A Marquee System

[The Tank]

Sorry for starting another thread, I wasn't quite sure where to post this.

Anyway, the Marquee System I have in mind surrounds the chance for the club's to purchase a "Marque Allocation" for a fee of (for example) $500,000. The $500,000 is divided between the other 15 clubs. If another club purchases an allocation also, they aren't entitled to their share, and it's then split between 14 clubs... so and so forth.

So for example, if Melbourne pay $500k to the NRL - who in turn divide it between the clubs - they can spend whatever is required to keep Greg Inglis (for example) outside the salary cap. Inglis' cash is therefore not included in the cap and there's more room to keep their remaining squad members.

Each allocation would be valid throughout the contract period for each particular player - so if you sign Inglis for 4 seasons, you won't be able to purchase another allocation... even if he's out for the season. The clubs could also have a certain period where they can purchase an allocation.

The cost could be whatever - 500k is just an example. And you could have 3 marquee spots available to each club. So Melbourne's would be probably be Inglis, Slater, and Smith. The Tigers may be Marshall, Farah, and Tuqiri.

I'm sure you guys will find some loopholes or problems... I'm not too clever with these things. I got this from MLS.

 

[mickdo]

How does that stop rorting the cap? IMO the players association has to come on board or nothing will change.

 

[The Tank]

My suggestion has nothing to do with rorting the cap - imagine the Storm scandal hadn't taken place. I've been thinking this for a while.

 

[Eels Dude]

I really don't see the point of this suggestion. It defeats the purpose of having a salary cap to begin with.

 

[Perth Red]

Simply allow clubs to have two marquee players who they pay as much as they like. Works for other codes.

 

[Front-Rower]

Here is an idea, how we get these blokes a job. Let them do 40-50 hours a week running behind a garbage truck, throwing kegs off of a brewery wagon, laying bricks or anything really.

I laugh everytime I hear a player say that they only resigned for less money because they love the joint and the players around them. Give them a real job and less money for playing and we'll see how many actually say they hung around to play with the great club and or the great guys they play with.

 

[Perth Red]

you fail to understand these guys are the best of the best. They are an elite group. in business if you had the same eliteness you'd be a CEO and earning a shed load more than these players. If anybody could do it, like being a brickie, then you might have a point.

 

[Shifty]

How about we set up a marquee at each home and invoice the club for the marquee even though it's already been paid for in the stadium hire...

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

Here is an idea, how we get these blokes a job. Let them do 40-50 hours a week running behind a garbage truck, throwing kegs off of a brewery wagon, laying bricks or anything really.

I laugh everytime I hear a player say that they only resigned for less money because they love the joint and the players around them. Give them a real job and less money for playing and we'll see how many actually say they hung around to play with the great club and or the great guys they play with.

When you arrive in the 21st century let us know.

 

[Alex28]

Everybody seems to fail to see what the cap does. It is there to:

* even out the competition. If the players are paid their fair worth then clubs will over time have to shed players and bring in cheaper/younger players. It ensures the competition is open to everyone; and

* ensures clubs aren't operating outside of their means. If you have three marque players outside of the cap then you could have players realistically spending $1.5-2 MIllion over and above the cap - and more importantly the grant from the NRL. The vast majority of clubs simply can't afford that, and what that would do is risk another Northern Eagles where players lost income because a club went under.

The salary cap is there to protect everybody. Why can't people see that?

 

[Front-Rower]

When you arrive in the 21st century let us know.

Mate it was a gee up, just like this thread surely is.

If we want to turn the game into a free for all like the NFL we'd be broke within half a season.

In my personal opinion the representative players or elite players as Perth Red put's it shouldn't be earning their money from the clubs but from the NSWRL/QRL/ARL just like Cricket Australia looks after cricketers. There should be a top 25 NSW roster, QLD roster and 25 Australian roster with these blokes earning their "top up payments" from the establishments.

 

[Eels Dude]

Mate it was a gee up, just like this thread surely is.

If we want to turn the game into a free for all like the NFL we'd be broke within half a season.

In my personal opinion the representative players or elite players as Perth Red put's it shouldn't be earning their money from the clubs but from the NSWRL/QRL/ARL just like Cricket Australia looks after cricketers. There should be a top 25 NSW roster, QLD roster and 25 Australian roster with these blokes earning their "top up payments" from the establishments.

The problem with that is we have the Warriors in the comp, and many other NZ players. The NRL is not a national board but a club competition and a separate body to the ARL and the NSWRL and QRL. Players already get paid well for rep matches.

 

[Front-Rower]

The problem with that is we have the Warriors in the comp, and many other NZ players. The NRL is not a national board but a club competition and a separate body to the ARL and the NSWRL and QRL. Players already get paid well for rep matches.

True, but there is also something called the New Zealand Rugby League. They could look at the possibility of having a national roster with their blokes. Let's face it, not every player is an elite player.

This isn't about saying blokes should earn the average wage of the every day joe blow but at the end of the day rep players are your marquee players. It actually could in fact help clubs keep players at the club because they wouldn't have to fork out as much money as they have to now.

 

[gronkathon]

I had a different variation on the idea of marquee players this morning.

Can't remember which Melbourne thread it is in though

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

Mate it was a gee up, just like this thread surely is.

If we want to turn the game into a free for all like the NFL we'd be broke within half a season.

In my personal opinion the representative players or elite players as Perth Red put's it shouldn't be earning their money from the clubs but from the NSWRL/QRL/ARL just like Cricket Australia looks after cricketers. There should be a top 25 NSW roster, QLD roster and 25 Australian roster with these blokes earning their "top up payments" from the establishments.

Fair enough then mate.

To be honest your concept has some merit. What I have advocated for a while is that the players should be earning significantly more for playing in representative matches than what they do now.

I'm not sure of the financials of it are realistic at all as I have no idea how much money Origin generates as a whole, but if the ARL paid each player $50K for every Origin game that they played per season the elite players would have an extra $150K in their pockets at the end of the series.

Test matches clearly aren't going to gross the same amount as Origin matches, but if the players were paid, say, $30K for each Test that they played, as the end of a Quad Nations year a player that plays in all 5 games for the Kangaroos and 3 Origins would be looking at an extra $300K on top of their club contract.

These numbers are probably pie-in-the-sky stuff, I really have no idea if this is at all feasible. And the main problem, even if it was feasible, is that the elite non Australians in the competition, of which there are many, are being left out. I can't see the NZRL coming up with the extra funding.

The solution to get the Kiwi's more games to compensate for the fact that they don't play Origin would be to look at having a mid-year test series against England or Samoa or Tonga. Clearly the problem there is the ability of said series to generate any money to pay the players $30K. Maybe this is where the NRL would need to step in? I really don't know, I'm just thinking off the top of my head.

But suffice to say I think this is one possible way to increase the payments to the elite players.

 

[Eels Dude]

True, but there is also something called the New Zealand Rugby League. They could look at the possibility of having a national roster with their blokes. Let's face it, not every player is an elite player.

This isn't about saying blokes should earn the average wage of the every day joe blow but at the end of the day rep players are your marquee players. It actually could in fact help clubs keep players at the club because they wouldn't have to fork out as much money as they have to now.

There's also not enough rep games to make it worth it. And given how much the rep sides change every season contracting a base 25 every year is a bit pointless. There's no incentive for the ARL or QRL etc to contract players to represent them when all it does is cost them a lot of money with absolutely no return on that investment. They have to pay players for rep matches anyway so why would the ARL or QRL etc top up contracts for no reason at all????

A top 25 system works in Australian cricket and rugby, but those are national boards who contract those players because they have dominant representative seasons in comparison to club competitions. In rugby league it's the complete opposite.

 

[Perth Red]

There is at least 7 rep games a year for Australians and 4 for Kiwis at $25k a game that is a nice salary bonus for rep players.

 

[Eels Dude]

There is at least 7 rep games a year for Australians and 4 for Kiwis at $25k a game that is a nice salary bonus for rep players.

It is a nice bonus but the key word is 'bonus'. It cannot be written into contracts, nor can we select a 25 man squad at the end of the previous year which guarentees these payments which was the suggestion.

 

[Shifty]

Any susbtantial increases to rep payments, especially if they are not going to count towards the salary cap, would have be accompanied by a policy that no current NRL coach can take up a representative coaching role.

 

[Alex28]

My thoughts would be leave the cap where it is and the NRL pays the premium that the top players deserve on the basis that they perform to a level that they deserve to be selected for rep duties. It isn't fair that a club pays through the nose for a player that plays less games for them (due to rep duty) and has the risk of being injured in a non-club game in any case.

So...a player like Thurston could be paid $400K by his club, a further $150K due to rep duties and perhaps another $50K in third party agreements. I would think $600K a year for the top players is more than fair.

Obviously there needs to be some clauses for injuries and the like, but that is much fairer for the clubs, rewards the players and the NRL finally pays a fair price for the players for the top games of the year.