The NRL has drawn up $3m plan to keep star players in rugby league

[applesauce]

double

 

[Paullyboy]

The NRL would of been better off giving the 18 QLD and 18 NSW players 25k a game (75k possibly made a year). At a cost of 1.35million a year.

Then giving 30k to the Australian players a game (if 5 games are played a year 150k made a player). At a cost of 2.7million

Told cost 3.05million a year. (Doesn't take into account the money already being paid to the rep sides, so the overall cost would be lower.)

The likes of Izzy and Thurston could earn an bonus of 225k a year, that would keep them in the game and stop Gallops sh*t about being unfair to clubs because it would be over their heads and have nothing to do with the cap.

That's all well and good in theory, and if clubs were honest it would be the perfect solution. Unfortunately clubs aren't honest and they'd find a way to poach players from other clubs by guaranteeing them selection in rep teams (due to having the right people in the right places) and hence would be able to technically offer a lot more money.

 

[betcats]

good to see them try something

 

[VictorTheViking]

I'd rather not see the greedy f**kers bleed the game dry, having said that though, something needs to be done.

 

[VictorTheViking]

Thinking along the lines of 2 marquee players (nrl funded max of $1 million a season) for each club

 

[Butters]

Players that debut for a club should be exempt from that teams salary cap. Problem solved.

 

[RedVee]

The NRL would of been better off giving the 18 QLD and 18 NSW players 25k a game (75k possibly made a year). At a cost of 1.35million a year.

Then giving 30k to the Australian players a game (if 5 games are played a year 150k made a player). At a cost of 2.7million

Told cost 3.05million a year. (Doesn't take into account the money already being paid to the rep sides, so the overall cost would be lower.)

The likes of Izzy and Thurston could earn an bonus of 225k a year, that would keep them in the game and stop Gallops sh*t about being unfair to clubs because it would be over their heads and have nothing to do with the cap.

I agree. At least bump the Australian rep payments up to match State. Then push them closer to the Union rep fees.
Otherwise contract every State or Aust rep for 3 years @ $N on a rolling basis, centrally outide of the cap. Maybe the ARL/NRL could have these players in a WeetBix ad or similar.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

Let the greedy f**kers change codes, and just get on with it.

No-one misses SBW. Noone misses Gasnier. Noone missed Lote, Wendell, Rogers, and the other ones when they were missing.

Why pander to blokes like Thurston and Folau who will just never be happy no matter how much more money league pours into their pockets.

Mate. I agree with you on one level and disagree on another

First, while I agree, you can't expect people to limit their earnings out of the good of their hearts. Thats not how we humans are. People - everyone - are ambitious and lazy, and selfish.

Ambitious - we want the most and when given the opportunity to get more we go for it. Whether its a higher position, more money, greater rewards, we all strive to climb the ladder.

Lazy - In the sense that we want to always do what is easier and when given the chance to do something less for the same perceived value, we do. When given a choice for more effort for the same result or less effort, we chose less. Its sensible, rational human thinking. As a teenager, in the sense of picking up clothes off the floor, well, it was easier to leave them there because the gain by putting them away at the time was not worth the effort. It was easier for the same result - I still got to wear them and they never smelt (my room was relatively tidy and vaccumed). But I was labelled lazy from some quarters. Sure, you can go too far and have it be too messy to move - and THEN its worth the effort....perceived value....what makes it easy...

Selfish - we do what is best for ourselves before we do what is best for others.....we must be comfortable with our position on any given level before we venture out to give something up that we could use.


This is normal human nature and people have these things to various degrees of intensity.
Some are more or less those things. Its evolution and its the reason why we know so much today. No sense taking the long way around a ridge to find food if you can help it...and other examples. People like ambition because it makes us more secure and comfortable. Why live at the bottom of the ridge where it floods, if you know there is a good spot up the ridge - but all you need to do is kill its current inhabitants?

Basic examples. But now you understand why the players are like they are, maybe even why you are like you are - well just a little bit better. Theres more to it than that.

Another flaw I see is that when the current major stars go, the next ones will come in and be in the same position.....desiring more.

And look, they do deserve more. If you rise to the top of your chosen profession you deserve to be paid accordingly - human nature demands it.

So give them more. And I know we get by just as well without Gasnier and co....but think of how much better it would be if they were still here - and we didnt resent them somewhat for turning their backs on the game. If that aspect was not there, we would be saddened.

We NEED star players. Having them leave to go elsewhere is doing us no good....many think its not doing any harm just now, but thinking long term it is.


_____

Thankfully something is being done about this situation. I would like to see a situation where playing origin could earn you around 75,000. Pull the money from somewhere. Take a hit in junior ranks (if thats where origin profits go). It would be worth it. We need to increase the rewards massively.

 

[Mickyd39]

Excellent point by Ulysseus

x2

 

[babyg]

There is money there with the existing club sponsors. The NRL should go cap in hand to these guys who at the moment can't put in more than 150k in player payments and get as much money out of these guys as possible. To make it fair all money is pooled and shared between clubs. Sponsors then have free reign to use these marque players in more promotions - further promoting the game.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

There is money there with the existing club sponsors. The NRL should go cap in hand to these guys who at the moment can't put in more than 150k in player payments and get as much money out of these guys as possible. To make it fair all money is pooled and shared between clubs. Sponsors then have free reign to use these marque players in more promotions - further promoting the game.

So they should. I was thinking about writting a big post with a bunch of points but I could not be bothered anymore.

Sometimes I think the nrl are high school drop outs with drug addled minds.

 

[Talanexor]

No. Some players are simply more marketable than others from a sponsors point of view. Whilst guys like Ben Hannant and Petero Civenoceva are really good players and any team would love to have them, it's the Slaters, the Haynes, the Thurstons who put bums on seats.

In the short term, we could scrap counting sponsorship $$$ toward the salary cap. This doesn't discriminate in favour of any particular clubs by the way, but it would allow marketable players to earn more money WITHOUT having to lift the salary cap.

In the long term, we need a salary cap concession for long service, including junior years, maybe for every year at the club after the fifth. So in your 6th year, only 90% of your salary actually counts toward the cap, and in your 10th+ season only 50% of your salary actually counts toward the cap.

This would put the focus on developing young talent rather than buying teams. From a fans perspective, it's very hard to support a team when the faces change every few seasons.

 

[franklin2323]

So SBW goes, then Gasnier, then Hunt, then Folau, probably Thurston, and then Hayne goes too.

Will you still be saying let them go and let's get on with it? They are the stars of the game and why people watch rugby league.

I miss SBW. Bulldogs games were twice as enjoyable with him playing.

It was more exciting seeing SBW take the ball up, attract 3 defenders and somehow throw a miracle flick pass to set up a try than it is to watch Andrew Ryan or Gary Warburton(no disrespect to him) plod the ball up. Sonny Bill's shoulder or Blake Green's shoulder?

It's more exciting seeing Folau on the wing leaping over Anthony Quinn for bombs than watching Steve Michaels leap for a bomb.

How about Karmichael Hunt returning the ball from fullback in origin or do people prefer watching Josh Hoffman return the ball?

Will people watch as many Cowboys games as they do now with the same level of interest if Grant Rovelli is the halfback instead of Thurston?

What a load of s**t.

They go they get replaced. Gasiner goes Enter Brett Morris. Gower goes enter Jennings

SBW goes in comes Barba/Morris.

For every player in the NRL there's 4-5 capable replacements playing park footy/NYC waiting for a chance these could be future stars most of whom get bored with park footy and leave.

Maybe more discounts for locals but Clubs will still poach from others so no plan is fool proof

 

[adamkungl]

Let the greedy f**kers change codes, and just get on with it.

No-one misses SBW. Noone misses Gasnier. Noone missed Lote, Wendell, Rogers, and the other ones when they were missing.

Why pander to blokes like Thurston and Folau who will just never be happy no matter how much more money league pours into their pockets.

What a load of sh*t.

SBW, Gasnier, Gower, Lote, Wendell, Rogers would (or have already) make a big difference to some sides running around, and increase the overall quality of the NRL. Not to mention the huge amount of players running around in the ESL.

Most of the comp are mediocre sides who fall apart at the first injury. The talent is spread thin and there is no depth.

 

[adamkungl]

What a load of s**t.

They go they get replaced. Gasiner goes Enter Brett Morris. Gower goes enter Jennings

SBW goes in comes Barba/Morris.

For every player in the NRL there's 4-5 capable replacements playing park footy/NYC waiting for a chance these could be future stars most of whom get bored with park footy and leave.

Maybe more discounts for locals but Clubs will still poach from others so no plan is fool proof

You honestly think that players like Brett Morris would have been held back by Gasnier? They don't even play the same position! At worst, Brett would be playing for a different club. But that's the entire point. These players stay and the quality of the entire NRL is improved.

 

[Ike E Bear]

All this talk about "quality" is rubbish. If you are a supporter you go to the games and follow your club on TV regardless. The commentators talk about the the need for "quality" because they have a vested interest. They want "quality" (ie stars) to attract the corporates (previously all union) and the uncommitted's (who were cheering the swans back in the 90's). All this mob bring inflated ticket prices, the inability to get a seat at a match, and money. And we know where money takes our game, and we now know what the ultimate outcome is - just follow the Hume Highway to its end to see a future where money rules the game.

Anybody think League will die without the money? That 9/7/10/Foxtel won't still be lining up to broadcast the games? Maybe they'll cut the hoopla and the hangers on - we might not get 4 "quality" thinkers like Gordy, Whiz, Junior and the work experience guy to tell us all about what we've just seen - but I can live without that quite happily.

While I do enjoy the "quality", I have to admit that I mostly agree with Jaeger's Ghost.

It'd be great to be able to retain star players and I honestly think efforts need to be made to ensure the game gets fair recompense for the money it generates (most importantly a better television deal) and can therefore pay fair recompense to the players that contribute directly to that success.

It's just fighting fire with fire. There will always be bigger sharks out there that MIGHT be willing and able to lure stars away, but if the NRL kitty was bigger few if any stars would actually defect. Simple.

That money, though, should come from the parties that are benefiting from the game's success the most (I'm looking at you, News Ltd ... how many people have Foxtel just because of NRL). It's a matter of fairness.

League players are never going to earn what soccer players, golfers, tennis players, basketball players, grid iron players or a whole bunch of other professional sportspeople earn. If they aren't happy with that, then they picked the wrong sport. If they are good enough, though, they should earn a fair share of the spoils. Not more, but not less.

Overseas markets are so much bigger than Australia that there's always the risk of someone like Craig Wing getting poached by Japanese Rugby. Australia just isn't big enough for the NRL to ever be able to counter those offers.

If players leave for bigger dollars, though, I won't miss them. There will always be more kids coming through, as long as the grassroots of the game continue to be invested in. That's as big or bigger a priority than trying to keep a handful of individuals happy.

The game is bigger than the players. Without the game, the players would be nobodies. Without League, Karmichael Hunt would have never earned himself a million bucks playing AFL ... which should make guys who have played AFL for years filthy, in my opinion. I'd argue the same point with Sailer, Tuqiri and Rogers too ... they MIGHT have been Wallabies but they never would have attracted the dollars they did as prized scalps from a rival code.

 

[franklin2323]

You honestly think that players like Brett Morris would have been held back by Gasnier? They don't even play the same position! At worst, Brett would be playing for a different club. But that's the entire point. These players stay and the quality of the entire NRL is improved.

Yeah how much of Gasiner's $500k went to players like Morris?? not to mention it left a backline spot open that wouldn't of been there had he of stayed. People say that it lessens the quality but I say that's rubbish. Because the players who got their spot may of left the game due to not getting a game.

So in theory we keep SBW, Gower, Hunt and co and the younger players to replace them get frustrated with playing park footy or not enough game time and retire early or leave the sport all together.

Either way we have 16 teams with 17 spot available each week. So we lose the top tier or the up and coming players. I know who 'd rather lose.

The fact is ask Timana how South Africa was for a month straight playing a foriegn game or june-feb with no games. Or Lote standing on the wing playing with himself waiting for the ball. $500k near family and friends or greedy and 1/2 way around the world The choice is there's

 

[legend]

I've heard every possible solution but in the end the only solution IMO is get News out of the game ASAP, get the commission up and running and once the new tv deal is finalised, the cap must be increased to 6 million per team, fully funded by the NRL and let club sponsorships pay for the running of the club, staff etc, not players wages.

At 6 million, your top 25 would have an average salary of 240k. Obviously your marquee players earn much more than that, but even the fringe players get a very good deal, reducing the need to look elsewhere.

Also, third party deals for long serving players should not count against the cap.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

While I do enjoy the "quality", I have to admit that I mostly agree with Jaeger's Ghost.

It'd be great to be able to retain star players and I honestly think efforts need to be made to ensure the game gets fair recompense for the money it generates (most importantly a better television deal) and can therefore pay fair recompense to the players that contribute directly to that success.

It's just fighting fire with fire. There will always be bigger sharks out there that MIGHT be willing and able to lure stars away, but if the NRL kitty was bigger few if any stars would actually defect. Simple.

That money, though, should come from the parties that are benefiting from the game's success the most (I'm looking at you, News Ltd ... how many people have Foxtel just because of NRL). It's a matter of fairness.

League players are never going to earn what soccer players, golfers, tennis players, basketball players, grid iron players or a whole bunch of other professional sportspeople earn. If they aren't happy with that, then they picked the wrong sport. If they are good enough, though, they should earn a fair share of the spoils. Not more, but not less.

Overseas markets are so much bigger than Australia that there's always the risk of someone like Craig Wing getting poached by Japanese Rugby. Australia just isn't big enough for the NRL to ever be able to counter those offers.

If players leave for bigger dollars, though, I won't miss them. There will always be more kids coming through, as long as the grassroots of the game continue to be invested in. That's as big or bigger a priority than trying to keep a handful of individuals happy.

The game is bigger than the players. Without the game, the players would be nobodies. Without League, Karmichael Hunt would have never earned himself a million bucks playing AFL ... which should make guys who have played AFL for years filthy, in my opinion. I'd argue the same point with Sailer, Tuqiri and Rogers too ... they MIGHT have been Wallabies but they never would have attracted the dollars they did as prized scalps from a rival code.

Is this the level of intelligence that bounds about these forums? Not going to say you are dumb, you are not....you just got mixed up.

You got it back to front.....without the stars, our sport is nothing. Personalities are ALWAYS bigger than the game. We do not watch rl to see a ball flying through the air, or flesh hitting flesh....we watch it because CERTAIN PEOPLE are doing those things.

Sport and people, sport and personalities, sport and icons, are all intertwined. But in this chicken or the egg first case, the stars come first.

 

[ademkungal]

WTF they better have funds in taht kitty for players like Sandow, Sutton and Luke. We cannot afford to lose more superstars