Paul Kent: NRL salary cap isn't working

[Edwahu]

Then we would need to publish sponsorship numbers. The question is how to stop TPA but why aren't the bottom teams using them. Pre-Gus we didn't use them why should the better clubs get punished because our management was too stupid to use them?

Because most of the bottom teams don't have access to as many rich blokes with money to burn.

 

[The Charlatan]

Since the NRL was formed in '98, 10 of the 16 clubs have won a premiership. I'd say the salary cap is working. I do concede that less glamourous teams will always struggle to attract top tier players without TPA assistance though.

 

[Noname36]

The big clubs are only shackled by the current salary cap until the NRL has enough money in the bank themselves where the fate of the dumpster divers of the competition doesn't matter that much to the big picture.

It's not a matter of if, but when.

I'm really hoping you're trolling because if not, f**k you're a dumb merkin.

A club like the Raiders isn't without money. Their issue is the lack of third party wanting to get involved in that area so they end up losing people like Milford to the Broncos with a never ending supply of money outside of the cap.

The Raiders aren't going to die. The club is wealthy enough to sustain itself...but it's never going to be able to really compete in the current environment either.

Also good luck if you think clubs like St George, Newcastle and the Tigers dying will be good for the game. Those supporter bases are very large and can't afford to be lost.

 

[oikee]

Nothing wrong with the salary cap, it is the rich clubs like the chooks with big third party deals that is the real problem.
We need a marquee player allowance so every club gets a crack at a superstar, not just rich Sydney clubs with big backers and packers.
We have too many pub-teams outside of Sydney including the Dragons.

People are not going to pay money to watch pub-teams, get that through ya thick heads.

Share the talent, dont hoard it into one or two Sydney teams,.
And stop sending all the good juniors to the chooks.

I would bring in a junior draft and any team that wanted or needed a junior outside the draft had to pay the NRL for that junior, not the junior player.

So the NRL gets the 300 thousand, not the junior player.
This creates a fair and balanced draft system.
? Well we have to try something different, what we have got is not working.

 

[Canard]

Broncos fans calling other clubs rich and blaming them on hoarding talent!!

It would be like Kanye West calling somebody an arrogant blowhard.

 

[The Showstopper]

The cap was about stopping clubs going broke. Unfortunately it has divided the competition into the haves and have nots. Player trade window plus draft or else the game is just a joke.

You got to love the moronic Trolls on this site. Always ready to stick the boot in. What a real sense of community.

 

[ek999]

How exactly will either of those fix the salary cap?

 

[ek999]

I will throw up immediately after posting this, but I agree with this in principle.

The fairest system I have heard to date is some sort of points system if they truly want to make it a more evdn playing field.

Each team can have a squad up to X amount of points and each player is allocated a nominal point value based on rep experience etc.

If they insist on allowing unlimited TPA payments then they have to give teams an even spread of FTA games to compete for sponsors willing to part with cash. We know that will never happen though.....

The point system works in theory, but I guarantee that people will complain about the number of points allocated to certain players. It also has the potential to force players out of a club when they legitimately would stay at a club for less money offered elsewhere. Taumololo at the Cowboys is an example of that

 

[chrisD]

What are all the third party deals these dogs players or Roosters are allegedly earning?

If any club can not manage the measly 600k from sponsors for player contracts then that's tough shit.

Individual player's third party sponsorship outside of that amount I will not believe is really much of a factor until someone can actually point to some evidence of such.

I won't be holding my breath waiting for Kent to produce something of the sort.

 

[Captain Apollo]

People complain that the bad teams can't compete with the good teams but what has happened with DCE and Foran is exactly what the salary cap is designed to do. Parramatta and Gold Coast (2 teams on the lower end of the scale) acquire 2 quality players which will improve their rosters. The real problem is NRL fans are a pack of whiners.

No that is not what the salary cap is designed to do. The salary cap is designed to limit what clubs spend on player wages so they do not go bankrupt. People seem to forget that is why it was brought in for the 1991 season. Go back to the 1980s when if it was not for handouts from the NSWRL, the Sharks and Wests would have gone under whilst the Newtown Jets did go under. The Canberra Raiders, in assembly their roster for the 1989-1991 period wound up paying that much that besides in 1991 being found to be in breach of the salary cap found they were under financial pressure too.

As to the rest of Paul Kent's article, go and have a look at competitions which have salary caps. Many of them have perennial achievers and under achievers, most of this is through things like astute recruitment, identifying and/or developing young talent, moving on older players, and good salary cap management.

That is the nub of it, good management. Have a look at the teams which are struggling. Would you say they have good off field management?

No amount of tweaking the salary cap is going to make a difference if you have bad management.

 

[Canard]

No that is not what the salary cap is designed to do. The salary cap is designed to limit what clubs spend on player wages so they do not go bankrupt.

It is also meant to provide a level playing field also, and always has been.

It's not purely there for club economics, especially considering the TV money covers the salary cap in its entirety.

Its all a bit of an overreaction, people are making out that the Roosters are the most dominate force in Rugby League History rather than a team that has currently won one grand final (in its current incarnation)

 

[Packy]

Kent is a fool. Salary cap isn't what keeps clubs good or not. It's the coaches and recruitment.

Ban Coaches imo.

Force players to play for a different club each week.

Give everyone a prize.

Turn communist.

 

[Captain Apollo]

It is also meant to provide a level playing field also, and always has been.

No it wasn't. That is not how the NSWRL announced it when they introduced it. It was to stop clubs sending themselves broke. That is why it was brought in, so please stop trying to re-write history.

 

[Canard]

No it wasn't. That is not how the NSWRL announced it when they introduced it. It was to stop clubs sending themselves broke. That is why it was brought in, so please stop trying to re-write history.

If you've got some evidence that it was SOLELY to stop club's going broke, please post it.

I'm not saying that wasn't part of it but it was also for talent equalisation. And even if you believe that initially it wasn't, it has been about that for 90% of its lifetime. So im not sure what your point is.

 

[applesauce]

The article is poorly thought out.

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 can’t draw a sideways glance from rugby union or anywhere else because he is the wrong body shape?

Then is Cameron Smith is exempt from the cap, there is more money to keep Billy Slater and/or Cooper Cronk.

What about the 10 clubs that get assistance to keep their best player above the salary cap — over the six clubs that don’t?

Give each club a marquee player then. I don't see much of a difference between 10 and 16 if it solves this problem.

What if one club has two players in the top 10?

Again see point one, if the best player with the biggest contract is off the books at each club there is more money to go around to other players in each team. It is a way to increase the cap without placing clubs at too much of a financial risk or drawing more cash out of the game that could be used better.

 

[Kirky]

How is the cap not working? The most successful team of this era has been forced to lose their best 2 players. And who was able to bid the most? Two teams that haven't made the finals in 4 years (GC) and 5 years (Parra). The teams with the current longest streaks without finals footy.

So they've gone from the most consistent team to the worst 2 teams of recent history.

That's a working salary cap.

This is the most sensible post you've ever written. I couldn't even find a grammar mistake. Who are you and what have you done with constable dribble?

 

[Craig Johnston]

european football has a rule called the bosman which has been around now for nearly 2 decades, it allows players to sign with another club (pre-contract) 6 months before the end of their contract, and many a star player has moved on a bosman, it attracts very little fanfare. the difference is that if it disrupts a club, the club can negotiate to sell the player before the bosman takes into effect. nrl clubs should be looking at this as a serious option (if not a sale, a trade)

 

[BrissyRedV]

So the bigger the competition gets, and the more popular '"rugby league" gets, the more uneven the "NRL" is going to get?

Mmmmmm.

Anyway, the 16 "NRL" teams that I want to see is,

New Zealand Warriors, New Zealand Orcas, Penrith Panthers, Parramatta, Sydney Roosters, Sydney Rabbitohs, Newcastle, Brisbane Broncos, Brisbane Brothers, NQ Cowboys, GC Titans, WC Pirates, Adelaide Rams, Melbourne, Canberra, Canterbury.

Hahaha, wiping out the Saints (southern Sydney/Woolongong), Tigers (SW Sydney/Cambletown) and Manly (northern Sydney/Gosford) would not at all have a negative impact now would it? Basically wiping out over 100k+ fans to the sport is possibly the most geniused thing I have read on this forum. I thought the NRL wanted to expand not contract.

 

[Canard]

european football has a rule called the bosman which has been around now for nearly 2 decades, it allows players to sign with another club (pre-contract) 6 months before the end of their contract, and many a star player has moved on a bosman, it attracts very little fanfare. the difference is that if it disrupts a club, the club can negotiate to sell the player before the bosman takes into effect. nrl clubs should be looking at this as a serious option (if not a sale, a trade)

How is that any different to the current situation other than its got a name to it?

Ok Manly Fans no need to get all uppity its just a "Bosman"?

"Oh well if thats the case then its fine"

 

[Captain Apollo]

If you've got some evidence that it was SOLELY to stop club's going broke, please post it.

I'm not saying that wasn't part of it but it was also for talent equalisation. And even if you believe that initially it wasn't, it has been about that for 90% of its lifetime. So im not sure what your point is.

Sorry but I don't have access to the press releases nor newspapers from 1989-1990 to post. I don't know how old you are, but I've been around long enough to remember when it was introduced and why. It is why the salary cap came in, financial prudence and nothing else. Yes it does have a consequence of helping spread the talent around, but that is not why it was brought in. If you don't want to believe it, that is your problem not mine.

Thanks for playing newcomer :crazy: