NRL Salary Cap vs French Top 14

[Redsfan]

To give you some idea of the amount of sponsors the top club (Toulouse) has, here's a link to their sponsors page.

Scroll down, you'll see there's a lot of them. Much more than any sport club in Australia, I think, perhaps with the exception of an AFL club or two.

Stade Toulousain Sponsors

 

[BrisVegas]

f**k me, that's a lot of coaching staff!!

It is a lot of coaching staff, and doesn't even touch on the administrative, marketing, recruitment and junior development branches of the Broncos. The club's revenue keeps pushing upwards, and seeing as the NRL won't allow clubs to spend the money on retaining players and thereby preventing a move to Europe, it may as well be spent in other area's that facilitate success on the field.

The idea that the Salary Cap creates a level playing field is a half-truth. Sure once in a blue moon a club like the Panthers or the Wests Tigers in 2005 will luck into the right mix on the field to jag a premiership, but for the most part club success is tied to the revenue generated. Clubs are still racing to outspend each other, and the battle of the haves and have-nots exists, it's just that player wages have been frozen in the equation, thereby forcing players to look overseas to earn their true worth.


The AFL released it's review of the 2007 season this year which touches on the link between club revenue and success:

http://www.gfc.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/3933/Default.aspx?newsId=56150

Money buys success

Sebastian Hassett
2:37 PM Wed 12 March, 2008

THE NOTION that big-spending clubs are more likely to achieve on-field success has long been debunked as a myth in footy circles – but now there’s figures to back it up.

Results published in the AFL’s 2007 Club Financial Review Survey showed that of the eight teams which spent the most money on their football departments over the past five seasons, only two of those clubs (Essendon and Adelaide) have failed to make a grand final.

Significantly, four of the eight top spending clubs (Sydney, Brisbane, West Coast and Port Adelaide) each participated in two grand finals each over the period, while even the Crows – despite not making it to a decider – still made the eight in every year except 2004, including back-to-back top-two regular season finishes.

AFL Chief Executive Andrew Demetriou said the figures indicated the importance of investing profits back into football departments.

“There’s a five year trend there which I think is telling a story,” Demetriou said.

“I think what the figures show is that the clubs willing to spend more on their football departments are more likely to play in finals.

“(The) challenge for all our clubs is to work out ways to increase their football spending so that they can compete with the other clubs.”

However, Demetriou said all teams were becoming increasingly aware of the trend, with many already taking steps to increase their spending.

“There’s no doubt clubs are already onto it,” he said.

“They are recognising that if they want to give themselves the best shot (they need to invest).

“St Kilda [ranked 12th in spending] have already identified they need to be spending more on their football department ... to get themselves into the top eight of that group, to give themselves more of a chance.”

Sydney has spent more than any other club on their football department, racking up an expenditure of $66.7 million (an average of $13.3 million per year), with Collingwood following closely, spending $66.5 million.

In stark contrast, North Melbourne spent just $50.1 million – around $3.3 million per year less than the top two clubs.

Ironically, the Kangaroos are one of only three clubs [alongside St Kilda and Fremantle, ranked 9th] from the bottom eight spenders to have made a top-four appearance since 2003.

..........
..........

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/harris-warns-of-afl-class-system/2007/05/30/1180205337951.html

Harris warns of AFL class system

Stephen Rielly | May 31, 2007


AS THE AFL ponders what it might do to address the permanent competitive imbalance it believes exists between its Victorian and non-Victorian clubs, Melbourne chief executive Steve Harris has warned that the competition is threatening to evolve into a permanent order of first, second and third-world organisations.

Harris said that by almost every measure a new hierarchy was emerging similar to to many of the leagues and competitions around the world that were dominated by outright wealth; competitions in name only where the prize was within reach of a rich few.

The past six premierships have been won by non-Victorian teams and not since 2003, when six of the eight finalists were from interstate, has a Victorian side finished top two. "The AFL clearly does not want an emerging league within a league, as exists in most elite sporting competitions, such as the NFL, EPL, formula one and NBA. The AFL currently risks a league within a league in Victoria, and a league within a league nationally," Harris told Melbourne members.

The recent acknowledgement by AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick and chief executive Andrew Demetriou of a systemic competitive disadvantage in the competition was supported by evidence, he said, that inextricably links success to wealth and the immense revenue-raising capabilities of the interstate teams other than Port Adelaide.

"Ladder positions, finals appearances, and grand final wins are increasingly mirrors of football department spending and club revenues," Harris said.
"Non-Victorian clubs are all in the upper end of football department spending."

This would be perpetuated and magnified if intervention by the league did not occur and 10 teams continued to vie for survival in the state.

"Melbourne, for example, not only has nine AFL clubs, but also three racing clubs, two basketball clubs, two netball teams, rugby league, soccer, the highest per capita golf course infrastructure, and the most intensive major events calendar in the world."

Harris used the Demons to illustrate his point, saying: "With the exception of Essendon — which had its worst on-field year last year but still reported a $1.6 million profit — Melbourne has been in more finals than any other Victorian side over the past nine years, and has been best-performed of the Victorian clubs in the past five years …

"So, arguably, our return on the club's football department spending has been first-rate, but against that, it is now well over 40 years since we won a flag. The non-capped areas of football department spending remain an 'arms race', and the bigger-spending clubs account for most of the grand final appearances and premierships.

"Such financial issues are not being used as an excuse or explanation for being 0-9 this season.

"We have been savaged by injury, causing us to have an average of eight of our top 22 players out each week … But the injuries might have had less impact if we had the same strength that other clubs have to spend more money, time and resources in recruiting, player development, player support services, medical and welfare services, and training facilities."

So why not re-allocated some of the ever increasing football department cash back into player salaries? More stars in the game provides a higher level of competition and increases interest, thereby driving additional revenue... and around and around it goes.

 

[In-goal]

I believe that the NRL needs to make the clubs work harder, for instance raise the cap to $6million for 2010 the only catch is that clubs can only spend 50% of gross income upto the maximum of the salary cap.

Low earning clubs would be forced into finding new revenue streams and the top earners would keep talent in Australia.

It is a similar system to what is used in the Super League.

 

[Perth Red]

Not anymore. SL did away with the 50% ruling as it was holding clubs back from being competitive and now have a straight figure cap. Why a club with an income of $14mill can't spend $6mill on player salaries is beyond me!

 

[In-goal]

Not anymore. SL did away with the 50% ruling as it was holding clubs back from being competitive and now have a straight figure cap. Why a club with an income of $14mill can't spend $6mill on player salaries is beyond me!

Just going back, if the cap was $6 million players would be staying and attracted to the NRL.

The NRL salary cap must be raised.

 

[bartman]

There isn't enough money in the game, generated by the game, or I'll say even potentially available to the game to afford a $6mil salary cap per club - especially if the game is looking to introduce teams from other areas (and less teams within the Sydney basin) in the next 5-10 years.

 

[Perth Red]

why not? as pointed out before, SL clubs have a heck of a lot smaller income than NRL clubs yet pay the same cap. I can't believe an NRl club needs between $8-15million operating costs after players salaries are paid out!

 

[bartman]

Um, flying from Sydney to Brisbane to Melbourne to Auckland for games every second might have something to do with it... Super League clubs only have to fly once a season to Catalans.

I've started you all off, now the rest of you do the math! Comparing things like this is apples and oranges.

Bottom line is the game can't use money it simply doesn't have to raise the salary cap to compete with sports in conutries that do have the money. Especially if we want ourt game to expand domestically and meet the challenge of AFL and Union and Soccer by looking to go (properly) national with teams in Perth or Adelaide in the next 10 years.

The price is that a select few of the elite (only the greediest) will cash their chips and go and freeze their arse off in French Union in front of no crowds for that little bit more money. It's no big loss. SBW wasn't, Gaz won't be, Inglis or Thurston won't be if indeed they go. The game is bigger than a few individuals.

 

[kbw]

Um, flying from Sydney to Brisbane to Melbourne to Auckland for games every second might have something to do with it... Super League clubs only have to fly once a season to Catalans.

I've started you all off, now the rest of you do the math! Comparing things like this is apples and oranges.

Bottom line is the game can't use money it simply doesn't have to raise the salary cap to compete with sports in conutries that do have the money. Especially if we want ourt game to expand domestically and meet the challenge of AFL and Union and Soccer by looking to go (properly) national with teams in Perth or Adelaide in the next 10 years.

The price is that a select few of the elite (only the greediest) will cash their chips and go and freeze their arse off in French Union in front of no crowds for that little bit more money. It's no big loss. SBW wasn't, Gaz won't be, Inglis or Thurston won't be if indeed they go. The game is bigger than a few individuals.

:thumb finally someone that just doesn't blindly follow the crap sprouted by Ch9 and their morons.

 

[hutch]

It's no big loss. SBW wasn't, Gaz won't be, Inglis or Thurston won't be if indeed they go. The game is bigger than a few individuals.

if you think that the game doesnt suffer in both appeal and the product itself from the loss of these players, then you are dreaming. these players arent easily replaced and draw fans to the game, kids to the sport and recognition to rugby league. every time a player of this calibre leaves it is a loss to rugby league and a massive gain to union. we cannot keep losing players like this. the comp would be better off for having tahu, tuquri, sbw, gaz, gower etc involved. they are marquee footballers and should be paid what they deserve.

 

[kbw]

The kids love the teams more than the players thats my experience.
They do love their characters but they are easily replaceable.

Its CH9 that identify with their darlings more than their teams

 

[bartman]

if you think that the game doesnt suffer in both appeal and the product itself from the loss of these players, then you are dreaming. these players arent easily replaced and draw fans to the game, kids to the sport and recognition to rugby league.

No more than other players, if you examine trends over the years and if you look at how these players only rose to prominance replacing those that were the stars before them, and how they will fade into obscurity to be replaced by next year's stars.

they are marquee footballers and should be paid what they deserve.

Marquee footballers is a term dreamed up by those with vested interests, those with money to be made from either a(n increasing) slice of these players (increasing) contracts, or made from trying to make news out of and sell papers or TV ratings by building up these "stars" on pedestals.

They have been paid what they deserve - the most our game can afford. Don't believe the agenda-driven hype and see greed for what it is. When 400K a year isn't enough, you have to ask what's really at stake here...

 

[ali]

No more than other players, if you examine trends over the years and if you look at how these players only rose to prominance replacing those that were the stars before them, and how they will fade into obscurity to be replaced by next year's stars.


Marquee footballers is a term dreamed up by those with vested interests, those with money to be made from either a(n increasing) slice of these players (increasing) contracts, or made from trying to make news out of and sell papers or TV ratings by building up these "stars" on pedestals.

They have been paid what they deserve - the most our game can afford. Don't believe the agenda-driven hype and see greed for what it is. When 400K a year isn't enough, you have to ask what's really at stake here...

I believe stability would help the NRL grow far more than anything right now. Not only are we losing too many players (and big names!) to the Super League and now overseas Union, too many players are switching clubs at the drop of a hat. And I don't believe it's solely the fault of the modern player, the salary cap is as much to blame.

The Super League has grown in recent years on the back of stability. Whilst they have a salary cap, I actually believe it's not very heavily policed. (In fact I've recently come to the conclusion St Helens are rorting it!)

 

[In-goal]

if you think that the game doesnt suffer in both appeal and the product itself from the loss of these players, then you are dreaming. these players arent easily replaced and draw fans to the game, kids to the sport and recognition to rugby league. every time a player of this calibre leaves it is a loss to rugby league and a massive gain to union. we cannot keep losing players like this. the comp would be better off for having tahu, tuquri, sbw, gaz, gower etc involved. they are marquee footballers and should be paid what they deserve.

I don't live in la la land like some here and can see that what your saying is spot on.

The game needs big names, look at Newcastle in the Johns era!!! What sort of damage would have been done had the NRL and 9 not stood in and kept him in RL?

IMO the Broncos would love to be paying there playing staff plenty more, this way they would be seen as the worlds biggest and most famous RL club.

Regardless of what people in Sydney think the broncos are the biggest club outside of QLD and NSW, the Brisbane Broncos are known for success big stadiums and plenty of people inside. It may go back to the old SL argument that the NRL is infact holding this particular club back.

Make the cap $6m but have safe guards on clubs that can't afford to spen that much immediately, I don't care for seeing the NRL becoming a feeding ground for FRU and the like. I want the NRL to be the biggest and best rugby competition in the world with the biggest crowds and the best players, what we have a the moment is a case of have nots and held backs.

It has already been mentioned, that the NRL would be better off if the following players where taking there place on the weekends. Tahu, Taquri, Gower, King, SBW, Gasnier and the list goes on.

Argument for a competition waiting for stars to blossom and then walkout is just nonsense, we need real growth within 2-3 years.

 

[ali]

In Goal, even though it may not be the best thing for my club, I agree. Though I would raise the cap in steady increments, not one big jump.

 

[harmichael]

No more than other players, if you examine trends over the years and if you look at how these players only rose to prominance replacing those that were the stars before them, and how they will fade into obscurity to be replaced by next year's stars.


Marquee footballers is a term dreamed up by those with vested interests, those with money to be made from either a(n increasing) slice of these players (increasing) contracts, or made from trying to make news out of and sell papers or TV ratings by building up these "stars" on pedestals.

They have been paid what they deserve - the most our game can afford. Don't believe the agenda-driven hype and see greed for what it is. When 400K a year isn't enough, you have to ask what's really at stake here...

mate what sort of fantasy world do you live in? there isn't a single player in the NRL that is going to hang around on 400K a year when someone else comes along and offers them 2-3 times that amount.

I can really see a guy like kobe bryant in the NBA saying, "you know what, i don't need $20 million a year, 400K is more than enough".

the fact of the matter is these blokes are a big loss.. i mean look at the panthers without gower, they have luke lewis playing halfback.

 

[The Tank]

It has already been mentioned, that the NRL would be better off if the following players where taking there place on the weekends. Tahu, Taquri, Gower, King, SBW, Gasnier and the list goes on.

lol, not a Penrith fan are you?

 

[Ridders]

When you consider that players only have on average 8 to 10 years to make all their money, 400K doesn't seem as big.

 

[In-goal]

lol, not a Penrith fan are you?

No, I'm not.

I'm not sure if we can sit around and slowly build the cap, I think the knee jerk reaction is what is most needed in this pretious situation.

Prop forwards can be replaced as they have become nothing more than battering rams under the current structure of the game, play makers and line break specialists are huge loses.

 

[Snor]

'They must have some very very rich backers as RU isn't that big a TV sport in France.'

how do you know? have you been to France? I suggest you look into the backgrounds of some of their owners. they can hire bigger stadiums and actually fill them.