Jnr system

[Eels Dude]

Sounds like a perfect way to lose players to other codes... if that's what your aim is.

 

[Bigfella]

The good players would all just be on one year deals to miss the twenty game cut off Hindy to avoid the cap and get past the twenty game limit.

Also the brown paper bag may collapse under the shit. Much like I do reading Casper's threads.

 

[phantom eel]

So is the suggestion basically that any 20yo or first season rookie can't be paid more than 120K?

If the minimum NRL squad wage is now about $75K, how many 20yos/rookies are paid higher than $120K per year? I reckon it's probably very few - maybe only elite young "stars" like Luke Brooks etc?

The rest would happily take between $75-120K in their first/early years just to be in the NRL top 25 squad/salary cap, and those that haven't made much impact by age 21 just end up in NSW Cup trying to prove themselves and get in the top 25 at any club that has the opportunity.

I don't think a cap like that will help a district like Parramatta keep all of it's talented juniors until they mature in first grade. We can't keep them all, we have to make choices, and sometimes they are end up the wrong choices.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I hate myself a little almost every time I open one of these threads.

I'm sure there won't be any legal implications if a player's earning potential is restricted.

Yeah. Imagine the gun teenager who plays for his state, country and wins premierships but still can only earn a small wage. You'd be pretty pissed off. Although, granted they are in the minority.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

no. salary caps don't restrict so much an individual's earning capacity relative to market worth, just how much a team can spend on however many players combined.

Good point.

 

[strider]

They do the same thing in NFL and NBA . I guess it is up to them if they think earning 150K till age 21 is too low they can always get an apprenticeship and work for 15k.

What - are my threads that bad? Yet that tempting.I don't get it.Am I like a hot body walkn down the street where you can see a sneakie peak of breasts from the side-You cant help but look as your old boy wakes up ready for duties - Well untill they turn around and you realize there over 50yld with bolt ons and way to much make up. Part of you is disgusted while the other part thinks id still go that after a few beers.

and hindy111 is back

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Thanks ME.
And example is that young hooker the sharks lost to the dogs. Part of there coaching may of wanted to see how he handles first grade before they decide if he is ready to be there fulltime. The sharks have nurtured him thru the grades and just as he is almost ready he gets poached. You cant blame them for not matching the Dogs offer.Is a big risk. Yet the time they have spent and wasted on the kid has been stolen from the DOGS

Mate, you're trying to solve a problem that I don't think exists. Take your example above, why 'can't you blame them for not matching the Dogs offer'? The player is (in the Shark's opinion) either the worth the money offered, or isn't. If a club such as the Sharks (or ourselves) can't use the inside info developed through having young players in their system for years to work out which ones to sign up and extend early, then those clubs aren't functioning very well. They'll always get some decisions wrong of course, but they should have better info than outsiders. You want a system that protects the player's 'junior' club (whatever that really means), encourages inefficiency and stockpiling of players, and restricts the earning power of the young players. I fail to see how this plan would help anyone other than lazy incompetent club administrations.

Also, the simple maths of the situation mean that clubs who have larger 'junior nurseries' will always see some players from those 'nurseries' seeking opportunities elsewhere, and some of those will turn out to be decent players.


And yeh, the chance of absolutely restricting the earnings power of a individual player is zero in this country, but if you could do it......Union would be laughing all the way to the bank.

Other than all that, no problems

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Isn't the earning capacity of players already restricted? No player can earn more than $6M or whatever the cap is. Or do third party deals mean this isn't a restriction?

 

[Twizzle]

the last bit

there is currently no cap on third party deals so effectively there is no cap

just ask the doggies

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Ok then put a cap on jnr payments and let them have whatever third party deals they want.

I know people in the workforce who have a cap on their pay level too. Maybe they should go to court and get it fixed.

 

[Wizard Sleeve]

the last bit

there is currently no cap on third party deals so effectively there is no cap

just ask the doggies

And their mascot confirmed this the other week when she quoted something along the lines of , we still have Fifitas money so can still afford to pursue a marquee fullback .

Now considering she'd confirmed Fifitas money was made up of a huge portion of 3rd party sponsorships prior to that , how can she be so certain that the third party sponsor would still be interested in contributing ? Because of course she wouldn't be assisting in lining the sponsorship up for said marquee fullback would she ?

 

[hindy111]

Do you think its fair T-rex spent years in our jnr system and was poached by manly?
Shouldn't there be some rule or compensation maybe than for the club itself for rookies? Maybe 25% off there salary counts towards the cap in Rookie season. Im not sure the answer but at present it is a little unfair set up

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Hindy, the way I see it is this. A player simply spending a number of years in our junior system does not *necessarily* mean that we made a great contribution to their future, or that we have a claim on that player. All it does is (maybe) give us an opportunity to sign them up before other people work out that the guy is good. So, some blokes make it to the NYC squad, and we buy in many players that join this squad (partic. from NZ). Hopefully having a good local 'nursery' helps us get better players into that squad, but that's about where it ends I reckon. I don't agree with rules that would lock players up until we see fit to try them out. Strong clubs doing well at the senior levels could lock up players who might get a crack at first grade elsewhere. I don't think that's good for the game.

Regarding T-Rex, we had a few years in which to decide whether to offer him an extension, and how much to offer him, and we decided to spend the money (and cap space) elsewhere. That was our club's decision. We got it wrong. I don't think rules should be in place to protect us from our own f**k ups.

Anyway, that's just my opinion....and people are free to disagree.

 

[spiderdan]

Do you think its fair T-rex spent years in our jnr system and was poached by manly?
Shouldn't there be some rule or compensation maybe than for the club itself for rookies? Maybe 25% off there salary counts towards the cap in Rookie season. Im not sure the answer but at present it is a little unfair set up

t-rex is a good example to use to illustrate your gripe, and also to illustrate why imposing a rookie cap isn't fair. manly were willing to pay him $150k/year, our club wasn't. he shouldn't have been penalised financially just because he came through our clubs ranks and our club didn't see his perceived worth as being as high as manly did.

i do agree that the current set up is unfair. i think either the nrl/arl or whatever relevant body should be paying for all junior leagues and a draft system be imposed for u20s, leading into nrl, or that clubs that do spend heaps on juniors should be compensated through one or both of a transfer fee (as surprisingly toovey said last night on 360) or salary cap discounts.


and i don't hate myself now for opening this thread. it's been a good discussion.

one of your better ones.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

the last bit

there is currently no cap on third party deals so effectively there is no cap

just ask the doggies

They still won't register players for less than 'market price'. So you can pay overs all you want, but not significant unders. This means all teams will use up the cap. But it probably also means 'market price' won't rise as quickly (if at all) as it should, in line with rises in the salary cap.

If there was effectively no cap, why would the Dogs pull out of the Fifita deal?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Do you think its fair T-rex spent years in our jnr system and was poached by manly?
Shouldn't there be some rule or compensation maybe than for the club itself for rookies? Maybe 25% off there salary counts towards the cap in Rookie season. Im not sure the answer but at present it is a little unfair set up

He shouldn't have been off contract in the year he made his NRL debut. Not if we were sure he would become a first grader. We should have locked him up before then. The advantage is with the retaining club, but only if they use that advantage.

It's also possible that we tried to extend his contract before 2008 and he (or his manager) knew they could get a lot more on the open market (which they did). There's no accounting for greed, and if you're not getting a year or two of value out of your own youth graduates (by paying them unders) then there's no benefit to having them.

Remember in 2009 it looked like Manly had paid big overs for Tony Williams. He was an extremely flawed winger. Then he was moved into the forwards and dominated. By the end of his contract Manly were getting great value out of him.

 

[spiderdan]

He shouldn't have been off contract in the year he made his NRL debut. Not if we were sure he would become a first grader. We should have locked him up before then. The advantage is with the retaining club, but only if they use that advantage.

It's also possible that we tried to extend his contract before 2008 and he (or his manager) knew they could get a lot more on the open market (which they did). There's no accounting for greed, and if you're not getting a year or two of value out of your own youth graduates (by paying them unders) then there's no benefit to having them.

Remember in 2009 it looked like Manly had paid big overs for Tony Williams. He was an extremely flawed winger. Then he was moved into the forwards and dominated. By the end of his contract Manly were getting great value out of him.

trex was an extremely flawed winger because he was played out of position by an extremely flawed coach. He should never have been played anywhere but centres or second row/edge forward.

And yeah you've made that point about tying up the juniors before they come into grade so that when they hit their straps they are tied to the club without taking up too much cap space. A very valid point I think and a strategy each club should follow to avoid paying overs for established players.