Johns Shows Why Top Players Should Be On Central Contracts

[edabomb]

Because the elite player would be paid the same ammount no matter what club he was at.

Say the NRL pays Darren Lockyer a central contract of $500 000 to play in the NRL. Lockyer would recieve that as long as he stayed in the NRL and it would not effect Brisbane's salary cap.

Now say Lockyer was off contract Brisbane may offer him the $50 000 as you suggested, which would effectively be an offer of $550 000. Souths or the Tigers might offer Lockyer $600 000, effectively offering him $1 100 000.

So as far as player transfers with in the NRL are concerned the top players would still be on a level playing field because they would get the elite payments no matter what club they played for.

Where it may effect the transfer of top players is if Lockyer's NRL contract is only for a limited time. Lockyer may fear that if he takes the Rabbitohs's or Tiger's offer than his status in the game may be reduced by playing for a lower profile club or less successful club and he may fear that the NRL will not renew his elite contract when it expires.

I think the idea has promise but I think the threat Union poses is probably a little exaggerated and I don't know if this sort of a system is necessary.

Still, it will make it easier on the more heavily rep populated sides, because that top up from wherever will still mean the club will end up paying him less than if the player didn't have it. Thats why the top up would need to be done on a club basis, not rep basis, because that would only lead to the rich getting richer.

 

[League Freak™]

I dont see how a Central Contract thats signed AFTER a player has joined a club can be used by that club to keep a top ranked player.


And....let me say it once again....there would maybe be five players in the game that would get a central contract!