Salary Cap...spending 90%

[Wizardman]

I had only found out a few months ago that all clubs had to spend at least 90% of their cap every year. I think this rule is a greatest handbrake on struggling clubs trying to get up the ladder. Almost every struggling club has at least one big money player getting paid way overs because of this stupid rule. I'd remove it immediately. Give clubs a chance to get some fresh air and not spend overs on guys that don't deliver the goods.

 

[Pete Cash]

I had only found out a few months ago that all clubs had to spend at least 90% of their cap every year. I think this rule is a greatest handbrake on struggling clubs trying to get up the ladder. Almost every struggling club has at least one big money player getting paid way overs because of this stupid rule. I'd remove it immediately. Give clubs a chance to get some fresh air and not spend overs on guys that don't deliver the goods.

It's stops a club loading up 45 % of the salary cap to spend on Ben Hunt and blowing wages out

 

[Sphagnum]

So they don’t waste it on hookers and blow, or peptides, or ash Taylor...

 

[t-ba]

Isn't part of their CBA?

Players produce the product, they deserve the cash. If clubs spend it dumbly it's not the players fault.

 

[Perth Red]

I guess it’s to try an keep things even on the field and not have poor clubs spending 60% whilst the haves spend 120% lol.

 

[Twizzle]

I had only found out a few months ago that all clubs had to spend at least 90% of their cap every year. I think this rule is a greatest handbrake on struggling clubs trying to get up the ladder. Almost every struggling club has at least one big money player getting paid way overs because of this stupid rule. I'd remove it immediately. Give clubs a chance to get some fresh air and not spend overs on guys that don't deliver the goods.

How did you find out ?

Is there any source for this ?

 

[Timbo]

If a poor club - let’s for arguments sake call them the Sutherland-Cronulla Bullsharks - decided to only spend 60% of the cap because that’s all they could afford, that’s a recipe for a competition like the EPL where there are only three competitive clubs each year.

The idea is sound. If you can’t afford to spend 90% of the cap, you probably shouldn’t be in the business of owning an NRL license.

 

[Danish]

I get the thinking behind it, but practically it just leads to clubs being forced into paying overs for average talent because they have to hit a number.

the titans squad isn’t worth 90% of the salary cap. They should be able to pay their players their worth instead of inflating their salaries.

I’d prefer they allow clubs to benefit somehow from saving money. Like a soft cap that works on a 3-4 season average to allow lower clubs to save some cap space to go after big signings

 

[nick87]

Isn't part of their CBA?

Players produce the product, they deserve the cash. If clubs spend it dumbly it's not the players fault.

1000% spot on
Cap minimum spends are absolutely necessary to ensure the clubs dont f**k the collective workforce... i'd argue 90% isn't high enough. In a near 10m cap, no team needs 1m sitting around for a rainy day

IMO clubs should be forced to spend 95% of the cap by the seasons end, if not the difference is spread evenly throughout the top 30 squad... that allows them to horde some money for a rainy day, should a player of top quality become available, and if not, you can either identify a player you think deserves a bump, and you give it to them for a year, or you can just let the system play itself out and everyone gets a small cheque at the end of the season for money unspent

 

[Vee]

I get the thinking behind it, but practically it just leads to clubs being forced into paying overs for average talent because they have to hit a number.

the titans squad isn’t worth 90% of the salary cap. They should be able to pay their players their worth instead of inflating their salaries.

Good point.

 

[T-Boon]

I don't think a salary cap works without also having a draft. It is crazy that a team like the Gold Coast with that squad is forced to spend it all.

 

[Front-Rower]

The NRL grant is supposed to cover the salary cap isn’t it? Only fair the NRL dictate how their money is spent

 

[Quicksilver]

If a poor club - let’s for arguments sake call them the Sutherland-Cronulla Bullsharks - decided to only spend 60% of the cap because that’s all they could afford, that’s a recipe for a competition like the EPL where there are only three competitive clubs each year.

The idea is sound. If you can’t afford to spend 90% of the cap, you probably shouldn’t be in the business of owning an NRL license.

It's nice that you picked out one of the better performing teams over the last 5 years as your example. (this year excluded)

 

[Perth Red]

I get the thinking behind it, but practically it just leads to clubs being forced into paying overs for average talent because they have to hit a number.

the titans squad isn’t worth 90% of the salary cap. They should be able to pay their players their worth instead of inflating their salaries.

I’d prefer they allow clubs to benefit somehow from saving money. Like a soft cap that works on a 3-4 season average to allow lower clubs to save some cap space to go after big signings

desperation and competition for signings is what makes club buy numpties on more $’s than they are worth. I suspect it has little to do with reaching the 90%.

 

[nick87]

Yep, there is no chance teams are overpaying in free agency in order to meet the 90% target
They're overspending because that's what happens in free agency and because teams are dumb

 

[magpie_man]

1000% spot on
Cap minimum spends are absolutely necessary to ensure the clubs dont f**k the collective workforce... i'd argue 90% isn't high enough. In a near 10m cap, no team needs 1m sitting around for a rainy day

IMO clubs should be forced to spend 95% of the cap by the seasons end, if not the difference is spread evenly throughout the top 30 squad... that allows them to horde some money for a rainy day, should a player of top quality become available, and if not, you can either identify a player you think deserves a bump, and you give it to them for a year, or you can just let the system play itself out and everyone gets a small cheque at the end of the season for money unspent

I disagree. There's no way that crap squads like the Tigers & Titans should get an end of year bonus just because the management couldn't land a marquee signing to fill the cap. It's counterproductive; rewarding poor performance (aka the Wests Tigers paradigm).
I'd much rather that extra cash from the cap space be funnelled into building up non-football investments and alternate revenue streams (alternate from the standard fare of pokie parlours).
I don't see a problem with a poorer club playing moneyball for a few years in order to grow its investment portfolio and, hence, be less reliant on sucking the NRL teat.

 

[myrrh ken]

It's nice that you picked out one of the better performing teams over the last 5 years as your example. (this year excluded)

tbf we are not immune to overpaying merkins.

 

[Danish]

desperation and competition for signings is what makes club buy numpties on more $’s than they are worth. I suspect it has little to do with reaching the 90%.

but a club that sets aside cash to make a big play for someone, then misses, now has to just doll out that cash to someone or be punished.

I’d much prefer clubs be able to save the cash if they choose.

If the players association is really interested in protecting the interests of players they should be fighting to drop the 90% rule and instead double the current minimum salary from $100k to $200k. You know, actually spread the wealth around instead of just artificially inflating marquee player payments

 

[siv]

Issue actually stems from the jump by 30% of the salary cap a few years ago

 

[nick87]

I disagree. There's no way that crap squads like the Tigers & Titans should get an end of year bonus just because the management couldn't land a marquee signing to fill the cap. It's counterproductive; rewarding poor performance (aka the Wests Tigers paradigm).
I'd much rather that extra cash from the cap space be funnelled into building up non-football investments and alternate revenue streams (alternate from the standard fare of pokie parlours).
I don't see a problem with a poorer club playing moneyball for a few years in order to grow its investment portfolio and, hence, be less reliant on sucking the NRL teat.

The problem is if you allow the clubs to stagnate the market, the entire player group suffers.
They are being given money by the NRL to pay players salaries, these players are the ones putting their bodies, health and long term well being on the line to provide entertainment.

It's not the players responsibility to ensure the club is competent. It's not their fault the clubs spend poor in free agency, or dont develop their players. They're the workforce, the clubs are given money to cover the expenses of the salary cap (i.e to pay the workforce), it would be morally bankrupt for clubs to be able to pocket that any amount of that money, inflate their profit margins at the expense of the players.

Minimum cap spends are essential... now @Danish brings up a great point re: distribution of the wealth, and raising the minimum salary, which i support 1000%, and i dont mind the idea in general of clubs being able to horde cap space to make a play at major free agents, but there has to be some sort of cap on that. If you're going year to year, IMO, 90-95% is fair.

If you want to tranche it with a soft cap, maybe you can say that you can go as low 70%, the remaining 30% can be rolled over year to year but you have to have spent 95% of your total cap over a 4 year tranche... that's fine too, i can see the validity in that, and most importantly it ensures the money does indeed go to the workforce.