NRL raises hopes of salary cap boost as clubs get extra $200,000

[eagles4eva]

NRL raises hopes of salary cap boost as clubs get extra $200,000

• From: AAP
• June 04, 2010 2:45PM

Money man ... David Gallop says increased revenues have allowed the NRL to increase its grant to the clubs. Source: The Daily Telegraph
The NRL has paved the way to increase the salary cap after agreeing to lift the annual grant to clubs by $200,000 per year for next season.
The clubs' grant will rise from $3.45m to $3.65m in 2011, with a further rise to $3.75m in 2012, in changes decided upon by the NRL's partnership executive committee on Friday.
The committee has also agreed to a lift in the overall level of representative payments with the details of the payment schedules to be determined in the coming weeks.
The NRL said in a statement both moves created "a positive background for the review of the salary cap over the next few weeks".
They also follow a decision by the NRL to delay the registration period for new contracts from the close of round 13 to the close of round 17.
"The work we have done in growing revenue through sponsorship, merchandising and government support has allowed the partnership to look at the game's future revenue projections and increase the level of funding for the clubs beyond what was already budgeted," NRL chief executive David Gallop said.
"It goes without saying that the players should share in the benefits of that success but it is also important to remember that the game must aim to reach a point where the level of the grant matches the level of the salary cap [currently $4.1m].
"That parity is important to ensure that clubs can become more profitable and that they can in turn afford to grow player payments further in the future.
"In the meantime we need to ensure that we are growing player payments to the extent that can be afforded and the current review process that is being conducted is an important part of that.
"Without pre-empting that review we expect that there will be a significant lift in the overall cap and in representative payments."
Source - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-raises-hopes-of-salary-cap-boost-as-clubs-get-extra-200000/story-e6frexnr-1225875552140

 

[sethman75]

Bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha

What is 200k going to do?
That's 2 average squad players.

Start at 1 million each club and then players might take us seriously.

 

[andrew057]

Bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha

What is 200k going to do?
That's 2 average squad players.

Start at 1 million each club and then players might take us seriously.

Maybe they should just give each club a billion dollars. Idiot.

 

[babyg]

Not as effective as allowing unlimited $$ to 1 or 2 players per team funded from any source such as sugar daddy, mummy or sponsor. But it is a start.

 

[Perth Red]

should just let external sources fund the stars (who are the ones leaving) and use the money to grow the game rather players bank accounts.

 

[sethman75]

Maybe they should just give each club a billion dollars. Idiot.

Keep your head in the sand while our players keep leaving. :roll:

 

[andrew057]

Keep your head in the sand while our players keep leaving. :roll:

Keep your head up your ass and let the grown ups discuss the game.

 

[Quidgybo]

What is 200k going to do?
That's 2 average squad players.

It's zero average squad players. The grant has been raised, not the cap. As you correctly point out, 200k really wouldn't make that much difference as a raise in the cap anyway. So using it to instead close the gap between grant and cap is probably exactly the right way to distribute it.

Start at 1 million each club

When the game finds itself with $16m extra to spend on players then no doubt that will happen. In the meantime, you can't spend money you don't have.

Leigh.

 

[oldmancraigy]

It's zero average squad players. The grant has been raised, not the cap. As you correctly point out, 200k really wouldn't make that much difference as a raise in the cap anyway. So using it to instead close the gap between grant and cap is probably exactly the right way to distribute it.


When the game finds itself with $16m extra to spend on players then no doubt that will happen. In the meantime, you can't spend money you don't have.

Leigh.

I don't get it?

A $200k raise in the cap would make a huge difference - that's 5% more money that the clubs can spend. And it certainly is NOT 2 average players - since it would still be 25 players in a squad. It's an average increase of 8k per player. No, it isn't masssive, but going from $4.3 million to $4.5 is a heckuva lot easier than going from $4.1 to $4.5...

Every increase is a good increase for the game - probably not so much for Cronulla though...

I fail to see what closing the gap between cap and grant will do EXCEPT allow clubs to get lazy and stop the membership drives that have been so successful of late..

 

[beave]

I swear some people out there have their heads firmly planted up their ass. Case in point clown above.

 

[Didgi]

I agree Beave, some people just don't get it.

Which part of an increase in the money clubs receive or are allowed to spend is a bad thing? The cap isn't going to rise by $1m overnight, it has to happen slowly over a few years or the game will find itself in sh*t.

 

[Quidgybo]

I don't get it?

A $200k raise in the cap would make a huge difference - that's 5% more money that the clubs can spend.

Rival codes are offering two or three times what we can afford to certain targeted players. So I'll say it again, a 5% rise in the cap isn't going to make much difference to player retention in the face of that.

I fail to see what closing the gap between cap and grant will do EXCEPT allow clubs to get lazy and stop the membership drives that have been so successful of late..

What would closing the gap do? It would free up $200k currently spent on paying players for spending on marketing memberships and getting crowds through the gate or another $200k for junior development. A rise in the cap would absolutely not achieve those things because the money would just go straight to the elite players' bottom line (and as has been pointed out, it wouldn't be enough of an increase to really achieve much anyway).

Leigh

 

[sethman75]

Keep your head up your ass and let the grown ups discuss the game.

Looks like that rules you out then pal.

I like your attitude though, we need more people fired up over this issue. Sittng back and expecting 200k to make a difference is a grand slap in the face for our game.

Meanwhile the gay-fl, union, super league and it seems nfl are laughing at us and poaching our best players that our game has spent years and millions of dollars developing.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Rival codes are offering two or three times what we can afford to certain targeted players. So I'll say it again, a 5% rise in the cap isn't going to make much difference to player retention in the face of that.


What would closing the gap do? It would free up $200k currently spent on paying players for spending on marketing memberships and getting crowds through the gate or another $200k for junior development. A rise in the cap would absolutely not achieve those things because the money would just go straight to the elite players' bottom line (and as has been pointed out, it wouldn't be enough of an increase to really achieve much anyway).

Leigh

Junior development isn't going to be undertaken by any club if that gap is closed. They are just going to pump the money back into their leagues clubs/ bottom line.

a 200k increase in the cap would go nicely with a 5k increase in the minimum players salary. That would be good for first grade football as a whole (so the 5-6 guys per squad on 55k now earn 60k - and the rest can be thrown at the elite players).
And it's a step in the right direction to raise the cap further.

200k on its own is not much, but the clubs are all currently making up the difference, so why not keep them raising the money and increase the total? Nobody HAS to spend the full cap amount anyway, just the grant amount, so nobody can seriously cry poor.

And so what if the elite players were to get the money? If one club gave their top player 100k more, suddenly we're looking at 5-600k as the benchmark for the top paid league players. What's the incentive to go to union now for very little extra?

Name the club(s) having trouble currently with the $750k they provide? I'll give you Cronulla, but that's about it - in the end they're going to have to sink or swim and either get themselves in the game, or get themselves up to Gosford.

 

[Quidgybo]

Name the club(s) having trouble currently with the $750k they provide? I'll give you Cronulla, but that's about it - in the end they're going to have to sink or swim and either get themselves in the game, or get themselves up to Gosford.

Newcastle seemingly perpetually, and Melbourne with their $6m annual loss obviously, and if we're to be honest with ourselves 12 of the 16 clubs are losing money every year - so really most clubs are struggling. Of course these loses are generally being covered by leagues clubs, private owners and rich benefactors. But it only takes a change in the tax system, a few bad business decisions or a corporate whim to see that safety net vanish. Cronulla is just this week's example of that but don't delude yourself that it couldn't happen next week to any of the other 11 clubs running at a loss. Clubs living beyond their means is not a sustainable model.

Leigh.

 

[Direct]

a 200k increase in the cap would go nicely with a 5k increase in the minimum players salary. That would be good for first grade football as a whole (so the 5-6 guys per squad on 55k now earn 60k - and the rest can be thrown at the elite players).

I'd go one step further and increase the minimum wage for an NRL player by $10K possibly $15K. Yeah, there's less in the pot for greedy merkins like Hayne and Inglis, but considering the telegraph was giving us the story of poor Terence Seu Seu on a minimum wage supporting a family, the NRL can come out and say "Hey, we listened to you guys and we agree it is hard for an entry level first grader so we're raising the minimum wage to $70K and here's a bag of money to pay for it."

 

[oldmancraigy]

I'd go one step further and increase the minimum wage for an NRL player by $10K possibly $15K. Yeah, there's less in the pot for greedy merkins like Hayne and Inglis, but considering the telegraph was giving us the story of poor Terence Seu Seu on a minimum wage supporting a family, the NRL can come out and say "Hey, we listened to you guys and we agree it is hard for an entry level first grader so we're raising the minimum wage to $70K and here's a bag of money to pay for it."

Careful in your use of the phrase 'bag of money' - there are recovering Storm fans sitting around.Oh wait - they didn't give money in brown paper bags, it was supposedly in a dual contract system...

I agree - raise the minimum wage - make it viable for someone to exist as a minimum contract footballer.
The second thing they could do is to then make it possible for teams to go over the salary cap to sign minimum contract players (perhaps up to 5?). Ie: if Brisbane had 23 guys contracted and had used all their cap room, they could fill up their squad to 25 by signing 2 $70k players (or whatever the increase is to become).

That way you not only raise the minimum, but also provide more cash for the top end too. Again, I don't see how it hurts cash strapped clubs unless they are foolish enough to overspend...