NRL salary cap isnt working and damaging the integrity of the competition
PAUL KENT THE DAILY TELEGRAPH MARCH 17, 2015 12:00AM
Cherry-Evans outplayed Queensland Origin halfback Cooper Cronk in Manlys win over Melbourne on Saturday night.
His quicker than the eye can see pass to Tom Symonds to set up Brett Stewarts try was so pretty.
Cherry-Evans was the difference in the result.
And when the game was over and the result mailed in Cherry-Evans walked around the fence at Brookvale Oval to shake the hands of the Manly faithful, many of whom adore him, on an impromptu lap.
It was as if to say, one down, 11 to go, and they responded the only way fans should, with their hearts ...
Yet it is not a lead the game should be following at the moment.
For too often lately, emotion is taking over common sense.
Last week Willie Mason urged the NRL to go back to the safe in the wall one more time to top up the contracts of the games best 10 players for fear they might leave and, dangerously, it is getting traction.
Already there is talk Manly is considering approaching the NRL for a discretionary marquee player payment to lure Sam Burgess back to the NRL.
There is a far more serious issue at stake here and it is getting lost in hysterical emotion.
It is the integrity of the competition.
The biggest issue in the game is the growing disparity between the top clubs and bottom clubs and, despite the appearance of a salary cap keeping it even, the gap is growing larger.
Say we listen to Willie, who decides what 10 players?
What about a player like Cameron Smith, a Golden Boot winner, widely regarded as one of the best three players in the game in any of the past 10 years, yet who cant draw a sideways glance from rugby union or anywhere else because he is the wrong body shape?
What about the 10 clubs that get assistance to keep their best player above the salary cap over the six clubs that dont?
What if one club has two players in the top 10?
The NRLs argument for helping Gold Coast was simple: when the tide goes up all the boats rise.
Helping Gold Coast ensures a strong playing competition from which all the players can benefit.
It was a surface argument.
No details have been leaked about how Cherry-Evans contract will be structured but it is clear the Gold Coast has gained a significant advantage over the other 15 clubs through no other reason than the NRL is now operating the Titans.
Even if not one cent of Cherry-Evans contract is taken up by NRL-endorsed third-party agreements and there are many who believe it is simple maths will tell you that what the Titans save on uncapped third-party agreements to Cherry-Evans can now be directed to other players.
And now a similar advantage is going to be given to Manly to offset the loss of Cherry-Evans and Kieran Foran?
Manly lost Cherry-Evans and Foran not through money. They lose them through club politics, because they managed their recruitment poorly and because the NRL helped facilitate DCEs move to Gold Coast.
So why should the NRL help now? Through guilt?
Why should Manly get Burgess?
Why not St George Illawarra, who have lost two marquee players, Brett Morris and, next year, Trent Merrin?
Why not Canberra, who co-operated with the NRL and, at the games urging, released Todd Carney, Josh Dugan and Blake Ferguson for disciplinary reasons only to see them replaced by players who were a long way off Origin standard?
The Raiders havent been able to attract a marquee player since Mal Meninga pumped that giant fist in the air and retired after the 1994 grand final. In fan years, that is a lifetime.
Under previous administrations the NRLs salary cap was sacrosanct. It retained the integrity of the competition.
Now, we are all being fooled into believing the salary cap is working and the competition is level, even as the same teams are starting to dominate season after season.
The marquee player payment should never be used, retained only to discourage rival codes peeping over the fence.
