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!

Sam Burgess returns to South Sydney

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,800
TPA's are much more based around your clubs directors links with the business community than how many times your team is on FTA. some have really strong connections and can leverage these to get players deals, others cant. I'd prefer to see a centralised TPA the NRl manages in terms of players images being used, it is silly to have our highest profile players advertising on TV but cant wear there clubs kit or mention NRL, that is missed brand marketing opportunity. The more high profile players are in society the more they will be able to earn in TPA, and the less hopefully they will engage in dumb behaviour off the field that will damage that earning potential.

One way of regulating it is that clubs have to prove how the players image or time is being used by the business so it isn't just a case of a suitcase full of cash and I get a corporate box at the games.

I suspect it is legalised cap cheating at a massive level and the NRL don't want to open pandoras box.
 

bfoord

Juniors
Messages
433
Rules are that a club can't guarantee a Third Party Agreement. However.. what's stopping the Third Party from only providing the money if the player signs for "x club". Is that within the rules? Can't really tell the third party what they can and can't do with their money. It's not being guaranteed by the club, it's being guaranteed by the third party. I would suspect that is the loophole all clubs that have third party agreements in place are using

If the third party provides the money only if the player signs for club x ... Then that money needs to be included under the salary cap.

Basically for TPAs to be cap exempt then the following needs to occur:

1. Can not be a club sponsor
2. Club can not arrange said sponsorships
3. Club can not guarantee payments from sponsor to player
4. Can not tie a player to a club.

I think there might be a few more conditions
 
Messages
545
TPA's are much more based around your clubs directors links with the business community than how many times your team is on FTA. some have really strong connections and can leverage these to get players deals, others cant. I'd prefer to see a centralised TPA the NRl manages in terms of players images being used, it is silly to have our highest profile players advertising on TV but cant wear there clubs kit or mention NRL, that is missed brand marketing opportunity. The more high profile players are in society the more they will be able to earn in TPA, and the less hopefully they will engage in dumb behaviour off the field that will damage that earning potential.

One way of regulating it is that clubs have to prove how the players image or time is being used by the business so it isn't just a case of a suitcase full of cash and I get a corporate box at the games.

I suspect it is legalised cap cheating at a massive level and the NRL don't want to open pandoras box.[/QUOTE]

You have hit the nail on the head. When I was living in Queensland and Bruno Cullen was running the Broncos he basically said on radio one day that all of his squad was on TPA's with many of the more high profile players on multiple ones. He was amazed the Sydney Clubs didn't do the same.

Is it really a fair salary cap when a side can pay their players about 1-3 million above the cap because of their access to TPA's?

The problem is clubs like the Tigers pay massive money to keep junior players because other clubs are trying to poach the best ones and have the advantage of TPA's. The Tigers end up with the salary cap problems because they pay their juniors top dollar to keep them and end up with a weaker squad as they don't have the same access to TPA's.

Maybe a fair solution is for teams with more the 10 local juniors in their top 25 squad is to give the a Salary Cap extension or concession of the equivalent of $1-2 million in cap space, would allow them of compete with the teams with large access to TPA's.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,800
Thing is Tiger you have to ask why don't Wests have access to TPA's? if the board make up doesn't have connections to the business world maybe they need to change board members? Seems TPA are here to stay and going to become increasingly dominant in salary attraction so clubs had better find ways to make it happen or they will fall behind.

re your jnr argument, some would argue why should clubs who happen to be in geographically popular areas for RL or who have large pokie dens funding Jnr RL have that advantage? I'd agree from SG ball or U20's but anything below that age is pokie machine funding by and large.
 

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
What happened to total TPAs per club limited to around $250,000 per club per year. Now it just become a total rort, where the corporates keep the Eastern Suburb and North Shorey clubs in the mix by bypassing the salary cap (throw in Brisbane, Melbourne into that mix)
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,963
If you limit or stop TPA's, you then limit a player from genuinely taking advantage of their profile for financial reward.
 

rabbitohs95

Bench
Messages
4,711
Wait so TPA's aren't capped? I thought it was $500,000. They really need to be more clear about it, so the fans understand what's going on.
 
Messages
4,370
TPA's should be capped at something like 30% of whatever your paying the player on the cap.

Or perhaps even having a certain amount, say $1-2 million and that is the total TPA you can spend over the entire squad.
 

RWB

Bench
Messages
2,814
The lack of knowledge around how TPA's actually work means there's a lot of ignorant theories about how clubs are getting a huge leg up floating around.

NRL clubs are allowed to arrange up to 600k of third party payments (Aka Marquee play allowance). Not all clubs can fully utilise the 600k 'Marquee allowance' which is what some people have an issue with.

Players are then allowed to arrange as many third party contracts or payments they like but can't do so using any intellectual property of the NRL or club they play for and these deals can't be done with anyone/corportaion who's connected to the club they play for in any way nor can it be arranged by the club. It's essentially a second job & these are what are uncapped.

It's to protect a player like SBW who has million dollar deals with Gatorade & Addidas. People suggesting the NRL should limit or abolish Third Party contracts like that are completely devoid of proportion & reality. The players in these instances are selling their intellectual property, if taken to court the NRL wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
 
Last edited:

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
The lack of knowledge around how TPA's actually work means there's a lot of ignorant theories about how clubs are getting a huge leg up floating around.

NRL clubs are allowed to arrange up to 600k of third party payments (Aka Marquee play allowance). Not all clubs can fully utilise the 600k 'Marquee allowance' which is what some people have an issue with.

Players are then allowed to arrange as many third party contracts or payments they like but can't do so using any intellectual property of the NRL or club they play for and these deals can't be done with anyone/corportaion who's connected to the club they play for in any way nor can it be arranged by the club. It's essentially a second job & these are what are uncapped.

It's to protect a player like SBW who has million dollar deals with Gatorade & Addidas. People suggesting the NRL should limit or abolish Third Party contracts like that are completely devoid of proportion & reality. The players in these instances are selling their intellectual property, if taken to court the NRL wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

So are you saying that clubs, chairmen and/or owners are totally hands off with the signing or resigning of players. Now who is not living in the real world, seriously.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,800
We have seen TPA's fall over and players leave clubs because of it so it is highly unlikely there isnt some connection somewhere along the line for majority I'd suggest. Like I said if the NRL managed all TPA's and took it away from the clubs then it would solve the issue, but then players would lose income and be more likely to move to other codes so a bit of a no win for the NRL. Also some argument taht it compensates some clubs who have the advantage of being from an affluent area but with limited jnr catchments like Melbourne, Roosters etc. If your club isnt taking advantage then the board needs to be questioned why.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,800
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.

What about money paid from other people or companies?
If a player is receiving money from any person as a way of inducing him to play for the club, then that money will be included in the Salary Cap.
Income that a player earns from parties not related to his club is generally not included in the Salary Cap, however, the details of the agreement must be advised to the club by the player.
The club must then get approval for the agreement from the Salary Cap Auditor in order for the remuneration to be excluded.
In 2006, the NRL also introduced an allowance for players who enter into Third Party Agreements with club sponsors, referred to as Marquee Player Agreements. In 2014, the Top 25 players are allowed to earn up to a maximum $600,000 in Marquee Player Agreements but the total payments under these agreements must not exceed $600,000 per club, otherwise any excess amounts are included in the salary cap.
Players are also able to enter into agreements with game sponsors, referred to as Sponsor Leveraging Agreements. There is no maximum amount and they are excluded from the salary cap.

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



Inside the shady world of third-party agreements
In NRL circles, it's called the "shadow market", a secretive exchange of money between player and sponsor which is outside a club's salary cap. Officially, these payments are called "unregistered third-party agreements," an arrangement between a player manager, an NRL club and a benevolent supporter of the club.
They are distinct from registered third-party deals whereby a sponsor, with no direct association with a club, agrees to pay a player for promotions in a deal exclusive of the club but ultimately registered with the NRL.


NRL club chief executives were told at a recent meeting that the total of all registered third-party deals equals only 5 per cent of the salary cap. That is, with a cap of approximately $7m and 16 clubs, the official third-party market totals just $5.6m.
Most club bosses expected it to be twice that, judging from the monies asked for by player managers. Agents will always exaggerate the offers from rival clubs to bid up their client's asking price but the size of the offers circulating indicate the TPA market is north of $5.6m. Clandestine TPAs may explain why the turnover at some of the rich clubs is so low.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...agreements-20150712-giaex4.html#ixzz3r0MM9sVf
 
Last edited:

bfoord

Juniors
Messages
433
So are you saying that clubs, chairmen and/or owners are totally hands off with the signing or resigning of players. Now who is not living in the real world, seriously.

That's an enforcement issue ... Not a rule issue.

The rules are in place to stop that happening, if the NRL aren't enforcing them, then thats their problem. They don't need to change the rules... They just need to enforce them.
 

RWB

Bench
Messages
2,814
So are you saying that clubs, chairmen and/or owners are totally hands off with the signing or resigning of players. Now who is not living in the real world, seriously.

I think there's the potential for it to happen, but I don't think it's as big as you want to make it out to be.

Reality is in the current climate if clubs had companies lined up ready to donate large sums of money they'd be taken on as sponsors.

Like I said your argument lacks proportion and reeks of insecurity.
 
Top