Question for our more experienced forum members.

[giboz71]

Do you people not remember the salary cap coming in in 1990? The rugby unions dropping amateur status in 1995? The super league war? The post 2003 RWC spending raids? The end of News Ltds last bid rights?
It's been awhile since people haven't concerned themselves with the dollar value of player contracts. Not ancient history but it has been a generation now.
If it's diminished your enjoyment of professional sport then maybe you should take up watching something else like lawn bowls.

The salary cap was the first thing I thought of when I read this thread.

It was meant to introduce equality, but in reality those who manage the cap best (or those who can get away with cheating the cap) are the ones who find the most success.

For that reason, a player's dollar value is very relevant given there is only a finite amount of $$ to spread around 30 odd players. Does that players value represent overall success for the team?

With regards to openly discussing your wealth and income, I don't think we can equate the average Joe Blow with professional sports people. Their whole lives are an open book and that's what they signed up (and get paid very well) for. People openly discussing their salary is just part and parcel of what they need to deal with.

 

[adamkungl]

Sure, and I don’t think that anyone would dispute the players’ right to make a wage. I’m more curious about whether the amounts have become too much of a focus for the fans and the media.

I would argue that the salary cap isn't the cause, but provides a very low hanging fruit angle for the lazy and cynical media to manipulate endlessly.

The media content drives a lot of fan discussion, and for the media, generating controversy is the name of the game.
They get a lot more juice over debating will-he-wont-he and is-he-worth-1M than they do over discussing tactics and reviewing how a game unfolded.

The match report seems all but dead - a post match discussion is 90% about referees and foul play suspensions rather than any analysis of the game itself.

If you recall on NRL360 a couple of years back, I think during the Tigers "big 4" saga, one of them called out Kent and Co for focusing on gossip over the actual game, and the response from Kent was basically 'what are we gonna do, talk about the actual football all week? boring'.
Another time the ever dopey Dean Ritchie was trying to contrive some controversy, but he had the rules wrong. He hit back by calling his critics "rulebook nerds".
These are the people who lead the discussion of Rugby League.

So we have the major voices at the DT , Fox, and Triple M all with massive overlap.
So across multiple platforms, Journo A can take one side of a heated debate, and Journo B can take the other side. Of course the whole thing is entirely manufactured, hard to believe either of them actually believe the shit they're spinning, and when it becomes tiresome, in jumps Journo C with the third angle of 'the fans are sick of it and the NRL needs to do something'.
It's an easy blueprint to engage the audience, repeated ad nauseum, and it contributes absolutely nothing to our understand of the sport.

Channel 9 are struggling for relevancy - their main voices being a decade past their prime and jaded with the game, and their younger voices buying hard into the 'controversy sells' angle. They play it up because it's all they have and complaining is the easiest way to engage their audience.

No surprise that most fans don't understand the game much further than big men smashing each other.

 

[giboz71]

I would argue that the salary cap isn't the cause, but provides a very low hanging fruit angle for the lazy and cynical media to manipulate endlessly.

The media content drives a lot of fan discussion, and for the media, generating controversy is the name of the game.
They get a lot more juice over debating will-he-wont-he and is-he-worth-1M than they do over discussing tactics and reviewing how a game unfolded.

The match report seems all but dead - a post match discussion is 90% about referees and foul play suspensions rather than any analysis of the game itself.

If you recall on NRL360 a couple of years back, I think during the Tigers "big 4" saga, one of them called out Kent and Co for focusing on gossip over the actual game, and the response from Kent was basically 'what are we gonna do, talk about the actual football all week? boring'.
Another time the ever dopey Dean Ritchie was trying to contrive some controversy, but he had the rules wrong. He hit back by calling his critics "rulebook nerds".
These are the people who lead the discussion of Rugby League.

So we have the major voices at the DT , Fox, and Triple M all with massive overlap.
So across multiple platforms, Journo A can take one side of a heated debate, and Journo B can take the other side. Of course the whole thing is entirely manufactured, hard to believe either of them actually believe the shit they're spinning, and when it becomes tiresome, in jumps Journo C with the third angle of 'the fans are sick of it and the NRL needs to do something'.
It's an easy blueprint to engage the audience, repeated ad nauseum, and it contributes absolutely nothing to our understand of the sport.

Channel 9 are struggling for relevancy - their main voices being a decade past their prime and jaded with the game, and their younger voices buying hard into the 'controversy sells' angle. They play it up because it's all they have and complaining is the easiest way to engage their audience.

No surprise that most fans don't understand the game much further than big men smashing each other.

Agree with everything you say re standard of journalism in Rugby League, but really what percentage of fans actually care about the tactical aspects of footy these days?

There are some pretty smart blokes on these forums who can dissect game plans etc, but members of this forum aren't representative of most fans. Just trawl through some of the drivel that is written in social media channels like Facebook and that will give you some idea of what the average fan wants to read about and discuss.

So yes, most of what is written these days focuses on trivial things like salaries, poor refereeing and suspensions etc, but in reality, that's the sort of stuff that most NRL fans want to read about, and hence sell papers.

 

[adamkungl]

Agree with everything you say re standard of journalism in Rugby League, but really what percentage of fans actually care about the tactical aspects of footy these days?

There are some pretty smart blokes on these forums who can dissect game plans etc, but members of this forum aren't representative of most fans. Just trawl through some of the drivel that is written in social media channels like Facebook and that will give you some idea of what the average fan wants to read about and discuss.

So yes, most of what is written these days focuses on trivial things like salaries, poor refereeing and suspensions etc, but in reality, that's the sort of stuff that most NRL fans want to read about, and hence sell papers.

There's the big question, is the media creating the appetite for gossip garbage because its cheaper and easier, or is it truly all the fans really want?

Bolded point is somewhat worrying for the sport.
It almost means that the fans don't have a real love of the game, they just want some colours to yell at and gamble on. These are the club-over-game fans, the ones that never played and won't let their kids play, the ones that drift off to AFL or Union when their team is losing.
If majority of fans don't really care about the game itself or how it's played, we have a pretty flimsy foundation of support.

I think there is a market for smarter reporting on the game, but it isn't given the airtime to ever develop. And the boofhead commentators certainly don't attract intelligent fans. The media feeds us rubbish and tells us it's what we really want.

We've got a 24 hour Rugby League channel and there hasn't been one show that they've ever devoted to discussing the game over the gossip.

 

[Generalzod]

There's the big question, is the media creating the appetite for gossip garbage because its cheaper and easier, or is it truly all the fans really want?

Bolded point is somewhat worrying for the sport.
It almost means that the fans don't have a real love of the game, they just want some colours to yell at and gamble on. These are the club-over-game fans, the ones that never played and won't let their kids play, the ones that drift off to AFL or Union when their team is losing.
If majority of fans don't really care about the game itself or how it's played, we have a pretty flimsy foundation of support.

I think there is a market for smarter reporting on the game, but it isn't given the airtime to ever develop. And the boofhead commentators certainly don't attract intelligent fans. The media feeds us rubbish and tells us it's what we really want.

We've got a 24 hour Rugby League channel and there hasn't been one show that they've ever devoted to discussing the game over the gossip.

I don’t have the Rugby league channel and when I did all I watched was old games I can do this now on YouTube...

 

[giboz71]

There's the big question, is the media creating the appetite for gossip garbage because its cheaper and easier, or is it truly all the fans really want?

Bolded point is somewhat worrying for the sport.
It almost means that the fans don't have a real love of the game, they just want some colours to yell at and gamble on. These are the club-over-game fans, the ones that never played and won't let their kids play, the ones that drift off to AFL or Union when their team is losing.
If majority of fans don't really care about the game itself or how it's played, we have a pretty flimsy foundation of support.

I think there is a market for smarter reporting on the game, but it isn't given the airtime to ever develop. And the boofhead commentators certainly don't attract intelligent fans. The media feeds us rubbish and tells us it's what we really want.

We've got a 24 hour Rugby League channel and there hasn't been one show that they've ever devoted to discussing the game over the gossip.

Interesting point of view.

Cause and effect right? Do most fans fail to have a true appreciation of the game because the media choose to peddle their nonsense? Or perhaps the powers that be in the media have a fairly good idea what drives league fans, thus report accordingly to feed the masses? Not sure which to be honest.

All I know is, when I want to have an intelligent discussion about Rugby League, this is as good a place as any (most of the time anyway).

 

[BLM01]

Interesting point of view.

Cause and effect right? Do most fans fail to have a true appreciation of the game because the media choose to peddle their nonsense? Or perhaps the powers that be in the media have a fairly good idea what drives league fans, thus report accordingly to feed the masses? Not sure which to be honest.

All I know is, when I want to have an intelligent discussion about Rugby League, this is as good a place as any (most of the time anyway).

Your Point 1 is correct. Because you have only got to come to and see how the game is going and administered and difficulties youi face as it it is happens in normal grass roots volunteer land.
The media, NRL related corporate world and player managers have the power to choose based on PC agendas, strategically set up campaigns and debates to get further debate, outrage, clicks, replies whatever and makes half the black sheep population turn on their PAY TV sets to any sports channel for advertising..or the new money spinner...Pay for view.....cause and effect of
It creates and ensures their jobs are paid for and continued whilst the TV and media can throw back their money and keep control of the sport.

 

[BLM01]

I don’t have the Rugby league channel and when I did all I watched was old games I can do this now on YouTube...

You turning on your rugby league channel is not their reliant source of income anymore
And who gets the benefit from making those videos available on You Tube and the upkeep, running and administration of that?

 

[Old Timer]

I have a two part question for our more mature members. @Old Timer I’m looking in your direction.

Looking at the reporting of the Latrell Mitchell and Val Holmes contract sagas, I cant help noticing that the thrust of it is the money that the contracts will be worth, and there is minimal focus on what they will bring to the clubs on the field.

Question 1. Do you remember whether this was always the case in journalism to some degree? Do you remember there being discussion about the contract value of players in the pre-salary cap era?

Question 2. Do you think this has changed the way that we as fans talk about players? ie instead of focusing on the football value of a player and what they bring to the team, it becomes about their skill vs $ value? James Graham is the first example that springs to mind.

I’m wondering whether the focus on $ detracts from our enjoyment of the game. Interested in your thoughts.

Hi
Sorry for the delay in getting back but I am away on holidays in NZ
As reported by others in the old days all players had jobs even the very best of players
The salaries for the greats were all similar as was the salaries for the “club” footballer and often based on wins and losses so a fair bit of incentive to get into a side that had plenty of wins.
The greats often were given what today would be called TPA’s such as a brewery truck and run (worth plants then) but of course the player actually had to work the run himself (1 great way to keep fit)
By the late 69’s and into the early 70’s it became a house.
Leagues clubs had plenty of assets and rivers of money so not too hard for the big clubs to get the player they wanted.
The added benefit of Sr George was your increased opportunity to play rep footy.
Journalists of the day often reported which club was chasing what player and the football logic behind why they were chasing him (The Hawthorne signing a great example of that)
Little it no focus was given to the $$$ involved until after the deal was struck.
It was predominantly about what the player would bring to the club.
Of course this created a great divide between the rich clubs St G, Wests, Souths etc and Newtown & Norths and we know how that ended.
Fans would here who their club were chasing and talk about the merits of that based on skills however would come to the conclusion if they lost a star it was due to huge money being offered.
Fans back then evaluated players as to what what they did on the field and not until players became full time professionals did fans start discussing their worth in $$$ terms.
Unfortunately the salary cap makes the fans of today focus on individual players contract rather than skills and IMO the divide it was supposed to close had widened considerably.
Very often the clubs with the least stars in 1st grade actually create them in their juniors but lose them due to TPA’s and only when those clubs have a plethora of great juniors come through do they manage to hold onto some.
I hope that gives some clarity to what you asked?

 

[getsmarty]

Hi
Sorry for the delay in getting back but I am away on holidays in NZ
As reported by others in the old days all players had jobs even the very best of players
The salaries for the greats were all similar as was the salaries for the “club” footballer and often based on wins and losses so a fair bit of incentive to get into a side that had plenty of wins.
The greats often were given what today would be called TPA’s such as a brewery truck and run (worth plants then) but of course the player actually had to work the run himself (1 great way to keep fit)
By the late 69’s and into the early 70’s it became a house.
Leagues clubs had plenty of assets and rivers of money so not too hard for the big clubs to get the player they wanted.
The added benefit of Sr George was your increased opportunity to play rep footy.
Journalists of the day often reported which club was chasing what player and the football logic behind why they were chasing him (The Hawthorne signing a great example of that)
Little it no focus was given to the $$$ involved until after the deal was struck.
It was predominantly about what the player would bring to the club.
Of course this created a great divide between the rich clubs St G, Wests, Souths etc and Newtown & Norths and we know how that ended.
Fans would here who their club were chasing and talk about the merits of that based on skills however would come to the conclusion if they lost a star it was due to huge money being offered.
Fans back then evaluated players as to what what they did on the field and not until players became full time professionals did fans start discussing their worth in $$$ terms.
Unfortunately the salary cap makes the fans of today focus on individual players contract rather than skills and IMO the divide it was supposed to close had widened considerably.
Very often the clubs with the least stars in 1st grade actually create them in their juniors but lose them due to TPA’s and only when those clubs have a plethora of great juniors come through do they manage to hold onto some.
I hope that gives some clarity to what you asked?

Great input. Thanks