Forget Central Funding - NRL Should Fund Rep Appearance Money

[ali]

NRL grant for Rep Football

With today’s paper again raising the prospect of player’s defecting to Union, or using Union as a bargaining chip, I’m sure there will again be talk of central contracts. I’ve always been strongly against these, and highly in favour of increased payments to rep players. This time I am going to take my suggestion one step further.

What I am suggesting is the NRL should give an annual grant to the ARL and NZRL purely for player payments. Say if it was $2 million, this would be proportioned according to the number of players running around in the NRL who declare their allegiance to each nation. (I am deliberately leaving out the smaller nations to keep it simple) Say it was 75% Aussie, then the ARL would get 1.5 million. This 1.5 million, would be used to fund extra appearance money for rep players in Origins and Tests on top of what they already get. Furthermore, so that the absolute gun players get rewarded, extra money could be put aside for man of the match awards or 3-2-1 (as chosen by the selectors).

Basically this system rewards players for their current form, and we all know the form of RL players is extremely variable.

Central contracts reward players for past form. This system rewards players for current form, and rewards them for making themselves available for rep football. So in conclusion the best way to keep our stars in RL and the NRL over the ESL, is for the NRL to fund increased appearance money for players in rep fixtures.

 

[Tap Twist Snap]

Considering league rep teams are not picked on form but on coaches preference that wouldn't really work. The NRL need to pay the top couple of players at each club or the top 50 or so overall and no club can have more than 4 NRL contracted players. Maybe from that clubs can give some more money to the youngers players and would only have to worry about the personal issues to keep their players at the club. Something does need to happen though to get to the stage where they could be botherd going and playing boring rugby onion.

 

[Moggles]

If the NRL/ARL thought about it, it could also help highten the profile of RL at the same time as keeping our elite players.

This extra money that the ARL/NRL would need to pay rep players could be partly funded by selected company's that use these players in advertising campaigns.

If each player gets paid $15K per game (SOO & International) they would also be expected to complete other duties which include promoting Rugby League etc.

This sponsorship money that is being generated could also come from Club related sponsors etc.

This way we could start seeing Rugby League stars in advertising campaigns that will rival the Wallabies while at the same time keeping rep players in league.

 

[bazza]

When players consider going to union for the money - the only way they get more than in rugby league is if they play for the Wallabies. When the play a union test they get $10,000 per game - so over a year this could be an extra 100 - 200k.

I think the NRL/ARL should ensure that payments for playing SOO and for the Kangaroos are at these levels. I believe players get around $7500 for playing SOO.

If money has to come via the NRL - then I think it should

 

[griff]

I have thought for a while that something like this idea is a definite must to keep RL stars in RL and maybe even poach a few RU stars.

SOO obviously can easily fund players getting $10-15,000 a game. At the moment internationals can't fund $15,000 a game, so some of that SOO cash needs to be diverted to internationals. Although at the moment the revenue they generate is less, the pay for internationals should be better than Origin to improve their status.

If you are a top player and play 3 Origins and 5 tests in a year that is an extra $100,000 on top of your club salary.

The other thing I would add to improve international football is to pay an additional allowance as part of the yearly NRL grant to each club for every player that plays a Test. At the moment, there is nothing in international football for the clubs except the very real possibility that their star players will get injured. So of course they don't care about it and want to withdraw their players if they can. On the other hand if they got a financial reward, of say an extra $10,000 per player per Test, they would get a real benefit from the international game. They wouldn't be so hasty in pulling their players out of the game.

It is a much better system than centrally contracting players. It would work better to keep star players in the game without costing as much money and allow star players to increase their earning power without having to increase the salary cap.

In exceptional circumstances you could guarantee say Gasnier an extra $100,000 a year from rep football over the next 5 years to stay in RL. If he plays rep football, you would have had to pay that money anyway, if he gets injured or whatever and misses out, it will cost you just a little bit extra.

 

[Woods99]

Who selects the representative teams? How much say does the coach have?


Imagine the sh*t-fights that would happen when Tricky Ricky, for example, decides to vote for a marginal Roosters player, in a tight situation, just so his guys can get the extra bucks.

Plus, outside backs will always be more attractive to rugby union than, for example, a league front-row forward. Will front-row forwards, or league "hookers", get the same incentives as the players that are genuinely sought by the ARU? Why would league waste its resources on players who have no choice other than to stay in league?

Let the free market decide.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

Let the free market decide.

How is paying our players appearance fees violating a free market? In fact if we pay them for appearing in internationals to keep them and they stay that is the free market in action. You're an idiot.

 

[ali]

Who selects the representative teams? How much say does the coach have?


Imagine the sh*t-fights that would happen when Tricky Ricky, for example, decides to vote for a marginal Roosters player, in a tight situation, just so his guys can get the extra bucks.

Plus, outside backs will always be more attractive to rugby union than, for example, a league front-row forward. Will front-row forwards, or league "hookers", get the same incentives as the players that are genuinely sought by the ARU? Why would league waste its resources on players who have no choice other than to stay in league?

Let the free market decide.

Firstly, whilst I am happy to see player go to England, this is also an issue, especially for the Kiwis who struggle to get these players back for rep duty. So it's not just about losing players to Union.

Secondly, it's about time all bias was taken out of selecting rep teams. Rep coaches should have no association with club teams. The current system of coaches doing both needs to be stopped.

Thirdly Griff, I'm not suggesting the ARL fund it out of their budget, but the NRL. I can see this also as a way to stop players dropping out of tours.

 

[gallagher]

Paying heaps for rep players is good in theory.
But someone like Ryles is gonna get ten of thousands more than his contract every year but blokes like Preston Campbell and Brett Hodgson get nothing??

Ridiculous.

 

[ali]

Paying heaps for rep players is good in theory.
But someone like Ryles is gonna get ten of thousands more than his contract every year but blokes like Preston Campbell and Brett Hodgson get nothing??

Ridiculous.

What's wrong with that? If Ryles is the best prop in the country and Campbell is the 5th best half, then so be it. At least we'll be stopping Ryles from signing with a big Super league club in the prime of his career.

If Union big signing is our 5th best half or 4th best fullback, then we are on a good thing.

If we can get more big names consistently turning out for the Roos, then international RL will rise in profile. That brings increased revenue into the international dimension of the game, and increased funding to strengthen the developing nations. Hence we eventually get a stronger international scene, and less reason for players to go to union.

 

[griff]

Thirdly Griff, I'm not suggesting the ARL fund it out of their budget, but the NRL. I can see this also as a way to stop players dropping out of tours.

It's pretty much the same thing as it all comes out of the same bucket of money anyway. I am suggesting that it come out of the profit generated by Origin so that rep football is seen as a whole, and because the money generated by Origin is rightfully the ARL's even though it just ends up going into NRL coffers.

It would have more chance of getting up if it is seen to be shuffling funds from one area of rep football to another. If it is seen to come from general NRL funds then the clubs will kick up a stink that their money is being spent on internationals.

The only way to stop players dropping out of tours or retiring from rep football is to stop the clubs putting pressure on them to do so. To do this rep football needs to be in the financial vested interests of the club. A payment to each club per player per Test would do this.

 

[gallagher]

What's wrong with that? If Ryles is the best prop in the country and Campbell is the 5th best half, then so be it. At least we'll be stopping Ryles from signing with a big Super league club in the prime of his career.

If Union big signing is our 5th best half or 4th best fullback, then we are on a good thing.

If we can get more big names consistently turning out for the Roos, then international RL will rise in profile. That brings increased revenue into the international dimension of the game, and increased funding to strengthen the developing nations. Hence we eventually get a stronger international scene, and less reason for players to go to union.

Firstly because rep footy is only a matter of opinion. A player shouldnt get more just because a few old farts think he's better than another player. Ryles is a classis example. Theres at least 124 better props than him that havnt represented origin or higher.

Secondly, union will never be intersted in a front rower, but may be interested in the likes of Campbell or Hodgson, or a heap of other backs. So should we only pay the rep backs? Theryre the only ones union would ne interested in.

Thirdly, how does securing our best team make international footy profitable? If anything, the more we loose the better it would make international footy and therefore more profitable.

 

[ali]

Firstly because rep footy is only a matter of opinion. A player shouldnt get more just because a few old farts think he's better than another player. Ryles is a classis example. Theres at least 124 better props than him that havnt represented origin or higher.

Secondly, union will never be intersted in a front rower, but may be interested in the likes of Campbell or Hodgson, or a heap of other backs. So should we only pay the rep backs? Theryre the only ones union would ne interested in.

Thirdly, how does securing our best team make international footy profitable? If anything, the more we loose the better it would make international footy and therefore more profitable.

1. But central contacts would only be a matter of opinion. And they would reward past form, not current form.

2. Union wont, but St Helens, Bradford, Leeds, Wigan, Warrington, Les Catalans and other sure will be. With a higher sallary cap, they can offer bigger deals.

3. We've got half the equation right, with a pretty decent NZ side now. So let's get all the best players on the park for Aus and NZ. None of this withdrawing from a tour to go to your brothers wedding or get minor surgery that could wait 6 weeks. People will show up to see stars. Lets get as many on the park as possible.

 

[The Money Box Man]

NRL grant for Rep Football

With today’s paper again raising the prospect of player’s defecting to Union, or using Union as a bargaining chip, I’m sure there will again be talk of central contracts. I’ve always been strongly against these, and highly in favour of increased payments to rep players. This time I am going to take my suggestion one step further.

What I am suggesting is the NRL should give an annual grant to the ARL and NZRL purely for player payments. Say if it was $2 million, this would be proportioned according to the number of players running around in the NRL who declare their allegiance to each nation. (I am deliberately leaving out the smaller nations to keep it simple) Say it was 75% Aussie, then the ARL would get 1.5 million. This 1.5 million, would be used to fund extra appearance money for rep players in Origins and Tests on top of what they already get. Furthermore, so that the absolute gun players get rewarded, extra money could be put aside for man of the match awards or 3-2-1 (as chosen by the selectors).

Basically this system rewards players for their current form, and we all know the form of RL players is extremely variable.

Central contracts reward players for past form. This system rewards players for current form, and rewards them for making themselves available for rep football. So in conclusion the best way to keep our stars in RL and the NRL over the ESL, is for the NRL to fund increased appearance money for players in rep fixtures.

I'm with you ali - this is what should happen - $15K for appearances for Australia/NZ and $10K for SOO. We won't get as many players pulling out of rep duties if it's like that also

 

[UndertakerMike]

Would need to be more than $15k

 

[drake]

Problem is with rep payments, coaches of rep teams will be able to entice players to their clubs a lot easier. Representation is a nice attraction,adding cold hard cash to the equation is very attractive.

Their is also the chance that rep coaches will use it to offset their salary caps.

And of course money matters, otherwise this debate would be moot.

 

[ali]

Problem is with rep payments, coaches of rep teams will be able to entice players to their clubs a lot easier. Representation is a nice attraction,adding cold hard cash to the equation is very attractive.

Their is also the chance that rep coaches will use it to offset their salary caps.

And of course money matters, otherwise this debate would be moot.

Quite simple solution. Bring in a rule that all rep coaches can have no allegance to a particular club.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

I like the idea of decent rep payments as a way to retain players. I think there is a potential problem though, that it will entice more Kiwis and Islanders to want to play Origin or for the Kangaroos rather than their own nations, ala K Hunt.

International league has been lopsided enough for the last 30 years. If the NRL go down that track, then they seriously need to consider making an allocation to Pacific Nations and NZ for for their internationals in the NRL. It would cost a bit though!

 

[ali]

I like the idea of decent rep payments as a way to retain players. I think there is a potential problem though, that it will entice more Kiwis and Islanders to want to play Origin or for the Kangaroos rather than their own nations, ala K Hunt.

International league has been lopsided enough for the last 30 years. If the NRL go down that track, then they seriously need to consider making an allocation to Pacific Nations and NZ for for their internationals in the NRL. It would cost a bit though!

I agree Mr Ugly. I didn't go into it, but did mention, that the smaller nations should also get a piece of the pie. Especially as i expect PNG will become the new NZ within the next 5 to 10 years. But anyway, it's crucial the NRL not only funds the ARL, but proportionally funds NZRL, PNGRFL and the Pacific nations.