Quint
Juniors
- Messages
- 1,399
In todays Tele there is an articicle stateing that the Stains agree with the Rooters(not a mispell,they are trying to root our game).
They say the cap must rise so Clubs can Keep the juniors that they have developed when they reach NRL level Football.
i think it's more the case that the Rooters and the Dragqueens want the cap to rise so they can buy other clubs juniors...
How many more clubs will back the Rooters?
ST GEORGE Illawarra chief executive Peter Doust has thrown support behind the Sydney Roosters' challenge to have the salary cap increased.
Doust wants to be allowed to retain junior Dragons players who enter the NRL while also keeping established representative stars.
The Dragons chief does not want to see the matter end up in the courts but is the lone supporter for the Sydney Roosters pushing for a salary cap increase.
Doust voted in support of the issue at the NRL's annual conference.
Yesterday he outlined why he supports the salary cap being increased: "We understand the Roosters' frustrations with the salary cap and we have some issues with it ourselves.
"We would like to be able to retain the young players who are coming through our club while also retaining our long-serving players.
"We see those two issues as the principal issues that should be considered in evaluating the cap."
Roosters chief executive Brian Canavan has confirmed the 2002 premiers do not want the cap abolished but rather are looking for an increase in the form of concessions or a small rise.
The argument put forward by the Roosters and the Dragons is that strong clubs should be allowed to keep the junior players they have developed, and who want to remain playing where they are.
But the flipside is that the salary cap is the best method of evenly distributing playing talent across all clubs, making the competition more exciting and less predictable.
The issue of cap concessions is a difficult one from the NRL's perspective with chief executive David Gallop acknowledging merit in both sides of the argument.
"The argument against salary cap concessions for representative players is that the stronger teams generally have representative players," Gallop said. "To give them salary cap concessions is giving them a concession that other clubs don't get."
While many clubs argue the game cannot sustain an increased cap, Doust believes that just because you have a $3.25million limit does not mean you have to spend it all.
But the overwhelming majority of clubs contacted by The Daily Telegraph last week were opposed to any rise in the cap for 2005, whether it be concessions or an increase in spending limitations.
Parramatta chief executive Denis Fitzgerald has led the chorus of clubs who do not want to see the cap go up.
"I'm against any concessions whether it's for long-serving players or rep players. The salary cap should not go up, there is no extra money coming into clubs," Fitzgerald said.
"If there were concessions for rep players it would mean the stronger clubs would have more money to pound the weaker clubs with and the game cannot afford that."
The other issue in the debate is the effect the NSW government poker machine tax increase will have on licensed clubs, and the amount of money they can still afford to pour into football clubs.
"We'd like to support keeping our junior and our long-serving players because we think that is one way to keep our fans happy which in turn drives revenue through gate takings and sponsorships," Doust said.
The NRL has stressed it will not be forced into reviewing a salary cap increase for 2005 any earlier than intended despite the Roosters' threat to challenge it in the Federal Court.
Leading sports lawyers have confirmed the Roosters have a sound argument if they challenge the cap.
The last player to take rugby league to the courts, Souths' former Test star Terry Hill, challenged the draft in 1991 and successfully fought to have it abolished.
Hill has thrown support behind the idea of a cap increase, but only if the money is directed into the development of elite junior talent.
They say the cap must rise so Clubs can Keep the juniors that they have developed when they reach NRL level Football.
i think it's more the case that the Rooters and the Dragqueens want the cap to rise so they can buy other clubs juniors...
How many more clubs will back the Rooters?
ST GEORGE Illawarra chief executive Peter Doust has thrown support behind the Sydney Roosters' challenge to have the salary cap increased.
Doust wants to be allowed to retain junior Dragons players who enter the NRL while also keeping established representative stars.
The Dragons chief does not want to see the matter end up in the courts but is the lone supporter for the Sydney Roosters pushing for a salary cap increase.
Doust voted in support of the issue at the NRL's annual conference.
Yesterday he outlined why he supports the salary cap being increased: "We understand the Roosters' frustrations with the salary cap and we have some issues with it ourselves.
"We would like to be able to retain the young players who are coming through our club while also retaining our long-serving players.
"We see those two issues as the principal issues that should be considered in evaluating the cap."
Roosters chief executive Brian Canavan has confirmed the 2002 premiers do not want the cap abolished but rather are looking for an increase in the form of concessions or a small rise.
The argument put forward by the Roosters and the Dragons is that strong clubs should be allowed to keep the junior players they have developed, and who want to remain playing where they are.
But the flipside is that the salary cap is the best method of evenly distributing playing talent across all clubs, making the competition more exciting and less predictable.
The issue of cap concessions is a difficult one from the NRL's perspective with chief executive David Gallop acknowledging merit in both sides of the argument.
"The argument against salary cap concessions for representative players is that the stronger teams generally have representative players," Gallop said. "To give them salary cap concessions is giving them a concession that other clubs don't get."
While many clubs argue the game cannot sustain an increased cap, Doust believes that just because you have a $3.25million limit does not mean you have to spend it all.
But the overwhelming majority of clubs contacted by The Daily Telegraph last week were opposed to any rise in the cap for 2005, whether it be concessions or an increase in spending limitations.
Parramatta chief executive Denis Fitzgerald has led the chorus of clubs who do not want to see the cap go up.
"I'm against any concessions whether it's for long-serving players or rep players. The salary cap should not go up, there is no extra money coming into clubs," Fitzgerald said.
"If there were concessions for rep players it would mean the stronger clubs would have more money to pound the weaker clubs with and the game cannot afford that."
The other issue in the debate is the effect the NSW government poker machine tax increase will have on licensed clubs, and the amount of money they can still afford to pour into football clubs.
"We'd like to support keeping our junior and our long-serving players because we think that is one way to keep our fans happy which in turn drives revenue through gate takings and sponsorships," Doust said.
The NRL has stressed it will not be forced into reviewing a salary cap increase for 2005 any earlier than intended despite the Roosters' threat to challenge it in the Federal Court.
Leading sports lawyers have confirmed the Roosters have a sound argument if they challenge the cap.
The last player to take rugby league to the courts, Souths' former Test star Terry Hill, challenged the draft in 1991 and successfully fought to have it abolished.
Hill has thrown support behind the idea of a cap increase, but only if the money is directed into the development of elite junior talent.
