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!

Question for our more experienced forum members.

True_Believer

Juniors
Messages
1,691
I think the Ben Hunt comparison goes to the heart of this thread. If you take the talk of his salary, whatever it may be, out of the equation, how does he stack up as a first grade halfback? Some days he's amongst the best in the NRL, others he really struggles. Personally I'm glad he's our half, just wish he could get past those personal demons and play his best on a more consistent basis.

Agree Walpole. I've seen him play some outstanding games - both for us and for the Broncs. He just needs to find consistency and have a consistent partner. Look at the first half of 2018 with Gaz. Was a great combo until Gaz got injured. Then it was all downhill.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,131
Given that league broke away from union over money, I’d say it’s been about the money since day dot...
Broken time payments are a little different to getting paid full time. While the game may have turned professional, the money earned was very little in real terms.

Plus, to say it was only about money isn't telling the full story IMO, it was much more about the class divide that existed in Britain during the 1800s. At the centre of this was the very posh Rugby school in the lower English midlands.

People think that the first big schism in football happened when the Rugby Football Union and Northern Union (Rugby League) spilt into two camps in 1895. In fact, the first schism was when Rugby Football left the newly established Football Association in the 1860s, taking a few like-minded social clubs with them. The two camps fought over professionalism, sure. But it was also about class attitudes.

It was also about the rules. in particular the practice of 'hacking'. Hacking sometimes resulted in players being kicked to death. For some reason there were people who didn't like this, but the old rugbeians insisted it turned boys into men. Dare I say, bring back the hack!

The Rugby Football Union didn't come into existence until 1872, years after the Football Association - aka soccer. Of course the rules changed dramatically, they went from being very similar games to completely different games in the years that followed.

When did Rugby Football become professional? Well yes, officially it was in 1895. That is, when the northerners decided they'd had enough of dealing with the upper class of England who were trying to drive them out of the game. Their old Rugby Union counterparts took another 100 years before they followed suit and officially became professional.... BUT to say RU weren't paying their players prior to this is incorrect. Fact is (since the 1800s), they were already turning a blind eye to 'boot money' for their southern players - ie money under the table (originally it was coins and notes secretly stuffed in the boots of players after the game). But they were not giving the same latitude to the Northern English or Welsh players... hence, it being more about class than money.

In the early 20th Century, when the Northern Union was marching south and gaining more clubs, the old rugbeians started shitting their pants. Professional Rugby League was gaining interest in Leicester and Coventry, right on the doorstep of Rugby School itself. RL was also becoming popular amongst the miners in Wales. RU finally relented in full and decided unanimously to turn a blind eye to boot money for the players in Wales and the Midlands. This act of double standards was all RU could do to stop RL taking over. RU players receiving secret payments or 'favours' remained standard practice until the late 20th century.

Sorry for the long post, but it would be a pretty boring world if it was only about money.

@SBD82 To answer the OP, players receiving big money is a relatively new thing.

In the 1960s and 1970s, it was said if a player could leave the game with a house to live in, then it was a successful career. You only have to look at some of the greats from that era, not all became financially well off.

RL players, even successful players, were not rich.

Norm Provan once declined to go on a Kangaroo tour so he could spend time setting up his business and his family's future. And first grade players used to be paid win bonuses - maybe there's something to be said for bringing that back. And on at least one occasion (as was told to me) senior players colluded in order to pick the first try scorers, just so they could win the doubles and earn themselves a carton of beer - as was the prize in those days. Funny story if true, and I have no reason doubt the story teller.

I remember when we started seeing more games on TV. Players' day jobs were given as they ran onto the field. I recall a number of them were cellar men, suggesting they worked for the club. A few of them were garbos, which we were told helped to keep them fit. I vaguely remember seeing a very young Nathan Brown working behind the bar at St George Leagues Club, although he didn't stay there for long.

One day, Martin Offiah ran on the field and the TV had him listed as a 'Professional Rugby League Player'. Now this was something of a novelty.

So from the names above, you can see it wasn't until the 1990s that players started going full time. Some fans even thought it was a bad thing for a player to be paid more than his team mates, thinking it would lead to low morale. But that argument didn't last long.

The old sports writers rarely wrote about a players earnings because there wasn't much to report. They wrote more about the game and the players' abilities on the field. Nowadays, it does seem to be all about money, and.modern sports writers are a product of this. Sport in general has seen enormous growth since the 1990s. And the elite level in any sporting endeavour has become a business first, sport second.

To put things in perspective, look at how the NRLW is reported on. The sports writers don't talk very much at all about players' paypackets because they are earning very little when compared to the men. Sure, they will write about the players and look for a human interest angle, but after that they tend to focus on the actual game. That's right, they actually do a match report... as weird as that may sound.
 

BLM01

First Grade
Messages
8,938
I believe he's already come out once and denied the price tag being sprouted by the media.
Yeh that was in Year 1 or before he arrived.
Why dont the club who spruik like Mary so called take care and protect his players from the media come out and deny it. Dont have to say what the figure is just say it is not true.
It would take a lot of heat from external sources off him because they still run with it.
Others and our club might say who cares what external sources and these leeches say.
It sounds like to me Ben and his family obviously do and have had issues with the slander from social media.
Where is the club looking out for his welfare. Squashing salary rumours at least and getting main journo land to run with that may help me thinks..unless it is true and if so our club has lost the plot.
 

jak

Bench
Messages
3,060
Broken time payments are a little different to getting paid full time. While the game may have turned professional, the money earned was very little in real terms.

Plus, to say it was only about money isn't telling the full story IMO, it was much more about the class divide that existed in Britain during the 1800s. At the centre of this was the very posh Rugby school in the lower English midlands.

People think that the first big schism in football happened when the Rugby Football Union and Northern Union (Rugby League) spilt into two camps in 1895. In fact, the first schism was when Rugby Football left the newly established Football Association in the 1860s, taking a few like-minded social clubs with them. The two camps fought over professionalism, sure. But it was also about class attitudes.

It was also about the rules. in particular the practice of 'hacking'. Hacking sometimes resulted in players being kicked to death. For some reason there were people who didn't like this, but the old rugbeians insisted it turned boys into men. Dare I say, bring back the hack!

The Rugby Football Union didn't come into existence until 1872, years after the Football Association - aka soccer. Of course the rules changed dramatically, they went from being very similar games to completely different games in the years that followed.

When did Rugby Football become professional? Well yes, officially it was in 1895. That is, when the northerners decided they'd had enough of dealing with the upper class of England who were trying to drive them out of the game. Their old Rugby Union counterparts took another 100 years before they followed suit and officially became professional.... BUT to say RU weren't paying their players prior to this is incorrect. Fact is (since the 1800s), they were already turning a blind eye to 'boot money' for their southern players - ie money under the table (originally it was coins and notes secretly stuffed in the boots of players after the game). But they were not giving the same latitude to the Northern English or Welsh players... hence, it being more about class than money.

In the early 20th Century, when the Northern Union was marching south and gaining more clubs, the old rugbeians started shitting their pants. Professional Rugby League was gaining interest in Leicester and Coventry, right on the doorstep of Rugby School itself. RL was also becoming popular amongst the miners in Wales. RU finally relented in full and decided unanimously to turn a blind eye to boot money for the players in Wales and the Midlands. This act of double standards was all RU could do to stop RL taking over. RU players receiving secret payments or 'favours' remained standard practice until the late 20th century.

Sorry for the long post, but it would be a pretty boring world if it was only about money.

@SBD82 To answer the OP, players receiving big money is a relatively new thing.

In the 1960s and 1970s, it was said if a player could leave the game with a house to live in, then it was a successful career. You only have to look at some of the greats from that era, not all became financially well off.

RL players, even successful players, were not rich.

Norm Provan once declined to go on a Kangaroo tour so he could spend time setting up his business and his family's future. And first grade players used to be paid win bonuses - maybe there's something to be said for bringing that back. And on at least one occasion (as was told to me) senior players colluded in order to pick the first try scorers, just so they could win the doubles and earn themselves a carton of beer - as was the prize in those days. Funny story if true, and I have no reason doubt the story teller.

I remember when we started seeing more games on TV. Players' day jobs were given as they ran onto the field. I recall a number of them were cellar men, suggesting they worked for the club. A few of them were garbos, which we were told helped to keep them fit. I vaguely remember seeing a very young Nathan Brown working behind the bar at St George Leagues Club, although he didn't stay there for long.

One day, Martin Offiah ran on the field and the TV had him listed as a 'Professional Rugby League Player'. Now this was something of a novelty.

So from the names above, you can see it wasn't until the 1990s that players started going full time. Some fans even thought it was a bad thing for a player to be paid more than his team mates, thinking it would lead to low morale. But that argument didn't last long.

The old sports writers rarely wrote about a players earnings because there wasn't much to report. They wrote more about the game and the players' abilities on the field. Nowadays, it does seem to be all about money, and.modern sports writers are a product of this. Sport in general has seen enormous growth since the 1990s. And the elite level in any sporting endeavour has become a business first, sport second.

To put things in perspective, look at how the NRLW is reported on. The sports writers don't talk very much at all about players' paypackets because they are earning very little when compared to the men. Sure, they will write about the players and look for a human interest angle, but after that they tend to focus on the actual game. That's right, they actually do a match report... as weird as that may sound.
great post mate, for me your last two paragraphs says it all
 

_Johnsy

Referee
Messages
27,270
I was raised to believe that talking about your income was a faux pas, and discussing someone else’s was rude. That seems to have changed over the years,

I think this coincides with social media and people honestly putting a huge emphasis on how they are perceived and what they deem important/desirable indicators to those they interact with on SM.

Coupled with the above, so many people are only concerned about the mighty $$, and I for one think an overt show of wealth is tacky, and speaks volumes about the fabric of that person. I'd prefer people to know SFA about me when viewed from the"outside".

Maybe I'm just getting old and losing touch with today's society.
 

Slackboy72

Coach
Messages
11,939
Do you people not remember the salary cap coming in in 1990? The rugby unions dropping amateur status in 1995? The super league war? The post 2003 RWC spending raids? The end of News Ltds last bid rights?
It's been awhile since people haven't concerned themselves with the dollar value of player contracts. Not ancient history but it has been a generation now.
If it's diminished your enjoyment of professional sport then maybe you should take up watching something else like lawn bowls.
 

muzby

Village Idiot
Staff member
Messages
45,708
If it's diminished your enjoyment of professional sport then maybe you should take up watching something else like lawn bowls.
That sport has been suffering the same fate ever since Boggera Bowling Club started flashing the cash around..
 

SEAT 1A

Bench
Messages
3,089
Question 1. Do you remember whether this was always the case in journalism to some degree? Do you remember there being discussion about the contract value of players in the pre-salary cap era?

Two that comes to mind.

Michael O'conner signing with Manly. In full Great Thunberg mode, I thought "How dare you" forgetting he had to have a job in those days.

Gordon Tallis signing with BNE. Had no issue with him leaving however, sitting out year was wrong. Saying that, how things have changed for the club and in general player contracts.

Question 2. Do you think this has changed the way that we as fans talk about players? ie instead of focusing on the football value of a player and what they bring to the team, it becomes about their skill vs $ value? James Graham is the first example that springs to mind.

If a club spends big money ie around one million dollars, I think fans expect them to win most of the regular season games and take the team deep into the finals on contract value alone.

I’m wondering whether the focus on $ detracts from our enjoyment of the game. Interested in your thoughts.[/USER][/QUOTE]

[B][COLOR=#000000]The dollars the players make doesn't detract my enjoyment of the game and I'm happy for the players to make as much money as they can.[/COLOR][/B]

[COLOR=#000000][B]In most jobs, a pay rise equates to extra productivity and that is reflexed on the players schedules and in the modern game, I don't think the players can do much more. [/B][/COLOR]
 
Top