2018 salary cap

[Vee]

The NRL does not give a flying f**k about what the consumer thinks. Only that you keep tuning in or going to games, buying all their merchandise.

Really?

 

[Nice Beaver]

Talk about missing the point. My point was that regardless whether one group of clubs want it higher, and another group wants it lower, the NRL are in no position to set any salary cap level as it is part of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As the CBA is not finalised, the NRL are in no position to be able to say what it will be as they are only one party to the negotiations, the other being the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA). It won't matter diddly what the clubs and the NRL want if the RLPA do not agree.

Thanks. I get your point.

Seems that a few clubs are very keen to have this non-existent cap level raised in a hurry.

If there is no realistic cap level then they should have nothing to worry about.

I think this cap must be VERY close to being set and the cap number known. Hence a few nervous clubs calling meetings to have levels raised when its released.

So yes, I understand your point.

 

[adamkungl]

Not fussed either way.

I agree with Lambretta - we might like a higher cap because we're capable of spending more, but I don't really see how we could be in serious trouble if it is set at the lower bar. We've shed a lot more talent than we've gained for next year, and Politis doesn't run the joint with Hasler's calculator, despite what people think.

I'd be pretty disappointed in the club if we are actually in any danger.

 

[simmo05]

Really?

Haha you got me, they dont give a f**k if you turn up either!

 

[AJB1102]

Not fussed either way.

I agree with Lambretta - we might like a higher cap because we're capable of spending more, but I don't really see how we could be in serious trouble if it is set at the lower bar. We've shed a lot more talent than we've gained for next year, and Politis doesn't run the joint with Hasler's calculator, despite what people think.

I'd be pretty disappointed in the club if we are actually in any danger.

Doesn't the NRL dole out 100% of the cap now? So everyone would be capable of spending whatever the cap ends up being.

Reaching the cap limit shouldn't be a problem. Getting back below it is obviously not a task anyone will want to have to perform.

I can't see too many having issues, no one has really had some massive overhaul of their roster and I think most apart from Bulldogs and Des have learned that massively back-ended contracts will get you in more strife than they're worth.

 

[adamkungl]

Doesn't the NRL dole out 100% of the cap now? So everyone would be capable of spending whatever the cap ends up being.

Fair point

 

[Jono Russell]

It has something to do with the poorer clubs wanting more of the Club grant to spend on other club costs.

So say the NRL hand out $13m to each club and the cap is set at $9m they clubs have $4m left to help with other expenses.

Hence why some clubs want the cap lower to leave them with a larger amount after the cap is sorted.

 

[adamkungl]

It has something to do with the poorer clubs wanting more of the Club grant to spend on other club costs.

So say the NRL hand out $13m to each club and the cap is set at $9m they clubs have $4m left to help with other expenses.

Hence why some clubs want the cap lower to leave them with a larger amount after the cap is sorted.

Not quite - the NRL grant has been set at 130% of the cap, hasn't it. A stupid thing to promise by John Grant but he made his bed so now the NRL lies in it. So a higher cap means a higher club grant.

So it's likely that the clubs pro-higher cap see a roster advantage in it based on some decisions they've already made. That doesn't necessarily mean they've overspent. It might mean that, it might mean they are counting on it being higher to finalise their roster, it might mean they have some deals waiting in the wings dependant on a higher cap. Who knows.

 

[Jono Russell]

Not quite - the NRL grant has been set at 130% of the cap, hasn't it. A stupid thing to promise by John Grant but he made his bed so now the NRL lies in it. So a higher cap means a higher club grant.

So it's likely that the clubs pro-higher cap see a roster advantage in it based on some decisions they've already made. That doesn't necessarily mean they've overspent. It might mean that, it might mean they are counting on it being higher to finalise their roster, it might mean they have some deals waiting in the wings dependant on a higher cap. Who knows.

Ahh ok. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[Perth Red]

Its in the clubs interests for the cap to be as high as possible. Only the NRL could create a situation where they managed to offer something that put the clubs and the RLPA on the same side of the negotiations!

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Not fussed either way.

I agree with Lambretta - we might like a higher cap because we're capable of spending more, but I don't really see how we could be in serious trouble if it is set at the lower bar. We've shed a lot more talent than we've gained for next year, and Politis doesn't run the joint with Hasler's calculator, despite what people think.

I'd be pretty disappointed in the club if we are actually in any danger.

This 100%.. I don't think the Roosters are at any risk regardless of whether it is 9.3m or 9.6m or whatever. I think they would like to spend more if they could. What people need to understand is that all clubs have a vested interested to do what is best for them, they would be negligent if they did not. Likewise it is up to the NRL to make the best decisions for all, whatever that may be. It is simple.

Let's not pretend though that clubs wanting a smaller cap are not acting in self interest also. Some are hoping to pick up players from the likes of the Bulldogs for unders, fair enough too. Some cannot afford more and some like the Bronco's who can pay players enormous third party deals would prefer a lower cap so they can increase the uneven playing field. They are better off having an 8m cap, so they can pay 8m on the cap and 4m off it, than having a 10m cap and paying 4m above it. It allows the total wages bill subsidized by third parties being a higher proportion of total payments.

 

[perverse]

This is a pretty remarkable mess that I feel only the NRL could get itself into. As others have said, the CBA should be nutted out between the NRL and the RLPA. This is something that should have been concluded 6-12 months ago, thus avoiding the mess altogether.

Can someone even explain the mechanics of why the clubs themselves aren't involved in the negotiation of the salary cap at all? Maybe if they were involved in the process, they would have taken a bit more ownership over their current position, rather than trying to strong-arm their own opinions into the process...

ahh f**k it...

Why the f**k is this so hard in Rugby League?

 

[siv]

According to Brown every club was told to work to a cap of $9.1mill. If some clubs have ignored this it isn't the NRL's problem.

Until the clubs act as a block a veto any proposed salary cap changes that dont suit them

Dont know WHY clubs have any say in the process

That is what the ARLC is setup to do and work independantly

We have regressed back to something worse than the old News Ltd elephant road blocking all change

 

[siv]

This - at the very least should the NRL cave in.

Clubs who are over the amount they were told to stay under should be punished - severely. Start the season with minus points.

NRL should simply not register the player - problem solved

A contract is not a contract until its registered by the NRL

NOW if the NRL broke its own rules and registers players beyond the value of $9.1 mil salary cap - then thats a different issue

 

[siv]

It has something to do with the poorer clubs wanting more of the Club grant to spend on other club costs.

So say the NRL hand out $13m to each club and the cap is set at $9m they clubs have $4m left to help with other expenses.

Hence why some clubs want the cap lower to leave them with a larger amount after the cap is sorted.

Lets understand that the cap is jumping 25-30% in 2018

A stupid incremental amount in one year

Should have been closer to 7.8 mil or 10%

 

[simmo05]

The clubs should have zero say in the cap. The nrl says the cap is this for the year, and the clubs abide. Is there a more useless, gutless sports administration in the country, possibly the world?? Everything they do is so bloody inept.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Thanks. I get your point.

Seems that a few clubs are very keen to have this non-existent cap level raised in a hurry.

If there is no realistic cap level then they should have nothing to worry about.

I think this cap must be VERY close to being set and the cap number known. Hence a few nervous clubs calling meetings to have levels raised when its released.

So yes, I understand your point.

That's a bit blunt.

 

[Nice Beaver]

Let's not pretend though that clubs wanting a smaller cap are not acting in self interest also. Some are hoping to pick up players from the likes of the Bulldogs for unders, fair enough too. Some cannot afford more and some like the Bronco's who can pay players enormous third party deals would prefer a lower cap so they can increase the uneven playing field. They are better off having an 8m cap, so they can pay 8m on the cap and 4m off it, than having a 10m cap and paying 4m above it. It allows the total wages bill subsidized by third parties being a higher proportion of total payments.

Sorry, but what???

The clubs that have followed the directive are not the ones who are gaining anything here.

Had everyone followed the "f*ck you" attitude of a few, then clubs who are on or under the cap would have gone to market for players signed by the arrogant few.

The ship has now sailed. Clubs that have abided by the directives cannot now magically go to market for off contract players now wrapped up by clubs who ingnored the guidelines.

The winners out of a cap over the directives given are NOT the clubs who played fair.

 

[Danish]

Hardly surprising knowing our love of spending
I would be surprised if we are in breach though as Nick doesn't let shit like that happen normally

NRL auditor: "Excuse me Nick, but it seems you are over the cap...""

Nick: "Is not possible. I check twice. Look, see? $9.8 million"

Auditor: "The cap is $9.1 million this year"

Nick: "Oh, is it? Sorry I confused. One moment........ and there you go, fixed"

Auditor: "Ah, Nick? you just rubbed out the 8 and drew in a 1"

Nick: "Yes. Is problem?"

*brown paper bag slides across the table*

Auditor: "Everything seems in order"

 

[El Diablo]

It's a web form, and is on this page - http://www.nrl.com/about/nrlhq/contactus/tabid/10928/default.aspx

can you send dick pics?