Gasnier/Union: Possible 780K deal

[Iafeta]

If you start bending the cap rules for every player who says he wants to go to union, then you may as well throw the cap out the window.

A better solution may be to contract the top 25 players or so to the national team, the same way that cricket does (and probably union too). That way the cap stays in place, but there is an extra $100K incentive (or whatever) to keep the best players in the game. Origin players might also be contracted at at some level.

If this happenned, then all of a sudden, staying in league is far more attractive for the top players, and there would be more pressure on clubs to release players for rep matches too.

A problem with this however, is that the Kiwis probably couldn't afford it, and so it would make it harder for them to stay competitive at international level.

That creates a lack of equality as well. Take Souths, how many Australian internationals do they have. How about St George? Bailey, Cooper, Gasnier, Barrett, Ryles, Bailey, Creagh - 7 player exemptions compared to 0.

Hardly fair, is it?

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Well Newcastle has a major sponsor now doesn't it! Without that deal they were as good as dead and buried.

Frankly I don't see what has your nickers in a knot Iafeta. You are just throwing up garbage. Newcastle is a heartland of Rugby League. In Newcastle one player has been made to be the difference. You are right that it should never have been that way, but it is. Deal with it. When finally Johns does retire, the Newcastle board will hopefully get the kick up the ass they actually need. That club has never been run properly.

I don't think the NRL should have been involved in his contract and I actually think he should have been allowed to move on if he wanted. But we need the Newcastle Knights in the competition. The solution to keep Johns is a sticky tape measure that has bought the club a chance to change it's fortunes.

 

[Thomas]

Who came up with the $700K figure???? Is Gas' manager behind all of this.

From Foxsports

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18498493-23217,00.html

THE Australian Rugby Union last night confirmed Wallabies coach John Connolly had met Mark Gasnier, fuelling speculation the St George-Illawara centre was poised to receive a massive offer from the rival code.

The meeting sent shockwaves through the Dragons camp, with chief executive Peter Doust sounding out NRL boss David Gallop over ways to help keep the Test centre in rugby league.

ARU chief executive Gary Flowers last night confirmed that Connolly and ARU talent scout Michael O'Connor had already met Gasnier and his manager, George Mimis.

However, Flowers denied an offer had already been tabled amid reports Gasnier could receive an offer which could make him the highest-paid player in either code.

"There was a meeting at Gasnier's instigation," Flowers said last night.

"Both parties have gone away to think about it for a few weeks. There is no offer on the table."

Speculation of talks and a potential offer prompted Doust to seek out Gallop last week to find out whether the game's governing body could help fend off the ARU.

The NRL has helped its clubs retain elite players in the past, most notably in 2004 when it approved third-party agreements with the Nine Network and News Limited (publishers of The Australian) to help keep Newcastle captain and Test halfback Andrew Johns away from rugby union.

"I have talked to the NRL about the fact I was reasonably confident that the ARU were going to make a bid for him," Doust said.

"I wanted to hypothetically discuss with the NRL what their position might be. I certainly don't know anything about any signing."
Doust said he was moved to talk to the NRL after a meeting with Mimis.

"He (Mimis) hadn't heard from them up to that point last week but he believed they were going to come forward with something," Doust said.

"I talked to David in those circumstances. He talked about what the rules allow and won't allow."

Gallop confirmed he had met with Doust and said the NRL was more than happy to help the Dragons out, but only to a point.

The NRL boss reiterated the game's governing body wouldn't make exceptions to its rules to retain Gasnier.

"We had a conversation about if he (Gasnier) got an offer from rugby, what would we do?" Gallop said.

"They're similar avenues to what we explored with Andrew Johns and Braith Anasta or would explore with anyone else who would get an offer from rugby union.

"We want Mark Gasnier to play rugby league but it's not fair on the other clubs and the other players in the competition if we start making exceptions to the rules."

News of the ARU's targeting of Gasnier came a day after reports that the NRL's delay in setting next year's salary cap had left the clubs open to raids from English clubs and rugby union.

Gallop yesterday responded to that criticism, prompted by the start of talks between the NRL and players' union over the game's next Collective Bargaining Agreement.

"There is a clear timetable that the committee which includes four club representatives is working towards," Gallop said yesterday.

"Clubs will be heavily involved in any decision on a cap increase as their ability to afford it is a huge factor.

"We are all conscious of the need to try to get a result by June 30 and at a recent CEO's meeting all clubs were comfortable with that."

 

[drake]

I agree completely with Iafeta, by giving one team an advantage the others don't, you nullify the whole spirit of the salary cap.

 

[Iafeta]

Well Newcastle has a major sponsor now doesn't it! Without that deal they were as good as dead and buried.

Frankly I don't see what has your nickers in a knot Iafeta. You are just throwing up garbage. Newcastle is a heartland of Rugby League. In Newcastle one player has been made to be the difference. You are right that it should never have been that way, but it is. Deal with it. When finally Johns does retire, the Newcastle board will hopefully get the kick up the ass they actually need. That club has never been run properly.

I don't think the NRL should have been involved in his contract and I actually think he should have been allowed to move on if he wanted. But we need the Newcastle Knights in the competition. The solution to keep Johns is a sticky tape measure that has bought the club a chance to change it's fortunes.

My knickers in a knot? Why? Because I don't support the NRL proposing a salary cap, and then importing one variance to support one player staying at one club, to the detriment of equality in player rosters which is what the salary cap's purpose is? I ask, what would you all be saying if player X wasn't Andrew Johns and club X wasn't Newcastle, but player X was Anthony Minichiello and the club was the Roosters? Think outside of what has happened, and think more towards the steps/processes that caused it to happen.

Again I ask, if Johns is THAT important to Newcastle, what would have happened if he had have retired 3-4 years ago? What if he never came back from his knee injury? If a club is that reliant on one player, are they a viable venture?

I'm not for one second suggesting Newcastle should be dumped out of the competition, I'm suggesting thats too simplistic a view and it was more a result of poor management they got into the situation they got into. The root cause in my opinion was poor management. Andrew Johns was a marketable asset, but I think thats a slight on the rest of the club - players, fans, coaching staff - to suggest that he is forever the be all and end all of the club. They had a history pre-Johns, they'll survive post-Johns.

No club's survival should ever be wholey and soley reliant on one player. Player's come and go through injury, retirement, ESL etc. To hold faith in the club's survival in one player is outlandish.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

That creates a lack of equality as well. Take Souths, how many Australian internationals do they have. How about St George? Bailey, Cooper, Gasnier, Barrett, Ryles, Bailey, Creagh - 7 player exemptions compared to 0.

Hardly fair, is it?

It doesn't make it any different from the current situation. The contract to the national or state side would be independent of the club contract, so representative-contracted players could still go to any club they wanted.

Sure top players generally prefer to go to top clubs, but how is that any different from the current situation?

I suppose the only difference it might make is if say being in Ricky's team (or whatever) is more likely to get you a Kangaroo jumper. If this was the case then there might be extra incentive to sign there, but again it wouldn't be hugely different from the current situation. Even if this was a serious problem, it could be overcome - for example by either appointing representative coaches who are not actively coaching in the NRL, or by making selection completely and transparently independent of the national coach.

 

[Iafeta]

It doesn't make it any different from the current situation. The contract to the national or state side would be independent of the club contract, so representative-contracted players could still go to any club they wanted.

Sure top players generally prefer to go to top clubs, but how is that any different from the current situation?

I suppose the only difference it might make is if say being in Ricky's team (or whatever) is more likely to get you a Kangaroo jumper. If this was the case then there might be extra incentive to sign there, but again it wouldn't be hugely different from the current situation. Even if this was a serious problem, it could be overcome - for example by either appointing representative coaches who are not actively coaching in the NRL, or by making selection completely and transparently independent of the national coach.

First off, cudos to you for trying to find a viable solution.

In a normal point of view, it has sound theories. But how do we class Kiwi representatives? What does that do to the Warriors? Do 50% of Kiwi internationals playing in Australia/ESL now decide to return to the Warriors to play in front of their friends/families? What position does that put the Warriors in against their opponents?

If you put in place your proposal of appointing representative coaches not actively coaching in the NRL, you could open up a can of worms. Is it a restriction of trade? Does it comply with employment laws? If these laws are allowed to be twisted in Australian law, what about in New Zealand law for the Warriors?

And how do you make things even, when you bring the rule into place? Example as above - Dragons have 6/7 internationals for Australia, Souths none. How does this promote movement to a recently historically weak club like the Rabbitohs - which is what the salary cap is designed to do. How favourable is this system to a club that has strong junior ground pools - EG, lets assume club X has a small junior player pool, and no current internationals, and are unable to attract internationals from other clubs because they have certain exemptions and want to stay there, what position does it put club X in?

The game can survive losing top players - it is however more favourable, in my opinion, to have 15 strong clubs rather than 3-4 strong ones and also rans. I personally don't find the ESL that enjoyable, for that very reason.

 

[Calixte]

Take the anti-union blinkers off for a minute there, oh hostile one.

Do you or do you not agree that signing 24 year old RL players would result in junior RU players being disalluioned with the game? Your thoughts....and don't turn this into an anti-RU thread.

And you're "quote" is quite correct. Ella was a freak.....and NSW has always struggled in that department (until last year when they made the S12 final they were the worst Australian team...even worse than the Qld Reds). Australian rugby union has had some great 5/8's since Ella in Lynagh and Larkham......just none that could compare to the skills of Ella.

Qld and the ACT have for the most of the last decade had the majority of the Wallaby players. There's plenty of depth out there and lots of young players coming through that might not get a chance to play RU because an ex-RL player was offered an absurd amount of cash to play a game he doesn't love or care about. Thats what I don't like about it.

So you tell me to take off some fictional blinkers and then agree with me... LOL

As for your question, I couldn't give a rats if some pimple-faced rah rah brat from Joey's or elsewhere cries into his pillow at night because union has no depth and is forced to try and buy all their talent from TGG.

And if you read my first post again you'll see I said the "Waratahs" not the "Wallabies" in terms of decent no. 10s...so your inclusion of Lynagh and Larkham is completely irrelevant to my earlier post.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

It bought Newcastle time by helping them get a major sponsor that they had to have to stay alive. Considering you didn't want Newcastle dumped, do you think it would have been better to dump them a big wad of cash to spend to keep them alive? Would you care guess where they would have spent it?

They have to privatise like Manly, NZ have and Souths are considering. They don't want to, but they have to. If their management has to start to gain public support in the area to do it. And that is something they sadly are not even attempting to do from what I have heard.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

First off, cudos to you for trying to find a viable solution.

In a normal point of view, it has sound theories. But how do we class Kiwi representatives? What does that do to the Warriors? Do 50% of Kiwi internationals playing in Australia/ESL now decide to return to the Warriors to play in front of their friends/families? What position does that put the Warriors in against their opponents?

If you put in place your proposal of appointing representative coaches not actively coaching in the NRL, you could open up a can of worms. Is it a restriction of trade? Does it comply with employment laws? If these laws are allowed to be twisted in Australian law, what about in New Zealand law for the Warriors?

And how do you make things even, when you bring the rule into place? Example as above - Dragons have 6/7 internationals for Australia, Souths none. How does this promote movement to a recently historically weak club like the Rabbitohs - which is what the salary cap is designed to do. How favourable is this system to a club that has strong junior ground pools - EG, lets assume club X has a small junior player pool, and no current internationals, and are unable to attract internationals from other clubs because they have certain exemptions and want to stay there, what position does it put club X in?

The game can survive losing top players - it is however more favourable, in my opinion, to have 15 strong clubs rather than 3-4 strong ones and also rans. I personally don't find the ESL that enjoyable, for that very reason.

Yeah the NZ thing could be a problem, as I pointed out in my original post. There may be solutions there, but I am just conentrating of the Aussies at this stage.

As for the Souths vs St George thing, I am not sure if you quite caught my original point. I was not suggesting breaking the cap for anyone, but rather having second teir contracts for the top players with the state / national bodies as happens in other sports. As such, there should be no extra incentive to join one team over the other. A nationally contracted player should earn just as much at any club. What it would provide, is extra incentive to stay in rugby league.

As for the independent coach, there are calls for this each time a national coach is appointed, and it has its merits and pitfalls. I don't think the restriction of trade thing would be a real issue ... I couldn't see any coach getting brassed off enough to take the thing to court. It may or may not work, but it is just one possible solution, as is the independent selection panel.

 

[colonel_123]

That creates a lack of equality as well. Take Souths, how many Australian internationals do they have. How about St George? Bailey, Cooper, Gasnier, Barrett, Ryles, Bailey, Creagh - 7 player exemptions compared to 0.

Hardly fair, is it?

A central cap system would help keep players in rugby league from going to Union or England but it wouldn't make a difference to the equity between clubs.

Say the NRL introduces a central payment to its top 25 players of $100 000.

That means that those players get $100 000 from the NRL for being one of the top 25 players in the game. That payment would be outside the salary cap and be on top of whatever each club offered.

So, say Gasnier has a contract with the Dragons for $250 000. He'd also get $100 000 from the NRL making his value $350 000, although only $250 000 would be paid by the Dragons and only $250 000 would count towards the cap.

Now say Souths want to sign Gasnier. They make him an offer of $350 000. Now if Gasnier chooses to leave the Dragons and play for Souths he'd still be one of the top 25 players in the NRL and so would still be eligible for the $100 000 top 25 player payment from the NRL. He would only lose the $100 000 if he switched to Rugby Union.

If the Dragons had 7 players in the top 25 getting an extra $100 000 each it would not help the Dragons keep these players at the club. Because they could not simply reduce each players contract by $100 000 in light of the money they were getting from the NRL. Because if the Dragons said to say Dean Young, because you're now a top 25 player and getting $100 000 from the NRL, we're going to make your new contract $100 000 less, another club could say, if you come to us, you'll still get the $100 000 from the NRL, BUT we'll also offer you a contract that's alot more then what the Dragons are paying.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

The thing is, Gasnier always has an issue of some kind.


The Dragons need to get rid of the issues like him at the club and get back to being a Rugby League team, not a bloody team of head cases.

I can't argue with that. (except I don't want to get rid of him).

In regard to Gaz going to union, that's a helluva lot of dough to invest in someone (all-be-it an awesome league centre) who hasn't played the game.

 

[Nook]

You suggest it in this very post.

On the one hand, you agree that the salary cap is designed to bring equaliy to the game by allowing even payments from all clubs to their respective players.

But have no problem for the NRL granting exemptions for one player, but not another - or for one club, and not the other. It gives one club a foot up, which therefore makes it an unlevel playing field. Which is the purpose of the Salary Cap.

As I've said, its two distinct issues: the operation of the salary cap and, over and above this, the demonstrable need to ensure that once in a lifetime talents are kept in the game.

The salary cap promotes a level playing feel with respect to player payments - it doesn't address the huge web of other issues involved in the relative strength of RL clubs. Its not the be all and end all, not some symbol of an unbreakable ideology of the sport.

Exceptions can be made when they are justifiable - and I strongly believe that this was the case re Joey.

Did it give Newcastle a leg up? Certainly. Was this the aim? No.

The aim was to avoid a defection which would have rocked the code and provided a tremendous amount of ammunition for its direct rival. Newcastle got a hand but forgivable in those (unique) circumstances. IMO.

 

[taipan]

Take the anti-union blinkers off for a minute there, oh hostile one.

Do you or do you not agree that signing 24 year old RL players would result in junior RU players being disalluioned with the game? Your thoughts....and don't turn this into an anti-RU thread.

And you're "quote" is quite correct. Ella was a freak.....and NSW has always struggled in that department (until last year when they made the S12 final they were the worst Australian team...even worse than the Qld Reds). Australian rugby union has had some great 5/8's since Ella in Lynagh and Larkham......just none that could compare to the skills of Ella.

Qld and the ACT have for the most of the last decade had the majority of the Wallaby players. There's plenty of depth out there and lots of young players coming through that might not get a chance to play RU because an ex-RL player was offered an absurd amount of cash to play a game he doesn't love or care about. Thats what I don't like about it.

One of the very few occasions I agree with you Sir Thomas.Any up and coming union player,would be thinking whats the friggin use of slaving my guts out,when a rugby league player can come in on big bikkies,and get a saloon passage to the Wallabies and the world cup.
I want Gasnier to stay,and all efforts should be made to retain him,at no disadvantage to other clubs if thats possible.However if he goes ,and dont kid yourself he would be offered big money,and the ARU pathetically deny it has happened(thinking the public are mugs),the the NRL should retaliate in a way which would be embarrassing to the ARU.
Push for the code of rugby league as a sport in the GPS and associated schools.Simply by stating ,whats the point of having one rugby code,when the opportunities to play at elite level are diminished ,by rugby league players being signed up over developed union players.Playing rugby league gives students a choice,and the opportunity to play rugby league at elite level,without some union player being purchased.
Signing Gasnier may well be a PR coup,but it could also backfire in the ARU's face,and wouldnt that be lovely.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

I disagree. At the end of the day people didn't stop playing league when we used to poach union players, and I very much doubt they will stop playing union becasue they poach ours.

And really, what better proof is there of the superiority of league over union than the Wallabies backline?

 

[Thomas]

Except that the Wallabies can't win a game......

 

[Mr_Ugly]

Good call! Must be the forwards fault.

 

[Calixte]

Except that the Wallabies can't win a game......

Seeing as they (RL converts) are mostly outside backs, could it have something to do with the continued ineptitude of your inside halves (Messrs Gregan, Larkham (when fully fit - once a year or so), Giteau et al)?

And as suggested elsewhere, the useless forwards?

Do you seriously suggest the RL players are not as good (even at playing a game that is foreign to them) as their union counterparts who are constantly overlooked for Wallaby positions?

Really Thomas...you push some crap out on these pages.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Mate, you know when a complete dud like Drew Mitchell is named best young RU player of the eyar in Australia, they cupboard is EMPTY as far as playing talent goes for the ARU.

The S14 teams are losing more money than the A-League teams, being propped up by the ARU's ever dwindling "war chest of $40 million" that they gained in the ever fading memory of the 2003 RUWC.

 

[Thomas]

Mate, you know when a complete dud like Drew Mitchell is named best young RU player of the eyar in Australia, they cupboard is EMPTY as far as playing talent goes for the ARU.

The S14 teams are losing more money than the A-League teams, being propped up by the ARU's ever dwindling "war chest of $40 million" that they gained in the ever fading memory of the 2003 RUWC.

Watched much RU Kurt? Last year Drew Mitchell was playing some very good rugby. Enough to warrent a look in from the Broncos as was mentioned in the Courier Mail last year.

This year he's struggled a bit although scored a good try against Canterbury a few weeks ago. He's got pace and a decent pass but the only area where he's a bit suspect is his defence, especially against bigger backs.