Salary Cap Alternative

[brokendigit]

Keen to find out what other forumers think that I'm leaving out, or why this couldn't work...

The NRL puts in a salary cap of (let's say) $4.5M.

Each team is allocated 3 Marquee Player 'slots', & each club decides which players they are going to put into the slots.
It's not mandatory for each club to activate any or all slots,but if a club decides to use 1 slot,
their SC of $4.5M is reduced by $150K. 2 slots = $300K, all 3 slots = $450K.

Any payments made to Marquee Players will not count towards the salary cap.
Some clubs will activate all 3 slots, meaning they can pay their top players as much money as they decide.
If they can afford 3 X SBW's, let them come up with the cash through good management, well run football clubs, & membership dollars.
However, it means that the money that can be used to hang on to other talent is reduced.

Some clubs may not activate any of the slots, meaning they will have an extra $450K to spend on other players. If the Salary cap was scrapped, poor clubs would be sent broke trying to hang on to players, & the competition would become a 3 or 4 horse race (like the EPL).

But, if we keep the SC in place as is, we'll lose more & more players to the big bucks overseas, & RL will get eaten by AFL & Soccer
(if it isn't already too late).

My only suggestions would be;
Marquee Contracts should be 2 years - no other timeframe.
Marquee players should be contracted to the NRL to attend corporate events: in addition to any work that their club asks them to do. Use the 50 odd (maximum) players to promote RL to schools & country areas constantly.

 

[Knight87]

I am a fan of the 'marquee player' concept (which is used in the A-League). However, I'd restrict the marquee player to only 2 players in each side. All of their payments (both football and sponsorship/3rd party) are excluded from the salary cap

 

[caylo]

decent idea but most teams would pay $450K for there highest player, and thus just activate 3 slots for them, and sign other players even if they are not on big money and they could use 5.5mil or so and would most likley get that from sponsorship money instead of their pocket, and again adv teams with pulling power in that department.

I think simply a player who receives sponsorship that has no dealing with the club should not be included in the cap, or we could increase the cap to 6mil and say a max of 2mil can be from a company with ties with the club. I'm sure most companies would give 500K to have a NRL superstar as their face.

 

[Stizyler]

Keen to find out what other forumers think that I'm leaving out, or why this couldn't work...

The NRL puts in a salary cap of (let's say) $4.5M.

Each team is allocated 3 Marquee Player 'slots', & each club decides which players they are going to put into the slots.
It's not mandatory for each club to activate any or all slots,but if a club decides to use 1 slot,
their SC of $4.5M is reduced by $150K. 2 slots = $300K, all 3 slots = $450K.

Any payments made to Marquee Players will not count towards the salary cap.
Some clubs will activate all 3 slots, meaning they can pay their top players as much money as they decide.
If they can afford 3 X SBW's, let them come up with the cash through good management, well run football clubs, & membership dollars.
However, it means that the money that can be used to hang on to other talent is reduced.

Some clubs may not activate any of the slots, meaning they will have an extra $450K to spend on other players. If the Salary cap was scrapped, poor clubs would be sent broke trying to hang on to players, & the competition would become a 3 or 4 horse race (like the EPL).

But, if we keep the SC in place as is, we'll lose more & more players to the big bucks overseas, & RL will get eaten by AFL & Soccer
(if it isn't already too late).

My only suggestions would be;
Marquee Contracts should be 2 years - no other timeframe.
Marquee players should be contracted to the NRL to attend corporate events: in addition to any work that their club asks them to do. Use the 50 odd (maximum) players to promote RL to schools & country areas constantly.

thats a bit like the franchise tag system in NFL,

 

[BrisVegas]

This idea wouldn't work as some clubs have a far greater capacity to pay a premium (Broncos, Titans, Cowboys, Bulldogs, Roosters, Storm) compared to other. 3 players per club x the 6 aforementioned clubs would be the 18 top players in the NRL contracted out between 6 clubs. The Broncos could easily offer a marquee 2-3x what the Sharks/Panthers could, which would ensure they stack the club with the game breakers of the NRL.

 

[Loudstrat]

Yeah, but that happens now anyway. There is considerable inequity between the strongest 3, and the bottom 3 clubs.

If I get the idea, say Canberra sign SBW for 600k - that's 1 slot. Then Anasta at 450k, that's 2 slots. Then Gasnier at 600k. That's 3 slots. Therefore their salary cap is $4.05 million, and their contracted player value is $4.7 million. Is that the idea?

To me, the salary cap hurts the poorer clubs most, as they usually have to pay overs to get marquee players. Sometimes they get the cash to do it, so they can buy good players, bhecome a better performed club, and then they are more attractive to subsequent players. Sorta like the Cowpats after Thurston and Webb went there.

I'd actually like to see test and Origion player contracted to the NRL, and the NRL top up their wage, regardless of where they go.

 

[Gutsy]

I like the idea, but I have to ask where the clubs are getting this money from to pay the players?
The salary cap is currently looked at as disadvantaging the players as they earn less, but it's there to HELP the clubs. We would be down to an 8 or 10 team comp without salary cap (maybe less) as many can't afford what they are up for already.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

I like the idea, but I have to ask where the clubs are getting this money from to pay the players?
The salary cap is currently looked at as disadvantaging the players as they earn less, but it's there to HELP the clubs. We would be down to an 8 or 10 team comp without salary cap (maybe less) as many can't afford what they are up for already.

This is true but it might make some clubs voluntary merge or relocate and hopefully win a corporate dollar or two.