Salary cap its own worst enemy in sorry Inglis saga

[Ike E Bear]

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.

And it hasn't really achieved its stated objective.

Is the salary cap working for Cronulla? Did it work for South in the years prior to and shortly after privatisation?

It's not distributing the talent at all. Never really has.

We still have 'haves' and 'have-nots' in terms of playing talent, and in the meantime we've restrained players' right to make as much money as can from their marketable skills. Worse still, we've driven off talent that could improve the marketability of the game. And perhaps worst of all, we're now potentially chasing off sponsors (yes, they COULD still sponsor Inglis, but if Souths can't legally sign him and he's not interested in the only other viable Sydney option - Parra - then no, they really can't sponsor him, can they).

The thing that keeps bugging me is that I don't actually believe Inglis will magically turn the Bunnies into a super team. I think he'll improve them, sure, but I think if 2010 hadn't have been ruined by injury they probably would have been playing finals footy anyway. Inglis won't suddenly make them into a Storm-level juggernaut. Compared to most other teams in the NRL, I think a Rabbitohs team including Inglis wouldn't be unfair at all.

 

[adamkungl]

Good article. I don't know what the solution is but it certainly isn't one where we turn down sponsors from the game.

 

[hunters]

Inglis is far from the best athlete in the game.

Oh ffs, top 20 then? :roll: Doesn't change anything.

 

[adamkungl]

And it hasn't really achieved its stated objective.

Is the salary cap working for Cronulla? Did it work for South in the years prior to and shortly after privatisation?

Yes...Cronulla have been 1st or equal 1st twice since SL. Roosters have ranged between first and last. Every club has made the finals. Most have competed in Grand Finals. It goes in cycles. Teams often have a few good years followed by some bad ones, the extent of the extremities of the cycles determined by how well the club plans for the future. This tells me more about the shambolic club that is Souffs than the salary cap.

It's not distributing the talent at all. Never really has.

yes it has

Worse still, we've driven off talent that could improve the marketability of the game. And perhaps worst of all, we're now potentially chasing off sponsors (yes, they COULD still sponsor Inglis, but if Souths can't legally sign him and he's not interested in the only other viable Sydney option - Parra - then no, they really can't sponsor him, can they).

agreed

 

[skeepe]

Rubbish article.

The whole crux of the matter is that these deals were negotiated by South Sydney and then guaranteed to Inglis as part of his playing contract.

It's clear that a guarantee of a third party payment must be included in the salary cap. Everyone knows this, and has known this since the rules have been in place.

If Inglis or his manager had negotiatied and secured the deals, we wouldn't even be talking about this as he would be a South Sydney player today.

 

[cleary89]

And it hasn't really achieved its stated objective.

Is the salary cap working for Cronulla? Did it work for South in the years prior to and shortly after privatisation?

It's not distributing the talent at all. Never really has.

Cronulla made the prelims two years ago....

Lol at it not distributing talent. All those grand final winning teams stay together ay? Jeremy Smith went to Cronulla for fun yeh?

 

[mckinks]

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.

One of the third party agreement sponsors for Inglis (the car dealer) is actually a lifelong Bulldogs fan. He wants to sponsor Inglis on behalf of his dealership for marketing purposes but also because he is a rugby league fan and wants to make a contribution towards him staying in the game.
Sol Bellear has been publicly critical of the Rabbitohs over the last few years, in large part because of his loyalty to George Piggins, but he recognised the value (months before Souths came on the scene) of sponsoring Inglis to increase his profile as a role model in indigenous communities.

Third party agreements aren't about enticing players to particular clubs, they're about recognising the positive profile of the player and keeping him in the game. When a salary cap is involved (ceiling earnings for players) third party agreements are critical when competing with rival codes that are strong on a national or even international level.

 

[mckinks]

Rubbish article.

The whole crux of the matter is that these deals were negotiated by South Sydney and then guaranteed to Inglis as part of his playing contract.

It's clear that a guarantee of a third party payment must be included in the salary cap. Everyone knows this, and has known this since the rules have been in place.

If Inglis or his manager had negotiatied and secured the deals, we wouldn't even be talking about this as he would be a South Sydney player today.

All four third party sponsors have vehemently denied this accusation through various newspaper interviews - ie, on the public record. Are you suggesting they're liars?

 

[skeepe]

All four third party sponsors have vehemently denied this accusation through various newspaper interviews - ie, on the public record. Are you suggesting they're liars?

It's also been stated time and again that Inglis's manager had not seen the deals before they were presented to Inglis by Souths.

The sponsors have denied that they colluded with Souths, and that may be true. The fact of the matter is though that they were presented to Inglis by South Sydney, and were guaranteed to him as part of his salary package. A club guaranteeing third party deals must include said deals in the salary cap.

Pretty straightforward.

 

[Dingus]

Rubbish article.

The whole crux of the matter is that these deals were negotiated by South Sydney and then guaranteed to Inglis as part of his playing contract.

It's clear that a guarantee of a third party payment must be included in the salary cap. Everyone knows this, and has known this since the rules have been in place.

If Inglis or his manager had negotiatied and secured the deals, we wouldn't even be talking about this as he would be a South Sydney player today.

definately correct.

The deals were conditional on him joining souths - thats the problem, and not set up by manager.

If he, tomorrow, signed with parra on a base of 350,000 or the waratahs, or whatever, those deals would not be available.


the whole salary cap debate is ridicululous. Its not about "a slightly more even comp", its not about whether current teams are identical in ability, its about maintaining a competitive competition. If it were not to exist, broncos could buy out the entire queensland origin team - the competition could fold with the inequality of playing rosters.

 

[ShaiGuY]

Inglis had a choice to stay at the Storm (which would have forced them to shed players) and he also had a choice to go to the Broncos. The salary cap rules have always been there and the Broncos were willing to play by the rules. Without a salary cap and rules concerning sponsorship you would have a very lopsided competition. It's rubbish to say that third party endorsements are just for the good of the game. Say I want to sponsor the Raiders and they need to manage their salary cap - rather than sponsoring the Raiders I make an agreement to pay a heap of them individually and they do the same sort of marketing if I were to sponsor the Raiders team.
There needs to be some sort of disconnect there and evidently in a lot of these deals there isn't.
Re the whole role model in indigenous communities role - would you really want someone who needs to be paid to be this role model? that isn't being a role model - especially being a taxpayer funded one. You want role models to voluntarily give up their time etc. - not being paid $125k to do this on a part time basis - I am sure that money could be well spent elsewhere in these communities.
The whole thing with the BMW sounds a bit strange to me - but that's just my thoughts. I would've thought the dude would get a Tigers player instead to market to the Tigers area which is just as close to him and a lot larger surrounding Glebe.
Nothing wrong with third party endorsements and it is hard to police. But I believe they need to structure these better - I don't know how but perhaps with negotiations through NRL rather than part of initial contract negotiations and if it's for the good of the game to split these through different teams - I believe a phone company did this before.

 

[BunniesMan]

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.

Exactly right.

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

Brilliant article too. We follow the cap religiously, and what good has it done. There is a team that's won 6 times in 20 years, there are teams that haven't won in decades or for their entire history. The AFL doesn't follow it's cap as religiously, they allow softening the cap every now and then when it's for the good of their game and has it killed their teams competitiveness? No. Collingwood before their current domination had years of suck, as is the case with most teams.

If we softened the cap occasionally the sky wouldn't come falling down. It might not be the fairest thing to do but it's for the good of the game. That should come first.

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.

Well the game just gave the middle finger to 200k worth of money. The money is there if we don't stick our heads in the sand and ignore it.

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.

100% right. And the AFL is willing to add to his salary from the cap....because it's good for the game. We should think of the best interests of the game before we think about religiously following the cap.

Yes...Cronulla have been 1st or equal 1st twice since SL. Roosters have ranged between first and last. Every club has made the finals. Most have competed in Grand Finals. It goes in cycles. Teams often have a few good years followed by some bad ones, the extent of the extremities of the cycles determined by how well the club plans for the future. This tells me more about the shambolic club that is Souffs than the salary cap.

The AFL also has all of that and they do it while softening on the cap when necessary for the good of the game.

The argument that if we allow very minor exceptions to the cap that we'll somehow go into some kind of hell where only Brisbane and Melbourne ever win anything is BS.

 

[Noa]

pretty much a bang on article

 

[NGR]

It's also been stated time and again that Inglis's manager had not seen the deals before they were presented to Inglis by Souths.

The sponsors have denied that they colluded with Souths, and that may be true. The fact of the matter is though that they were presented to Inglis by South Sydney, and were guaranteed to him as part of his salary package. A club guaranteeing third party deals must include said deals in the salary cap.

Pretty straightforward.

Stated by whom?

Skeepe, everyone can see you are biased in your views, you only have to look at a game day thread involving canberra to see how one eyed you are...

How bout for once you try to look beyond the small picture of souths packing brown paper bags full of cash and throwing them over inglis's fence and look at why a club is doing that... Yes they want a competitve advantage, but maybe thats because thats how much they have to pay that player to have him...

 

[skeepe]

Well the game just gave the middle finger to 200k worth of money. The money is there if we don't stick our heads in the sand and ignore it.

No it didn't.

The NRL are quite happy for these payments to go ahead if Souths can find some space in the salary cap to accommodate them.

 

[babyg]

Good article. Just move to a frigging points system and let clubs pay for whatever players they like. Either that or centralise all third party deals and let the NRL manage them, for the good of the game. Sponsors see the value of our players in promoting their products, the NRL doesn't seem to get that in promoting it's own product.

 

[ashton]

No it didn't.

The NRL are quite happy for these payments to go ahead if Souths can find some space in the salary cap to accommodate them.

Spot on.

BTW fancy a South supporter complaining about the salary cap. Without the salary cap Souths would have died 20 years ago.

 

[Ike E Bear]

Cronulla made the prelims two years ago....

Lol at it not distributing talent. All those grand final winning teams stay together ay? Jeremy Smith went to Cronulla for fun yeh?

It breaks teams up, but it doesn't really spread the players around. A lot of the time departing players leave the NRL for the UK.

It is cyclical in that I think I most teams dabble with back-ending, which gives them a - hoped for - boost one or two years that they have to pay for later.

How long is this cycle for Brisbane, though? Last year was the first time Brisbane didn't look like a dead-set powerhouse on paper and they still had the likes of Hodges, Folau, Lockyer, Wallace and Thaiday on the books.

So, I think it's fair to say that the Broncos' low-point is much-much higher than the Sharks' and not just because of financial issues. Some of it is geography, which gives Brisbane a massive advantage in terms of these third party agreements.

The Raiders find it notoriously difficult to recruit outside talent thanks to geography. Shillington and Harrison have been two of the best acquisitions of the past decade for Canberra, but there aren't too many other notable players people would name alongside of them.

The Eels have cap space and money and can't buy anyone under 30 years old.

The Bulldogs seem to reboot their whole team every two years.

Maybe it's too harsh to say the cap isn't working at all, but I do not believe it is working optimally and in the process, in its current form, it's doing harm to the game.

I fully support the objective of the cap ... I just think it needs to be rethought.

 

[BunniesMan]

No it didn't.

The NRL are quite happy for these payments to go ahead if Souths can find some space in the salary cap to accommodate them.

That's not bringing new money into the game. If we pay 3.9 mill of the cap and someone else pays 200k of it, that is no better than us paying 4.1 mill. We're talking about increasing revenue, bring new money in, not replacing money we already have with money from elsewhere.

And also you say it's been stated that Inglis's manager has not seen the deals. Well the sponsors would beg to differ. They say they negotiated with Inglis and his manager, that they had little or no contact at all with Souths.

 

[Pierced Soul]

One of the third party agreement sponsors for Inglis (the car dealer) is actually a lifelong Bulldogs fan. He wants to sponsor Inglis on behalf of his dealership for marketing purposes but also because he is a rugby league fan and wants to make a contribution towards him staying in the game..

and this same bloke is whinging about not sponsoring anyone in the NRL...if it were genuine 3rd party deal it wouldnt matter whether inglis was playing for souths, parra or penrith. If inglis was such a great fit for his dealership it wouldnt matter where he was playing