I posted these suggestions in other threads but it seems relevant here. If we're going to talk cap reform then I think we actually need two caps - a Hard Cap that represents what we can afford to spend and a Soft Cap at some level beneath that.
The Hard Cap would be the maximum dollar value that a club could spend on player payments including all bonuses, concessions (more on that in a moment), cars etc etc. The game can't spend more money than it brings in and we can't arbitrarily say we're going allow clubs to spend more just because player x was a local junior or has been loyal. The Hard Cap represents what the game can actually afford to spend on players. Whether the Hard Cap is determined to be $5m or $20m, clubs can't spend a penny more on players, end of story.
The Soft Cap might be say three quarters or four fifths of the Hard Cap (the exact figure could be debated separately). Without any concessions, a club could only spend up to the Soft Cap on players. Now we introduce the incentives...
* 10% discount for players who have played more than 20 NYC games for the club (ie. cap benefit for developing your own juniors to senior team)
* 10% discount for each additional year over five years with the same club (ie. cap benefit for showing loyalty to aging stars and keeping them in the game longer)
These concessions can be counted outside the Soft Cap up to the Hard Cap ceiling.
So taking an example. If we have a Soft Cap of $4m and a Hard Cap of $5m then a club that has not developed any of their own Toyota Cup players into first graders and has not retained any player for more than five seasons could only pay a total of $4m in player payments. A club whose entire team has graduated from their own Toyota Cup side could discount 10% of each player's wage allowing them to allocate $400k over the Soft Cap, effectively allowing them to spend $4.4m in player payments.
If a club has a 28 year old player who has played seven seasons and is being paid $300,000 per year, then they would receive a 20% discount (2 years beyond five seasons). This would mean only $240,000 of that would count under the Soft Cap and the other $60,000 could be allocated above the Soft Cap. If they still wanted to pay him the full $300,000 under the Soft Cap then effectively that means they could increase his total salary to $375,000 by claiming the increase as the 20% concession. As long as they don't go over the Hard Cap, they can allocate their concessions however they see fit.
The inherent restriction in this is if a club recruits players they haven't developed then they can never claim the 10% junior development concession for that player's wage. That player will always cost the club more under the Soft Cap than an otherwise equivalent junior. And if a club lets aging stars go then they lose the concession benefit of being able to claim an annually increasing part of that players wage outside of the Soft Cap. Without any concessions you can only spend up to the Soft Cap. Imports always cost you more under the Soft Cap than your own juniors or long serving stars. The only way to ever spend up to the Hard Cap is by developing your own players and showing loyalty to those players who have stuck with you long enough to start earning discounts.
None of this addresses policing of the cap and that will always be an issue with a cap based on player payments no matter what you do. All we can do there is remove the incentives for the players to be complicit in attempts to cheat it. All player payments, whether match fees, bonuses, third party sponsorships etc need to literally go thru the NRL.
If Bill the Plumber wants to hire Fred Smith to do a TV spot for him, even if totally independent of the player's club, then he pays the NRL and the NRL pays Fred Smith. If as a player under contract to play in the NRL you get a cheque, brown paper bag, car, house or anything else that isn't coming from the NRL then you know there's something wrong, no excuses. If you're caught then you're out of the game - for life.
At the moment the players don't have much to lose by being complicit in taking payments outside the cap. In fact they have everything to gain. By changing how they are paid so that the defence of ignorance is removed and thus adding an explicit threat of career jeopardising expulsion should they accept payments from a source other than the NRL, it becomes a lot harder for the clubs, sponsors etc to convince the players to go along with it.
Leigh.
