Newcastle understand from experience that breaking up is hard to do

[Helen]

Article

I found this article interesting because I am sure it mirrors what most clubs have had to do.

Busted by the NRL last week and stripped of two titles and all their points this season, Melbourne did not make those same tough calls in the past five years. They lost some talent and kept their 24-carat nucleus but now have no choice but to shed a Cameron Smith or Greg Inglis, a Billy Slater or Cooper Cronk.

Our problems started in 2000, when we had started to build a team that was to win the comp in 2001," Hill recalled yesterday. "Like every other club, we pushed the envelope in every direction we could but we were unable in 2000 to keep Matthew Johns.

The 2001 grand final team then had eight internationals, plus Josh Perry, who became an international, and Mark Hughes and Clinton O'Brien, who played Origin, and Matt Parsons, who played Country."People were entitled to say that we couldn't possibly be within the cap but we were and the reason we were was that so many of the players were coming to the end of longer-term cheap contracts but the real crunch came at the end of 2004, when we couldn't re-sign Ben Kennedy and Timana Tahu".

 

[The EELiminator]

absolutely, talk to any of the other clubs who have won a premiership in the last 10 years they all lost players and went through a rebuilding phase afterwards

 

[alexwilliams_66692007]

absolutely, talk to any of the other clubs who have won a premiership in the last 10 years they all lost players and went through a rebuilding phase afterwards

were they as bad as Newcastle's cleanout of the last decade though?

think of who we've lost,

Robbie O Davis
Matthew Johns
Timana Tahu
Matt Gidley
Danny Buderus
Mark Hughes
Adam Macdougall (even though he came back in 2007)
Josh Perry
Matt Parsons
Ben Kennedy

and for what? so we can get guys like Wes f***in Naiqama??


my god how i wish some of those players were still at our club.. (beside Adam Macdougall cos he already is lol)

 

[Rusty]

When Matthew Johns left in 2000 it was heartbreaking. Matty should have been a part of the 2001 GF win but due to the salary cap restraints he wasn't. (*sigh***).

 

[The EELiminator]

were they as bad as Newcastle's cleanout of the last decade though?

think of who we've lost,

Robbie O Davis
Matthew Johns
Timana Tahu
Matt Gidley
Danny Buderus
Mark Hughes
Adam Macdougall (even though he came back in 2007)
Josh Perry
Matt Parsons
Ben Kennedy

and for what? so we can get guys like Wes f***in Naiqama??


my god how i wish some of those players were still at our club.. (beside Adam Macdougall cos he already is lol)

thats the shame of it the more superstars a club has the more they have to get rid of when the cap bites

 

[Cammo]

The days of club dynasties are over because of the Salary Cap.

Some can say it is a good thing, but when you look at the Melbourne dynasty the last 5 years before anyone knew they were cheating the cap, they were spoken of at large with respect and admiration for a team that was so professional and skillful and at times great to watch.

Dynasties are not bad for the game, did the game die during the Dragons 11 year run? During the 80's only 4 different teams won the comp, yet it is still considered by some to be the greatest decade ever.

While it is great to have an even comp, it is also good to let successful teams enjoy success. Yes you may have up to only 4 teams ever able to win the English Premier League (and I am not saying I want the NRL to go that way, because I don't) but that is possibly the most popular league of any sport in the world.

 

[mickdo]

While it is great to have an even comp, it is also good to let successful teams enjoy success. Yes you may have up to only 4 teams ever able to win the English Premier League (and I am not saying I want the NRL to go that way, because I don't) but that is possibly the most popular league of any sport in the world.

Yes, but the EPL also gives the top 6 or 7 finishers qualification into European championship competitions, and has two separate cup competitions as well. Add to that the 3 bottom teams being up for relegation (and 4 or 5 lower leagues), it means the bottom of the table has important battles for the entire year, unlike the NRL. We can never have that type of competition, and that's why we need an even comp, otherwise the teams that would always be at the bottom would die a lingering death.

 

[Crusher]

Yes, but the EPL also gives the top 6 or 7 finishers qualification into European championship competitions, and has two separate cup competitions as well. Add to that the 3 bottom teams being up for relegation (and 4 or 5 lower leagues), it means the bottom of the table has important battles for the entire year, unlike the NRL. We can never have that type of competition, and that's why we need an even comp, otherwise the teams that would always be at the bottom would die a lingering death.

Thats a good point although the EPL, SPL and other european clubs will only ever have two or three teams that can win. The SPL is a clasic case where basically only two teams (Celtic and Rangers) have won in the last million years. That makes it obvious we need to set some limitations and as we know everyone has an opinion on what they should be.

It does make me wonder whether the argument for conferences needs to be re-addressed. Ie splitting the comp into two even zones based on the previous years results where everyone palys their own zone twice and the other once. Then the top 4 from each go into the finals.

This certainly keeps the interest up for a longer period cnsidering each team still has a 50-50 chance of making the finals.

Any thoughts?

 

[Cammo]

Yes, but the EPL also gives the top 6 or 7 finishers qualification into European championship competitions, and has two separate cup competitions as well. Add to that the 3 bottom teams being up for relegation (and 4 or 5 lower leagues), it means the bottom of the table has important battles for the entire year, unlike the NRL. We can never have that type of competition, and that's why we need an even comp, otherwise the teams that would always be at the bottom would die a lingering death.

Don't worry, I agree we need an even comp, and I know the money around the EPL will never be rivalled here and that is why we need to curb spending.

In it's current form, the cap does reward mediocrity a bit, and if third party deals were relaxed, then the more successful clubs will be rewarded for showing initiative and better business sense.

While still keeping the comp together, and keeping it as even as possible, we still need to reward success, and not prop up those that may attempt to ride the coat-tails of successful clubs and their development of players by just waiting until the cap bights and then purchasing those players that the first club made into a star.

It is tough balance, I am not saying I have the answer because I don't. But those employed by the NRL should be continously looking at better ways (providing they are not already, I don't know the inner workings of the NRL) of rewarding those clubs that are successful apart from just winning comps. No-one would say the Dragons (as an example) were not a succesful club over the last 10 years, despite not winning a comp, and they have had to let a lot of players go because of their good work into making them good players.

 

[The EELiminator]

Don't worry, I agree we need an even comp, and I know the money around the EPL will never be rivalled here and that is why we need to curb spending.

In it's current form, the cap does reward mediocrity a bit, and if third party deals were relaxed, then the more successful clubs will be rewarded for showing initiative and better business sense.

While still keeping the comp together, and keeping it as even as possible, we still need to reward success, and not prop up those that may attempt to ride the coat-tails of successful clubs and their development of players by just waiting until the cap bights and then purchasing those players that the first club made into a star.

It is tough balance, I am not saying I have the answer because I don't. But those employed by the NRL should be continously looking at better ways (providing they are not already, I don't know the inner workings of the NRL) of rewarding those clubs that are successful apart from just winning comps. No-one would say the Dragons (as an example) were not a succesful club over the last 10 years, despite not winning a comp, and they have had to let a lot of players go because of their good work into making them good players.

we need to work harder on player development to make sure as the top players are squeezed out of clubs due to the cap they have a replacement coming up who can fill their spot but this raises other issues if you blood dozens of juniors it will put your cap up

 

[Eels Dude]

Every club loses players it wants to keep because of the salary cap, not just Newcastle. Parramatta have lost stacks.

 

[Cammo]

Every club loses players it wants to keep because of the salary cap, not just Newcastle. Parramatta have lost stacks.

And my point is that they shouldn't have to. The salary cap should be there to curb spending and try and get as even a comp as possible. At the moment the main thing it does is punish clubs for turning players into stars by forcing them out of that club.

There needs to be some rewards to the club for their hard work, be that in concessions or something else. But for successful clubs to continuously turn players into NRL stars only to have other clubs poach them because of the salary cap I think is wrong.