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!

Every Club's Real Cap Worth

Colk

Bench
Messages
4,310
Some clubs are run professionally, others are old boys clubs with no idea. Nathan Cleary and Chad Townsend are on similar money. Salary cap isn't fixing clubs making those recruiting decisions. Dogs are paying Flanno Jnr 500k to vacuum Gus's Camry.

Short of having the NRL putting all players in a pool then making teams out of them and allocating them to different clubs, you will never get an even spread of talent. Even then the ones that land in the better setups will still come out on top.

The clubs need to get better. Some seem to be taking steps in the right direction, others not so much.

First point: Even if you are right (to a degree) you have to look outside of your own club and even yourself as a dyed in the wool league supporter and remind yourself that you and I are in the minority. There are a lot more people who are casual viewers and watch whatever sport is of most interest to them. If the game continues to be as it is, then why would somebody watch teams getting bashed up by 30, 40 and 50 points when they can watch other sports and watch a contest.

Second point: On the merits of the salary cap, I am just criticising the system. It is a terrible system because the game can’t police it. Furthermore, even when teams have been caught (incidentally by somebody spilling the beans internally and not because the ARLC caught them) a lot of them (Canberra, Bulldogs, Storm for example) have won a competition shortly afterwards so the punishment is never strong enough. This has been made worse by allowing TPA’s and other outside arrangements, which makes it impossible to track, benefits only a few clubs and is totally against the idea of the salary cap, to the point where one wonders why even have it.

Third point: There are better options than just a salary cap. Look at other competitions. It is the same debate as junior development: just because it has been done in a particular way in League, it doesn’t mean it should be.
 

soc123_au

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
16,248
First point: Even if you are right (to a degree) you have to look outside of your own club and even yourself as a dyed in the wool league supporter and remind yourself that you and I are in the minority. There are a lot more people who are casual viewers and watch whatever sport is of most interest to them. If the game continues to be as it is, then why would somebody watch teams getting bashed up by 30, 40 and 50 points when they can watch other sports and watch a contest.

Second point: On the merits of the salary cap, I am just criticising the system. It is a terrible system because the game can’t police it. Furthermore, even when teams have been caught (incidentally by somebody spilling the beans internally and not because the ARLC caught them) a lot of them (Canberra, Bulldogs, Storm for example) have won a competition shortly afterwards so the punishment is never strong enough. This has been made worse by allowing TPA’s and other outside arrangements, which makes it impossible to track, benefits only a few clubs and is totally against the idea of the salary cap, to the point where one wonders why even have it.

Third point: There are better options than just a salary cap. Look at other competitions. It is the same debate as junior development: just because it has been done in a particular way in League, it doesn’t mean it should be.
The bottom line still remains the same. While there are poorly run clubs, there will be poor performing clubs.
 
Messages
11,339
The bottom line still remains the same. While there are poorly run clubs, there will be poor performing clubs.

Have to agree to an extent. Even in US sports where they have salary caps and a draft (e.g. the NFL, NBA) you have teams who are perrenial underachievers despite having plenty of good draft picks and plenty of salary cap space (e.g. the New York Knicks, the New York Jets). A lot of it does come down to some clubs having better people working in key positions.

I mean cripes untilo the last 5-10 years, the LA Clippers and the Cleveland Browns used to be the laughingstocks of their respective sports becvause of how poorly they used to be run.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
53,785
Its a romantic notion to believe we can have a different premier every year and clubs rotate from top to bottom regularly. I think the cap is doing its job as best it can, just look at the talent moving around the comp this and next season. Most pf it is going from good teams to poor teams. But buying other clubs talent isnt helping if your coach is crap or your recovery systems arent top notch or the players arent buying in or the club culture is avg etc

Every now and again a once in a generation superstar, coach or team comes along and dominates in most sports. Even in NFL with its cap, draft and every club totally coined Patriots have dominated the last decade on the back of a super coach and super QB coming through together. We saw it with Wigan in the 90's, Storm in the last decade, Man Utd under Ferguson.
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
30,435
Some clubs are run professionally, others are old boys clubs with no idea. Nathan Cleary and Chad Townsend are on similar money. Salary cap isn't fixing clubs making those recruiting decisions. Dogs are paying Flanno Jnr 500k to vacuum Gus's Camry.

Short of having the NRL putting all players in a pool then making teams out of them and allocating them to different clubs, you will never get an even spread of talent. Even then the ones that land in the better setups will still come out on top.

The clubs need to get better. Some seem to be taking steps in the right direction, others not so much.
If Nathan Clearly is on $650k I'll stand rooting.
 

soc123_au

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
16,248
If Nathan Clearly is on $650k I'll stand rooting.
Nathan is on $940k and Chad is reported to be on $800k. I did say similar money, not the same.



Cleary is at no 9.

edit: Ponga, Klemmer & Pearce being on that list at their respective salaries only proves the point further.
 
Last edited:

Colk

Bench
Messages
4,310
Its a romantic notion to believe we can have a different premier every year and clubs rotate from top to bottom regularly. I think the cap is doing its job as best it can, just look at the talent moving around the comp this and next season. Most pf it is going from good teams to poor teams. But buying other clubs talent isnt helping if your coach is crap or your recovery systems arent top notch or the players arent buying in or the club culture is avg etc

Every now and again a once in a generation superstar, coach or team comes along and dominates in most sports. Even in NFL with its cap, draft and every club totally coined Patriots have dominated the last decade on the back of a super coach and super QB coming through together. We saw it with Wigan in the 90's, Storm in the last decade, Man Utd under Ferguson.
The bottom line still remains the same. While there are poorly run clubs, there will be poor performing clubs.

I am not arguing for a different premier every year; nor am I arguing against the fact that some clubs are poorly run and some are well run, all I’m stating that the gap is getting wider (which isn’t a good thing) and that if you can’t police something, which in turn means there isn’t a system in place, then you need to change to a system that you can police. That is opposed to the pinky square, I promise I am not doing anything wrong system that we have in place atm.
 
Last edited:

soc123_au

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
16,248
I am not arguing for a different premier every year; nor am I arguing against the fact that some clubs are poorly run and some are well run, all I’m stating that the gap is getting wider (which isn’t a good thing) and that if you can’t police something, which in turn means there isn’t a system in place, then you need to change to a system that you can police. That is opposed to the pinky square, I promise I am not doing anything wrong system that we have in place atm.
I don't think anyone is arguing with you saying the cap is perfect, or that the gap between top and bottom teams is a bad thing.

The only way the gap closes though is clubs sort their shit out and put some effort into development. As it stands you could give the bottom few sides an extra 2 mill in the cap and they would still be shit. 3 of them would get into a bidding war over Luke Brooks and make him the highest paid player in the game. Look at Parra, blew the cap to get the spoon. They have at least learned from it and are playing a smarter game now.
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
4,310
Nathan is on $940k and Chad is reported to be on $800k. I did say similar money, not the same.



Cleary is at no 9.

That was a terrible call by the Cowboys. However, some mitigating factors.

They need a halfback and they are always going to have to spend way overs in order to recruit anybody. Again, Townsend is not the answer but they would have had to pay a premium like Canberra or Newcastle or the Warriors do to recruit players. That is never going to change when you have more than half of the competition from one area.

The second problem is every club has to spend a certain amount of their cap which was another terrible decision enforced in relation to the transfer market. The Knights had the same problem when they were running around with a reserve grade side. So now the Cowboys had the choice of forwarding payments to players who don’t deserve it or trying to recruit players on overs. What would you do in that situation?
 

soc123_au

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
16,248
That was a terrible call by the Cowboys. However, some mitigating factors.

They need a halfback and they are always going to have to spend way overs in order to recruit anybody. Again, Townsend is not the answer but they would have had to pay a premium like Canberra or Newcastle or the Warriors do to recruit players. That is never going to change when you have more than half of the competition from one area.

The second problem is every club has to spend a certain amount of their cap which was another terrible decision enforced in relation to the transfer market. The Knights had the same problem when they were running around with a reserve grade side. So now the Cowboys had the choice of forwarding payments to players who don’t deserve it or trying to recruit players on overs. What would you do in that situation?
On the rule about spending the majority of the cap, I agree with you that it's a stupid rule.

On the other, blowing your wad on Chad isn't the answer. They will be similar shades of shit with the Chad in the 7 or some bloke they pluck from the crowd for a pie and chips. Use the money to entice some good prospects up there and put the time into them. For the same money you get 5 or 6 kids and in a few years you could end up with a few really good ones. Going the Chad route, in 3 years they are right back where we are now.

This isn't to single out the Cows either, or Chad for that matter. It's just one example of many across the NRL.
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
30,435
Nathan is on $940k and Chad is reported to be on $800k. I did say similar money, not the same.



Cleary is at no 9.

edit: Ponga, Klemmer & Pearce being on that list at their respective salaries only proves the point further.
That one Danny Wieldler gossip column is as fake as a Ivan Clearly guarantee.

That little agenda driven jerk- off is as trustworthy as Nathan Cleary in lockdown.

Every other source has announced his salary at $650k. Which quite frankly is the going rate for a middle of the road NRL halfback..

Your also ignorant as f**k if you think the Cowboys don't do anything in the junior development.

Half the Knights backline are Cowboys juniors, and players like Kikau, Brandon Smith etc all came up in the Cowboys system.
 
Last edited:

soc123_au

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
16,248
That one Danny Wieldler gossip column is as fake as a Ivan Clearly guarantee.

That little agenda driven jerk- off is as trustworthy as Nathan Cleary in lockdown.

Every other source has announced his salary at $650k. Which quite frankly is the going rate for a middle of the road NRL halfback..

Your also ignorant as f**k if you think the Cowboys don't do anything in the junior development.

Half the Knights backline are Cowboys juniors, and players like Kikau, Brandon Smith etc all came up in the Cowboys system.
Yeah, using you guys as an example in regards to junior development was a poor call on my part. The point stand for a lot of others though.
 

Colk

Bench
Messages
4,310
I don't think anyone is arguing with you saying the cap is perfect, or that the gap between top and bottom teams is a bad thing.

The only way the gap closes though is clubs sort their shit out and put some effort into development. As it stands you could give the bottom few sides an extra 2 mill in the cap and they would still be shit. 3 of them would get into a bidding war over Luke Brooks and make him the highest paid player in the game. Look at Parra, blew the cap to get the spoon. They have at least learned from it and are playing a smarter game now.

You have touched on another point about junior development - clubs shouldn’t be involved. At all. Not many other sports do this and there is a reason why

Also, as soon as you put TPA’s and nothing counteracting it, you weaken the system.

Parra benefited from being over the cap the same as Melbourne, and the Bulldogs - most sides have built great sides as a result of breaking the cap and have actually benefited. Again, the NRL are unable to truly stop it from happening and the punishments have never been a deterrent against it - all the player managers involved in that still operated afterwards and the players still played afterwards. You need to find something totally transparent or put something in conjunction with it (draft or points system)
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
53,785
I am not arguing for a different premier every year; nor am I arguing against the fact that some clubs are poorly run and some are well run, all I’m stating that the gap is getting wider (which isn’t a good thing) and that if you can’t police something, which in turn means there isn’t a system in place, then you need to change to a system that you can police. That is opposed to the pinky square, I promise I am not doing anything wrong system that we have in place atm.
Even more so now Vlandys slashed funding to the integrity and legal Dept.
 

Tony Seibs

Juniors
Messages
70
Some clubs are run professionally, others are old boys clubs with no idea. Nathan Cleary and Chad Townsend are on similar money. Salary cap isn't fixing clubs making those recruiting decisions. Dogs are paying Flanno Jnr 500k to vacuum Gus's Camry.

Short of having the NRL putting all players in a pool then making teams out of them and allocating them to different clubs, you will never get an even spread of talent. Even then the ones that land in the better setups will still come out on top.

The clubs need to get better. Some seem to be taking steps in the right direction, others not so much.
👍

Dumb clubs get what they deserve.

Just paying someone a lot won't make em better.

Recruiting "names" might boost off season hype and social media but Pangai Jr will probably serve more weeks on the side line than Addo-Carr crosses the try line. Townsend and Holmes (playing centre) is nearly $2m. Tigers previously making Mbye and Josh Reynolds amongst the highest paid in the game. Buzz valuing Ponga so high.

These are all ridiculous financial decisions/opinions and show why the cap is still performing it's main task; to stop clubs burying themselves splashing out on players. There's so much pressure on now that without a limit a few would absolutely go "all in" on a wing and a prayer with no way out if it fails.
 

Angry_eel

First Grade
Messages
8,363
Nathan is on $940k and Chad is reported to be on $800k. I did say similar money, not the same.



Cleary is at no 9.

edit: Ponga, Klemmer & Pearce being on that list at their respective salaries only proves the point further.
Well in Australia, it's not the similar at all. 140K is the salary before tax of a worker in Tech who works 40 hours a week. It's nearly 8K a month difference.
 

soc123_au

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
16,248
Well in Australia, it's not the similar at all. 140K is the salary before tax of a worker in Tech who works 40 hours a week. It's nearly 8K a month difference.
40k to 140k isn't similar, 800k to 940k is similar. Similar doesn't mean the same. The point is that some clubs pay overs and ruin their cap, others don't. The gap in quality between teams has bugger all to do with the rules in place, it is due to management.
 

soc123_au

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
16,248
You have touched on another point about junior development - clubs shouldn’t be involved. At all. Not many other sports do this and there is a reason why
Other sports are in different markets. People often refer to NFL as an example of taking development away from the clubs. It would never work here, our setup is completely different. We dont have a college system to support sport development.

I don't get the argument as to why you would take it off the clubs anyway. Those that put effort into development are the most successful in the professional era. Melbourne rarely buy established talent. They identify promising kids and develop them to a point where other clubs pay overs to get them. Then they just find new ones and go again. The Roosters are great at it too, they also have a knack for complimenting their developed talent with astute recruiting. Penrith have finally gotten serious on the development front with the Acadamy and really getting serious with Country footy.
 

mongoose

First Grade
Messages
9,588
First point: Even if you are right (to a degree) you have to look outside of your own club and even yourself as a dyed in the wool league supporter and remind yourself that you and I are in the minority. There are a lot more people who are casual viewers and watch whatever sport is of most interest to them. If the game continues to be as it is, then why would somebody watch teams getting bashed up by 30, 40 and 50 points when they can watch other sports and watch a contest.

Second point: On the merits of the salary cap, I am just criticising the system. It is a terrible system because the game can’t police it. Furthermore, even when teams have been caught (incidentally by somebody spilling the beans internally and not because the ARLC caught them) a lot of them (Canberra, Bulldogs, Storm for example) have won a competition shortly afterwards so the punishment is never strong enough. This has been made worse by allowing TPA’s and other outside arrangements, which makes it impossible to track, benefits only a few clubs and is totally against the idea of the salary cap, to the point where one wonders why even have it.

Third point: There are better options than just a salary cap. Look at other competitions. It is the same debate as junior development: just because it has been done in a particular way in League, it doesn’t mean it should be.
The Storm cheated but the fact they had to go so far over the cap to keep players they basically developed themselves shows how flawed the system is, not the fact they didn't get punished enough.

I think the purpose of a salary cap should be:

1.) stop clubs spending outside of their means

2.) prevent a cashed up Manchester City/Barcelona FC type club who just buy up all the talent.

You could argue the Roosters sometimes push number 2, but the Storm or Panthers definitely do not. Not sure of any fair system you could implement that would pull those teams back to the pack and I am not sure they should be penalised for keeping good players they developed themselves.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
53,785
Other sports are in different markets. People often refer to NFL as an example of taking development away from the clubs. It would never work here, our setup is completely different. We dont have a college system to support sport development.

I don't get the argument as to why you would take it off the clubs anyway. Those that put effort into development are the most successful in the professional era. Melbourne rarely buy established talent. They identify promising kids and develop them to a point where other clubs pay overs to get them. Then they just find new ones and go again. The Roosters are great at it too, they also have a knack for complimenting their developed talent with astute recruiting. Penrith have finally gotten serious on the development front with the Acadamy and really getting serious with Country footy.
That’s only in Sydney though, the rest of nsw and the country the nrl clubs aren’t responsible for jnrs, the state leagues and grassroots clubs are.
 

Latest posts

Top