Less clubs or higher salary cap

[chunk]

I am getting pretty tired of hearing about this issue of 'player drain'.

A few people like Graham Hughes, Phil Gould, Steve Folkes... are saying we need to raise the cap to keep more players. (Exemptions also mean basically raising the cap.)

Mark Geyer even went as far as saying this week that he would rather see Penrith out of the comp and have 10 teams, hence making the comp stronger. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

And thats what would happen we would lose teams......more painful than losing some players!!!!

For me I would rather keep all teams and let players go to England. I have been through the toture of the JV-Tigers and Magpies and I would never want anyone to feel that pain of losing their club.

What bugs me most is these guys trot out the same rubbish without coming up with an answer-has anyone got one.

I think the best way to keep our game strong and keep all teams is through grassroots and I believe thats were the NRL and ARL are putting a lot of resources.

If we raise the cap we have to get money from somewhere, none of these cronies ever tell you where the money will come from.

Not leagues clubs because I don't think having plenty of pokies should equal a strong football team!!

Some say the game is not what it used to be but that may be cause of the style of play and the way the game is played.

I tell you one thing the Tigers wouldn't be averaging 18000 fans if it wasn't for the salary cap.

Bugger seeing Roosters, Dogs and Brisbane at the top of the table all of the time....yes bugger that!!!!

 

[m0j0]

Bugger seeing Roosters, Dogs and Brisbane at the top of the table all of the time....yes bugger that!!!!

When's the last time we saw the Roosters at the top of the table???

 

[mxlegend99]

When's the last time we saw the Roosters at the top of the table???

2002, 2003, 2004. Friggen good effort.

 

[chunk]

Before the salary cap starting to take effect about 3 years a go.

 

[t-ba]

Something needs to be done with the salary cap.

imo, something along the lines of the "20/20" rule in the UK with tiers is the way to go.

Instead of having a hard ceiling on how much can be be spent on your top 25, have 'tiers' of value for your top squad. Say

5 players are allowed to earn in excess of $400,000p.a
10 players are allowed to earn between $200,000-$399,999
10 Remaining are allowed between $70,000-$199,999.

Of course, the figures would need some tweaking, but the whole idea is to reward the financially strong clubs and the marketable players. I think it's ridiculous that guys like SBW, Benji and Darren Lockyer aren't plastered across our TV Screens, magazines and bus shelters all because the players ability to attract sponsorship is handicapped by the Salary cap.

To stop clubs from killing themselves trying to compete with the powerhouses, maybe a rule stating that only 50% of club revenues can be spent on players could be instituted. To force the Sydney clubs to pull their fingers out, I'd exclude revenues generated from gaming concerns (leagues clubs). That way, they can do something productive with that money like membership drives, advertising matches and trying to get higher gates. All of which is alot more productive in the long run. I shake my head to think what a club like Parramatta could be drawing to matches now if they used that money in the mid 1990's to get fans to their games.

 

[m0j0]

2002, 2003, 2004. Friggen good effort.

I don't think we were ever at the top of the ladder in 2002. We started the season with one win from our first five games, and finished the regular season with 5 wins on the trot to claw our way up to 4th on the table. It was hardly a dominating performance that year.

So, that leaves 2003 and 2004 and only one of those years did we finish minor premiers. Two whole years at the top of the table. Not exactly overwhelming and certainly not in the league of teams like the Broncos.

 

[perverse]

Something needs to be done with the salary cap.

imo, something along the lines of the "20/20" rule in the UK with tiers is the way to go.

Instead of having a hard ceiling on how much can be be spent on your top 25, have 'tiers' of value for your top squad. Say

5 players are allowed to earn in excess of $400,000p.a
10 players are allowed to earn between $200,000-$399,999
10 Remaining are allowed between $70,000-$199,999.

Of course, the figures would need some tweaking, but the whole idea is to reward the financially strong clubs and the marketable players. I think it's ridiculous that guys like SBW, Benji and Darren Lockyer aren't plastered across our TV Screens, magazines and bus shelters all because the players ability to attract sponsorship is handicapped by the Salary cap.

To stop clubs from killing themselves trying to compete with the powerhouses, maybe a rule stating that only 50% of club revenues can be spent on players could be instituted. To force the Sydney clubs to pull their fingers out, I'd exclude revenues generated from gaming concerns (leagues clubs). That way, they can do something productive with that money like membership drives, advertising matches and trying to get higher gates. All of which is alot more productive in the long run. I shake my head to think what a club like Parramatta could be drawing to matches now if they used that money in the mid 1990's to get fans to their games.

i believe the salary cap is in place to stop the very thing you want here: the rich clubs having the best teams.

i dont mind the idea of the tier system though.. although i still think the better solution that actually encourages loyalty is larger exemptions for long serving players.

 

[themanonthehill]

Here's an idea for raising the salary cap.
How about news ltd/fox sports pay MARKET RATES for the TV rights as opposed to the grossly undervalued/undersold/transfer priced amounts the pricks presently pay ?

 

[Johns Magic]

I don't think raising the salary cap would really help clubs keep their players.

If the cap was raised to $5 million, the top players would just start demanding 600K, because clubs have more money. If they couldn't get it from their club, they'd just go to another NRL club that would.

The current cap is $4 million, and Petero wanted 400K. What's the bet that if the cap was $5 million, he'd have wanted closer to 500K?

Maybe players would be more likely to stay in the NRL, but it wouldn't prevent situations where players simply are squeezed out of one NRL side into another.

Every players' wage would naturally rise.

Less teams and a higher salary cap would be ideal in my opinion. As more players go to England and the Titans have come in, the supply of quality players in the NRL has dropped, and hence the standard has as well.

Personally, I'd either cut Penrith or merge them with Parramatta. Two teams so close to each other is stupid, especially in Sydney where there's already a glut of NRL sides.

The next club in the firing line would be Cronulla. Geographically, it would make sense for them to merge with Canterbury, however Canterbury(as much as it pains me to say it) have such a strong history that this would be unfair to them. Also, clearly there are some cultural differences between the two regions.

If I was being a hard marker, and I had to make it a 12 team competion, I'd go:

1. Sydney Rabbitohs
2. Gold Coast Titans
3. Manly Sea Eagles
4. Penrith-Parramatta Eels
5. St George-Illawarra Dragons
6. New Zealand Warriors
7. Newcastle Knights
8. Canterbury Bulldogs
9. Wests Tigers
10. Brisbane Broncos
11. North Queensland Cowboys
12. Canberra Raiders

$6 million salary cap.

Cronulla gone as there are too many Sydney teams, and they are just about the most mediocre of the lot.

League will never fully catch on in Melbourne. They're a gun side now, but only due to good manangement, rather than being a great league production region.

Souths and the Roosters to merge, as they both struggle for juniors, like it or not. Combine the two junior bases, and the two foundation clubs. There would be much whinging from both clubs about it, but at least they'd be forced to stop bitching with each other.

 

[t-ba]

i believe the salary cap is in place to stop the very thing you want here: the rich clubs having the best teams.

i dont mind the idea of the tier system though.. although i still think the better solution that actually encourages loyalty is larger exemptions for long serving players.

This system prevents them from completely dominating the comp. The rich clubs under this system will of course gain the services of the best players under this system, but there is a relative parity in the rest of the player pool. Every club has the potential to spend big money on the same number of players, and no more.

You won't get a situation like European Soccer where clubs like Chelski and Real Madrid have a group of reserves capable of finishing high enough in the league to grab a champions league spot.

It also ensures that the cream of the crop stay in our game and our comp. The kind of money that a player like SBW could get from endorsements would probably pay the wages of a lower level Guiness Premiership or Super League side...

 

[Drew-Sta]

Instead of having a hard ceiling on how much can be be spent on your top 25, have 'tiers' of value for your top squad. Say

5 players are allowed to earn in excess of $400,000p.a
10 players are allowed to earn between $200,000-$399,999
10 Remaining are allowed between $70,000-$199,999.

You can't restrict the amount someone can earn. It's actually against the law. Something about market forces determining the amount you can earn.

Can't remember the URL at the Gov site for it. But yes, I do believe that's no kocher.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Use a points cap and the tiers above can be the limits on the players wages.

A panel of experts are employed to evaluate players and certain key indicators are used to assess players worth like rep duty and the like.

Players that are juniors and stay at a club for 5 years get a 10% point discount
Players at a club more than 10 years get a 25% point discount.

 

[chunk]

I don't think we were ever at the top of the ladder in 2002. We started the season with one win from our first five games, and finished the regular season with 5 wins on the trot to claw our way up to 4th on the table. It was hardly a dominating performance that year.

So, that leaves 2003 and 2004 and only one of those years did we finish minor premiers. Two whole years at the top of the table. Not exactly overwhelming and certainly not in the league of teams like the Broncos.

My point being that money should not only determine the distribition of players.

The Roosters are a great example-the lowest in popularity but strong on the field because they have good pokies and afew rich individuals.

 

[macavity]

the cap isnt the problem

nor is talent

its the focus on wrestling

dead-set kills the game - slows it down and puts defences well and truly on top - well, those teams that are good at it at least.

need rule changes of some sort - but not sure how you can do that.

 

[chunk]

the cap isnt the problem

nor is talent

its the focus on wrestling

dead-set kills the game - slows it down and puts defences well and truly on top - well, those teams that are good at it at least.

need rule changes of some sort - but not sure how you can do that.

I think I agree and the one out, forward barge up.

 

[t-ba]

You can't restrict the amount someone can earn. It's actually against the law. Something about market forces determining the amount you can earn.

Can't remember the URL at the Gov site for it. But yes, I do believe that's no kocher.

Restraint of trade.

If a player or a club challenged the Salary cap, they would win seven days of the week.

 

[macavity]

its the defence orientated, safety-first play. the slowing down of the play the ball. cant lay on players, so dance with them instead.

we have some fantastic players at the moment, and more coming through every year - but they aren't given as much time with the ball as they once were, and hardly ever get a chance against a retreating defence.

 

[RL1908]

the cap isnt the problem

nor is talent

its the focus on wrestling

dead-set kills the game - slows it down and puts defences well and truly on top - well, those teams that are good at it at least.

need rule changes of some sort - but not sure how you can do that.

Spot on! The best way to keep players interested in staying is to have a better game to play and watch, have bigger TV and crowd interest, sponsorhip etc - it all comes from the game on the field.

And while we're at it - surely the players want to play 80 minutes each week - I'd cut the interchange bench from 4 players down to 2, and at the same time reduce each NRL club's top tier numbers by 2 as well.

That would force plenty of the top clubs to release 2 players to lower clubs, while at the same time meaning the salary cap for each club had to cater for 2 less players (which equals a salary cap increase without having to find any more money).

 

[t-ba]

League will never fully catch on in Melbourne. They're a gun side now, but only due to good manangement, rather than being a great league production region.

Melbourne is worth a truckload to the other clubs. It's just a matter of getting them on the TV down there. 1 million people for the GF last year are numbers that no other club can dream of producing.

I do agree with your Cronulla culling policy though. I can't believe the NSWRL bailed them out in the 1980's when they were trying to kill Wests and Newtown.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

one day some prance is going to sue the NRL over the cap for restriction of pay which is illegal ... the cap is needed to keep it fair, though it's annoying knowing every 3 years a player who you signed was good is now a star will sign to england, but you know if your club is on a run you will only get 3 years max out of it