Cap discounts

[Choppies]

Ive been thinking about the cap and I thought it sad that some players who have played for a certain club all theyre career and get forced out due to the salary cap IE Price and Cusack
and there is a clause in the cap that says long-term players have a cap discount or something like that but that is if they have played with a club for 10 years, which is a rareraty these days

here is my solution to the cap, It goes by how many FG games the player has played for the club

say if a player plays 100 FG games for lets say Dragons.
he could get say 25% of his salary not counted on the salary cap when he signs his next contract with the Dragons, Because he has played 100 FG games for them.
and lets say this player plays 200 FG games for the Dragons
So that would be say 50% on his next contract which is not counted towards the cap
and lets say he reaches 250 FG games for the Dragons so that means 75% of his contract is not counted against the cap

BUT New scenario
Lets say this player plays 146 FG games for the Dragons and he has a 25% of his contract with the Dragons, but this player signs with the Tigers
so that would mean the Tigers would not be able to have this Contract discount until he plays 100 FG games for them

thoughts?

 

[TRANSLATION]

THats a very good solution, send it in to the NRL and to the Media trolls, all solutions are at least someone having a go and looking at changing a system that does not work.

Good effort.

BTW, Clubs get 100k a year now for a 10 year player, but you can only use it for 1 player per club.

Not good enough.

 

[ibeme]

Not a bad solution. I reckon the count should restart for the new club. It's about rewarding loyalty. I guess this throws a spanner in the works if a club decides to release a player though. Not sure about that scenario.

 

[Choppies]

Ibeme read the last paragraph thasts regarding re starting the count when they leave the club

and if they get released and go to another club then the count is restarted

 

[ibeme]

Choppies,

I slightly misinterpreted what you said. I thought you were asking about that scenario. If a player signs with another club, I agree that his count should restart.

My only concern is if a player leaves because they're no longer wanted by his current club, despite his willingness to stay. It seems unfair that he should be stripped of his count under those circumstances, but it doesn't seem right that he should start at a new club with head start on his count.

An extreme case would be if a player gets the arse from his club at the end of the season and has 99 matches. I don't think it's fair that he should have to go back to 0, but I also don't think it's fair that he only has to play one game at his new club to qualify for the exemption.

 

[Choppies]

Ibeme I wasnt having a go at ya mate

but there should be a Junior exepmtion clause

Say a player started playing with say Souths with Harold mats or SG Ball and came up to 1st Grade so there could be an exemption for that

 

[ibeme]

I know you weren't having a go Choppies. Just thought there was a bit of confusion over what we were talking about.

Definitely a junio exemption clause.

 

[Big Mick]

Do u honestly believe cusack was pushed out due to salary cap pressure after u bought 4 players after him?

 

[Simon]

I agree with what you wrote about concessions. I wrote in here not long ago with a similar idea. These concessions also gives rewards to clubs for developping their own players. Your concessions are a bit high though. 25% discount should only be for players who have played over 200 games. If you start at 25% for 100 games most of the money teams pay for players will be out of the cap. I'd start it at 50 games with a 5% discount. This way a club who has developed a player has an advantage over other clubs when he comes off contract for the first time as he usually would of played a number of first grade games by then.

To get this into the game though the salary cap would have to be lowered from 3.25 million. This is because teams would be paying well over the limit any how after taking concessions into account. If it was left at 3.25 million these concessions would only benefit clubs like the Roosters, Dragons, Bulldogs and Broncos who could afford the concessions on top of the cap.

 

[Choppies]

Do u honestly believe cusack was pushed out due to salary cap pressure after u bought 4 players after him?

well after we bought Brett Firman,Amos Roberts, Joel Monoghan and Richard Fa'aoso there wasnt much room for Cusack

 

[thickos]

I think anyone with over 10 years of service at the one club should get that $100k exemption or whatever it is. The fact that it only applies to ONE PLAYER shafts teams that have a lot of loyal players in their ranks.

At the Raiders, the exemption is on Croker's contract. But we also have Wiki, Davico and Woolford on our books with 10+ years. McLinden is up to 7. If we had more $$$ freed up we might have held on to Ruben.

Its a shame and doesn't reward loyalty.

 

[lockyno1]

I agree, but some clubs are not like the Roosters and would not be able to afford to do it. This would really disadvantage these clubs.

Any idea is worth trying but this one will not happen!!!

 

[TheEye]

I agree, but some clubs are not like the Roosters and would not be able to afford to do it. This would really disadvantage these clubs. !

Please explain how a system that rewards clubs for long service means it will advantage rich clubs.

 

[ozzie]

Do u honestly believe cusack was pushed out due to salary cap pressure after u bought 4 players after him?

sorry Big Mick - but you are out of line - sure we let him go and why?? We have better forwards coming through - but it seems to me penrith are fairly sensitive now because of their rape and pillage of a club called Cronulla two years ago!! But how quickly we forget...I guess they just wanted to go with the coach.

And now they are suffering because we signed two of their players??

God I wish everyone would look at their own club - and stop pointing fingers..because it is stupid..

Every club has a certain amount to spend - some clubs do it better than others..have a shot at the Roosters all you want - but in that club there is now club unity and loyalty..like most clubs we have to make hard decisions on who to let go - who is coming through and who do we need to bolster our team with.

Don't have a shot at us - have a shot at our own development officers, CEO's, and club management!!

 

[Nugby]

Locky's saying if you get a club with say, all their 25 over 100 first grades games (not likely but I'm not great with maths) your cap could get over 3.85 Million, throw in some 25% discounters and you could even get over 4 Million, this'd work in the favour of those clubs that can afford it like the Rorters, Brisbane or St. George. Having said that, I think it's a great idea though I cant see it happening anytime soon

 

[lockyno1]

Well said Nugby. He knows what I mean. You Roosters supporters want all the players and that is just plain unfair to other sides.

By the way wasn't it you that pushed for a salary cap increase, and the response from the NRL was that not everyone could afford it. Now how can they afford it now!!

 

[Kiwi]

I agree, but some clubs are not like the Roosters and would not be able to afford to do it. This would really disadvantage these clubs. !

Please explain how a system that rewards clubs for long service means it will advantage rich clubs.

I think what he meant was the Poorer clubs couldn't afford the extra expenses to keep players, whilst clubs like the Roosters, Panthers, Broncos could.

For example say Broncos have around 10ish 100 game players at the club. All of a sudden these players are are 25% off. Lets say they averaged 200,000 per player, thats 250 grand they could spend on another player. Clubs like the Tigers, Manly ect wouldn't find it as easy to find that much money over the cap over an extended period of time.

Currently the Broncos have the following who would be up for exemption in their current squad.

25% discount
S Berrigan - 112
Carlaw - 110
Carroll - 123
Petero - 136
Devere - 162
Webcke - 198 ( almost 50% )
Tallis - 153

and

Lockyer - 208 - 50% discount

Meyers - 96 is close to discount, along with Kelly - 74, Tate - 59, McGuire - 60

We would hardly lose a player and have $250,000 free to spend on who ever on Lockyers contract alone.

Thats not taking into account any discounts if there was a junior exemption aswell.

Broncos could easily free up over a million dollars on the cap with those exemptions.

 

[ozzie]

Well said Nugby. He knows what I mean. You Roosters supporters want all the players and that is just plain unfair to other sides.

By the way wasn't it you that pushed for a salary cap increase, and the response from the NRL was that not everyone could afford it. Now how can they afford it now!!

and wasn't it now that all the clubs want an increase - and why do we want all the players?? - are we the only other club that has signed new players - how many has Souths bought? How many had Warriors bought - but you guys with jealousy picks on one club - go and get a life...wake up and smell the roses my friend - because at the moment you talk crap!!!

 

[League Freak™]

Here is the deal....

If club wanted to keep their long serving players...they would keep them. Its that simple.



The panthers were on the verge of losing Ryan Girdler a few years ago. They had two choices....let him go and piss and moan about the cap....or make him a better offer so he remains a Panthers player.


Same with Steve Price. If the Dogs really wanted him to stay so badly....they would have offered him more money.




The real reason some clubs want discounts is because they want to have their cake and eat it to.


They want to still be able to sign up all the young player....but they only want half of their stars contract to count against the cap.

 

[Choppies]

also if a player goes to England or *shudder* Union and then they come back to the NRL they have to start the count over again

IE Tonie Carroll