What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Can your club afford a $6 million salary cap?

Loudstrat

Coach
Messages
15,224
Simple question, simple answer. I know some can, and some cannot. Personally I have fears for Cronulla, Newcastle and maybe Canberra, Wests and NQ, but fans of these clubs have a better idea than I do.

Re Parra - I believe we can. We have a great sponsorship portfolio and have a stack of corporates in our area, a very good junior development regime, a stack of credibility, a great home ground and some very good business minds in and around the club.

So it's YES for the Eels.
 

Dogs Of War

Coach
Messages
12,721
Probably not, as it's a lot income to generate. Though another million is probably not out of the question. Would prefer a more sensible option of increasing the grant and strengthening the game by a review of the Salary Cap that gives proper discounts for junior and long service players. When the next TV rights come up, then the NRL can increase the amount properly.
 

Eels Dude

Coach
Messages
19,065
I don't know. Not without a relaxation on third party rules we wouldn't. It's too hard while the Leagues club are pulling themselves back together, they won't be able to increase any grant.
 

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
Yes, the Dragons would be able to scrape it together. Might have to spend less on coaching staff than we do now though. St George spend a lot in that area right now. I guess thats the difference between the clubs now, how good their support staff is.

The question isn't about what clubs can aford now though... it should be why aren't we getting more from the TV deal, which comes back to the way the game is run, which brings us back to the next TV deal and the Ind. Commission.
 

clarency

Juniors
Messages
1,217
I wouldn't know to be honest. However there is a major boom in the mining industry in upper Queensland (as the CQLD bidders keep touting) so there is potential for a more richer sponsorship deal.

Assuming mining companies are interested in sponsoring a Rugby League club?
 

Lego_Man

First Grade
Messages
5,071
Privately owned clubs would gain the edge, and we'd be heading down the road of the EPL...
 

Iafeta

Referee
Messages
24,357
I would suggest the answer would be no. Look, I'm sure Eric Watson could afford it, but he would then need to work out whether an extra $1.9m in costs without any apparent return would be in his interests, if I was him, I would say no.

Onwards to that, what does an increase really achieve? Sure, it raises the incomes of the top say 30% considerably, but the bottom 5-10 that we're really concerned about are still going to be pillaged on minimal wages. The money will merely shift the top echelon up the scale. Who are we really losing? In most cases blokes who are coming to the end of their careers and want a big cash pay out, and if we raise our cap, whose to suggest the ESL won't do so also to compensate, and blokes who go to union. And really, most seem to come back from union anyway. Take Tahu, Tuqiri, Sailor and Rogers. Sure, we lost them, but the game was such putrid tripe that they returned anyhow. Who have we lost? Berrick Barnes who was an above average first grader but certainly not a rep player who now props up the Wallabies (lol an above average club footballer goes straight to the top in their code), Clinton Schifcofkse and since his departure both Zillman and now Josh Dugan have come through as Canberra fullbacks, Mark McLinden no biggie, Mark Gasnier (but looking at Saints backline, they're going good enough anyway), $BW who would work corners for tricks if it paid him extra, and Craig Gower. In most cases we've overcome them quite easily. $BW's departure, the Dogs went from wooden spooners to major qualifying finalists. Craig Gower's departure, they were inconsistent with him but look like they're turning the corner now, cutie, Brisbane have a history of producing good young players anyway, Gasnier, the Dragons aren't struggling, Barnes... pullllleeaase.

I really don't feel we've lost too much out of our game. A more pressing issue I always found was the way the Kolpak ruling allowed the ESL to pillage players with Polynesian ancestory. A lot of Warriors players went over there as they were quota exempt. I'd rather we did something about that sort of stuff first where some of the younger blokes go over rather than worry about players we are replacing naturally anyhow.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,876
Yes, the Dragons would be able to scrape it together. Might have to spend less on coaching staff than we do now though. St George spend a lot in that area right now. I guess thats the difference between the clubs now, how good their support staff is.

The question isn't about what clubs can aford now though... it should be why aren't we getting more from the TV deal, which comes back to the way the game is run, which brings us back to the next TV deal and the Ind. Commission.
How well is the Leagues Club going these days? I'd suggest the following:

Bulldogs - Yes
Broncos - Yes
Cowboys - No
Parramatta - Maybe not
Panthers - No
Tigers - No
Sharks - No
Knights - No
Raiders - Yes
Rabbitohs - Yes
Dragons - No
Roosters - Yes
Storm - Yes
Warriors - Maybe not
Sea Eagles - Yes
Titans - No

That would be 7 yes, 2 maybe's, 7 no's. The clubs reliant on leagues club's would battle to pitch towards another $2 Million to fund a football team - we are talking about the hardest trading conditions for licenced venues in NSW for the last 40 years. There just isn't the funding available for a Tigers/Panthers/Dragons/Sharks where they are purely reliant on club funding.

More to the point is we need to look at achievable growth. Do we really need a salary cap of $6 Million? Is an average wage of $220K per year for an NRL player justifiable? I'd have to say no.
 

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
You are a goose. You put manly and rabbits forward as being able to cover it, but they are just as reliant on their owners as the warriors are, and those owners are reluctant to put more money in now, let alone a big increase for the cap. Dragons would be able to do it at a pinch, in a similar position to Parra.

Any big increase in the salary cap should also see an increase to say 30 players in the main squad. This would see players better paid, and an improvement in depth. Requires more TV money to go to the clubs though.

The big loser would be European Super League. But if we get 2 new teams as well as an increase in the NRL grant the SL will lose a lot of their Australian players.
 
Last edited:

KeepingTheFaith

Referee
Messages
25,235
Any raise in cap should come with a raise in the minimum contract for an NRL player. If it all goes to the stars and big names then it's just a waste of money.
 

Lockyer4President!

First Grade
Messages
7,975
Surely we'd just wait until the NRL can cover the whole $6M cap via the grant before we up it too that?

To answer your question though, I have no doubt that Brisbane could do it.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,876
You are a goose. You put manly and rabbits forward as being able to cover it, but they are just as reliant on their owners as the warriors are, and those owners are reluctant to put more money in now, let alone a big increase for the cap. Dragons would be able to do it at a pinch, in a similar position to Parra.

Any big increase in the salary cap should also see an increase to say 30 players in the main squad. This would see players better paid, and an improvement in depth. Requires more TV money to go to the clubs though.

The big loser would be European Super League. But if we get 2 new teams as well as an increase in the NRL grant the SL will lose a lot of their Australian players.

Watson has shown on a number of occasions that he is reluctant to put more cash towards the club - that's why I said maybe. Manly and Rabbitohs have private ownership and have shown on a pretty consistent basis that they are providing the clubs sufficient cash to ensure the club works.

I'd look a little harder at how St George Leagues are going - not very well. Parramatta Leagues isn't going much better.

As for increasing the salary cap but also increasing the number of players under the cap...what is the point of doing that? Do the clubs need more players for the first grade squad? Is increasing the average wage for a player by $30,000 going to make any difference - probably less given the top players would expect an increase in salary in line with the increase in the cap?
 

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
^ yes. You obviously don't understand the lack of depth first grade squads have right now.

No reserve grade, clubs putting under 20s blokes on their NRL lists. Just look how ravaged Brisbane are with injuries. By having an increase in the number of players in the squad on a low wage it would bring some blokes back from the UK, but at the same time provide more oportunity for the big earners to be better paid.

I would also look at a marque rule too. So a $6m NRL grant paid salary cap to cover a squad of 30 players, and a rule that 1-2 players can be paid outside the cap. keep in mind 10 players would be on $55-100k, leaving +$200k per head for the rest of the squad, with two blokes per side paid as much as clubs are willing to spend.

On St George Leagues, they are doing okay. situation last year improved significantly, and they are currently renovating the club substancially. (ill go dig out the most recent club magazine if you want).

As I said, Dragons can do it, but at a pinch. We have one of the highest coaching staff spends in the comp currently. Hardly the actions of a club out of its financial depth.
 
Last edited:

Noa

First Grade
Messages
9,029
Do what the AFL do and relax rules on third-party agreements. The positives will outwiegh any perceived negatives.

You just have to amek sure theyre doing the work to eanr it, and in the long run the increased use of player images in the marketplace will increase money for everyone.

But Im sure Gallop knows better.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,876
I would also look at a marque rule too. So a $6m NRL grant paid salary cap to cover a squad of 30 players, and a rule that 1-2 players can be paid outside the cap.
So you are busy giving me a lecture about how I don't know what I'm talking about, yet you are changing what you'd do on the run once I pointed out your grand plan was pointless.

Well done champ.

You do know having to come up with another $2 Million a year would mean your club renovations don't happen in the future right? What I do know is the club was in massive amounts of trouble last year, and they wouldn't be the first licenced club to spend money on renovations in the hope of increasing turnover and profit.

EDIT - for the record, the Licenced Club lost about a Million dollars last year whilst giving the football club $4.5 Million. The year before the licenced club lost $1.4 Million whilst giving the football club $4.1 Million. Clearly you guys will have no troubles at all coming up with another $2 Million!
 
Last edited:

petetheileet

First Grade
Messages
5,605
I think when the new TV deal comes we should be looking at almost doubling to 7.2mil....

assuming the NRL actually gives the clubs the right amount of coin...

1 million extra can be spead very well amongst 3 marquee players at each club and that would make the top 50 NRL players earning over half a mil each. the other 2mill should be used to expand each clubs roster to somewhere in the low 30's

nice dream it would be wouldnt it!!
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,097
Players and their managers will always want more money so raising the salary cap will only raise the bar as far as under the table payments are concerned. Clubs will simply need a bigger slush fund to cover their bribes. So no club will be able to afford a 6mil cap bar the Broncos. Adjust the third party system as has already been mentioned.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,876
I think when the new TV deal comes we should be looking at almost doubling to 7.2mil....

assuming the NRL actually gives the clubs the right amount of coin...

1 million extra can be spead very well amongst 3 marquee players at each club and that would make the top 50 NRL players earning over half a mil each. the other 2mill should be used to expand each clubs roster to somewhere in the low 30's

nice dream it would be wouldnt it!!
How about we increase the salary cap by a practical amount - say $5 Million for the top 25 at each club, and the NRL pays the rep players fairly so the top players in the game are paid as such. So if you played in 3 Origin matches and a few tests a year you earned another $100,000 for example. Rewards and motivates the players, doesn't put any undue stress on the clubs.
 

Latest posts

Top