Change cap now or face exodus, stars warn

[gong_eagle]

Change cap now or face exodus, stars warn

Brad Walter, Jamie Pandaram and Glenn Jackson | July 30, 2008
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/new...1217097242525.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1




SOME of the NRL's biggest stars have called for Sonny Bill Williams's shock exit to French rugby union to spark massive changes to the salary cap before more players are lost to the game.
As Australian legal representatives were last night trying to locate Williams in Europe to deliver a subpoena on him to appear on Tuesday in the NSW Supreme Court, other players warned the NRL the likes of Greg Inglis, Israel Folau, Krisnan Inu and Jarryd Hayne could be the next to go unless the salary cap is modified.
Among those to speak out after the revelation in yesterday's Herald that Williams's legal team was preparing to challenge the salary cap if the NRL was successful in preventing him from switching codes were Inu, Setaimata Sa, Steven Price, Craig Fitzgibbon, Luke O'Donnell, Chris Walker, Robbie Farah and Billy Slater.
While few agreed with the manner of Williams's sudden departure from the Bulldogs before the end of the season, most supported his right to take up the lucrative $3 million two-year deal with Toulon and predicted others would do the same.
"He has just started the trend, I know heaps of guys that are thinking of switching already," said Inu, who last year considered walking out on a lucrative contract with Parramatta to complete a religious mission. "Expect more players to be leaving, that is the only thing going to be happening. I read on the weekend that of all the four football codes we are the least paid and the most well-known after soccer, so something definitely needs to change.
"The players want more money, and rugby is a massive threat. Me and Jarryd [Hayne] just re-signed but we played rugby at school. It is a good game, not too different to league."
Asked if there was a possibility he would also switch to rugby, Inu replied ominously: "I'm contracted for another two years. Hopefully by the time I need to sign my next contract they would have fixed the salary cap so I don't need to worry about it."
Sa, who like Williams has expressed a desire to one day play for the All Blacks, reiterated that players would leave in droves if the cap remained the same.
"All the rugby league players are wondering where all the money is going. It's not just going to be him [Williams] going, it will be the next superstar after him," Sa said.
"The kids coming through are going to see how much drama there is trying to get money in the NRL and they'll go to rugby. I have just re-signed [with the Roosters] for four years, I am happy here and the club has treated me really well. When I come off contract I'll only be 24, so I will be looking to look after myself."

Aside from the amount of the $4.1 million salary cap, the players' main issues are that it discourages loyalty and the restrictions on third-party payments are too severe. Walker said the salary cap was a restraint of trade.
"I stand up and applaud Sonny Bill," he said. "We go out and bust our arses and we can't even earn what people are willing to pay us. At the end of our careers, 99 per cent of us can't walk properly and we should be on more money than the AFL or union guys because our game is a lot harder and more loved but we're on a pittance compared to what those guys get. Surely our television contract is worth more than rugby union so how can that be?
"I know Sonny personally and he's a great guy. I don't agree with the way he left but I think anyone would walk away from their job if they got the opportunity to earn three or four times what they were on."
Price, who was the spokesman for the players during the Bulldogs' salary cap dramas in 2002, said the game needed a ceiling on player payments to survive but argued individuals should not be prevented from signing personal sponsorship deals.
"Allowing corporations to pay players would certainly help, I don't think the cap needs to be abolished," he said. "I do think we need to tweak it to allow third-party deals with corporates. We play a hard game and at the end of it you're going to have a lot of things wrong with you physically and throughout the whole thing you're told you can only earn this much money."
The NRL has shown in the past, with Andrew Johns and Mark Gasnier, that it was willing to step in with third-party deals to prevent them switching to rugby, and Price argues the rule should not be reserved for a select few. The Warriors captain raised the examples of Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, who earn the vast majority of their millions from personal endorsements. "I know we are on a smaller scale, but why should we be any different?"

 

[RL1908]

Here's a RU one on the same issue from March in The Australian....(can't find the original link)...

D-Day looms for hard decisions
By Wayne Smith
March 24, 2008 - The Australian

INEXORABLY, Australian rugby is closing on the day when some tough and extremely painful decisions will have to be taken.

It may be that Waratahs flanker Rocky Elsom nudges the game closer to Decision Day if he announces this week he plans to follow NSW team-mate Dan Vickerman to the northern hemisphere for a season or two before possibly returning for a crack at another World Cup in 2011.

Former Test prop Dan Crowley's reaction to that scenario ("black ban them for life") is understandable and almost universal but also utterly unworkable. Lashing out at professional rugby players for taking advantage of professional opportunities and better pay is like backchatting the referee when he makes a muddleheaded decision.

Better to take a leaf from Western Force's book after Mark Lawrence's brain explosion in disallowing Scott Staniforth's legitimate try against the Highlanders on Saturday. Play it cool and eventually things will level out.

The question is how can Australia - and New Zealand too, because it is in the same situation - level out the playing field when British and French rugby is awash with money, more money than the ARU and NZRU are capable of matching, let alone their constituent unions?

How can the Waratahs fight off Northampton's moneybags owner Keith Barwell, if, as is rumoured, he has set his sights on Elsom to consolidate the club in the premiership after fighting its way back into the top division.

Technically speaking, the Saints aren't there yet, but Barwell was moved to tell The Guardian on the weekend that "even the England cricket team couldn't muck it up from here".

Just say, for instance, the Brumbies had wanted one last season out of George Gregan. What hope would they have had going up against the mega-euros of comic strip syndicator Mourad Boudjellai, who has assembled a virtual Who's Who of rugby greats at Toulon for no other purpose but to indulge his whim of having a side in the French first division?

How does Australia fight off Bath's long-time owner Andrew Brownsword, a man reputedly so frugal he doesn't carry a mobile phone, which helps explain how he amassed $1.2billion, a tidy sum to have up your sleeve if you want to lash out on quality rugby players?

The temptation is to suggest Australia should fight fire with fire. Unfortunately there's just not the same critical mass of rugby-mad billionaires in this country that there is in England and France. But while individual ownership might not be a realistic option, it may be there is scope for joint ventures or consortiums to come in, trailing their money behind them.

It's not a thought rugby administrators at any level would find attractive because it inevitably would mean a surrender of some if not most of their authority and control. New Zealand officials are not any more enamoured of the idea either, but at least they are prepared to entertain a discussion of it at the national rugby summit this week in Wellington on where the game is heading and how it's going to find the money to get there.

There is no doubt that private ownership of Australian professional rugby teams would be fraught with danger. England foolishly went down this route when the game went professional in 1996 and the RFU soon found itself in a situation where the tail was wagging the dog, with the clubs dictating terms to the national body. And when the RFU tried to buy back the farm, it found that it had been subdivided into so many private fiefdoms that the task was impossible.

But the flip side is that British rugby is booming, in stark contrast to Australia where finances are so stretched that it simply couldn't find the coin to retain Vickerman and, quite possibly, Elsom. And yes, that's not forgetting Vickerman's ostensible lifestyle reasons for leaving.

But had the ARU shown him some love - and that can take many forms, but money sure is one of them in a professional game -- then he surely would have thought more seriously about playing out his career in a sky blue jersey.

The trick would be in determining how much control to hand over. Too little and there would be no incentive for entrepreneurs to come on board. Too much and rugby could end up in the sort of mess NBL giants the Brisbane Bullets found themselves in when owner Eddie Groves fell on hard financial times recently.

And any move in this direction would open up the question of a salary cap because there would need to be some constraint on how much clubs spent on players and coaches other than the length of the owner's arms and the depth of his pockets.

Yet it would be interesting to see how hard-nosed corporate heavyweights might approach the business of rugby. There is no question that they would expect, indeed demand, results a lot faster than, say, the Queensland Reds have delivered them.

Half a decade has slipped by since Queensland last fielded a side that gave its "stockholders" any return on their emotional investment and that's not the sort of time scale most businessmen find acceptable.

How long would it be, perchance, before a sign appeared at Ballymore similar to one recently erected at Northampton by a Barwell-appointed coach: "Holiday Camp Closed?"

Australia doesn't want to have to buy back the farm. But it can't afford to lose all its cattle either.

 

[Thomas]

Australian RU has been fighting this battle for over 10 years now with cashed up Northern Hemisphere clubs.

The next year will be very interesting in both the NRL and Australian RU.

 

[gaterooze]

Screw 'em. They get paid damn good money to play a game that *made* them popular. They're crying about getting paid $300-400k a year to play footy? Poor babies.

Inu and Hayne have gotten so lazy on the field, they're not even worth the money they're on now.

There's nothing stopping these brats chasing their own non-club sponsorship and alternate revenue, is there? I was under the impression they can do ads, TV, print, public speaking, etc etc for huge fees as long as it doesn't involve their club. Get off your asses and do that instead of getting shot at at 2am and pissing on punters - and stop whinging!

Ben Hannant works at a freakin' fruit market, doesn't he?

 

[Jatz Crackers]

"Walker said the salary cap was a restraint of trade.
"I stand up and applaud Sonny Bill," he said. "We go out and bust our arses and we can't even earn what people are willing to pay us. At the end of our careers, 99 per cent of us can't walk properly and we should be on more money than the AFL or union guys because our game is a lot harder and more loved but we're on a pittance compared to what those guys get"

:roll: @ chris f**king walker.

 

[timma]

Gasnier is not worth the money french rugby are paying him.
I support the Dragons and Gaz does bugger all on the field . He can not tackle and is always injured [again this week].
I'm very thankful french rugby took Gasnier instead of Matt Cooper , i reckon Cooper is much better , the best defensive centre in game and can score us some tries.

 

[Ice777]

:roll: @ chris f**king walker.

I was going to comment on Walker myself when i read it. It's a bit rich that coming form him given how lucky he is to even have a job with the amount of chances he's been given by several clubs after his countless f**k ups.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you

 

[dannyboy]

Its probably been posted dozens of times already but my view:

No real change to salary cap $$$ but it goes solely towards playing the standard premiership.
If a player plays finals/gf final football the NRL pays a standard bonus amount and it has no impact on salary cap.
If a player plays Origin, the ARL pay and it has no impact on salary cap
If a player plays test matches, the ARL/NZRL/etc pay and it has no impact on salary cap
If a player plays for the same club for >5 years then 50% of their salary is exempt.
If a company wants to pay a player to market their wares in any way shape or form then good luck to the player and it has no impact on salary cap.
If a cashed up benefactor wants to pay a player additional $$$ for doing f**k all then good luck to the player and it has no impact on salary cap BUT that benefactor must pay the same amount again to the NRL which goes into a kitty towards marketing junior rugby league in schools (like AFL's Auskick program) or is redistributed to all NRL clubs evenly at season end.

Stuff the idea of marquee players and treating them as precious little prats - if they are good enough to play Origin/Tests they get extra $$$ anyway. If they are high profile enough they'll get additional endorsements and their ego stroked through extra publicity

You'll still get the tools leaving to chase the $$$ because they think that they're worth even more than the Australian market can afford but if they break their contract then they are banned from playing NRL (& hopefully ESL) until that contract would've expired.

 

[Ribs]

Its probably been posted dozens of times already but my view:

No real change to salary cap $$$ but it goes solely towards playing the standard premiership.
If a player plays finals/gf final football the NRL pays a standard bonus amount and it has no impact on salary cap.
If a player plays Origin, the ARL pay and it has no impact on salary cap
If a player plays test matches, the ARL/NZRL/etc pay and it has no impact on salary cap
If a player plays for the same club for >5 years then 50% of their salary is exempt.
If a company wants to pay a player to market their wares in any way shape or form then good luck to the player and it has no impact on salary cap.
If a cashed up benefactor wants to pay a player additional $$$ for doing f**k all then good luck to the player and it has no impact on salary cap BUT that benefactor must pay the same amount again to the NRL which goes into a kitty towards marketing junior rugby league in schools (like AFL's Auskick program) or is redistributed to all NRL clubs evenly at season end.

Stuff the idea of marquee players and treating them as precious little prats - if they are good enough to play Origin/Tests they get extra $$$ anyway. If they are high profile enough they'll get additional endorsements and their ego stroked through extra publicity

You'll still get the tools leaving to chase the $$$ because they think that they're worth even more than the Australian market can afford but if they break their contract then they are banned from playing NRL (& hopefully ESL) until that contract would've expired.

I couldnt agree more but I think having financial reward for selection would make the selection process even more painfull.... imagine the uproar by players if the same squad is always picked?

I think the NRL should do what the Cricket does.

Have say 30 or 40 'contracted players' which represents the elite level, these guys have their salary topped up by the NRL, not the club.

 

[Eels Dude]

I couldnt agree more but I think having financial reward for selection would make the selection process even more painfull.... imagine the uproar by players if the same squad is always picked?

I think the NRL should do what the Cricket does.

Have say 30 or 40 'contracted players' which represents the elite level, these guys have their salary topped up by the NRL, not the club.

Who chooses the 30 or so players though?

It works in cricket because those players play a significant amount of test cricket, and it's decided by Cricket Australia rather than any competition.

 

[Ribs]

Who chooses the 30 or so players though?

It works in cricket because those players play a significant amount of test cricket, and it's decided by Cricket Australia rather than any competition.

The NRL decides, make it a panel of ex players and generally the 30 or so players would be the core of NSW and QLD teams anyway so they would also play a lot of additional football.

 

[Eels Dude]

The NRL decides, make it a panel of ex players and generally the 30 or so players would be the core of NSW and QLD teams anyway so they would also play a lot of additional football.

You'd have to include New Zealand players as well remember. Also there'd have to be a maximum per club otherwise it defeats the purpose of the cap.

 

[joondalup_giant]

i dont think personal sponsorship should be included in the salary cap, why should players who are marketable for differnt companys have there income stunted by the NRL.

 

[Eels Dude]

i dont think personal sponsorship should be included in the salary cap, why should players who are marketable for differnt companys have there income stunted by the NRL.

I don't think they are included unless that sponsor is affiliated with the club as well. Needs ammending a bit regardless though.

 

[Thomas]

I couldnt agree more but I think having financial reward for selection would make the selection process even more painfull.... imagine the uproar by players if the same squad is always picked?

I think the NRL should do what the Cricket does.

Have say 30 or 40 'contracted players' which represents the elite level, these guys have their salary topped up by the NRL, not the club.

The ARU does this. The maximum a S14 side can pay a player is $150K. The rest comes from third party payments and from the ARU.

The only downside is that fringe players who can't be bothered fighting it out to get a centralised contract will bugger off overseas. This has happened a fair bit in Australian RU.

It still won't fix anything. Regardless of a centralised contract etc and raising the salary cap....money talks. Players will still chase the dollar.

 

[ByRd]

I think the salary cap should keep increasing slowly each year but i agree that if players can get personal deals then they should be able to earn as much as they can, look at the NBA Lebron James deal with Nike is nearly worth 20 million a year, players should be able to maximize there worth but the salary cap should remain.

 

[Miller was a legend]

A player can have any amount of third party sponsorship he or his manager can negotiate. It has nothing to do with the cap, unless the club "guarantees" that payment. Gaznier is a prime example. He is upset because his "private" sponsorship was not honoured. That is not anything to do with the Dragons.

 

[CharlieF]

A player can have any amount of third party sponsorship he or his manager can negotiate. It has nothing to do with the cap, unless the club "guarantees" that payment. Gaznier is a prime example. He is upset because his "private" sponsorship was not honoured. That is not anything to do with the Dragons.

A club sponsor can seperatley sponsor SBW any amount they like?

 

[Tom Ace]

I'm under the impression that a player can be sponsored for any amount under a third party agreement as long as the sponsor is not affiliated with the club in any way?

Or is that incorrect?

 

[Hanscholo]

Does anyone else think that the ARU have more to be affraid of here than we do?