$120,000 minimum wage..

[fourplay]

Some of you are dead set idiots who are missing the whole point of the issue. You think because the avg. man doing an avg job gets 50k it means NRL players should to ?

Ok ill try help u understand... Do you think singers like Keith Urban should be getting only 50k ? since he only sings, I mean its so easy compared to laying bricks... "all he does is sing, he should be happy with 10 cents from every CD sold." WHERE do you think where the rest of the $ is going ? Its not going to disappear into thin air, it'll go to the producers and men in suits on the business side of things who love ripping artists off. The same principles can be applied to the NRL. If the players are generating hundreds of millions $, and say the average NRL salary was 50k, like some of you seem to want, the rest of the money is not just going to disappear, its going to be pocketed by people like News Ltd, and the people on the business side of things. What the players are complaining about is essentially the same as singers complaining about getting only 10c out of ever $20 cd sold.

IF the money is there to raise the cap then surely its fair the players get a bigger proportion of the income they are generating. They are NOT asking for funds that the game simply doesn't have as Lockyer has said. If the cap was $3.25 million, when the TV deal was peanuts and before the telstra sponsership, and then after the massive new deals the cap is only $4 million, it means the money is more than likely available to raise the cap but the NRL are choosing to rip the players off and direct the money elsewhere.

 

[NK Arsenal]

Teams should give each player around 80K aswell as fees for uni and stuff like that and extra pay for rep games. Fair enough isn't it?

 

[TGM]

If the money is there to do it then why not. If, however, doing so, adversely affects clubs ability to be able to afford (and compete) on an equal footing, or if money is diverted from grassroots development or anything else that is important for the games sustainability and future, then it should definately not be raised.

50k a year is a pretty good wage for a single, young bloke doing what is effectively an 'apprenticeship'. Most apprentices would kill for that sort of money. It is more then enough for a single 17-20 y/o to live off.

What many players are lacking, however, is the ability to manage their finances affectively. Many are also thin on the ground in the trade/skills department. There is no point giving them buckets of money only for them to piss it away and end up on the dole cue after their NRL career finishes. What is needed is enforced training and skills development for all NRL players. All courses should be funded by the NRL. They should also be given free access to financial advisors and consultants.

My fear with raising the cap is that it will create a disparity between the clubs based on their financial standing. Since the salary cap has been introduced the comp has been fairly even, creating an exciting and competitive league.

Another thing we can't lose sight of is grassroots development. More spending on players means less money for the future stability, and continued growth of League. As it stands much more money needs to be poured into development programmes - and IMO this should be the NRLs number one priority, before anything else is even given consideration.

Yes in theory I have no problems with increasing base minimum wage and/or the salary cap but only if it does not compromise grass roots development, or the ability for clubs to compete on a level playing field.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

serioulsy, 50K is enough. Maybe raise it to 80, but anything more is ridiculous

 

[fourplay]

serioulsy, 50K is enough. Maybe raise it to 80, but anything more is ridiculous

So was it only after you studied all the balance sheets and income statements of the NRL that you came to this conclusion ?

 

[hrundi99]

So was it only after you studied all the balance sheets and income statements of the NRL that you came to this conclusion ?

Have you studied all the balance sheets and income statements to help you form your opinion?

:crazy:

 

[Ice777]

I just can't get my head around the argument of "Well if the NRL have the money then they should pay the players more" I was always under the impression that an employees wage was set at around about what the award wage is and not how much their employers are worth.

For instance, Grollo is one of the biggest if not the biggest construction companys in Australia worth tens or hundreds of millions. Does that mean if an apprentice starts working for them he should get alot more money than the average apprentice who's boss hasn't got the same millions in the bank?

Should the girl working behind the perfume counter at Myer receive more money than anyone else in the same position at any other store just because the family that owns Myer are worth billions? Of course she shouldn't and nor should every player in the NRL who are effectively doing their apprenticeships earn $120k a year either.

If they're good enough and make it then they'll get their just rewards soon enough and if they aren't they'll also find that out soon enough as well and they'll have plenty of time to find a normal job. Just because the money is 'there' doesn't instantly mean it should go towards lining the players pockets any more than they are. Work out what they're worth and pay them that and not a cent more no matter how much the NRL have in their coffers.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

So was it only after you studied all the balance sheets and income statements of the NRL that you came to this conclusion ?

actually, as a matter of fact... i have done alot more research than a keyboard hero like you would have.

 

[ShineDog]

Mason has every right to express his opinions.
Best of luck .

NRL players are under paid in comparison to rival codes..it is about time they earned more coin.

 

[Ice777]

Mason has every right to express his opinions.
Best of luck .

NRL players are under paid in comparison to rival codes..it is about time they earned more coin.

Wouldn't happen to be a Dogs supporter would you? :roll:



and don't gine me that crap you'd say exactly the same thing if you didn't support them.

 

[ShineDog]

Wouldn't happen to be a Dogs supporter would you? :roll:



and don't gine me that crap you'd say exactly the same thing if you didn't support them.

Dogs fan / Maosn fan or not....I believe they should earn more coin.

 

[Ice777]

Dogs fan / Maosn fan or not....I believe they should earn more coin.

Why? The people who save lives should earn more coin. The people who teach our kids should earn more coin. Trying to build the game at the grass roots and keeping kids playing so the game has a healthy future should get more coin. Players that are already paid very well compared to the vast majority of jobs out there sure as sh*t don't deserve more coin.

If they don't thionk they're getting enough then they should step out into the real world and get a real job, then when they come back they'll see just how good they have it. These blokes are living the dream and they're still bitching they don't get paid enough. I only wish i was as hard done by as them.

 

[Nathan B]

I just can't get my head around the argument of "Well if the NRL have the money then they should pay the players more" I was always under the impression that an employees wage was set at around about what the award wage is and not how much their employers are worth.

For instance, Grollo is one of the biggest if not the biggest construction companys in Australia worth tens or hundreds of millions. Does that mean if an apprentice starts working for them he should get alot more money than the average apprentice who's boss hasn't got the same millions in the bank?

Should the girl working behind the perfume counter at Myer receive more money than anyone else in the same position at any other store just because the family that owns Myer are worth billions? Of course she shouldn't and nor should every player in the NRL who are effectively doing their apprenticeships earn $120k a year either.

If they're good enough and make it then they'll get their just rewards soon enough and if they aren't they'll also find that out soon enough as well and they'll have plenty of time to find a normal job. Just because the money is 'there' doesn't instantly mean it should go towards lining the players pockets any more than they are. Work out what they're worth and pay them that and not a cent more no matter how much the NRL have in their coffers.

Most ridiculous post ever.

Are you seriously comparing the governing body of a sporting code to a business that's out to make a profit for its owners/shareholders?

The money the NRL makes is supposed to go to the players, employees of the NRL and to the promotion of the game. It's not supposed to line the pockets of shareholders (despite the fact that it currently does).

What's next... Welcome to the 2011 Coca-Cola NRL competition. What's that? Oh no, it's not the Coca-Cola sponsored NRL competition. It's the Coca-Cola owned NRL competition. Salary cap reset at $2 million because any higher and our shareholders get a bit grumpy. You don't want us asked the tough questions at the AGM, do you?

Give me a break.

 

[International RL]

Most ridiculous post ever.

Are you seriously comparing the governing body of a sporting code to a business that's out to make a profit for its owners/shareholders?

The money the NRL makes is supposed to go to the players, employees of the NRL and to the promotion of the game. It's not supposed to line the pockets of shareholders (despite the fact that it currently does).

What's next... Welcome to the 2011 Coca-Cola NRL competition. What's that? Oh no, it's not the Coca-Cola sponsored NRL competition. It's the Coca-Cola owned NRL competition. Salary cap reset at $2 million because any higher and our shareholders get a bit grumpy. You don't want us asked the tough questions at the AGM, do you?

Give me a break.

I actually think he has a point to a degree.

The shareholders if you like are us, the paying spectator. The NRL has an obligation to ensure that the money is used to foster the development and growth of the code and ensure that high standards are maintained in the face of the lingering threats from rivals.

There is no mandate that this money should be returned to the players. Yes they deserve to be compensated. But 120k for a fringe first grader is utter bullsh*t. They don't deserve that kind of money. That is money that should be spent on country areas, junior players and growth in non traditional areas. Not so some fringe first grader can have a flashy car.

50k is plenty enough for them to get established. If they're any good they will be duly rewarded in the later stages of their careers. If they aren't, well bad luck. Go into the labour force with everyone else. Yes they train and play hard, but they have HEAPS of time on their hands. They can get an education or some sort of skill at the same time. I happen to know some first graders that go to my uni part time.

 

[Nathan B]

I actually think he has a point to a degree.

The shareholders if you like are us, the paying spectator. The NRL has an obligation to ensure that the money is used to foster the development and growth of the code and ensure that high standards are maintained in the face of the lingering threats from rivals.

There is no mandate that this money should be returned to the players. Yes they deserve to be compensated. But 120k for a fringe first grader is utter bullsh*t. They don't deserve that kind of money. That is money that should be spent on country areas, junior players and growth in non traditional areas. Not so some fringe first grader can have a flashy car.

50k is plenty enough for them to get established. If they're any good they will be duly rewarded in the later stages of their careers. If they aren't, well bad luck. Go into the labour force with everyone else. Yes they train and play hard, but they have HEAPS of time on their hands. They can get an education or some sort of skill at the same time. I happen to know some first graders that go to my uni part time.

I haven't received a cent out of rugby league. So, no, we're not the equivalent of the shareholders of companies.

What do the players deserve? As I've said, I don't know? I don't have the figures. But I object to fixed, arbitrary figures pulled out of peoples arses because that's what nurse Betty or bricklayer Harry is earning. They deserve a fixed percentage of the game's revenue. And if that jumps to hundreds of millions a year, then guess what? We're going to be supporting 17 multi-millionaires on the field. Just like fans of the EPL, NBA, NFL, and MLB (just to name a few) do all around the world.

 

[macavity]

heres an idea

if they want more $$ perhaps instead of a strike hurting the fans that put millions into the game, they boycott news ltd and hurt the org. taking millions out of the game.

just a thought.

 

[International RL]

I haven't received a cent out of rugby league. So, no, we're not the equivalent of the shareholders of companies.

What do the players deserve? As I've said, I don't know? I don't have the figures. But I object to fixed, arbitrary figures pulled out of peoples arses because that's what nurse Betty or bricklayer Harry is earning. They deserve a fixed percentage of the game's revenue. And if that jumps to hundreds of millions a year, then guess what? We're going to be supporting 17 multi-millionaires on the field. Just like fans of the EPL, NBA, NFL, and MLB (just to name a few) do all around the world.

Not all companies pay out a dividend. There is retained earnings that is used to reinvest in the company. Regardless, I'm not going to continue on with this analogy.

I'm not begruding the players money at all. I don't think anyone is. But this bullsh*t of 'entitlement', is crap. At the end of the day we the paying fans, earning far less than these guys, pay to watch and wear the jerseys etc. This creates revenue for the code. This pays the players their salaries. Pure and simple.

The players owe, us, the fans. As part of that debt they need to ensure the future viability of the code and that is to hold off the threats of others codes who are pumping millions of dollars into our nursuries. Furthermore they have a certain debt to the game itself, which has given it so much. When they were kids playing in the streets and watching their boyhood heroes, it wasn;t about the cash then. Then all of a sudden its 'we are the product, we deserve X dollars, we'll strike'.

Like i said, i don't begrudge them the cash, they're super athletes and I love the entertainment value, but for god sake can we have some perspective here?

i do have an issue with the sudden inflation of fringe player salaries when there is no guarantee they will do well. Top players deserve whatever they can get. Guys on the fringes don't deserve 3 figure salaries - at this point.

How can you justify it? 120k for some nuffy top 25 player, so he can buy himself a nice holden SS and then piss off and play country footy in 2 years when he is inevitably cut. What a waste of resources.

You have to remember that the NRL isn't flush with cash. There are massive areas that need money. The AFL has a deadset scrooge mcduck money bin of cash, and we need to combat it. We don't need some fringe nrl player having his wage nearly tripled, because willie says he trains hard.

Plus i think willies concerns about the fringe players is disingenous. Any lift in the salary cap will see most of the money directed to the top end. It's the nature of the beast. If Willie was really fair dinkum, he would call for a raise in low end wages to 120k with the salary cap remaining constant. Then instead of taking money out of the pockets of junior clubs, country areas and developing markets, it would be taking it out of his.

Put your wallet where your mouth is Willie.

 

[ToiletDuck]

Its pathetic anyway. Who gives a f**k how hard they train? If you train hard and dont make it, that's life. The cream will rise to the top in ANY field. Same reason the mail room clerk doesnt get paid as much as the CEO. And the excuse that they'll only be in the game for 10 years is bullsh*t. They can take steps to prepare themselves for life after football, there are plenty of jobs out there (none of which have a 120K minimum salary). It's not like theyre going to be unemployed the rest of their life.

 

[TGM]

Plus i think willies concerns about the fringe players is disingenous. Any lift in the salary cap will see most of the money directed to the top end. It's the nature of the beast. If Willie was really fair dinkum, he would call for a raise in low end wages to 120k with the salary cap remaining constant. Then instead of taking money out of the pockets of junior clubs, country areas and developing markets, it would be taking it out of his.

Put your wallet where your mouth is Willie.

Well said, and I agree whole heartedly. Willie isn't willing to speak to the RLPA, even though they have tried to contact him.

This reeks of a publicity stunt at best, and a self fulfilling agenda at worst. If Mason was truely serious about this then he would have contacted their union, especially after they extended an invitation.

The guy just wants to line his own pockets. As mentioned by International RL above, I wonder what his response would be if they increased the minimum wage but left the salary cap intact? I don't think it would be favourable, afterall instead of the money coming out of sustaining the NRL, the dosh would be coming out of his own wallet. I suspect he wouldn't be so keen on the idea then.

 

[johns_reds]

ok, ive read a lot that the players deserve it blah blah blah we can afford it blah blah blah..
lets do the maths..

Telstra deal $90 million for 6 years which equals 15 million a season
Tv rights i believe are 13 million from nine and 35 million from fox per season (i could be wrong, couldn't find anything substantial?)

That means the NRL makes 63 million a season in those 3 deals alone.

Now i believe we need to put aside say 10 million per seasion for grass roots

Which now leaves us with 53 million a season

now to run the nrl will cost another 10 million per season (don't forget referees, administration, lawyer fees etc.)

now you have say 43 million for 16 clubs, which means they get about 2.7 million each.

i don't know how some clubs who operate at a lost can afford the current salary cap, let alone an increase.

now my figures may be wrong so please correct me if they are, but i think mason either hasn't done any sums to back his agenda or maybe he has done the sums but not being the bright spark that he is, has miscalculated.