$7 Million Salary Cap?

[Flapper]

Anyone see the article in the paper with the 50 "lost boys" forced out due to us having no money and we really should be getting back? What a f**king joke that is. Yeah let's raise the salary cap to get back Dustin Cooper and Scott f**king Dureau for f**ks sake. Rothfield you idiot :lol:

 

[applesauce]

Goddo your forgetting the money saved/year just by bringing it all under one roof, $8mill.

Add to that the QRL's $20mill in the bank, and all the revenue each year from the current state comps, SOO, Tests etc. Hopefully there won't be a middle man anymore and the money will be funneled into one place to be shared out.

Also where is the betting percentage revenue at for NRL games? Is that still going to eventuate?

 

[Goddo]

Goddo your forgetting the money saved/year just by bringing it all under one roof, $8mill.

Add to that the QRL's $20mill in the bank, and all the revenue each year from the current state comps, SOO, Tests etc. Hopefully there won't be a middle man anymore and the money will be funneled into one place to be shared out.

Also where is the betting percentage revenue at for NRL games? Is that still going to eventuate?

That $8m saving was in admin, which Rothfield accounted for in his $60m operating costs figure. The $40m I used for NSWRL and QRL includes Origin costs and likely increases to junior funding through the state leagues. There is no way we will push $1.1b without including SoO and Test revenue. There is no way that the grass roots would be overlooked by the NRL - they know that they have a fight on their hands with Auskick.

And any current assets we have across the game can't really be concidered revenue can they? All the SOO and Test money would be included in the TV deal/NRL sponsorships.

You are right about betting... it is a potential gold mine. Have to wait for the court case between Racing NSW and the agencies to play out in the Federal Court.

 

[juro]

I wonder what the implications would be for the ESL if the NRL salary cap was significantly increased. Would there be such a drain on the ESL that it harmed their competition?

 

[Frailty]

Yeah, but those stories evapourated in the end. The Titans were having a cash flow problem- they had the money, but it was tied up in various sources they couldn't access- investments that hadn't reached maturity and so on. At the same time, they had the builder attempting to sue them, and that was also a case that either went nowhere or was settled out of court, can't remember which.

There's a bit of a difference between something on the scale of "Hey dad, can I have $50 to tide me over to pay day? I'll pay you back..." and "Hey dad, I need a lot of money. Again."

Thus I said:

I wouldn't say struggling, but I know they asked the NRL for a forward payment, and their centre of excellence was well over budget.

 

[madunit]

If squads will be 30, a genuine second tier comp is a must.

Every club should have 3 grades, like the old days.

NRL, Reserves, NYC (Under 20's)

Personally this system would work better for the players in NYC coming up, they can gradually move up to NRL quality games by going through Reserve Grade.

Have three tiers - 20 in top tier, 30 in second tier, 30 in third tier.

This sytem would allow NRL players to earn top dollars and stay in the code and also allow clubs to maximise the number of quality juniors to stay within reach of the NRL and keep them in the game. It would also mean a better rotation of players in the lower grades to minimise the risk of long term injuries.

 

[madunit]

I wonder what the implications would be for the ESL if the NRL salary cap was significantly increased. Would there be such a drain on the ESL that it harmed their competition?

there is a huge number of Rugby League players in England, I can't see it damaging their game at all. If anything, it could only enhance it. I think Each NRL club should have an affiliation with a Superleague club. They can share around their lower grade players to get them some experience and improve skills.

 

[Drew-Sta]

The issue isn't that Slothfield wrote the article. Frankly, I think some form of speculation on what should be done is fine.

The issue is that News Ltd have now created a precident. If the NRL does NOT do all of Slothfields actions, then the papers will slam them and declare they're not managing the NRL correctly.

It's the fact he's created expectations, not the fact he has had a stab at what should happen should $1bn be given for the TV rights.

And given the lowest common denominator takes the Terrorgraph at face value, then 40 - 50% of League watchers will take whatever News Ltd says and scream blue murder if the end result varies even the slightest bit.

 

[Danish]

The club grant should never, EVER, be more than the salary cap. EVER.

Once he NRL is paying all player's salaries any club who can't attract enough sponsorship and gate takings just to keeps its lights on does not deserve to be in the league.

I'd also like to see the IC use this opportunity to control payments to players themselves. Have contracts registered with the NRL, with payment coming directly from the NRL to the players, and not hitting the clubs at all. Would stop plenty of salary cap rorting as any payment coming from the club is clearly dirty, and would also stop clubs underspending the player grant to pay off their debts.

 

[taipan]

Rothfield is basing the figure on 16 clubs.
If expansion comes in to 18 teams,they would have to have $7m grants to 18 clubs=$126m and on his basis a $6.5m salary cap.But I agree I can't see the NRL giving the club bigger grants than the salary cap.The marketing should be handled by the head body.
If there is no expansion ,the game would have less chance of getting $1b.
Rothfield should realise that,then again he is a D.T. journo.:sarcasm:

Sheesh I don't know whether Fox or News Ltd would be thrilled,with an employee pushing up the worth of the code,as they have to bid on it.I hope to hell rugby leage gets the $1b then we can ram it up the noses of the fumblers.

 

[taipan]

The club grant should never, EVER, be more than the salary cap. EVER.

Once he NRL is paying all player's salaries any club who can't attract enough sponsorship and gate takings just to keeps its lights on does not deserve to be in the league.

I'd also like to see the IC use this opportunity to control payments to players themselves. Have contracts registered with the NRL, with payment coming directly from the NRL to the players, and not hitting the clubs at all. Would stop plenty of salary cap rorting as any payment coming from the club is clearly dirty, and would also stop clubs underspending the player grant to pay off their debts.

As a Shark's supporter, I reluctantly have to agree with you.

 

[Jason Maher]

If squads will be 30, a genuine second tier comp is a must.

Every club should have 3 grades, like the old days.

NRL, Reserves, NYC (Under 20's)

Personally this system would work better for the players in NYC coming up, they can gradually move up to NRL quality games by going through Reserve Grade.

Have three tiers - 20 in top tier, 30 in second tier, 30 in third tier.

This sytem would allow NRL players to earn top dollars and stay in the code and also allow clubs to maximise the number of quality juniors to stay within reach of the NRL and keep them in the game. It would also mean a better rotation of players in the lower grades to minimise the risk of long term injuries.

Absobloodylutely.

 

[Danish]

As a Shark's supporter, I reluctantly have to agree with you.

Surely even the Sharks could fund their coaching staff, an U20s side and the club head quarters on the back of sponsorship, memberships, merchandising and gate takings.

 

[Goddo]

The club grant should never, EVER, be more than the salary cap. EVER.

Once he NRL is paying all player's salaries any club who can't attract enough sponsorship and gate takings just to keeps its lights on does not deserve to be in the league.

I'd also like to see the IC use this opportunity to control payments to players themselves. Have contracts registered with the NRL, with payment coming directly from the NRL to the players, and not hitting the clubs at all. Would stop plenty of salary cap rorting as any payment coming from the club is clearly dirty, and would also stop clubs underspending the player grant to pay off their debts.

+1. Any surplus revenue should be put into other things, like advertising, juniors, promotion, et cetera

I like your centralised contract idea too. The clubs would negotiate the contracts, but they would be filed with the NRL. 3rd party money would be the only thing extra.

 

[docbrown]

+1. Any surplus revenue should be put into other things, like advertising, juniors, promotion, et cetera

I like your centralised contract idea too. The clubs would negotiate the contracts, but they would be filed with the NRL. 3rd party money would be the only thing extra.

I think that's what he's implying the surplus grant would go to.

Yes - we need centralised contracts. I agree with that as well.

The NRL would have greater knowledge over what the player is getting payed - plus if you recall from Super League part of that whole fiasco stemmed from changes to three party player contracts.

I'd even go so far so as to say that the IC could leverage against the player's union how much the cap increases in order to get their way on it.

I think a significant proportion of any increased cap money should go directly into the player's retirement trust fund. They're still getting paid the money but it can come under the loyalty rules and be voided if they code switch.

That said before they even think about how they increase the cap they need to come up with a 5 year projection model of grassroots funding - not just in Australia but across the Pacific as well. Whether or not the game thrives is dependent on what the next generation does.

 

[DC_fan]

I read the story with great interest. For me its just paper talk, or more precisely one reports thoughts.

 

[Mark Rudd]

I read the story with great interest. For me its just paper talk, or more precisely one reports thoughts.

I read it with a complete lack of interest and thought the whole article was a load of rubbish.

Massive dreaming from Rothfield. I doubt it'll get over $800m. Mark my words.

 

[saint pebba]

The issue with only increasing the cap in small amount is that the current collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of 2012. A new one will need to be signed after any TV deal is done.

You can't ask the players to play the game for a measly price when due mainly to their efforts the game rakes in approx 1 billion dollars in revenue. They will go on strike and there will be no football at all.

Look at the current situation with the NFL. The league/owners want the players to take a 1 billion dollar paycut which the they will will not agree too.

In my opinion the players should be receiving at least 50% of all income the game generates. If this is 200 million a year, they should be getting 100 million a year.

Across 16 clubs, this is a salary cap of 6.25mil.

 

[ozjet1]

Rothfield mustve had a wet dream and creamed his y-fronts believing that the rights had actually been sold for $1b.

doesnt matter what the ratings may say otherwise, the only way to get as close as possible to the big billion is flogging the rep games - SOO specifically - separately from the NRL comp.

the value is in state of origin. those 3 games are watched by all and sundry..........league fans, and those with a passing interest. It attracts all types of viewers. We'll see the networks spending big to try and get those games because advertisers clammer to get a spot for it. Rugby League practically has 3 mid-season superbowls. Wring the most of it.

In contrast, the NRL comp is followed largely by western sydney bogans who lack the disposable income advertisers crave. afterall, that is one of the reasons they're at home on the booze (notice how much alcohol orgs love advertising during the footy) and not at the game or spending money on other entertainment. add to this the fact that mid-season NRL is an absolute borefest for all but the diehard league fans during representative season.

rothfield types harp on about the quantity of programming being the determining factor in the value of the rights. But i think it's quality that is what the customer craves. Watching the best perform every week. Rugby League is over-exposed. 26 rounds is too much of it (hard to believe for diehards) for most to get into for the length of it, particularly when it's all decided in 1 month over Sep/Oct.

 

[Danish]

Rothfield mustve had a wet dream and creamed his y-fronts believing that the rights had actually been sold for $1b.

doesnt matter what the ratings may say otherwise, the only way to get as close as possible to the big billion is flogging the rep games - SOO specifically - separately from the NRL comp.

the value is in state of origin. those 3 games are watched by all and sundry..........league fans, and those with a passing interest. It attracts all types of viewers. We'll see the networks spending big to try and get those games because advertisers clammer to get a spot for it. Rugby League practically has 3 mid-season superbowls. Wring the most of it.

In contrast, the NRL comp is followed largely by western sydney bogans who lack the disposable income advertisers crave. afterall, that is one of the reasons they're at home on the booze (notice how much alcohol orgs love advertising during the footy) and not at the game or spending money on other entertainment. add to this the fact that mid-season NRL is an absolute borefest for all but the diehard league fans during representative season.

rothfield types harp on about the quantity of programming being the determining factor in the value of the rights. But i think it's quality that is what the customer craves. Watching the best perform every week. Rugby League is over-exposed. 26 rounds is too much of it (hard to believe for diehards) for most to get into for the length of it, particularly when it's all decided in 1 month over Sep/Oct.

Which part of this rant doesnt relate to AFL?