A competition with no salary cap

[Knight87]

Say, that the NRL was 'open slather': There was no salary cap (players could earn their full worth), no restrictions on third party endorsement payments and club sponsorships, clubs were made to fund themselves etc. Who would be the winners and losers in a format like this? What would the table positions look like (ranked from 1 to 16)?

Also, for those who are in favour of the salary cap, would you be in favour of a 'marquee player': ie one player from each club, their payments are excluded from the cap.

 

[Chook Norris]

Broncos would simply dominate

 

[hellteam]

Storm would have to be up there

 

[Y2Eel]

well with no cap there would only be around 10 or so clubs able to compete....

I think it would be a good idea to go without a cap if they want to reduce the number of teams in sydney without having to make the choice of which clubs had to get the chop from the NRL..

Anywho.. Heres my top 5

1. Brisbane
2. Rooster
3. Souths
4. Manly
5. Storm

 

[adamkungl]

There would be more strong teams, more sh*t teams, and less middle of the pack medicority. If all teams were capable of actually surviving in such a climate I would welcome this. But as I am against losing any more teams, and losing the cap would inevitably send a few broke, it isn't feasible.

 

[lotti]

no cap would be sweet but at least with the cap it's supposed to be a level playing field but some clubs don't obide by it and another argument against the cap is the top NRL players would stay in Australia and in league instead of defecting to Union and going overseas.

 

[Knight87]

Adam, how do you rate the Roosters current financial situation at the moment?

 

[tbone10]

no cap would be sweet but at least with the cap it's supposed to be a level playing field but some clubs don't obide by it

Like your storm lotti? they have been fined every year since they entered haven't they?

 

[lotti]

the Broncos have also been fined just about every year and one year the Storm was fined for something that was completely legal under the cap the year before, I'm just glad my other team hasn't been fined and there are some clubs that seem to have exempt status from the cap.

 

[Up the mighty Phins]

Would be like the EPL where Man United, Arsenal & Chelsea dominate year to year. In the 16 seasons of the EPL, only 1 year (Blackburn Rovers in 1994/95) none of the above 3 teams have won the premiership.

 

[Pierced Soul]

you would have a comp of about 5 teams with everyone else broke after a few years.
right now it isnt just the cap which is holding clubs back-it's the lack of finances. you can lift the cap by say a million and clubs will scramble to find that money but it doesnt mean what they promise is what you'll get i.e. Norths

the cap right now is there as a protective measure for clubs as much as anything.

I'm also of the opinion that even if we got rid of the cap we wont be able to compete with overseas comps of various nature purely because the market for league in Australia isnt sustainable for massive salaries. Gower is apparently playing 2nd division rugby for a sh*tload and i'm assuming the income for 2nd division rugby in france must be pretty high.

imagine trying to sustain an IPL type league comp in australia -it just doenst work we dont have enough income and even if we had a betetr pay tv deal i'm still not sure its sustainable

 

[Dutchy]

well with no cap there would only be around 10 or so clubs able to compete....

I think it would be a good idea to go without a cap if they want to reduce the number of teams in sydney without having to make the choice of which clubs had to get the chop from the NRL..

Anywho.. Heres my top 5

1. Brisbane
2. Rooster
3. Souths
4. Manly
5. Storm

bullsh*t..we are poor these days

 

[mark123]

i agree that the broncos/titans would dominate along with melbourne and the rest of the comp would go bust trying to catch up.

there is a good reason why there is a salary cap.

Oh, and the there are also good reasons for common laws and courts and judges and police....oh and all those things/people don't hate you....it just makes life safer and smoother.

Who's the anarchist in your midst?

 

[lotti]

Melbourne might go bust, yes they have News Limited behind them but each year they show a loss not a profit.

 

[Quidgybo]

Melbourne might go bust, yes they have News Limited behind them but each year they show a loss not a profit.

But the NRL and more importantly Fox Sports show a significant profit. The Storm, and the access they give those two companies to the Melbourne corporate market and pay television subscription base, play an important part in maximising News Ltd's investments in Rugby League. The Storm are costing a relative pittance to subsidise and while News Ltd continue to maintain a significant investment in League, the Storm are here to stay. News are in this for the overall return, not for any single profit or loss making investment.

Leigh.

 

[lotti]

I believe News Ltd also own the Broncos.

 

[PJ]

I think it would end up killing the game.

Short term some clubs would fold and hence other clubs would get stronger getting their players, but more and more fans would leave the game as their clubs died, ratings would slip and hence total revenue in the game would decline.

AFL, Union and Soccer would love to see the RL get rid of the cap.

As to all the talk about player drain, realistically what is it, 3-5 top line players over 5 years or so? Who has left for the UK or Union that you really wish your clubs had gone all out for? Hayne, Rogers and Tuquiri are the only ones that really stand out for me.

 

[lotti]

Monas, King didn't want them to leave Manly and Melbourne. Rogers came back.

 

[BrisVegas]

I believe News Ltd also own the Broncos.

News Ltd do not "own" the Broncos.

The Broncos are the only publicly listed sporting club on the the ASX, trading as Brisbane Broncos Limited (ASX:BBL). News Ltd are currently the majority shareholder, owning 68.87% of the shares through a subsidiary called "Nationwide News Pty Ltd".

http://www.broncos.com.au/index.php?page_id=3425

 

[Johnny Bravo]

News Ltd do not "own" the Broncos.

The Broncos are the only publicly listed sporting club on the the ASX, trading as Brisbane Broncos Limited (ASX:BBL). News Ltd are currently the majority shareholder, owning 68.87% of the shares through a subsidiary called "Nationwide News Pty Ltd".

http://www.broncos.com.au/index.php?page_id=3425

Doesn't 51% constitute "ownership"? It gives you controlling power over the board.

Just because it's publically listed, doesn't mean it can't be technically owned by a majority shareholder