Can someone please think up a different arguement....

[t-ba]

Because that'll take a few years?

Years, that if the Salary cap is challenged, won't exist?

How are they going to pay these players without decent gate takings, sponsorships or a split of the TV deal pie? they'll lose Juniors to union simply because they have a decent sized war chest from the World cup with which to fund a domestic comp.

 

[melon....]

Because that'll take a few years?

Years, that if the Salary cap is challenged, won't exist?

How are they going to pay these players without decent gate takings, sponsorships or a split of the TV deal pie? they'll lose Juniors to union simply because they have a decent sized war chest from the World cup with which to fund a domestic comp.

These strugglers have had 7!! How many more do they need to turn it around??!! Maybe they SHOULD close their doors as it seems they are flogging a dead horse!! Nobody wants that, but ask the question Why cant they after 7 years of NRL assistance I might add, and Whats stopping them now from folding? They are going broke NOW, no need for a salary cap increase to do this...its happening NOW.

 

[t-ba]

except there hasn't been the capital and the impetus for the last 7 years. Wests, Cronulla, Newcastle, the Cowboys and Manly have all embarked on schemes to improve their clubs situations in the past two years. Why can't the roosters wait to see if these initiative will be a success?

 

[melon....]

except there hasn't been the capital and the impetus for the last 7 years. Wests, Cronulla, Newcastle, the Cowboys and Manly have all embarked on schemes to improve their clubs situations in the past two years. Why can't the roosters wait to see if these initiative will be a success?

Becasue from a business perspective, the Roosters are not responsible for nor have interst in seeing if these club's initiatives work or fail. The same applies to the individual clubs youve mentioned. They have no interest in the struggles of their competion just their own. thats how it is!!

 

[ibeme]

Because that'll take a few years?

Years, that if the Salary cap is challenged, won't exist?

How are they going to pay these players without decent gate takings, sponsorships or a split of the TV deal pie? they'll lose Juniors to union simply because they have a decent sized war chest from the World cup with which to fund a domestic comp.

These strugglers have had 7!! How many more do they need to turn it around??!! Maybe they SHOULD close their doors as it seems they are flogging a dead horse!! Nobody wants that, but ask the question Why cant they after 7 years of NRL assistance I might add, and Whats stopping them now from folding? They are going broke NOW, no need for a salary cap increase to do this...its happening NOW.

And what do you think a salary cap increase will do to the chances of struggling clubs to turn themselves around? Believe it or not, the game is moving forward. We've just experienced a season that we're still raving about, courtesy of the salary cap. The game as a whole is regaining it's momentum after the Superleague debacle. Those clubs who are turning themselves around now will start going backwards again fast if the cap is increased too soon.

Fourteen clubs have deemed it to be too soon. This was only about ten clubs a few months ago, until the pokie tax became a threat. This indicates that clubs are quite prepared to raise the cap, when they are certain that the benefit will outweigh the cost.

 

[melon....]

Because that'll take a few years?

Years, that if the Salary cap is challenged, won't exist?

How are they going to pay these players without decent gate takings, sponsorships or a split of the TV deal pie? they'll lose Juniors to union simply because they have a decent sized war chest from the World cup with which to fund a domestic comp.

These strugglers have had 7!! How many more do they need to turn it around??!! Maybe they SHOULD close their doors as it seems they are flogging a dead horse!! Nobody wants that, but ask the question Why cant they after 7 years of NRL assistance I might add, and Whats stopping them now from folding? They are going broke NOW, no need for a salary cap increase to do this...its happening NOW.

And what do you think a salary cap increase will do to the chances of struggling clubs to turn themselves around? Believe it or not, the game is moving forward. We've just experienced a season that we're still raving about, courtesy of the salary cap. The game as a whole is regaining it's momentum after the Superleague debacle. Those clubs who are turning themselves around now will start going backwards again fast if the cap is increased too soon.

Fourteen clubs have deemed it to be too soon. This was only about ten clubs a few months ago, until the pokie tax became a threat. This indicates that clubs are quite prepared to raise the cap, when they are certain that the benefit will outweigh the cost.

And who's saying the clubs should spend every last cent in their cap?? Especially if they cant already?

Several clubs voted for the expulsion of Souths...or hve you forgotten that one? Guess what? Souths went to court. The vote of clubs in this matter is insignificant. Its upto clubs to make requests using every legal avenue to achieve what they want. Its upto the NRl to respond and set the rules not vote amongst 14 other clubs that are looking out for themselves but expect Easts to stop looking after itself and help them out.

 

[t-ba]

Do you know why there was no capital or impetus Melon?

Because everyone had been turned off the game. Because the game wasn't attractive after ugliness of super League, a competition which clubs like the Raiders and the Broncos used to protect their star studded playing rosters (Pearl came off the Brisbane bench a few times in 1994...), and allowed a few blow ins to 'compete' in their comp. I know it sounds familiar...

The simple fact was no one, semi-interested fans anyway, were interested in a competition as scandal ridden and uneven as the SL/ARL season and the first few seasons of the NRL. as player wages settled down and competition was spread more evenly amongst the clubs, the competition became stronger. 2001, 2002 and 2003 have been, scandals aside, some of the finest and most evenly contested competitions in the games history.

Using the codes new found popularity, clubs, such as the Sharks and tigers, have found benefactors and sponsors capable of providing adequate funds to finance initiatives, while clubs like Melbourne, North Queensland and Manly are able to look for expressions of interest in regards to club ownership.

Increased crowds and increased revenue have, and will continue to be the result.

surely the roosters aren't interested in repeating their super League level crowds again are they? when they were a super succesful outfit?

 

[melon....]

Do you know why there was no capital or impetus Melon?

Because everyone had been turned off the game. Because the game wasn't attractive after ugliness of super League, a competition which clubs like the Raiders and the Broncos used to protect their star studded playing rosters (Pearl came off the Brisbane bench a few times in 1994...), and allowed a few blow ins to 'compete' in their comp. I know it sounds familiar...

The simple fact was no one, semi-interested fans anyway, were interested in a competition as scandal ridden and uneven as the SL/ARL season and the first few seasons of the NRL. as player wages settled down and competition was spread more evenly amongst the clubs, the competition became stronger. 2001, 2002 and 2003 have been, scandals aside, some of the finest and most evenly contested competitions in the games history.

Using the codes new found popularity, clubs, such as the Sharks and tigers, have found benefactors and sponsors capable of providing adequate funds to finance initiatives, while clubs like Melbourne, North Queensland and Manly are able to look for expressions of interest in regards to club ownership.

Increased crowds and increased revenue have, and will continue to be the result.

surely the roosters aren't interested in repeating their super League level crowds again are they? when they were a super succesful outfit?

But I though the Roosters dont have any supporters anyway?? LOL!!

I can see what you are saying, but the fact that these clubs are finding new sponsorship and revenue through the game's popularity now, is a very good reason why their chances of survival are increasing. Finally they are starting to do what Easts did and change their business practices making them more attractive. With that comes success which feeds the sponsorship in a nice loop. A raise in the cap will not undo all that good work these clubs have put into themselves. In fact it could mean the difference for them as they can now spend that extra $50000 securing the players they need, having found this extra 50000 from their new boost in sponsorship dollars. A raise will do more good than bad putting it simply. ensuring the retention of key players alone secures that clubs markettability to sponsors. do you think Easts would be so poular or attractive to sponsors if Freddy was forced to leave in the prime of his career? Do you think that Lockyer being a Bronco doesnt attract a certain level of marketting value to Brisbane? You need these players for clubs to stay solvent as a part of your Marketting plan. to keep these players you must reward them appropriately. to do so currently requires a raise in the cap and a total review reform of the system later down the track. If the cap was raised slowly over the next 5 years to be $4million by say 2009, it would equate to a 24% increase since the NRL was formed, still under what it could be if you simply apply CPI.

Raising the cap preserves player talent and preserves Sponsorship ensuring financial viability. Dont go overboard Mr. NRL we only need a minor increase of a couple of 100 k that will do for now and the gradualness of the rise will not impact clubs in a negative bombshell way like everyone predicts.

 

[ibeme]

Because that'll take a few years?

Years, that if the Salary cap is challenged, won't exist?

How are they going to pay these players without decent gate takings, sponsorships or a split of the TV deal pie? they'll lose Juniors to union simply because they have a decent sized war chest from the World cup with which to fund a domestic comp.

These strugglers have had 7!! How many more do they need to turn it around??!! Maybe they SHOULD close their doors as it seems they are flogging a dead horse!! Nobody wants that, but ask the question Why cant they after 7 years of NRL assistance I might add, and Whats stopping them now from folding? They are going broke NOW, no need for a salary cap increase to do this...its happening NOW.

And what do you think a salary cap increase will do to the chances of struggling clubs to turn themselves around? Believe it or not, the game is moving forward. We've just experienced a season that we're still raving about, courtesy of the salary cap. The game as a whole is regaining it's momentum after the Superleague debacle. Those clubs who are turning themselves around now will start going backwards again fast if the cap is increased too soon.

Fourteen clubs have deemed it to be too soon. This was only about ten clubs a few months ago, until the pokie tax became a threat. This indicates that clubs are quite prepared to raise the cap, when they are certain that the benefit will outweigh the cost.

And who's saying the clubs should spend every last cent in their cap?? Especially if they cant already?

Several clubs voted for the expulsion of Souths...or hve you forgotten that one? Guess what? Souths went to court. The vote of clubs in this matter is insignificant. Its upto clubs to make requests using every legal avenue to achieve what they want. Its upto the NRl to respond and set the rules not vote amongst 14 other clubs that are looking out for themselves but expect Easts to stop looking after itself and help them out.

Firstly, to merely compete with other clubs, you pretty much need to max out your cap. Otherwise you don't win games, and you continue to backwards. The only time when you would do this is when the right talent is not available. It's then better to invest that money off the field rather than on the field.

Souths actually lost the court case, on an appeal which was carried out during the 2003 season. The NRL decided to let Souths back in the competition because of the public outcry. They decided to do that regardless of the outcome of the court case. They continued with the case however to confirm that they were not outside the law in kicking souths out.

 

[melon....]

Because that'll take a few years?

Years, that if the Salary cap is challenged, won't exist?

How are they going to pay these players without decent gate takings, sponsorships or a split of the TV deal pie? they'll lose Juniors to union simply because they have a decent sized war chest from the World cup with which to fund a domestic comp.

These strugglers have had 7!! How many more do they need to turn it around??!! Maybe they SHOULD close their doors as it seems they are flogging a dead horse!! Nobody wants that, but ask the question Why cant they after 7 years of NRL assistance I might add, and Whats stopping them now from folding? They are going broke NOW, no need for a salary cap increase to do this...its happening NOW.

Thats correct Ib. But I was highlighting the clubs vote to kick them out didnt matter in the end.

And what do you think a salary cap increase will do to the chances of struggling clubs to turn themselves around? Believe it or not, the game is moving forward. We've just experienced a season that we're still raving about, courtesy of the salary cap. The game as a whole is regaining it's momentum after the Superleague debacle. Those clubs who are turning themselves around now will start going backwards again fast if the cap is increased too soon.

Fourteen clubs have deemed it to be too soon. This was only about ten clubs a few months ago, until the pokie tax became a threat. This indicates that clubs are quite prepared to raise the cap, when they are certain that the benefit will outweigh the cost.

And who's saying the clubs should spend every last cent in their cap?? Especially if they cant already?

Several clubs voted for the expulsion of Souths...or hve you forgotten that one? Guess what? Souths went to court. The vote of clubs in this matter is insignificant. Its upto clubs to make requests using every legal avenue to achieve what they want. Its upto the NRl to respond and set the rules not vote amongst 14 other clubs that are looking out for themselves but expect Easts to stop looking after itself and help them out.

Firstly, to merely compete with other clubs, you pretty much need to max out your cap. Otherwise you don't win games, and you continue to backwards. The only time when you would do this is when the right talent is not available. It's then better to invest that money off the field rather than on the field.

Souths actually lost the court case, on an appeal which was carried out during the 2003 season. The NRL decided to let Souths back in the competition because of the public outcry. They decided to do that regardless of the outcome of the court case. They continued with the case however to confirm that they were not outside the law in kicking souths out.

 

[t-ba]

Why can't the roosters wait until everyone has reached the current cap?

Manly should get there by 2005, and will be fully ready to compete chequebook wise by 2007 if there is an increase. The Tigers are still a bit under, obviously waiting to buy talented roosters players, which is only fair, and the Rabbitohs, regardless of their incompotence, have some tucked away.

Increasing the cap for 2005 only serves the interests of the bigger clubs in the game, and not the ones like Cronulla, Wests and Manly who have put in the hard yards to become financially competitive with the big boys.

It's only two seasons Melon.

Also-What's the CPI increase since 1990. when the cap was 1.6 million?

 

[ibeme]

Do you know why there was no capital or impetus Melon?

Because everyone had been turned off the game. Because the game wasn't attractive after ugliness of super League, a competition which clubs like the Raiders and the Broncos used to protect their star studded playing rosters (Pearl came off the Brisbane bench a few times in 1994...), and allowed a few blow ins to 'compete' in their comp. I know it sounds familiar...

The simple fact was no one, semi-interested fans anyway, were interested in a competition as scandal ridden and uneven as the SL/ARL season and the first few seasons of the NRL. as player wages settled down and competition was spread more evenly amongst the clubs, the competition became stronger. 2001, 2002 and 2003 have been, scandals aside, some of the finest and most evenly contested competitions in the games history.

Using the codes new found popularity, clubs, such as the Sharks and tigers, have found benefactors and sponsors capable of providing adequate funds to finance initiatives, while clubs like Melbourne, North Queensland and Manly are able to look for expressions of interest in regards to club ownership.

Increased crowds and increased revenue have, and will continue to be the result.

surely the roosters aren't interested in repeating their super League level crowds again are they? when they were a super succesful outfit?

But I though the Roosters dont have any supporters anyway?? LOL!!

I can see what you are saying, but the fact that these clubs are finding new sponsorship and revenue through the game's popularity now, is a very good reason why their chances of survival are increasing. Finally they are starting to do what Easts did and change their business practices making them more attractive. With that comes success which feeds the sponsorship in a nice loop. A raise in the cap will not undo all that good work these clubs have put into themselves. In fact it could mean the difference for them as they can now spend that extra $50000 securing the players they need, having found this extra 50000 from their new boost in sponsorship dollars. A raise will do more good than bad putting it simply. ensuring the retention of key players alone secures that clubs markettability to sponsors. do you think Easts would be so poular or attractive to sponsors if Freddy was forced to leave in the prime of his career? Do you think that Lockyer being a Bronco doesnt attract a certain level of marketting value to Brisbane? You need these players for clubs to stay solvent as a part of your Marketting plan. to keep these players you must reward them appropriately. to do so currently requires a raise in the cap and a total review reform of the system later down the track. If the cap was raised slowly over the next 5 years to be $4million by say 2009, it would equate to a 24% increase since the NRL was formed, still under what it could be if you simply apply CPI.

Raising the cap preserves player talent and preserves Sponsorship ensuring financial viability. Dont go overboard Mr. NRL we only need a minor increase of a couple of 100 k that will do for now and the gradualness of the rise will not impact clubs in a negative bombshell way like everyone predicts.

What you want are concessions, or something like the idea you proposed in another thread. The salary cap will not do anything to guarantee player retention. What's to say that the Bulldogs won't come along and offer more money for Craig Wing than the Roosters can, because the Roosters still have to fit their other players under the cap. The rich clubs will be able to compete with the Roosters if the cap increases. The poorer clubs probably won't be. They're just hanging on to compete now.

Loyalty concessions, and development concessions give clubs the best chance of retaining those players, because the clubs that developed them can offer them more. Other clubs though have to fit them into the salary cap. The developing club gets a distinct advantage.

The criteria for raising the salary cap should be when the weak clubs can afford to, within reason. If a club is bankrupt, they're bankrupt. If a club has no realistic future, then they have no realistic future. But while they aren't going backwards, then the competiton needs to set the cap at an affordable level for them.

 

[MadDogMason]

 

[melon....]

Do you know why there was no capital or impetus Melon?

Because everyone had been turned off the game. Because the game wasn't attractive after ugliness of super League, a competition which clubs like the Raiders and the Broncos used to protect their star studded playing rosters (Pearl came off the Brisbane bench a few times in 1994...), and allowed a few blow ins to 'compete' in their comp. I know it sounds familiar...

The simple fact was no one, semi-interested fans anyway, were interested in a competition as scandal ridden and uneven as the SL/ARL season and the first few seasons of the NRL. as player wages settled down and competition was spread more evenly amongst the clubs, the competition became stronger. 2001, 2002 and 2003 have been, scandals aside, some of the finest and most evenly contested competitions in the games history.

Using the codes new found popularity, clubs, such as the Sharks and tigers, have found benefactors and sponsors capable of providing adequate funds to finance initiatives, while clubs like Melbourne, North Queensland and Manly are able to look for expressions of interest in regards to club ownership.

Increased crowds and increased revenue have, and will continue to be the result.

surely the roosters aren't interested in repeating their super League level crowds again are they? when they were a super succesful outfit?

But I though the Roosters dont have any supporters anyway?? LOL!!

I can see what you are saying, but the fact that these clubs are finding new sponsorship and revenue through the game's popularity now, is a very good reason why their chances of survival are increasing. Finally they are starting to do what Easts did and change their business practices making them more attractive. With that comes success which feeds the sponsorship in a nice loop. A raise in the cap will not undo all that good work these clubs have put into themselves. In fact it could mean the difference for them as they can now spend that extra $50000 securing the players they need, having found this extra 50000 from their new boost in sponsorship dollars. A raise will do more good than bad putting it simply. ensuring the retention of key players alone secures that clubs markettability to sponsors. do you think Easts would be so poular or attractive to sponsors if Freddy was forced to leave in the prime of his career? Do you think that Lockyer being a Bronco doesnt attract a certain level of marketting value to Brisbane? You need these players for clubs to stay solvent as a part of your Marketting plan. to keep these players you must reward them appropriately. to do so currently requires a raise in the cap and a total review reform of the system later down the track. If the cap was raised slowly over the next 5 years to be $4million by say 2009, it would equate to a 24% increase since the NRL was formed, still under what it could be if you simply apply CPI.

Raising the cap preserves player talent and preserves Sponsorship ensuring financial viability. Dont go overboard Mr. NRL we only need a minor increase of a couple of 100 k that will do for now and the gradualness of the rise will not impact clubs in a negative bombshell way like everyone predicts.

What you want are concessions, or something like the idea you proposed in another thread. The salary cap will not do anything to guarantee player retention. What's to say that the Bulldogs won't come along and offer more money for Craig Wing than the Roosters can, because the Roosters still have to fit their other players under the cap. The rich clubs will be able to compete with the Roosters if the cap increases. The poorer clubs probably won't be. They're just hanging on to compete now.

Loyalty concessions, and development concessions give clubs the best chance of retaining those players, because the clubs that developed them can offer them more. Other clubs though have to fit them into the salary cap. The developing club gets a distinct advantage.

The criteria for raising the salary cap should be when the weak clubs can afford to, within reason. If a club is bankrupt, they're bankrupt. If a club has no realistic future, then they have no realistic future. But while they aren't going backwards, then the competiton needs to set the cap at an affordable level for them.

Its not about the highest price paid win in the end Ib. Players already want to stay at Easts. Its about paying players, not all but some that definitely have earnt a pay rise and not being allowed to. Its that simple, and you along with most supporters cant see it for what it actually is preferring to ride the Telegraph's doom bus.

On the Wall today, a Souths supporter actually applauded the comments made by one of the members. He applauded because he can see how well Easts are managed and run and he knows if Souths were run that well theyd be world beaters. Its all relative, but if your happy to stress about it, who an I to stop you. Go for your life mate, The end is near!!!

 

[Grantwhy]

Perhaps you should form your own opinion ... it wouldnt hurt in a world full of media junkies who need "journalists" ... LMAO...to make their opinion for them.

What is the problem with a small rise in the cap ? I seriously cannot see one.
but of course, i dont read the papers ... so my opinion is actually my own. Whats wrong with giving players a little bit of the 600 million ?

Two Questions - i'd like to know the answers to:

1) Just how much of the $600 million is in cash, and how much is in kind (advertising/broadcasting ect)?

2) Over how many years is it spread?

 

[Grantwhy]

now they can see what clubs such as bris, parra , dogs ,knightsand to a certain degree 3 to 4 other clubs have already gone through, and they dont like it . TUFF SH!T

Do you seriously believe these clubs said nothing when they lost these players cause that is what you are implying. Everyone keeps cr@pping on how they copped it. In the end the NRL forced them to let them go but they tried every means bar legal action.

Remember every newspaper splashed with articles about Newcastle and the NRL to get concessions so they could keep Matty Johns?? How about Bronco's with Sailor going to Rugby, same deal. The NRL has slammed the door shut every time.

Then what happened, they left the game. They didnt go to a lesser club. This is where the Cap fails. Players are human and being human they want to go to a winning side. How many stars could have played for a few more years but chose to retire or go to the UK rather than finish their career and bottom of the ladder team and finishing with a low point. All the cap has done is reduced the retiring age of players. The teams constantly at the bottom of the ladder need to make their team attractive to get players. The cap isnt the miracle that just puts players into their team.

The point is every team when its in their interest have approached the NRL without success. The Roosters arent the first.

Matthew Johns?? That name rings a bell . . . isn't he that Cronulla player who had to retire because of neck/spinal problems?

My point? If a player wants to keep playing, and his existing club can't offer what they feel they are worth then they will move to another club who can.



As for Wendell :roll: He's probably earning more from Union than the Bronco's would pay him but there are other clubs out there that would of been willing to match it.

I don't think Wendell went for (only) the money - he is silly enough to have gone for the challenge as well. I think Union also played to his ego in convincing him to switch (he is a bigger name in Union than he was in League).

The point is every team when its in their interest have approached the NRL without success. The Roosters arent the first.

No, but they do seem to be the first to tell the NRL to raise the Salary Cap or they will destroy it in court.

 

[Aries]

Like it or not the game does not revolve around you

Look more closely: I think you'll find it does.

Get used to it, chump.

The only thing revolving around you is your BUTT on your Greased up finger... :?