Salary cap its own worst enemy in sorry Inglis saga

[whats up doc]

Salary cap its own worst enemy in sorry Inglis saga


Glenn Jackson

December 23, 2010


Let's take a step back for a minute. Forget about Greg Inglis. Forget about South Sydney and Hollywood pulling power, and Essendon. Just consider a subplot to this sideshow; how did rugby league get to the point where the NRL lawyer and its auditor are interrogating sponsors to decide their motives?


Forget about who you agree with and who you believe when it comes to the Inglis saga. The fact is that four sponsors were willing to pay Greg Inglis a combined $200,000 a season.


Whether he was to be paid that money to play for Souths is at the heart of the issue, or at least the investigation, but ask yourself whether it should be, for the Rabbitohs or anyone else.


In this case, if a sponsor believed it was a good thing that Inglis would play for South Sydney, why should we question that?


Salary-cap auditor Ian Schubert and NRL lawyer Tony O'Reilly did just that, questioning the Aboriginal Medical Service's chairman Sol Bellear and chief executive Naomi Mayers, ANZ Stadium's Daryl Kerry, The Food 2U Group's head John Byrne, and Christian Saap of Glebe car dealership Saap Auto. They were asked: Do you know Russell Crowe? (''I said, 'I don't but I'd like an intro,''' Byrne said); Do you have an association with South Sydney or Anthony Mundine?


The reasoning is an honourable one even if the process was not: the NRL wants to maintain the sanctity of the salary cap, which has served a purpose in levelling out the competition while ensuring the clubs do not spend beyond their means.


To give players a little extra, third-party payments are allowed, although heavily policed. Which is all fine. But if ensuring the sanctity of the salary cap means we have to question why a sponsor is willing to become involved, then maybe third-party deals need a rethink. Certainly, potential sponsors will be doing just that at the moment given the experiences of Inglis's four suitors.


Now let's consider Greg Inglis. Let's consider South Sydney and Hollywood pulling power.


Part of the problem through this whole saga, according to the NRL, has been the cockiness of Souths' co-owner Russell Crowe, who appeared on Jay Leno's US TV show to make the claim that his club had signed the LeBron James of rugby league to a $1.8 million contract.


Where is the harm in that? Given that James probably earned $1.8 million during the time it took for Leno to interview Crowe, the actor is lucky he wasn't laughed out of the building. He wasn't, because he's Russell Crowe, whose eccentricities are such that instead of plugging his next movie, he chooses to give an endorsement for his side project. If the sanctity of the salary cap forces us to be so jaded that we choose to criticise, not celebrate, the spruiking of the sport on an American talk show, that is another reason the cap no longer fits.


Maybe it is because this game has such a rich history of drama that we see fit to create it even when there is none. David Gallop has rightfully said all along that this is a unique case. But in saying that because it is unique, it deserves more scrutiny, he has it the wrong way around. Inglis was forced out of Melbourne because of the club's salary-cap rorts. There is a compelling argument that there should have been more latitude in his case, not more scrutiny.


Inglis can be temperamental but it is hard not to be sympathetic; he will see that the AFL will try to bend the rules to have him appear in their code, skating around the fact that next year's player lists are already confirmed and that the pre-season draft has already taken place, and giving him extra enticements through an ambassadorial allowance.
Meanwhile, the perception for him will be that the NRL has been tightening the rules for him.


The NRL might be well within its rights to question the deals and the car dealers. But that doesn't make them right to do so. If the laws surrounding the third-party deals are so convoluted, so confusing and so seemingly difficult to manoeuvre around that we have potential sponsors questioning whether they want to throw their money at rugby league, and Inglis questioning his future in the game, is it the laws that need a thorough interrogation?


If Inglis does go, the salary cap as we know it should as well. Is a slightly more even competition worth Inglis not being a part of it?
Let's take a step back, before rugby league does.


http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...nemy-in-sorry-inglis-saga-20101222-195ls.html

Pretty much summs up my opinion of this whole farce.

 

[BunniesMan]

Where is the harm in that? Given that James probably earned $1.8 million during the time it took for Leno to interview Crowe, the actor is lucky he wasn't laughed out of the building. He wasn't, because he's Russell Crowe, whose eccentricities are such that instead of plugging his next movie, he chooses to give an endorsement for his side project. If the sanctity of the salary cap forces us to be so jaded that we choose to criticise, not celebrate, the spruiking of the sport on an American talk show, that is another reason the cap no longer fits.

Inglis can be temperamental but it is hard not to be sympathetic; he will see that the AFL will try to bend the rules to have him appear in their code, skating around the fact that next year's player lists are already confirmed and that the pre-season draft has already taken place, and giving him extra enticements through an ambassadorial allowance.
Meanwhile, the perception for him will be that the NRL has been tightening the rules for him.

The NRL might be well within its rights to question the deals and the car dealers. But that doesn't make them right to do so. If the laws surrounding the third-party deals are so convoluted, so confusing and so seemingly difficult to manoeuvre around that we have potential sponsors questioning whether they want to throw their money at rugby league, and Inglis questioning his future in the game, is it the laws that need a thorough interrogation?


If Inglis does go, the salary cap as we know it should as well. Is a slightly more even competition worth Inglis not being a part of it?
Let's take a step back, before rugby league does.

Great article. The NRL has the right motivations but I feel they've just made things worse for themselves in the way they've gone about chasing those motivations.

 

[cleary89]

Great article. The NRL has the right motivations but I feel they've just made things worse for themselves in the way they've gone about chasing those motivations.

 

[whats up doc]

well to be fair, its smh not telegraph

 

[BunniesMan]

Fail troll. Your fancy little pic fails again because its about the DT, that was the SMH. BIG DIFFERENCE. Generally the SMH is much better than the DT. Just like Danny Weidler is 1000 times better than Phil Rothfield.

 

[cleary89]

lol danny weidler. good one.

 

[Perth Red]

If NRL ever does reach its full potential and moves on from the chook raffle mentality then plenty of big business and rich backers will want to get involved, NRLwould have to have rocks on their heads not to be falling overthemselves to court big money backers into the game. One day our great game might grow up!

 

[macavity]

Is a slightly more even competition worth Inglis not being a part of it?

yes.

next question.

will Inglis be able to buy pants off the rack in 12 months time?

 

[lturner]

The salary cap in it's current form has become a complete joke. It has driven some of the best footballers out of the NRL. It's seems like the administrators now think the rules of the salary cap are more important than the game itself. Typical bureaucratic mindset.

 

[RL1908]

The salary cap in it's current form has become a complete joke. It has driven some of the best footballers out of the NRL. It's seems like the administrators now think the rules of the salary cap are more important than the game itself. Typical bureaucratic mindset.

Damn - I wrote 600 words on that this morning - I should have just used your post! Agree 100%. Well said.

REACHED THE POINT OF ABSURDITY

 

[Brutus]

Brilliant article by Glenn Jackson. Fully agree.

 

[Brutus]

If NRL ever does reach its full potential and moves on from the chook raffle mentality then plenty of big business and rich backers will want to get involved, NRLwould have to have rocks on their heads not to be falling overthemselves to court big money backers into the game. One day our great game might grow up!

Bottom line is the News LTD conflict has held us back.

Reducing costs of the game it part-owns has been the News agenda over the past 12 or so years. That is why the salary cap is where it is.

 

[TheRam]

Spot on. This article is spot on. The NRL is a total freakin joke! It is beyond belief. Fancy an organisation in any other sphere of sport or commerce setting up a system which allows for the potential of pushing out and losing your best selling asset and to your competitors no less, especially over what is really nothing other then micro management and stupidity. Privately all the other sports must be doing belly ache laughs at the NRL, cos I know that I would be if I were them. :crazy::x

 

[Pierced Soul]

where's the money? I read your atricle Sean and see your point, but the other issue we don't wnat to see is what happens in the english premier league where there are a top tier of clubs and eveyrone else is there to make up the numbers.

by abolishing the cap, or going abck to it being a % we are going to have a very lopsided comp and i really don't see any benefit in perenially struggling teams who pay overs for players well past their besta nd never able to get themselves out of a rut.

if we can generate more money into the game then i'm all for lifting the cap, i'm all for a player retention fund, but as a work colleague of mine who follows a lot of sports, he points out that rugby league is so paranoid about players leaving to the point of hysteria. i've often agrued that the comp will be stronger with players like gasnier, hunt, $bw etc in the game but bending over backwards to the demands of players for more money to the detriment to the other players, the clubs and the fans is not the way to go.

 

[Brutus]

The only possible reason a Melbourne AFL team would show even the slightest of interest in signing a RL player is purely to strike a blow against league.

There is no marketing value in Inglis going to Essendon at all; it would be purely to weaken RL.

At least with Falonk and Hunt, marketing and promotion in the struggling AFL markets of Sydney and the Gold Coast can be used as reasons for their signings.

 

[mckinks]

where's the money? I read your atricle Sean and see your point, but the other issue we don't wnat to see is what happens in the english premier league where there are a top tier of clubs and eveyrone else is there to make up the numbers.

by abolishing the cap, or going abck to it being a % we are going to have a very lopsided comp and i really don't see any benefit in perenially struggling teams who pay overs for players well past their besta nd never able to get themselves out of a rut.

if we can generate more money into the game then i'm all for lifting the cap, i'm all for a player retention fund, but as a work colleague of mine who follows a lot of sports, he points out that rugby league is so paranoid about players leaving to the point of hysteria. i've often agrued that the comp will be stronger with players like gasnier, hunt, $bw etc in the game but bending over backwards to the demands of players for more money to the detriment to the other players, the clubs and the fans is not the way to go.

I think the real issue here and now is not so much about raising the salary cap but the grey areas around third party agreements -there doesn't appear to be much consistency. You've got four sponsors independent of the South Sydney football club publicly declaring that they want to invest in an NRL player but the NRL is refuting the legitimacy of the sponsorships.
So the News Limited owned NRL is tightening the screws after the News Limited owned Melbourne Storm club excessively rorted the cap and rugby league the game and its players are now paying the price.

 

[Galeforce]

clearly Cleary89 must be a George Piggins follower or "how to run a football club" follower.pissoff with your continued negative banter .
NRL is competing with AFL for fans, young players , TV rights and sponsorship dollars. We have turned a potential great story into a sorry saga and soured some great marketing opportunities in last 30 days ( delayed a Star City sponsorship announcement, opportunity to maximise the Opra publicity, positive NRL news focus especially during the nudie AFL stuff) and to top it off have the best NRL athlete have to discuss playing AFL and we have all this discussion re will he be able to play the game due to fitness i.e. gives the message that AFL has superior athletes.
NRL stuck in mud mentality , AFL appears fluid.

 

[Jason Maher]

Inglis is far from the best athlete in the game.

 

[DC_fan]

I think the real issue here and now is not so much about raising the salary cap but the grey areas around third party agreements -there doesn't appear to be much consistency. You've got four sponsors independent of the South Sydney football club publicly declaring that they want to invest in an NRL player but the NRL is refuting the legitimacy of the sponsorships.

So the News Limited owned NRL is tightening the screws after the News Limited owned Melbourne Storm club excessively rorted the cap and rugby league the game and its players are now paying the price.

Totally agree with those comments.

For me their is nothing wrong with the salary cap, except maybe that it should be raised.

The problem is as you say, is with the third party agreements. I am not sure their should be such an arrangement. For me its just too difficult to police and is very complicated.

My understanding of the "Third Party Agreements" is that its not based on the player playing for a particular club. You as a "Sponsor" come to an agreement with the player (not his club) because he is a well known league player, not because he plays for a certain club.

If that is the case then that opens a whole new can of worms. Because why would you as a potential "Third Party Sponsor" want to involve yourself with a player if he plays for a team you don't support?

I could understand if you weren't a league fan at all and someone suggested the idea to you as part of a marketing strategy. You might not know Inglis but most everyone else would.

 

[Hutty1986]

Inglis is far from the best athlete in the game.

Maybe the best eater? Though Piggy's back from the UK....