There's 35 blokes in a squad. Not all of them are intended to play first grade.
Ideally only your top 17 would play first grade each week and the other 18 would be on peanuts and playing for Wenty/Guildford. That would allow you to devote maximum salary cap space to the top 17.
Unfortunately there are injuries and so some of the bottom 18 (especially props and spine players) need to be able to play a handful of games for the NRL team each year.
And if you're really unlucky you get heaps of injuries and players from your bottom 18 end up combining for dozens of NRL appearances in a year.
While this is true, there's more to it than meets the eye!
For example, NRL minimum salary is about $80k (for those in the top 25 paid players).
The second tier cap is still $350k, which is spent on blokes who are not top 25, but play NRL.
Then there is the $250k for the "next 20" Toyota cup players (ie, those who aren't already part of the top 25 paid players at the club.
Then there's a Toyota cup 2nd tier cap of $50k
SO - the best option for a club is to spend that second tier cap on blokes who play Toyota Cup, with an eye to them also playing NRL. They can sit outside the top 25 (ie, under $80k), and there is no requirements of even distribution, it just must be under $80k per player.
So (to get to my point): my belief is that there is little to no point in having a veteran 'backup' contracted for less than $80k unless he is genuinely NRL standard, or a massive risk that's worth taking. It is senseless, because effectively we'd be paying to strengthen the reserve grade squad.
If you're going to have vets, make them at least capable of doing something well in first grade, and cough up accordingly. This might mean 5-6 guys in the top 25 who are earning 100-150k.
Meanwhile you have 5 blokes in the squad who are 21 year olds, earning $80k (minimum salary), and we have them because we forked out $50-70k for them the previous 2 years in the 2nd tier cap (whether to poach a talented NYC player, or retain a talented one).
Suddenly we only have 14 spots to fill in the top 25, lots of cash to do so. NRL capable players in spots 15-20, and young talents in 21-25.
You can get your big stars, and then overspend to fill critical positions of weakness.
Saying all this to illustrate that I do not believe players of Mullaney's calibre ought to be in an NRL squad for more than 2 years. You give them a flyer, if they don't have what it takes, throw the cash at a younger bloke!
I kind of believe in "churn" at the bottom of the roster. Never 'settle' for inferior products, try them, if they don't pan out, try something new.
