No salary cap whatsoever - would it be so bad?

[Raider_69]

Yes, it shows. Your biggest signing in the last decade was Matt Orford :lol:

You need to do more research Loudy

The raiders are backed by the QLC, which are reknowned tightarses in terms of the football operations, but are asset rich. In terms of wealth, the raiders are comfortably in the top 5 clubs in the competition. The QLC own a string of property and LC's in ACT, QLD and NSW. And so long as Johnny Mac (as crazy as he is sometimes) is controlling the fund distribution of the QLC, we'll be as safe as a bank. They'll give us as much as we need (and unfortunately not a penny more) to continue.

Signings within the salary cap dont really have a lot to do with anything regarding the security of a club off the field, id have thought that was fairly obvious to most. Apparently not.
But thanks for playing loudy, back to the drawing board for you.
Besides, arent you the blokes who in recent years signed Ben Roberts, Chris Walker as well as Chris Sandow... you should be the last bloke talking shit about flop off season signings. You blokes have a lot more at higher dollars than we have.

 

[eozsmiles]

You need to do more research Loudy

The raiders are backed by the QLC, which are reknowned tightarses in terms of the football operations, but are asset rich. In terms of wealth, the raiders are comfortably in the top 5 clubs in the competition. The QLC own a string of property and LC's in ACT, QLD and NSW. And so long as Johnny Mac (as crazy as he is sometimes) is controlling the fund distribution of the QLC, we'll be as safe as a bank. They'll give us as much as we need (and unfortunately not a penny more) to continue.

Signings within the salary cap dont really have a lot to do with anything regarding the security of a club off the field, id have thought that was fairly obvious to most. Apparently not.
But thanks for playing loudy, back to the drawing board for you.
Besides, arent you the blokes who in recent years signed Ben Roberts, Chris Walker as well as Chris Sandow... you should be the last bloke talking shit about flop off season signings. You blokes have a lot more at higher dollars than we have.

Yes they do because "rich" or "strong" clubs can make a much better pitch to a potential player than a week club can. Cooper Cronk left nearly a million dollars on the table to stay at Melbourne and dodge the Titans. I suppose the fact that the Gold Coast were borderline getting chucked out of the comp had an impact.

Strong players want to go to strong clubs. If the club has enough troops in their corner it could mean work for the wife/family and yourself for years after footy is finished, and it obviously opens up a hell of a lot more doors for earning cash while still playing.

Some clubs can hardly get a sponsor and then the Broncos are knocking them back. Not to mention all the fringe benefits outside the cap. If you play for a club that is rich enough they will sack you and then give you a job! Ask Dan Tolar about that. Must be attractive to sit down in negotiations and have the clubs boss tell you that he'll give you a 3 year deal and a job when you are finished.

When most clubs are offering the same players roughly the same money, what is available off the field becomes important. And what is available off the field is pretty much 100% related to the financial strength of the club.

 

[eozsmiles]

If the salary cap was gone we would get/need an influx of private ownership if the comp was to be at all even.

So depending on where you sit this is either good or bad. Not sure how many people would put their hand up to buy a club, especially when there is no salary cap. Not sure if they'd be the people we want owning clubs either.

 

[Raider_69]

Yes they do because "rich" or "strong" clubs can make a much better pitch to a potential player than a week club can. Cooper Cronk left nearly a million dollars on the table to stay at Melbourne and dodge the Titans. I suppose the fact that the Gold Coast were borderline getting chucked out of the comp had an impact.

Strong players want to go to strong clubs. If the club has enough troops in their corner it could mean work for the wife/family and yourself for years after footy is finished, and it obviously opens up a hell of a lot more doors for earning cash while still playing.

Some clubs can hardly get a sponsor and then the Broncos are knocking them back. Not to mention all the fringe benefits outside the cap. If you play for a club that is rich enough they will sack you and then give you a job! Ask Dan Tolar about that. Must be attractive to sit down in negotiations and have the clubs boss tell you that he'll give you a 3 year deal and a job when you are finished.

When most clubs are offering the same players roughly the same money, what is available off the field becomes important. And what is available off the field is pretty much 100% related to the financial strength of the club.

Perhaps in the circumstance of a giant super star trying to decide between club a and b, but when a former dally m winner, who is 33, has come off major injury playing in a sub par comp for the past 2 years, signs with a club who's #1 play maker is not going to be ready for the start of the year... it's hardly proof that said club is on its knees finacially

The raiders signing of Orford has about as much to do with financial stability of our club as the position of the moon at the end of the third thursday of the month.
It'd be like me saying Parramatta are stone cold motherless broke, because they signed Ben Roberts. The comment just makes absolutely no sense. And any kind of google search research would have saved old Loudy from a bit of embarrassment regarding the Raiders financial situation.

 

[hardbaby]

The salary cap is great. It works. League is a competitive product. Teams come and go in cycles. Been ages since someone went back-to-back. It's a shame that teams like the Broncos are able to dodge the cap by playing guys like Lockyer $250k and making the rest up with third party sponsorships. But the situation is not too bad and there will never be a perfect model.

 

[Pete Cash]

loudstat the raiders are most disadvantaged by the current salary cap system. They have to pay overs for talent because Canberra isn't exactly fashionable and there aren't a lot of big private companies in the act for third party deals.

If there was no salary cap and if the qlc was willing to play ball the raiders could use their wealth to attract players to the act.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

I'd like a percentage of the salary cap (along with the NRL grant) to be based on performance. A team that finishes the regular season higher should get a bigger slice of the pie. I would be tempted to make about 30% of the salary cap/NRL grant incentivised. Which means that every season the wooden spooners would get about half of what the minor premiers get.
Obviously, player contracts would have to include this incentivised part.

 

[Raider_69]

I'd like a percentage of the salary cap (along with the NRL grant) to be based on performance. A team that finishes the regular season higher should get a bigger slice of the pie. I would be tempted to make about 30% of the salary cap/NRL grant incentivised. Which means that every season the wooden spooners would get about half of what the minor premiers get.
Obviously, player contracts would have to include this incentivised part.

The strong get stronger, the weak stay weak.
How the hell are the wooden spooners supposed to drag themselves off the bottom of the ladder when they cant afford to improve their roster? Even if the wooden spooner develops some top teir talent, the top sides will rape them with the extra cap space. Fans of bottom teams will eventually just stop showing up.

Might as well scrap the cap under that suggestion. Honestly thats one of the worst suggestions ive ever rad

 

[Burwood]

I'd like a percentage of the salary cap (along with the NRL grant) to be based on performance. A team that finishes the regular season higher should get a bigger slice of the pie. I would be tempted to make about 30% of the salary cap/NRL grant incentivised. Which means that every season the wooden spooners would get about half of what the minor premiers get.
Obviously, player contracts would have to include this incentivised part.

You'd have a handful of teams tanking matches from halfway through the season.

EDIT: Wait, I read it the wrong way- was thinking that the poorer teams get extra cap.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

The strong get stronger, the weak stay weak.
How the hell are the wooden spooners supposed to drag themselves off the bottom of the ladder when they cant afford to improve their roster?
Might as well scrap the cap under that suggestion

Every season, each team starts with the same base cap. Collecting too many top players into one team wouldn't work because they'll have no guarantee they'll finish high. The best players would still want to be spread around, otherwise they'll have too much competition for the money inside the same team.
What this would certainly do though is more competitive games, even outside the top 8, and fewer passengers in the league.

 

[Raider_69]

im not sure how you came to think that plan will result in less passangers and more even competition outside the 8.

there is never a guarantee that a team will finish higher, but surely giving the best sides more cap space at the expense of the shitter sides gives them a significant leg up before a ball is kicked, and is not a way to promote equality across team 1-16

You must be drunk. Or i am and have missed some major piece of the puzzle that magically makes this plan make sense. Because right now i cant comprehend how you think this is a good alternative to the current salary cap.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

You probably don't understand.

The extra money would not be distributed as part of the next season's salary cap, but rather as a bonus for the current year's performance once it's over.

1. Too many good players in one team means too much competition for money that is not even guaranteed.

2. Once the season does start, every player is interested to achieve the highest result possible for their team, ie no passenger teams and players. The current system breeds too much mediocrity, players know they'll make the same money win or lose. They just make a bit more effort before contract negotiations and that's it.

 

[Raider_69]

You're right, i wasnt understanding what you were proposing.

That is an interesting idea, not sure i like it but its not as crazy as i was thinking it was 2 posts ago. Its an interesting concept to have such an "in your face" style of money motivation for the players.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Corrected for you. The Knights won in 97 and you cant count a premiership that you bought, selected your opponents and got your coach to train the referees as a premiership.

Are you suggesting that if the '97 Broncos versed the Knights, they would not have won??

 

[BunniesMan]

Are you suggesting that if the '97 Broncos versed the Knights, they would not have won??

A superleague scum team didn't win in 1996 did they.

 

[Dogs Of War]

A superleague scum team didn't win in 1996 did they.

But there were 2 in the grand final in 1998.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

A superleague scum team didn't win in 1996 did they.

We aren't talking about 1996 you imbecile.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

I don't buy the argument that some have put forward that the cap keeps the Broncos in check. Being the only club in town with a sh1t load of Friday night games means that sponsors come knocking on the door and third party money opportunities to keep or buy players are more likely. To me, they work to a different salary cap. Not their fault, they're playing to the rules.

I believe in the salary cap but want to see an increase to keep elite players in the comp and p1ss off the third party loophole altogether.

 

[BunniesMan]

But there were 2 in the grand final in 1998.

Point is his belief that the result of a united 97 comp is a certainty is farcical. Broncos might have won it, they probably would have been favourities but far from sure things.

 

[Perth Red]

I don't buy the argument that some have put forward that the cap keeps the Broncos in check. Being the only club in town with a sh1t load of Friday night games means that sponsors come knocking on the door and third party money opportunities to keep or buy players are more likely. To me, they work to a different salary cap. Not their fault, they're playing to the rules.

I believe in the salary cap but want to see an increase to keep elite players in the comp and p1ss off the third party loophole altogether.

Problem is the very rare occasion we lose an elite player it isn't for a hundred grand, it's for massive differences. Are you suggesting clubs can afford to be paying out am extra 1/2 mill on one player? Not sure if you've seen NRL clubs bottom lines?