Radical NRL salary cap changes to ward off rivals

[El Diablo]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...-ward-off-rivals/story-e6frfgbo-1225882449839

Radical NRL salary cap changes to ward off rivals

* EXCLUSIVE by Dean Ritchie
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* June 22, 2010 12:00AM

THE NRL is finally and firmly fighting back against big-spending rivals, the AFL and rugby union.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal that marquee players can now earn another $300,000 a year on top of their existing NRL contracts.

The initiative is expected to be ratified at a club chief executives conference today.

It is understood the move will ensure rugby league's elite players stay in the NRL, unlike Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau, who walked out for the big money in AFL.

Currently, each club can spend a total of $150,000 on three marquee players - $50,000 each - to top up their contracts.

That figure will now increase to $300,000 with the three-player restriction lifted.

That means clubs can spend the money on several players - or just one.

One official said: "It means that the big-name players on $500,000 a year can now earn $800,000 a year. There's no doubt that will stop them going to rival codes."

The NRL is also ready to announce that the salary cap will be lifted from $4.1 million to $4.2 million while the NRL grant to each club was lifted by $300,000 a year last week.

An alteration to the long-service grant will also be discussed today.

Players with eight years experience can attract a $100,000 increase to their club's salary cap.

That could now be $100,000 for players with six years service and then another $100,000 after eight years.

Asked if the moves were aimed at rugby league retaining its stars, leading manager George Mimis said: "I think doubling the marquee player allowance and relaxing the rules applied to it clearly gives clubs an opportunity to retain marquee players."

South Sydney chief executive and NRL salary cap committee member, Shane Richardson, said the changes were aimed at offering players better money.

"The marquee player payment shouldn't have any restrictions," Richardson said.

"The whole idea is to make sure the players can earn more money in our game. We aren't changing the salary cap - just the mentality of the salary cap.

"We also have to be flexible in what we do."

NRL chief executive David Gallop added: "We are looking at some expansion of the existing concessions to ensure that we are maximising our third-party payments and compensating long-serving players.

"But affordability is still the key and giving fans of every club the most chance of their team competing each week."

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Maybe I’ve misread this but are they saying that star players who have been at the same club for 8 years could potentially earn $1 million? That’s a massive jump.

 

[El Diablo]

would be funny if Folau tried to get out of his contract now

can't see this as being great though. sure players are less likely to go but there are some clubs who won't be able to afford big contracts

 

[Eels Dude]

Um... wasn't this revealed like a couple of weeks ago already?

 

[El Diablo]

i think that was just the extra grant and increase in cap, not this marquee stuff

 

[Eels Dude]

Maybe I’ve misread this but are they saying that star players who have been at the same club for 8 years could potentially earn $1 million? That’s a massive jump.

I believe the idea is that it's capped at 300k... so you can spend an overall total of 300k on top line players that doesn't count under the salary cap but no more than that.

 

[Eels Dude]

i think that was just the extra grant and increase in cap, not this marquee stuff

Yeah I'd like to hear more because this sounds exactly like what was suggested a couple of weeks ago where Gallop was talking about allowing clubs to spend 300k on long service players, with the number increasing from the current limit of 3 to 6.

 

[lockyno1]

Really should be unrestricted, but I'll take 300K. What a player can earn from sponsors should be up to them.

 

[bmwpower]

how many marquee players can each club have

 

[whats up doc]

would be funny if Folau tried to get out of his contract now

can't see this as being great though. sure players are less likely to go but there are some clubs who won't be able to afford big contracts

mhmm. sharkies comes to mind

 

[Shanky]

is it just me, or does being able to pay $300k to marquee players outside of the 4.1mil cap no different to having a 4.4mil cap?

 

[Johns Magic]

It is understood the move will ensure rugby league's elite players stay in the NRL, unlike Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau, who walked out for the big money in AFL.

Didn't Dean listen to Folau's press-conference?

Folau's decision wasn't about money. It was about "the opportunity placed before him".

Folau is the pinnacle of integrity...

 

[Johns Magic]

is it just me, or does being able to pay $300k to marquee players outside of the 4.1mil cap no different to having a 4.4mil cap?

The difference is that that extra $300K can only go to the best few players in the team rather than get spread out evenly between the top 25.

Other codes only want the best NRL players, so the point is that the best NRL players get topped up under the salary cap and are kept in the game.

Your average toiler who no other code wants doesn't need to be topped up to be kept in the NRL.

By just making it a $4.4million salary cap it would just drive the average salary up rather than increase the amount of money the superstars get.

Consider it a $100,000 pay-rise for your three best players rather than a $12,000 pay-rise for your entire squad. $100,000(at least) that could keep someone like Greg Inglis in the NRL.

 

[Shanky]

The difference is that that extra $300K can only go to the best few players in the team rather than get spread out evenly between the top 25.

Other codes only want the best NRL players, so the point is that the best NRL players get topped up under the salary cap and are kept in the game.

Your average toiler who no other code wants doesn't need to be topped up to be kept in the NRL.

By just making it a $4.4million salary cap it would just drive the average salary up rather than increase the amount of money the superstars get.

Consider it a $100,000 pay-rise for your three best players rather than a $12,000 pay-rise for your entire squad. $100,000(at least) that could keep someone like Greg Inglis in the NRL.

I understand the idea, but I don't see what stops clubs from moving money around to the extent where the definition between the cap and the concession is pointless. If a superstar was valued at $450k, I doubt clubs would pay him $500k. More likely they would give him $400k, add an extra $50k from the concession, then spend the $50k of cap money elsewhere.

Unless I am missing a way to enforce this that I cant really think of, I don't see how it would work any differently to an increased cap.

 

[lturner]

The difference is that that extra $300K can only go to the best few players in the team rather than get spread out evenly between the top 25.

Other codes only want the best NRL players, so the point is that the best NRL players get topped up under the salary cap and are kept in the game.

Your average toiler who no other code wants doesn't need to be topped up to be kept in the NRL.

By just making it a $4.4million salary cap it would just drive the average salary up rather than increase the amount of money the superstars get.

Consider it a $100,000 pay-rise for your three best players rather than a $12,000 pay-rise for your entire squad. $100,000(at least) that could keep someone like Greg Inglis in the NRL.

Money is fungible, it's all the same. And the article says the restriction on how many players it can be spent on has been removed, so your argument is all wrong.

Isn't this actually to do with the 3rd party sponsorship restrictions. Is that currently 150k?

 

[lturner]

"But affordability is still the key and giving fans of every club the most chance of their team competing each week."
- D. Gallop.

This quote is the reason why Gallop and the current NRL administration must go.

They are obsessed with the misguided notion that it is their job to "equalise" the teams in their league at virtually any cost.

They refuse to even consider the possibility that equalisation could be detrimental despite their ham-fisted policies having recently been the cause of ENTIRE SEASONS OF THE COMPETITION being purged from the record books.

People don't watch footy because it's like going to the casino where anyone could come away a winner. They watch because they want to see a contest, with winners and losers.

People won't stop watching just because their club isn't an exact 15-1 chance of taking out the premiership at the start of every year. People want to see their club build up a champion team over a number of years, and not have it torn apart if they do happen to succeed - especially if the players are being forced out to other sports, who are paying the going rate.

 

[In-goal]

Problem being, the AFL still has a much larger cap, and at the same time players coming across from other sports are not under the cape due to the rookie lists. $300K is chicken feed when you look at the sums that are being spoken of for Folou and Hunt.

 

[bluey]

Really should be unrestricted, but I'll take 300K. What a player can earn from sponsors should be up to them.

Trouble is if open, clubs WILL murky the waters with it.
It would become impossible to police i would think.
Clubs would be able to stack a roster by players coming on board at a reduced fee then have the sponors paying overs .
This could enable clubs have another 2-3 topliners over thier peers,.

 

[Bastard Squad]

Problem being, the AFL still has a much larger cap, and at the same time players coming across from other sports are not under the cape due to the rookie lists. $300K is chicken feed when you look at the sums that are being spoken of for Folou and Hunt.

Folou and Hunt are being paid extra as ambassadors for the new AFL clubs, they won't be paying every convert that kind of money.

 

[Brutus]

People have been calling for this type of stuff for ages.

Reactive as per usual.

Storm debarcle, players going to AFL and kick 'n clap, possibly more teams rorting the cap...mmm we must do something.