The Salary Cap Is Not Fair

[Dogs Of War]

Every club is going to lose players. The only tweaking I would make is to increase the loyalty percentage. At the moment I believe it's only $100K in total. Thats not really much. Maybe something like 5% after 5 years at the same club, with the percentage rising to 10% after 10 years. Allows players to stay part of the same club, unless someone wants to tempt them with an even bigger carrot.

 

[Mr Angry]

Without the cap many team would simply go broke trying to compete.

A 3 club comp would be very boring.

 

[yosh64]

Every club is going to lose players. The only tweaking I would make is to increase the loyalty percentage. At the moment I believe it's only $100K in total. Thats not really much. Maybe something like 5% after 5 years at the same club, with the percentage rising to 10% after 10 years. Allows players to stay part of the same club, unless someone wants to tempt them with an even bigger carrot.

I see this as the only thing the game needs to do. Crowds get behind loyal players.

Dont worry bout a junior discount, if they stick with the club they can then look at getting money from the loyalty discount.

 

[Surely]

I think players should play for the team in the area they live in.

 

[perverse]

Every club is going to lose players. The only tweaking I would make is to increase the loyalty percentage. At the moment I believe it's only $100K in total. Thats not really much. Maybe something like 5% after 5 years at the same club, with the percentage rising to 10% after 10 years. Allows players to stay part of the same club, unless someone wants to tempt them with an even bigger carrot.

10% on a big contract still isn't very much.. hardly enough to discourage a genuine bid from another club. certainly not a bid on a "marquee" player.

the percentages need to start at 10 - 15% at 5 years.. and work their way up to anywhere up to around 40 - 50% for the 10 year players. i really can't see a down side to this.. the only thing i'm unsure of is where to draw the line in the sand as to where these years begin (flegg.. lower juniors.. etc).

 

[Dogs Of War]

10% on a big contract still isn't very much.. hardly enough to discourage a genuine bid from another club. certainly not a bid on a "marquee" player.

the percentages need to start at 10 - 15% at 5 years.. and work their way up to anywhere up to around 40 - 50% for the 10 year players. i really can't see a down side to this.. the only thing i'm unsure of is where to draw the line in the sand as to where these years begin (flegg.. lower juniors.. etc).

But you have to look at the fact that a lot of clubs will have 10 or so players who are eligable for this discount. So lets say 2 of the marquee players qualify and the rest so so players making a total of $2 mill of the salary cap. 10% will be 200K. Or a 300K contract for a good player could become $330K.

But say you go straight to what your suggesting. You could go $500K over the current salary cap quite easily. Then it once again becomes a different ball game for those clubs that can't afford to pay the extra to keep their long serving players.

Really comes down to how much do we let clubs go over the salary cap by (via long serving discounts) while still retaining the bonuses that come from having it in place (ie close competition).

 

[nqboy]

There's been worse...the Dross just wasn't televised back then because FNF was monopolized by six or seven clubs.

WAS?

 

[nqboy]

I agree with Loyalty discounts, but these should only start from the time he cracks first grade. I also agree with discounts for "juniors" but that term is very difficult to define. I don't have a problem with 15yo kids from other areas being called juniors, I'm just not sure how much discount they should get.

Perhaps the NRL could have a Salary Cap Committee sit in judgement on a case-by-case basis whether so-and-so is a (Inset club here) junior.

 

[marshall stalin]

market forces should determine all things- isn't this the criminal capitalists dream??

all players should be put on awa's with wages based on the following

* ability
* skills
* experience
* output

of course the above should be the same for all employees with the addition of qualifications the only difference

 

[perverse]

But you have to look at the fact that a lot of clubs will have 10 or so players who are eligable for this discount. So lets say 2 of the marquee players qualify and the rest so so players making a total of $2 mill of the salary cap. 10% will be 200K. Or a 300K contract for a good player could become $330K.

But say you go straight to what your suggesting. You could go $500K over the current salary cap quite easily. Then it once again becomes a different ball game for those clubs that can't afford to pay the extra to keep their long serving players.

Really comes down to how much do we let clubs go over the salary cap by (via long serving discounts) while still retaining the bonuses that come from having it in place (ie close competition).

i see your point, it just doesnt seem to me that the 330k on the 300k a club can afford under their cap to keep a player is enough to fend off a say 400k+ poach bid from a rival club/code. to me i just can't see any small changes making any difference whatsoever to the exodus of talent from our comp and our individual teams. bigger changes would allow clubs to even drop their salary under the cap once they got to the 8 - 9 year area and still be able to retain them against large offers.

you could be right in saying that perhaps too many players would be eligable though and eventually it may defeat the purpose of the cap altogether.

i suppose the reality of the cap is that it is doing what it is intended to do.