Exactly .... the rules for endorsement that don't count under the cap are:
1. the endorsement can't be from a club sponsor
2. the endorsement can't require the player to play for a certain club
3. the player can't wear the clubs merchandise in any advert
4. the club can't guarantee the the player receives their endorsement money (although i think that has changed since they have relaxed the 3rd party rules, not sure what else has changed.)
the article does say that the Broncos haven't budged on their initial 400k + car offer. and that Gainey will be able to sell GI's brand to Brisbane companies.
The Broncos wouldn't be so stupid as to blatantly cheat the cap given the current scrutiny of clubs caps
Someone in power needs to sit down in the NRL and nut something out (eg. relaxing these rules in players).
Think about it. If we want to advertise our game having players on TV in their clubs colours gives the game exposure, makes players more relatable and well known and keeps RL at the front of peoples minds even who don't follow the matches. If the game has a bigger presence on TV it gives the game a better chance of demanding more from sponsors and growing the "pie".
I don't know how you could stop teams like Brisbane from doing this and not have a bigger advantage than a team like Canberra but for the good of the game and to not bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator this policy should be looked at.
A luxury tax (limited to 500k) of some sort maybe would be a good thing to bring in when dealing with players and these sponsors. If the Broncos want Inglis they can have 100k of his contract payed by NRMA in return for ads, but the Broncos then need to pay 50c in the dollar to the NRL that money then goes back to the poorer clubs not utilising the tax.
That way the game gets exposure equaling more $, Broncos get Inglis equaling more $ and other clubs benefit from the Broncos sponsorship strength by getting something in return for nothing.
