No need for major Salary Cap rise

[whatsdoing1982]

Just make it about $4 million. Then pay players:

State of Origin $25,000 per game
International Tests $40,000 per game
World Cups $25,000
NZ players from NRL can get the same but also instead of SOO get the PI v NZ game happening for the $25K.

Thats 16 teams x $4M = $64M
SOO games ($25K x 34 x 3) = $2.55M
Tests ($40K x 17 x 6) = $4.08M
NZ Tests (3 PI v NZ games + 6 tests) = $6.63 may not be that high due to less NRL players.
WC (every 4 years) max = $2.55M not included in yearly sums.
NZ WC as above = $2.55M not included in yearly sums.

Total NRL player payments per year = $77.26 million
Instead of $5million cap of $80M

This way the key players get paid well plus cheaper for NRL and more money for developement.

 

[whatsdoing1982]

Example for above:
Andrew Johns Knights (in theory)
Salary: $500,000
State of Origin 3 games: $75,000
Tests 6 games: $$240,000
Total: $815,000 FAIR

Matthew Gidley Knights
Salary: $250,000
SOO 1 game: $25,000
Tests 0 games: $0
Total: $275,000 FAIR

Rookie
Salary: $75,000
SOO 3 games plays well becomes start (eg SBW) $75,000
Tests 6 games: $240,000
Total: $390,000 FAIR
Gets better contract with club next season.

You are the best of the best you get paid well.
Rewards for rep footy will drive people and bring back credit to the international game.

 

[whatsdoing1982]

As for club payments and spreading the wealth to rookies.
Top 25
5 Rookies: $50,000
next 5: $100,000
next 7: $150,000
next 5: $200,000
next 2: $350,000
Top 1: $500,000

Their is your $4 million salary cap
Average player earning $160,000

Lowest player of $50K with rep could earn $365K if plays all rep games.

These salaries are better than Union at all levels. The good players deserve to be paid well and the rookies also get a good starting base.

I would like to know what you think.
Just trying to help the game and the players involved thats all.

 

[DJ1]

Unfortunately, the non-independence of rep coaches will ensure that a conflict of interest exists.

 

[Knight76]

I dont feel a cap rise is justified. The top players earn quite a substantial figure as it is. From what I have read of the players association, they want the cap raised but want the nrl to pay for it through larger grants to the clubs. I thought the idea of the cap was to reduce players salaries down to sensible levels after the superleague days so clubs can survive by paying their players. Not so the nrl can pay their wages.

A cap rise will just see the best getting more and the average nrl player gettinga round the same.

 

[magpie_man]

Unfortunately, the non-independence of rep coaches will ensure that a conflict of interest exists.

that is exactly the problem, though it looks like not for long now that that New Zealand have Bluey and Queensland have Mal.
i wouldn't raise the cap as high as $4 million, maybe just up to $3.5 million.
also $25k per player for origin and $40k per player for tests is a lot of money that could be used for grass roots.
i would stick with $10k per origin and $20k per test, your top players can still earn over $100k per year in rep payments on top of their club salaries.
i would look at introducing more/better salary cap concessions, eg. juniors, loyalty, father/son etc.
the other thing than can be looked at further is third party payments and individual sponsorships.

 

[magpie_man]

two things that i think the nrl should be looking at are:

- setting up some sort of player manager accreditation program. there needs to be a player manager association with a code of practice. one of the guidelines in the code could be preventing their player from switching to union or else they are stripped of their accreditation. harsh but fair.
- enforcing some sort of quota on the number of players going to the english super league. this however completely relies on the co-operation of the esl and it's clubs.

 

[Squishy_Da_Byatch]

I think players should start looking at it from the persective: are they in it for the money or the game? If they are in it for the money, then get a real job.

Look at RL in the 80's and before that, the players played for the love of the game, not the money! That's how it should be, you would get better quality football, because they'd have to play to earn their position. Instead of trying to start with, then once they have made a name for themselves slack off and still get paid!

If alot of these players really played for the love of the sport like i have heard a few of them state, then there would be no need TO consider union!

 

[whatsdoing1982]

I think players should start looking at it from the persective: are they in it for the money or the game? If they are in it for the money, then get a real job.

Look at RL in the 80's and before that, the players played for the love of the game, not the money! That's how it should be, you would get better quality football, because they'd have to play to earn their position. Instead of trying to start with, then once they have made a name for themselves slack off and still get paid!

If alot of these players really played for the love of the sport like i have heard a few of them state, then there would be no need TO consider union!

I agree.