The Menzies Plan

[gong_eagle]

By Dean Ritchie
July 03, 2007

THE National Rugby League will consider imposing the same financial punishment on players who defect to Super League as it does to those who switch to rugby union.

In a step that shows Australian rugby league's increasing concern about English clubs poaching local players, the British rugby league competition could be upgraded to the status of enemy after a flow of elite talent has left the NRL this decade.

Under an agreement with the Players Association, the NRL currently withholds all money from a player's "retirement" fund if he signs with rugby union. But it could be extended now to take in the English Super League - if the NRL and RLPA can agree on the move.

The development comes after Manly legend Steve Menzies devised a plan to stop the NRL's elite players shifting to Britain by rewarding loyalty with cash.

Players have 50 per cent of their representative money placed in a retirement fund. That money however cannot be accessed if the player signs with rugby union - such as Craig Gower, who now has to forfeit his money.

Menzies said the game must draw up a plan to stop the talent drain, proposing that stars would also forfeit their money by signing for a Super League side.

"There's got to be incentives to stay," Menzies said. "We need to do something to give players that option of staying.

"Maybe there could be dispensation if a player has no genuine offer here and has to go overseas.

"It is a complex situation and people may think it's a bit rich coming from me but we need to devise something for the players to stay here. This idea could be the tip of the iceberg in discussions."

NRL chief executive David Gallop said the plan was worth investigating.

"Certainly if the players were open to it being extended to Super League, we would be prepared to look at it," Gallop said.

Menzies said the funds for retiring players needed to be increased for them to stay in Australia. Aside from the representative cash, Menzies said the NRL could give players around $25,000 for every 50 games they play. "The money gets invested and it builds and builds," he said.

"There could be some huge money there for when a player retires. Players go to England for the money. This would fight fire with fire."

ARL chief executive Geoff Carr was cautious about the idea.

"The issue for us is to keep the elite players and 'Beavers'' (Menzies) idea is worth running past the Players Association," Carr said. "But you also have to be careful.

"When a player gets to the back-end of his career, as a professional footballer, he shouldn't be prevented from continuing his livelihood.

SOURCE: http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,22006903-23214,00.html

 

[wittyfan]

The Menzies plan has a lot of merit.

 

[gong_eagle]

good Idea
thats a better title

 

[Timmah]

Sh*thouse title if you ask me.

 

[Dazzat]

Could have trouble with 'restraint of trade' laws.

 

[Stagger eel]

f**ken brilliant idea Beaver..

 

[Stagger eel]

I think you could also add that the player can go to England and still collect his Rep-supa if he's not offered a fulltime contract by another NRL club.

that seems fare.

 

[_Johnsy]

i like the idea, however what stops a club offering a player a contract say 60% of his last contract if another club will not pick him up?

 

[gong_eagle]

Sh*thouse title if you ask me.

who asked you anyway :sarcasm:

 

[_Johnsy]

title should have been

"Beaver borrows Dodger's idea"

 

[chub]

Great Idea. I think players that don't get selected in rep teams for a period beforehand (say a year?) should also still be able to leave and get their payout - that way players can still leave in the twilight of their career for the big money overseas when they are really little value to the NRL.

 

[Titanic]

At least there's a fresh idea but IMO the English clubs will just put the big money on younger untested talent. The answer is to have a product that has enough space to keep the players here or just don't worry about it. Sooner rather than later the Poms will block the numbers going over when their development base gets knocked around again - history will repeat itself.

 

[Dogs Of War]

What if a player who is say 31 is not offered a contract in Australia. But an English club offers him something. Not really fair in that case.

What about someone who retires, takes the cash, but then suddenly returns from retirement to play in England.

Too many loopholes.

 

[humpy]

Another great idea, but again everyone is coming up with ideas that give more money to the players, and no one can say where the money is going to come from???

With 400 players in the top squads, say 100 of them reach a 50 game milestone each year, that is $2.5m that needs to come from somewhere to pay the bonus.

If it comes from the clubs, will it come under the salary cap (and can some of them afford it), and if it comes from the NRL, where is the cash coming from???

 

[ali]

It's not a good idea in my opinion. Union is the enemy. Any success the Super League has should be used to boost the overall profile of Rugby League, and be to the NRL's advantage in the long run. We want a stronger Super League and a weaker Rugby Union.

At the moment, if an experienced rep player gets a Super League offer and Union offer which are similar, the retirement fund he would keep if staying in Rugby League, may help keep him in Rugby League. What sort of Rugby League fan or administrator would rather see a player go to Union than stick in Rugby League?

We should be forging closer links with the Super League, like Souths and Leeds have done, not make them the enemy. There have been plenty of better suggestions than this in the last week or so.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I think all players should have to sign a contract to the NRL and if they want to leave the NRL they are fined and withheld money is forfeited.

Obviously, the 50% of rep money has done nothing with the number of players that have gone to union. And what about non rep players?

 

[Drew-Sta]

Why not play it like this.

The retirement fund is only given to players 31 and over and when retirement has ensued. i.e. You have to be retired, and over 31, to recieve the dosh.

Any player 32 or over may be allowed to join ESL/Union and gain their retirement fund.

Those two clauses see the NRL gain the following:

A rep player must play the best years of his career (I.E. 18-31) in the NRL competition if he is to gain his retirement fund. Any player 32 or over can be considered 'Past their prime' and as such would have given the NRL the service required. 32 year olds and over are in the twilight of their career, and do deserve the ability to make some extra cash in the ESL.

This will ensure the NRL stops players in their prime from leaving the competition early and ensures the player is financially reimbursed for his loyalty.

I think players should recieve $25k per 'Origin', and $50k per 'Test' representation. A player like Andrew Johns would be entitled to quite a tidy sum in 6 and even 7 digit remuneration. Money would be come less of a deciding factor to the good players.

I'm now just concerned on how we keep solid players like Laffranchi and people in his class from leaving to go overseas due to there being no fund for them.

 

[sooperdooper]

its good... but only works for players who are rep players.....

 

[petetheileet]

not a bad idea mate, but i reckon the numbers are way too high and the age too old, i mean players with troubling injuries throughout their careers might end up doing serious damage to themselves trying to hang around much longer to get that payout. Loyal players too eg. Timmins

I really fell we shouldn't reward players simply for not doing the 'wrong' thing. For me a solution would entail...

Making the salary cap bigger ( However making a maximum earning for top level players say two per team) We generally aren't loosing the highest end players its the players towards the top which are defecting. Give similar rewards to Rep players and players of long service: With an increasing interest rate every year over 8 years. Allow them to accept this when they are 30 if they wish to retire however make it void if the go to England either before then or if they are still under contract to a club, also do not let players back!

This should help players be more loyal and stay in our comp longer

 

[Martli]

At face value it sounds good, but the problem is each player has a different scenario and it's hard to make a system that will treat everyone fairly. Things need to be considered on a case by case basis in my opinion. It'd be good to see players in the prime of their career kept in the NRL, but it wouldn't be good seeing a lot of the deadwood staying around for the sake of their retirement fund or having to see out their playing days in premire league when they could be earning a decent wage overseas.