Rumoured signings 2014 / 2015

[Nice Beaver]

You are limited in how much you can pay them m8. Something like 300k for the entire team.

I understand that there is a paper cap on what can be spent.

I also know of deals done with players that are not in these paper caps.

That's the reality. Everyone knows it. Not saying the Dogs are the only ones.

 

[Noname36]

Have to say that people are pretty quick to say this M-Bros deal is all about the money. We don't even know if they have signed for bigger money.

Considering it looks like they've offered the 18-year-old alone 450k per season I say it has a fair bit to do with it :lol:

 

[Edwahu]

The knights recruitment surely has to play a role in this, Bennett in particular should take some blame. If you're long term goal is to bring through these young players then surely poaching Boyd as your marquee player in the position these guys are going to fill isn't such a good idea.

Boyd is probably the knights highest payed player and is playing in the position i'm assuming one of the brothers is going to play in. You can't have everyone and at some point you have to make some hard choices.

Whose fault is it that the knights had locked down the positions that the brothers were being groomed to play in? You can't expect them to just wait around forever.

Which small clubs are the ones being hard done by out of interest? The Knights for all the complaining have still managed to do quite well for themselves over the years. Despite all the whining i think they're pretty well set up for the future too. The raiders are an obvious one and it's hard to argue but sh*t it's hard to have much sympathy when they do dome stuff like signing Campese to a lifetime contract. Raiders are run like absolute crap and that has played a big role in where they are now.

The cowboys are a small market club and they seem to be able to consistently stay competitive (in recent times anyway, although post Thurston will be interesting). It's hard to call any Sydney club a small market club really.

In general if you look at all the clubs that usually complain about things like this so much of it comes back to terrible management. Raiders, knights, tigers, parra are all examples of this. If you're club is run by incompetent people recruitment and retention becomes all that much harder.

The salary cap isn't a guarantee that every team will be competitive and be able to keep their juniors. There is still a responsibility on the clubs to run their club in a competent manner.

I agree with everyone saying that we should encourage juniors to stay with their clubs, it's one of the great things about the NRL. I don't want us to go down the road of other big sports where playing for your junior club just isn't a thing at all. I like the tribal nature of the game. I just think some of the blame is aimed at the wrong people and some of it is just misplaced.

If the Raiders could sign players as easily as the Dogs, do you think they would've signed Campese to such a long term contract? Would they have killed the teams culture by desperately pandering to the Egos in team like Dugan and Carney for so long?

The Raiders management is rubbish in a hundred different ways, but if some of the glamour clubs had the deck as heavily stacked against them in recruiting then I suspect they wouldn't look so rosy either.

 

[TheViking]

Considering it looks like they've offered the 18-year-old alone 450k per season I say it has a fair bit to do with it :lol:

I wouldn't be so quick to believe that figure. If I can get some proof of what I'm told I will post it.

Not remotely close to it.

 

[Noname36]

I wouldn't be so quick to believe that figure. If I can get some proof of what I'm told I will post it.

Not remotely close to it.

So in other words, you've got nothing? :lol:

Move along. Nothing to see here folks.

 

[Packy]

If the Raiders could sign players as easily as the Dogs, do you think they would've signed Campese to such a long term contract? Would they have killed the teams culture by desperately pandering to the Egos in team like Dugan and Carney for so long?

The Raiders management is rubbish in a hundred different ways, but if some of the glamour clubs had the deck as heavily stacked against them in recruiting then I suspect they wouldn't look so rosy either.

Wasn't a few years ago that Penrith was so on the nose that there were talks in the media to move their training base to the city to encourage players to sign.

They got their shit together.

 

[TheViking]

So in other words, you've got nothing? :lol:

Move along. Nothing to see here folks.

No. In other words if I get some proof of what I've been told I will post it.

Keep crying.

 

[ek999]

Just saw this posted on the Dragons forum

87.3 am just reported that Merrin has asked for a release for 2015 to join the Roosters.

Remi Casty's big dollars being put to good use. Or more likely Fergo not getting permission to play next year

 

[MARSHALL ZHUKOV]

Just saw this posted on the Dragons forum



Remi Casty's big dollars being put to good use. Or more likely Fergo not getting permission to play next year

Fergo will be playing in 2015 for the Roosters- remember Mini/SBW leaving too

 

[Edwahu]

If true you'd think they would have a hard time arguing he wasn't somehow induced to break contract.

 

[St Tangles]

The joys of the salary cap. Some clubs have better access to third party sponsors.

 

[nrlnrl]

Just saw this posted on the Dragons forum



Remi Casty's big dollars being put to good use. Or more likely Fergo not getting permission to play next year

the funny thing is I think they got their info re Merrin from these forums

 

[Juju]

Adam Tuimavave Gerrard from the Warriors 20s to the Cows for next year

 

[Kiwi]

Corey Oates is about to sign a new Broncos deal. Hoping to see him used more as a wide running backrower by Bennett over up the middle by Griffin.

 

[eozsmiles]

The joys of the salary cap. Some clubs have better access to third party sponsors.

Some clubs and players have put a lot more effort into getting TP sponsors.

 

[perverse]

Some clubs and players have put a lot more effort into getting TP sponsors.

Some clubs and players operate in small markets where they cannot and will never attract even close to the TP agreements that larger market clubs can. Every year that passes appears to widen the gap a bit, too.

 

[Kiwi]

Some clubs and players operate in small markets where they cannot and will never attract even close to the TP agreements that larger market clubs can. Every year that passes appears to widen the gap a bit, too.

It's a national rugby league with a lot of national companies, it's not like all say the Bronco players TP deals are all local businesses. I imagine a lot would have deals with national companies. I bet the likes of Daley, Stuart, Meninga, Clyde ect didn't have drama earning outside the club, if you are good enough, you'll earn money no matter where you play.

 

[perverse]

It's a national rugby league with a lot of national companies, it's not like all say the Bronco players TP deals are all local businesses. I imagine a lot would have deals with national companies. I bet the likes of Daley, Stuart, Meninga, Clyde ect didn't have drama earning outside the club, if you are good enough, you'll earn money no matter where you play.

It doesn't at all surprise me to hear this from a Broncos fan. These big, national sponsors that you talk about are exactly the big market sponsors that the little clubs will never get a look-in for. Why would a national-profile sponsor want to sponsor Jarrod Mullen when they can sponsor a player that will get them 10x the exposure?

Additionally, as you've pointed out, only the absolute cream of the crop can get attention from said big sponsors. When you're playing for QLD, NSW or Australia, yeah, you tend to get a bit more exposure.

Even more than that - big market teams tend to dominate the free to air match time slots (could be because.. oh I dunno... they operate in a bigger market, with more supporters and ergo more exposure to potential sponsors). Dominating the free-to-air schedule only further works to increase the gap as sponsors gravitate towards the teams that do have the most exposure for their players. What logically follows from this is that sponsors get more exposure for themselves, which leads to more value for their investment, which means they can justify larger spend on sponsorships for such players.

None of this is really rocket science, anyone who thinks about this for more than a minute or 2 should come to the same conclusion. It all combines and amounts to an extremely unfair, unbalanced system.

One simple rule they could put in place to somewhat mitigate these issues is put a cap on the percentage of a contract that can include 3rd party sponsors. If a 3rd party sponsorship couldn't amount to more than 20 or 30% of a players contract, the little guys might be able to get more of a look-in. Of course, by extension this essentially sets a cap on third party agreements (to 20-30% of the salary cap total, using my example) and, in fact, includes TPA's as a part of the salary cap system, rather than completely outside it.

I've heard that the Milford deal for the Broncos includes more money outside the cap than in it. There's no way a Newcastle or a Canberra can ever, or will ever compete with that on any contract bar MAYBE an already established superstar who can attract national/international sponsorship off their own bat. Even then, as I've illustrated, a player is worth more to a sponsor playing for a big market team than a small market team.

 

[Kiwi]

It doesn't at all surprise me to hear this from a Broncos fan. These big, national sponsors that you talk about are exactly the big market sponsors that the little clubs will never get a look-in for. Why would a national-profile sponsor want to sponsor Jarrod Mullen when they can sponsor a player that will get them 10x the exposure?

Additionally, as you've pointed out, only the absolute cream of the crop can get attention from said big sponsors. When you're playing for QLD, NSW or Australia, yeah, you tend to get a bit more exposure.

Even more than that - big market teams tend to dominate the free to air match time slots (could be because.. oh I dunno... they operate in a bigger market, with more supporters and ergo more exposure to potential sponsors). Dominating the free-to-air schedule only further works to increase the gap as sponsors gravitate towards the teams that do have the most exposure for their players. What logically follows from this is that sponsors get more exposure for themselves, which leads to more value for their investment, which means they can justify larger spend on sponsorships for such players.

None of this is really rocket science, anyone who thinks about this for more than a minute or 2 should come to the same conclusion. It all combines and amounts to an extremely unfair, unbalanced system.

One simple rule they could put in place to somewhat mitigate these issues is put a cap on the percentage of a contract that can include 3rd party sponsors. If a 3rd party sponsorship couldn't amount to more than 20 or 30% of a players contract, the little guys might be able to get more of a look-in. Of course, by extension this essentially sets a cap on third party agreements (to 20-30% of the salary cap total, using my example) and, in fact, includes TPA's as a part of the salary cap system, rather than completely outside it.

I've heard that the Milford deal for the Broncos includes more money outside the cap than in it. There's no way a Newcastle or a Canberra can ever, or will ever compete with that on any contract bar MAYBE an already established superstar who can attract national/international sponsorship off their own bat. Even then, as I've illustrated, a player is worth more to a sponsor playing for a big market team than a small market team.

So how do think it can be balanced out then?

 

[Edwahu]

It probably can't totally. Having more transparency would be a start. The NRL will tell you they have registered 10 million in 3rd party deals but not the breakdown by club.