The Salary Cap and the not the Salary Cap

[Mr Angry]

Players wages has been a subject.

There is a cap it is somewhat policed.

This is to, so we are told to stop clubs spending more than earn, even the field etc.

So we can talk who gets what of the official finite pie for players.

But what about Coaches, Assistants, Physios etc etc.

Then there is CEOs, Financial, Accounting, Football managers, Doctors, Lawyers, Marketing, Development and scouting.

No Cap right? Just what you can afford after players without going broke.

I would guess there is a huge difference here between clubs.

I am not even talking boats, I am talking legitimate employment and what I can only imagine is the difference between clubs in this space.

So not talking about brown paper bags, rich clubs have advantage, under this scenario, not cheating in any way.

Unless the cap is extended to how much the clubs expenditure needs to be even, it is, not the Salary Cap.

If you get more revenue then good for you.

 

[Chook Norris]

According to media reports not too long ago, the NRL is already looking at this

 

[Perth Red]

I think we can look at Brisbane over last few years and say that rich club does not always equal success? Likewise manly who are at the poorer end of the scale have been successful.
And I'm not sure what your point is? Do you want every club to have the sAme expenditure line for all club operations?

 

[BrisVegas]

How club expenditure correlates with success is an interesting topic, especially in competitions where playing rosters are assembled under a salary cap.

But a cap on Football and/or Commercial department spending strikes me as an incredibly short sighted way to bring further equalization to a competition that is already one of the most equal in the world.

Where do you draw the line? At a level the paupers of the competition like Cronulla or Wests Tigers can afford?

You never want to freeze out talented people from becoming involved in Rugby League, but by limiting what club executives can be paid you are effectively limiting the caliber of people involved in running the club - shortsighted if a CEO that can command an additional $250k a year can raise revenue by $1m.

Likewise by saying you can only spend $X on a the medical department you are directly affecting recovery times (and perhaps even the career longevity) of players, weakening the on-field product in the process. The same goes for coaching staff - i'd prefer to see clubs spend extra $ on coaching staff if it results in players developing their skill further - which results in more entertaining games, which drives growth of viewership, which grows the NRL's media deal, which is of benefit to all clubs.

And if you thought policing a 7m salary cap across the top 25 players of a club was difficult, imagine the overhead in accounting for the Broncos $38m in revenue last year. And once again, where do you draw the line? Are the Panthers or Bulldogs Leagues clubs, legally separate entities from the football clubs even if they share board members, counted when it comes to revenue calculations.

And what of funding sourced by third parties? The Broncos recently secured a large parcel of land from the Brisbane City Council, and $5m in funding from the Federal Government funding towards their new Training and Administration building. Likewise the Ipswich City Council have offered millions of dollars in support towards securing an NRL license for the region. Clubs should be praised for forging these types of relationships with government to further fund the growth of Rugby League.

You just need to accept that the competition is never going to be 100% even - but clubs should never be prevented from striving to be the best they can.

 

[Mr Angry]

Do you want every club to have the sAme expenditure line for all club operations?

If we are to have a cap then yes.

Race for the rest of the revenue.

A player cap does not reflect the investment.

Some will loose too.

But is that not the point of cap?

Make sure you can afford it.

Perhaps I miss the point.

 

[Howdy]

You have lost the plot. And Sharks will still suck even if all janitors are paid the same

 

[Noname36]

I don't think trying to police club expenditure on things like support staff is a good idea, or frankly even doable, and I say that as a supporter of the club that now has the lowest operating budget in the comp.

How could you even decide what an appropriate amount would be? In order for it to work you'd have to have everyone operating at the same level as the club with the lowest operating budget (which I'd say would be the Knights just on the amount of cuts this year - NRL only letting them promote blokes already at the club for the vital positions with no pay rise, and cutting all non-vital positions, etc). You simply can't turn around and ask a club like Brisbane who have layers of support staff under their support staff to operate like that. In fact it would probably be insulting. If you've generated some wealth you should be allowed to use it.

Anyway at the end of the day most of a side's success comes down to the playing roster and that's where the real discrepancy is with all this uncapped third party nonsense. It doesn't matter how much you have in the way of support staff when you have one club playing a $6.3 million squad against a $9-10 million dollar one.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If they really want to finally test the salary cap in court limiting CEO wages would be the way to go.

 

[carcharias]

f**k don't change it now my mob are actually looking pretty good in the future money wise .

 

[Captain Apollo]

According to media reports not too long ago, the NRL is already looking at this

That is because the AFL has already brought it in in their competition.

Personally I think it a daft idea.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

That is because the AFL has already brought it in in their competition.

Personally I think it a daft idea.

Ahh the vfl has done it.

No wonder the nrl is all over it.

 

[franklin2323]

That is because the AFL has already brought it in in their competition.

Personally I think it a daft idea.

So do I. Not every club is like for like this just muddy's the water

 

[Danish]

A cap on expenditure would be stupid and unworkable.

A co-contribution fund that richer clubs need to kick into for spending over an agreed amount, which is then distributed to poorer clubs wouldn't be a bad idea.

You wouldn't want it to kick in at what the sharks or other poor bastard clubs spend though. Perhaps make it 25% above the median expenditure of all 16 clubs, or something similar. That I think would be reasonable. Then you'd have to figure out the rate... something like 50c per dollar for a certain amount over up to 50% above median, then $1 per dollar over that.

Obviously all the percentages I've included above are purely plucked from my arse, but the commission would be able to set proper figures with access to all 16 clubs books.

 

[betcats]

Just giving themselves something else to f**k up if they bring this in.

 

[franklin2323]

Just giving themselves something else to f**k up if they bring this in.

And clubs to rort.

 

[bfoord]

this would be typical of the NRL to try to bring the standard of the top clubs to meet the bottom clubs, when they should be trying to drag the bottom clubs up to meet the better performing clubs

 

[GreenMachine121]

f**kING

 

[yobbo84]

this would be typical of the NRL to try to bring the standard of the top clubs to meet the bottom clubs, when they should be trying to drag the bottom clubs up to meet the better performing clubs

Correct. Terrible idea.

 

[yobbo84]

If they want to crack down on cap rorting, they need to do something about ex-players taking official roles with clubs in the seasons immediately following their retirement.

"Hi player, I see you are looking for your last contract. Sign with us for 3 years @ $200,000 a year. After that we'll hire you as our backs coach for $400,000 for one year."

Every club would be doing this.

 

[perverse]

this would be typical of the NRL to try to bring the standard of the top clubs to meet the bottom clubs, when they should be trying to drag the bottom clubs up to meet the better performing clubs

And what would you have the NRL do to lift the standard of said "bottom clubs"?