Salary Cap to Increase by $300k

[MsStorm]

The Sunday Telegraph understands salary cap auditor Ian Schubert and forensic accountants have discovered Storm officials were planning to spend $5.3 million next year. The club has already off-loaded Aiden Tolman ($250,000) to the Bulldogs and Brett Finch ($150,000) is expected to announce he is leaving within days.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/m-player-pay-rise/story-e6frexnr-1225872938689

I am sure Deloitte's and Melbourne Storm would love to know how the Telecrap gets hold of information from the audit, when it isn't finished yet.

hmmm very interesting!

 

[Perth Red]

so where's the other $1.3mill going? Whilst it is good to see clubs getting more money I'm not sure putting it in the pockets of one or two players does alot for long term sustainability of the NRL. Could of used that money to bring in a Perth team!

 

[MC DUI]

Knights to yet again sign nobody, upgrade the contracts on the exisiting nuffies and make a $1M loss next season......

 

[DINGb@T]

Will the Sharks bother to use the money on players? They're already under the cap aren't they so the extra $200k could go straight to keeping the club afloat. Could be an option for a few clubs.

 

[Mr Angry]

NRL salary cap will be increased by $4.8 million next season

By Phil Rothfield
May 30, 2010 In a huge victory for players, the NRL salary cap will be increased by $4.8 million across the 16 clubs next season, but it still won't allow Melbourne Storm to keep all their stars.
The Storm's current player roster is $850,000 over the cap this year, but a staggering $1.2 million for 2011.
In a major boost for players, each club will be allowed to spend an extra $300,000 next year as a result of the NRL’s recently negotiated $45 million contract over 10 years with the NSW Government to keep the grand final in Sydney.
NRL management has decided to give the clubs an extra $3.2 million ($200,000 each) in grants from the $4.5 million a year that will be coming from the Labor Government coffers.
On top of the grants, they will be allowed to spend an extra $100,000 on players.
NRL boss David Gallop will wait until after the upcoming chief executives meeting to confirm the biggest salary cap increase since the Super League war.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,27194728-5018866,00.html

 

[maple_69]

Long term though being a rubbish club will hurt them more than pocketing 300k will help them.

 

[MightyBronco]

Dupe!

 

[Mr Angry]

yep merge

 

[Chook Norris]

"increased by 4.8m".... so it's 9 million now?

 

[scottttt]

4.8mill total over 16 teams, around 300k for each club

 

[Chook Norris]

oh of course, lol

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

And here was me thinking that the cap was rising to $4.8million.

Wonder if this money could have been better used to increase rep payments, extra concessions for long serving players, etc etc.

 

[Stormsally]

I thought it was a Gasnier deal?

 

[Quidgybo]

Yeah and? If a club is willing to let one of their 'juniors' sign with another club then it's their own fault if that player goes on to become a star for the other side.

So what's the incentive for a club develop any of their own juniors if there's no downside to swooping in and buying them after other clubs have spent years doing all the hard work? The predator clubs could then redirect all that money they would've spent on development to their owner's bottom line. Of course as more and more club's realise the cost savings to be made and go down this path, instead of having an abundance of talent that the game struggles to keep, we end up with an entire comp made one or two well developed players and a whole heap of also rans. Meanwhile all the best prospects get snapped up by rival codes spending tens of millions on development in our own backyard.

The incentive needs to exist to encourage investment in development of your own talent, not encourage pilfering from others. We need a tiered salary cap where the only way to spend over a base cap up to strict ceiling is through the accumulation of discounts for developing your own talent and showing loyalty to aging stars. To qualify for a discount for developing players it needs to include at least time in the NYC (say 20 games or even 40 games) and perhaps even Flegg and Ball (although this poses disadvantages for potential teams in frontier expansion areas). Sure throw-in the requirement that they have to also make their first grade debut with the same club, but the most important part is that it rewards investment in players over a number of years, not just swooping in at the last moment.

Leigh.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Should just have it so that players who make their 1st grade debut for a club aren't counted in that teams cap.

Bit slow of thought arent we mate.

 

[aussies1st]

Don't see how this helps, basically cheating the caps brings about an increase which in turn makes it easier for the team that cheated the cap. Continually increasing the cap will help keep the superstars in this game but still doesn't do anything for clubs that develop their youngsters.

 

[Slackboy72]

I wonder if Jonathon Thurston thinks his salary will/should increase by $300,000 because of this?

 

[Quidgybo]

"F**ken of course my f**ken salary should go up by f**ken $300k. F**ken moron."

Bluddy L.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

"F**ken of course my f**ken salary should go up by f**ken $300k. F**ken moron."

Bluddy L.

Lol, reminds me of Tony the Yugoslav

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmxs4P1-9K8

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

The league can't just keep upping the cap. They need to structure the system so it supports home grown talent and long serving players. By simply upping the cap, it will mean that clubs continue losing players and will be required to build their team around 2 or 3 star players.

I don't completely agree. So long as we up the salary cap enough that players are paid on a similar level to other codes and overseas comps then they will stay in the NRL. From there every NRL club is on a level playing field and we won't see our best players going to Rugby or England.

I know I will cop it from some on here (especially Parramatta, Canberra, Dragons, Newcastle fans), but the fact is not all clubs have a large junior base, and giving concessions to 'local' juniors will advantages some clubs over others. People will argue that teams should do more to develop 'local' juniors, but at the end of the day if 'team A' has a 'local' region with a significantly lower population of kids than the 'local' region of 'team B', then obviously 'team A' will be disadvantaged. Look at the Dragons, they have their Sydney 'local' region as well as all of the Illawarra as a 'local' region, Brisbane have the whole city as a 'local' region. On the flip side, Melbourne have a large junior area (the whole state of Victoria), but have very few juniors playing the game.

I don't mind the idea of concessions for long serving one-club players, although that happens now to some degree.