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!

Rumoured/Confirmed Signings and More Crap XIX

Status
Not open for further replies.

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,098
That doesn't make sense. Parra has about the biggest fan base in the NRL. Parramatta is a thriving business centre - one of the main hubs of the Sydney metropolitan area. Why would an area like Canterbury have more rich and powerful supporters than we do?

Maybe these wealthy businessmen in the Parramatta area support other teams or even other sports. Or maybe they do follow Parra but just don't like the way the members run the club and consider tipping in their own money for player retention would just be a waste.
 

Obscene Assassin

First Grade
Messages
6,664
Or maybe we've had idiots in charge for so long that they haven't been able to source out the people that want to get their money involved in the club. And especially after winning 2 wooden spoons there wouldn't have been too many businessmen that would have been happy to get involved. If we constantly stay in the Top 8 for 5 or so years, with a premiership or 2 that number will jump significantly.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,098
Don't confuse sponsorship (where a marketing benefit accrues to the company buying the sponsorship) with what's really going on here - 'unaffiliated' third party sponsorships (where none of the club's or NRL's IP is to be used) are essentially charity from a rich individual toward the club he loves. Of course it might be funnelled through his business under the guise of sponsorship, but without all the logos and club colours and so on the cost far outweighs the marketing benefit. It is charity, from a rich individual (or group) that wants to see their team succeed.

Otherwise why not just sponsor the club?

Note, I'm not saying it doesn't already happen at Parra, but it happens less at Parra than at some more consistently successful clubs.
 
Last edited:

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,542
that would be because it's not true

What players can earn outside the salary cap:

$600,000 - Marquee Player Allowance - any or all of the Top 25 players at each club can share in payments made by club sponsors seeking to use a player's intellectual property. These may be guaranteed in the playing contract by clubs.
$100,000 - Motor Vehicle Allowance ? a maximum amount of five motor vehicles may be provided to players in the Top 25 outside of the salary cap. (Valued at $20,000 each).

Unlimited - Players can earn unlimited amounts from corporate sponsors who are not associated with the club and who do not use the game's intellectual property (no club logos, jerseys or emblems) provided these are pre-approved. These agreements may not be negotiated by the club as an incentive for a player to sign a contract, nor can they be guaranteed by the club.

Unlimited - Tertiary education fees, approved traineeships, medical insurance costs, relocation/temporary accommodation costs are not included in the cap but must be approved.

Payments for players outside Top 25
$440,000 - Cap for all players outside of the top 25 who compete in the Telstra Premiership.

http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx


Two comments:

1. If the salary cap is intended to produce a more level playing field, why does the NRL allow for unlimited payment to players by individuals not affiliated with the club - knowing that some clubs are more able to attract these than other clubs? There must surely have been some reasoning behind this idea in the first instance.

2. What exactly does the 'rich and powerful' benefactor get out of the transaction?
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,098
Two comments:

1. If the salary cap is intended to produce a more level playing field, why does the NRL allow for unlimited payment to players by individuals not affiliated with the club - knowing that some clubs are more able to attract these than other clubs? There must surely have been some reasoning behind this idea in the first instance.

Dave Smith said, shortly after he took over, that it would be wrong for the NRL to continue to restrict the amount of money coming into the game. This was in response to a question implying that third party sponsorships would limit the effectiveness of the salary cap. He basically admitted it was unfair but considered it was still best for the game.

Proponents of this unfairness state that the salary cap is more to stop clubs from overspending and going broke than it is to level the playing field.

Personally I'd rather see a tightly policed salary cap and I'm happy for the stars to f**k off if they don't like it. But this will hamper the game's growth.

2. What exactly does the 'rich and powerful' benefactor get out of the transaction?

The same thing anyone gets out of spending money for a moment of happiness.
 
Last edited:

carson

Juniors
Messages
1,325
Stopping players receiving payments from sources unrelated to the club would be almost impossible to legally enforce as well. All sorts of restraint of trade issues.
 
Messages
19,724
Stopping players receiving payments from sources unrelated to the club would be almost impossible to legally enforce as well. All sorts of restraint of trade issues.

Completely impossible I suspect, as long as the source is not incompatible with the objects of the employer/NRL, and thus a likely breach of contract.
 

Obscene Assassin

First Grade
Messages
6,664
Personally I'd rather see a tightly policed salary cap and I'm happy for the stars to f**k off if they don't like it. But this will hamper the game's growth.

I'd prefer a sterner cap when it comes to money coming in from external sources. But give more concessions for loyalty and juniors. If you've been in a system (from 16) for 10 years then you get 25% of their contract not on the books, 15 years they get 40% and then it goes up 5% every year until they have 70% not on the books. This will allow teams to keep the older players at the club that can guide the younger players but will also mean that most of the money that will be paid to them won't be on the cap.

It will also mean that clubs will have to put more into either developing their own local juniors at 14-15 but will also mean that they are looking in different areas that don't have an NRL team associated with the area for young players to join their club.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,098
I'd prefer a sterner cap when it comes to money coming in from external sources. But give more concessions for loyalty and juniors. If you've been in a system (from 16) for 10 years then you get 25% of their contract not on the books, 15 years they get 40% and then it goes up 5% every year until they have 70% not on the books. This will allow teams to keep the older players at the club that can guide the younger players but will also mean that most of the money that will be paid to them won't be on the cap.

It will also mean that clubs will have to put more into either developing their own local juniors at 14-15 but will also mean that they are looking in different areas that don't have an NRL team associated with the area for young players to join their club.

This sounds good in theory - rewarding clubs for developing juniors - but what it does in practice is incentivise the poaching of young players, turning children into commodities. We see this in soccer, where UEFA set minimum limits on 'homegrown' players for the Champions and Europa Leagues in order to prevent clubs from just buying an entire squad at the expense of opportunities for local kids. So the big clubs just started buying bulk numbers of younger players in the hope that enough of them become members of the squad and qualify for the 'homegrown' spots.
 
Messages
19,724
Until they decide whether the cap is primarily designed to 1) distribute talent or 2) constrain total expenditure , there'll continue to be lots of apparent inconsistencies.
 

Joely01

Bench
Messages
4,553
Hearing a few rumours today Kurtley Beale to parra in 2015.
Not sure if anyone on here has heard the same?

I really hope not
 
Messages
19,724
Hearing a few rumours today Kurtley Beale to parra in 2015.
Not sure if anyone on here has heard the same?

I really hope not

Well, that would be consistent with the Mole rumour I guess (i.e. that we were about to sign a big name player, who is smaller and faster than Watmough).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top