ARLC Commission Changes

[Nice Beaver]

I assume when one of their "brothers" does some stupid shit that is across the front page of every paper, they will be happy to all chip in and repay the game a value equal to what the games brand has lost from the incident??

That would definitely be a part of their agenda wouldn't it?

Because after all...this is about the players wanting to be linked to the success of the game financially.....

 

[adamkungl]

If theyre so worried about players getting a fair wage, maybe they should be fighting to lift the minimum wage...

They are...if you'd actually read the RLPA's demands.

If the players want a percentage of the games revenue then they should also pay for a certain percentage of the games costs.

I don't even know what to say to this.

Maybe next time you ask your employer for a payrise he should ask you to pay some of the costs of the business. fmd..

 

[Last Week]

How do the players getting a pay rise actually help Rugby League as a whole? Union and Super League aren't threats of raiding our players any more.

You may disagree with the ARLC and NRL about what they specifically want to do with the money, but at least their own vested interest isn't in lining their own pockets.

 

[adamkungl]

How do the players getting a pay rise actually help Rugby League as a whole? Union and Super League aren't threats of raiding our players any more.

Players getting a revenue share have an incentive to increase revenue.

Players who don't feel like head office is ripping them off don't threaten to strike mid-competition.

Players earning good money (and lower players earning a liveable wage) gives young people an incentive to focus on their footy and have a serious crack at making a career of it.


You might not think they "deserve" such big money for the work they do, but sport isn't a normal job - closer to actor or rock star than office worker or nurse.
If the NRL earns billions, why should the people putting on the show, the reason we buy season tickets and foxtel subscriptions, get a significant cut?

 

[Perth Red]

their revenue is going to be at least $50m lower over 5yrs due to advance paid to clubs. Smith was regurgitating Gould's article, some of what he said was almost word for word.

Depends, clubs were advanced $1.5million each in 2016 from the 18-22 deal ie $24million. Did they get the same again this year? And it is supposed to be paid back, or more likely the grant amount will be reduced according over either the first year or subsequent years.

And in my guesstimate I have not included any growth in non media income for the two years which is unlikely or the nz tv amount as it is unknown. Even missing the $50mill they should still be operating on around $500mill in 2018. The other unknown is the amount of contra in the $1.8bill tv amount.

 

[Nice Beaver]

The minimum wage for an NRL player is $80k is it not?

The average wage in Australia is a touch over $81k.

So it is a "liveable" wage.

But I am all for raising the minimum to $100k or so.

 

[Perth Red]

RLPA have asked for a much higher minimum wage.

Transfer window and media are good bargaining chips, agreed.

Draft is a pointless and dumb idea.

Behavioural issues are a minefield - players are already fined huge amounts when they f**k up and it hasn't stopped them, what do you suggest could be changed here?

Better min wage and much bigger rep payments, for all internationals, that sit outside the club cap should be the outcome.

 

[Perth Red]

I assume when one of their "brothers" does some stupid shit that is across the front page of every paper, they will be happy to all chip in and repay the game a value equal to what the games brand has lost from the incident??

That would definitely be a part of their agenda wouldn't it?

Because after all...this is about the players wanting to be linked to the success of the game financially.....

Maybe if a player fcks up and a club losses a sponsor from it the rlpa should pay the club the money it has lost?

 

[Life's Good]

If I understand this the RLPA is pushing for a fixed share of revenue(among other things). Whereas now with the salary cap then player revenue is fixed(outside of TPA & personal sponsors etc). Is this correct??

 

[Captain Apollo]

Players getting a revenue share have an incentive to increase revenue.

Players who don't feel like head office is ripping them off don't threaten to strike mid-competition.

Players earning good money (and lower players earning a liveable wage) gives young people an incentive to focus on their footy and have a serious crack at making a career of it.


You might not think they "deserve" such big money for the work they do, but sport isn't a normal job - closer to actor or rock star than office worker or nurse.
If the NRL earns billions, why should the people putting on the show, the reason we buy season tickets and foxtel subscriptions, get a significant cut?

Also as James Maloney said about it, by tieing it to a fixed percentage of revenue, if revenue goes down, it means players salaries also go down commensurately.

The minimum wage for an NRL player is $80k is it not?

The average wage in Australia is a touch over $81k.

So it is a "liveable" wage.

But I am all for raising the minimum to $100k or so.

As of 2016, the minimum wage for an NRL player is $82,500.

Source: http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

 

[umina panther]

The minimum wage for an NRL player is $80k is it not?

The average wage in Australia is a touch over $81k.

So it is a "liveable" wage.

But I am all for raising the minimum to $100k or so.

They work a shitload harder and risk a lot more than most

 

[JamesRustle]

If successful, this could reduce resistance to expansion, as revenue would increase by more than additional costs.

If, as some think, TV rights have peaked, could the current players be leading future players into stagnant or reduced wages? Or is this arrangement up for renewal when they next broadcast rights are done?

 

[Nice Beaver]

They work a shitload harder and risk a lot more than most

Do they?

I'll tell that to shift workers etc who slog it out each week.

Yes, they put their bodies on the line, and that's a tough gig no doubt.

But work harder? Yeah they lift weights and run around during the week.

Half the issue with these boofheads is they have far too much time on their hands....

 

[Nice Beaver]

Also as James Maloney said about it, by tieing it to a fixed percentage of revenue, if revenue goes down, it means players salaries also go down commensurately.



As of 2016, the minimum wage for an NRL player is $82,500.

Source: http://www.nrl.com/nrlhq/referencecentre/salarycap/tabid/10434/default.aspx

I stand corrected.

 

[Nice Beaver]

Maybe if a player fcks up and a club losses a sponsor from it the rlpa should pay the club the money it has lost?

Thats one option certainly.

Regardless of the shape it takes, if they want to $$$ they can accept it their own group that also diminishes the value of their product.

 

[Last Week]

Players getting a revenue share have an incentive to increase revenue.

Players who don't feel like head office is ripping them off don't threaten to strike mid-competition.

Players earning good money (and lower players earning a liveable wage) gives young people an incentive to focus on their footy and have a serious crack at making a career of it.


You might not think they "deserve" such big money for the work they do, but sport isn't a normal job - closer to actor or rock star than office worker or nurse.
If the NRL earns billions, why should the people putting on the show, the reason we buy season tickets and foxtel subscriptions, get a significant cut?

Settle down. I'm not suggesting a pay cut. I never said they don't deserve such big money so I'm not sure where you pulled that from.

Your argument there is 'pay the players more so that they shut up.'

The players have always had an incentive to help grow the revenue of the game. They've done the bare minimum so far.

You talk as if they don't get a significant cut already.

 

[Perth Red]

They work a shitload harder and risk a lot more than most

Try being a nurse or teacher, and most of us risked the same for no money playing at the weekends for the love of the game.

 

[umina panther]

Try being a nurse or teacher, and most of us risked the same for no money playing at the weekends for the love of the game.

A teacher hahahaha yeah those 12 weeks off a year must suck.

 

[umina panther]

Nurse yeah ill pay that. They should earn a lot more

 

[T-Boon]

The thing that is hard to stomach is that during their individual contract negotiations the players indicate that they know nothing and are leaving it all up to their agent/management. Which means when Maloney, Cronk and Smith front the campaign during these wheelings and dealings I can't help but think their strings are being pulled by their agents/managers.

And the thought of agents getting richer and more powerful and questioning where the NRL is using its money just makes me shudder.