Cameron Smith calls for Salary cap exemption for 300 gamers

[Canard]

Cam Smith can f*ck off....

But i actually agree with the sentiment. If every club has the same money ($200k i think), then the whole thing is meaningless.

If we want to encourage long-serving, loyal players, we need to give clubs a mechanism to keep them. And not just players above 300 games.

Let clubs exempt a % of a players salary if they pass a certain number of games for the club (100 game = 10%, 150 games = 20%, etc). That way, players are rewarded for sticking around and clubs can build squads with a long-term goal.

There have been long serving player cap dispensations for a decade or more.

 

[simmo05]

Shithouse statements like these from Smith make me think he is preparing for life after football. He is obviously an ideas man.

He wants a job at HQ.

Hopefully one where he takes a job off a long standing employee, and all the dirt gets dug up and he is exposed as one of the great frauds.

But he has a point. But not for 300 gamers, i would like to see exemptions from 100 games, increasing percentage wise every 50-100 games. And while we are at it, exemptions for local juniors

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

There have been long serving player cap dispensations for a decade or more.

Yeh, but every team has the exact same amount meaning it is pointless....

What is the difference between paying a guy $500K salary or $300k salary + $200K benefits? None.

What does it do other than let clubs say "look, we really are investing in XXXXX"

 

[Fangs]

Hopefully one where he takes a job off a long standing employee, and all the dirt gets dug up and he is exposed as one of the great frauds.

But he has a point. But not for 300 gamers, i would like to see exemptions from 100 games, increasing percentage wise every 50-100 games. And while we are at it, exemptions for local juniors

He does have a point. In fact he has made two points recently that most NRL fans agree with.

But its all in his own interests. We already have enough people like that on the independent commission

 

[Canard]

Yeh, but every team has the exact same amount meaning it is pointless....

What is the difference between paying a guy $500K salary or $300k salary + $200K benefits? None.

What does it do other than let clubs say "look, we really are investing in XXXXX"

You've lost me mate, I'm not sure what your proposing

 

[nick87]

Cam Smith can f*ck off....

But i actually agree with the sentiment. If every club has the same money ($200k i think), then the whole thing is meaningless.

If we want to encourage long-serving, loyal players, we need to give clubs a mechanism to keep them. And not just players above 300 games.

Let clubs exempt a % of a players salary if they pass a certain number of games for the club (100 game = 10%, 150 games = 20%, etc). That way, players are rewarded for sticking around and clubs can build squads with a long-term goal.

It makes perfect sense. If that's what you want to do.
If it's not, it's not.

But if you want to encourage players to stay and give clubs who hold the rights an advantage to retain them, particularly in the case of stars, you have to consider how to make it easier and incentive players to stick around.

 

[Captain Apollo]

I'm waiting for him to ask for tax deductions/concessions for 300+ game NRL players who live in Melbourne due to the demands of constant travel

 

[txta2]

He would definetly make a good pollie the ole Cam.
Me me me me me me

 

[SDM]

They should allow it, but only if the club has not had a salary cap breach in any of the 10 years they have been there. This POS would not have stayed at Melbourne for one contract.

 

[Generalzod]

I'm waiting for him to ask for tax deductions/concessions for 300+ game NRL players who live in Melbourne due to the demands of constant travel

Air travel is cheap these days lol

 

[siv]

We already have the marque player allowance and a long serving 8y player allowance

 

[myrrh ken]

Discount for 300 game players, but 400 game players count as double.

They would be a drain on the game and obviously blocking younger ones coming through.

 

[Generalzod]

Don't his club already have a big enough advantage over everyone else bar Brisbane with an exceedingly large amount of third party payments?

Love to see how successful they'd really have been if it was a reasonablr level playing field re what teams pay.

A level paying field.....

 

[Murishido]

Early contender for blatant self serving comment of the year

 

[Matua]

100% with you. I love watching him play. He's a master, and the best player i've ever seen lace a boot. Incredible footballer.

People generally dont want to separate their dislikes from an idea.

There is no question in my mind this is a very good idea. Rewarding a club who has signed/develop/keep and likely PAID a footballer for 10+ years. They should be exempt IMO. The Storm should be able to pay Cam Smith whatever they like for what he's done for their club. Same with Cronulla and Gallen.

I'm reading through the thread and is this the first post that actually plays the ball and not the man?

As a Kiwi I hate Smith as much as the next bloke but I think the idea has merit (and it would be implemented too late for Smith to benefit from it) as it rewards club and player loyalty.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

You've lost me mate, I'm not sure what your proposing

The current cap has a long-service section, sure. But every team has the exact same amount so there is not value in it. At best, the older guys get more money. At worst, the older guys get the same money they would have received regardless and the club has more cap space for the younger guys. Either way, it ends up being pointless....

What i want to see is the ARLC setting different salary cap amounts based on the long-serving players.

For example, If a player is at a club for 100 games, let the club remove 10% of the player contract from the cap (so they can pay that player more than any other club and count it as less within their cap). Do this incrementally (150 games = 15%, etc) maybe stopping at 250 games deducting 25%.

This would mean, for example, a "base" cap for the club is $6mil while a "potential" cap of $8mil that clubs can only access if they keep their guys around rather than just buying up the best players each year.

This system creates a structural mechanism to keep players at one club long term and it will favour clubs that invest in juniors.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

It makes perfect sense. If that's what you want to do.
If it's not, it's not.

But if you want to encourage players to stay and give clubs who hold the rights an advantage to retain them, particularly in the case of stars, you have to consider how to make it easier and incentive players to stick around.

I can think of 2 simple mechanisms...

- The clubs can deduct a % of the salary or just a standard chunk depending on how long a player has stuck around.

- The NRL has a central pool for payments. I think this is better with no discretion, just a standard criteria; if you have played X number of games at your club, we will top up your salary by $X.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

A level paying field.....

There is nothing stopping your team taking advantage...

Its not the NRLs job to prop up the shittier teams. If you cant keep up, its your own fault.

 

[Quicksilver]

There is nothing stopping your team taking advantage...

Its not the NRLs job to prop up the shittier teams. If you cant keep up, its your own fault.

No, but having the same teams at the top every year gets boring for everyone.

 

[Generalzod]

There is nothing stopping your team taking advantage...

Its not the NRLs job to prop up the shittier teams. If you cant keep up, its your own fault.

It’s that easy lol