Willie Mason: Players Should Strike for More Money - "Without us, there is no game"

[The Informer]

Johns and Gasiner were never serious about Union, the whole saga was just a drawn out ploy by their managers to leverage their final contract size. Interesting how a number have also returned, many for less, and had the ARU not sh*t itself in the last few days with Tuquiri and extended their offer by an additional yr and some $'s he was done and dusted to return.

I think Union is far less a threat now than they looked to be 3 or 4 yrs ago. They have completely stuffed their golden opportunity up, if not their game.

I agree, that if there is one thing about the cap that disappoints me it's the exit of quality players to England, but it's never going to be perfect. There is an extra club this yr, so an extra $4 mil or so in the market for some, and that will remain so for the future. How big do they want the pie?

I think the real issue behind all of this noise is the levels of restriction to sponsorship and advertising earnings to the elite players. I think its a fair issue, as the NRL / News are in effect implying a restraint which might get interesting if tested. The NRL's argument is that this will get very messy with 3rd party deals and alike outside the cap which could then well make the cap a joke. The counter argument is that these elite players are indeed the product, and with out them the games earn wouldn't be where it is, if they reach these heights let them be rewarded.

Like it or not with out the cap and financial management forced upon the clubs many of them just would be alive today, we would have far fewer clubs and a far more lopsided competition.

We don't. We have 16 clubs spending $4 mil plus on players. Huge ratings, an even comp, great footy wk after wk and around 10 competitive clubs every yr.

 

[Quidgybo]

Rogers, Sailor, Tuquiri, Cross, Thorn, Blacklock, Schifcoske, Walker, Tahu. Many others were extremely close to signing with the rah-rahs, Gasnier & Johns immediately come to mind. Combine this with the player losses to the ESL, there are over 100 established NRL first graders lost to our competition.

I heard 80 mentioned as the number of losses in the press. Either way I'd say the figure is absolute rubbish. How many of those were rep players in the prime of their career and how many were lesser players or fading stars on their way out anyway? The NRL has suffered a trivial number of important losses in the last ten years. Maybe five, maybe ten - in a decade! The rest are a dime a dozen. Certainly not enough to justify risking the financial stability of clubs, the competition and the game. We are paying now what our game and the market can sustainably afford. Union is not - which is exactly what their own provinces are saying (in fact with only one club consistently posting a profit we're not either). Any increase to our salary cap that maintains that stability and sustainability would be minimal and nowhere near the massive hike needed to match the Union glitz. Let them waste away their finite World Cup treasure chest picking off the one or two stars they can actually manage to snag each year and let us concentrate on building 16 healthy clubs in a self sustaining league that steadily continues to grow towards being the premier football competition in Australian and New Zealand.

Leigh.

 

[B-dos]

The NRL's argument is that this will get very messy with 3rd party deals and alike outside the cap which could then well make the cap a joke. The counter argument is that these elite players are indeed the product, and with out them the games earn wouldn't be where it is, if they reach these heights let them be rewarded.

i agree with the nrl here. 3rd party deals will make the cap a joke. it cannot be allowed to happen.

Like it or not with out the cap and financial management forced upon the clubs many of them just would be alive today, we would have far fewer clubs and a far more lopsided competition.

We don't. We have 16 clubs spending $4 mil plus on players. Huge ratings, an even comp, great footy wk after wk and around 10 competitive clubs every yr.

100% agree and well said.

 

[FunkyMonk]

Willie da f**khed. He just wants more bucks for coke the khant. He wouldn't give a rats ass about the yonger players! Typical dirty, greedy Bulldogs androtop!

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I heard 80 mentioned as the number of losses in the press. Either way I'd say the figure is absolute rubbish. How many of those were rep players in the prime of their career and how many were lesser players or fading stars on their way out anyway? The NRL has suffered a trivial number of important losses in the last ten years. Maybe five, maybe ten - in a decade! The rest are a dime a dozen. Certainly not enough to justify risking the financial stability of clubs, the competition and the game. We are paying now what our game and the market can sustainably afford. Union is not - which is exactly what their own provinces are saying (in fact with only one club consistently posting a profit we're not either). Any increase to our salary cap that maintains that stability and sustainability would be minimal and nowhere near the massive hike needed to match the Union glitz. Let them waste away their finite World Cup treasure chest picking off the one or two stars they can actually manage to snag each year and let us concentrate on building 16 healthy clubs in a self sustaining league that steadily continues to grow towards being the premier football competition in Australian and New Zealand.

Leigh.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21430214-5001023,00.html

131 Players have left the NRL since 2001. The hard copy edition of this story included the player list, which this link hasn't got. Among these players were some middle-of-the-road types, but the majority were established first graders who would easily still make the grade in the NRL today. Names i can recall include;

Trent Barrett
Jason Cayless
Clint Greenshields
Brent Webb
Pat Richards
Mark McLinden
Scott Hill
Lesley Vainikolo
Aaron Gorrell
Matt Gidley
Glenn Morrison
Stacy Jones
Henry Fa'afili
Matt Sing
David Vaealiki
Adam Mogg
David Solomona
Aaron Moule
Willie Talau
Iafeta Paleaasina
Michael Devere
Ali Lautiti
Jamie Lyon
Marcus Bai
Scott Donald
Sean Rudder
Nathan Blacklock
Daniel Heckenberg
Brett Dallas
Darren Albert
Junior Langi
Alex Chan
Paul Rauhihi


And thats just the ones that spring immediately to mind. Among them are many young players - who still had/have the majority of their careers ahead of them. Others were established, senior first graders - but still with enough talent to continue in the NRL.

And why aren't these players running around in the NRL today??? Its not because of the lovely weather England has to offer I can assure you.

Add to this our losses to Union and it adds up to an absolute abundance of talent lost to our competition.

While I undertand all the principles of a salary cap & the benefits it provides in protecting clubs from exceeding their spending capabilities, the side effect is that we are losing so much player talent that something needs to be done, and urgently.

Whether the NRL provides further funding to each club to spend on player salaries or otherwise I dont know. I'm no expert in how to manage how this would work - no one on this forum is either. But what I do know is that if it continues the way it is right now its only going to get worse in time. I want whats best for the NRL, and sure as sh!t this is not it.

 

[Bluebag]

The capis enough and the grant is only 500k less than the cap and still clubs lose money bar a few. The UK is looking at changing the quota system which means less opportunities to play there and as far as union is concerned who cares if they go there so far only wingers have left.
While I respect Willies views I cannot agree and feel he has made his position clear and should rule himself out of origin now and the NSWRL should not select him as he is about denigrating the blue jersey. Willie does not even realise that SOO is not NRL controlled but rather NSWRL and QRL and this is how they generate the majority of their income not the NRL.
More money should be given to country clubs which need help with drought, low crop returns that stop clubs from raising money while costs increase. Each group should be given a grant from the game each year to help defray costs to keep the game going.

 

[griff]

The NRL brought this on themselves by boasting about all the money they were making on these tv, internet and sponsorship deals, when the reality is they should be making a lot more money out of these deals.

And what no-one has mentioned in 9 pages is the obvious counter-point to Willie's argument that the salary cap has barely moved in recent years.

The cap is now $4,000,000. Before SL, the cap was I believe $1,600,000. So RL salaries have risen by 250% in a dozen years. In that time earnings for normal workers have only gone up about 75%. So what if the salary cap has barely moved in recent years? No other group of people had their pay packet tripled over night. We have had a period of wage moderation after a period where wages exploded, seems fair enough to me.

His attitude is one of "what have you done for me lately".