially securing their pays whilst holding clubs to ransom on it. What of the Warriors as an example? If we try to secure a gun coach, it will cost us far far more than say Canterbury. So we often have hired hopefuls (badly, but in the case of Cleary, well). It kind of ensures the club continues to hire duds.

Have I misread this?

You have to remember this is the NRL's iron fisted response to clubs pleading poverty and unsustainability. If you cant afford to be paying for two head coaches then they are trying to safeguard you getting into a situation where you end up doing it regularly. Its no different to signing a player to 4 years then wanting to get rid after 2 years and paying them out, still stays on your cap.

 

[beave]

Yeah but the difference is you can drop an underperforming player to ressies to get his shit in a pile.

You can’t do that with a coach.

 

[some11]

Why is welfare or medical on the list? Clubs should be encouraged to get great resources in these areas.

Clubs will spend up on coaching staff, and leave welfare as a side note. When we have seen so many mental health issues in rugby league, I find this concerning.

Have I read it right that sacking a coach and paying them out also goes into this cap? Some coaches are deadset duds. Yet we are artificially securing their pays whilst holding clubs to ransom on it. What of the Warriors as an example? If we try to secure a gun coach, it will cost us far far more than say Canterbury. So we often have hired hopefuls (badly, but in the case of Cleary, well). It kind of ensures the club continues to hire duds.

Have I misread this?

Welcome to the NRL.

Some idiot will come along and claim if you made player welfare/medical staff exempt they would hire their new coach as a psychologist/trainer.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I dont see ANYTHING bad about it...

How about when at the end of a passing movement, an attacking player loses the ball over the opposition tryline and the result is a 7 tackle set to the defensive team? It is a 7 tackle set even when the attacking team didn't even kick the ball at all.

 

[Stormwarrior82]

Why is welfare or medical on the list? Clubs should be encouraged to get great resources in these areas.

Clubs will spend up on coaching staff, and leave welfare as a side note. When we have seen so many mental health issues in rugby league, I find this concerning.

Have I read it right that sacking a coach and paying them out also goes into this cap? Some coaches are deadset duds. Yet we are artificially securing their pays whilst holding clubs to ransom on it. What of the Warriors as an example? If we try to secure a gun coach, it will cost us far far more than say Canterbury. So we often have hired hopefuls (badly, but in the case of Cleary, well). It kind of ensures the club continues to hire duds.

Have I misread this?

I think you’ll find that a few salary cap deals back (2010ish) that the Nrl had started supplying welfare officers for the clubs at the Nrls cost. Obviously in the wheeling and dealing of the recent deal that the Nrl has passed that cost on to the clubs which is fair enough. I would assume these officers are still trained and supplied but the Nrl but paid for by the clubs.

Don’t have a problem with the coaches issue. You’re right that some coaches are duds but duds shouldn’t get 3/4 yrs deals either. Who signs a coach to a long term deal and gets rid of them 6mnths later? Dib does? Not sure of your warriors issue is?. Storm and Broncs would pay there coaches over $1mil. So they only have $4.7mil to play with.

 

[Perth Red]

Hopefully this limit on spending will give clubs space to spend more on fan engagement, attracting new supporters, game day experience etc

 

[Iafeta]

I think you’ll find that a few salary cap deals back (2010ish) that the Nrl had started supplying welfare officers for the clubs at the Nrls cost. Obviously in the wheeling and dealing of the recent deal that the Nrl has passed that cost on to the clubs which is fair enough. I would assume these officers are still trained and supplied but the Nrl but paid for by the clubs.

Don’t have a problem with the coaches issue. You’re right that some coaches are duds but duds shouldn’t get 3/4 yrs deals either. Who signs a coach to a long term deal and gets rid of them 6mnths later? Dib does? Not sure of your warriors issue is?. Storm and Broncs would pay there coaches over $1mil. So they only have $4.7mil to play with.

If the Warriors sign a coach from Australia, more than likely they'll expect more than a 2 year deal to move to NZ. You can get stuck awfully quick, and rather than do something about it, a bad appointment, and they're hard to predict, can leave clubs like us who'd have to pay significant overs or long terms to attract good coaches, can leave us in a real hole. It's likely to keep driving us to hiring duds but then rugby league would keep going down the plug hole in NZ if the Warriors continue to be an abject laughing matter.