The Salary Crap

[Ranga]

There’s no perfect system. Publishing players’ salaries along with all formal offers received during a negotiation would help with transparency. That’s the thing that’s missing.

 

[Disco]

The only fair system is a draft. NFL , AFL do it and they don't have the same teams dominating premierships year after year. NRL has become like EPL only a few teams can win a competition. You still might have the odd basketcase clubs but at least they get a fair shot at some decent players particularly up and coming players.

I do agree a rookie draft would be great.

Would entail heavy investment in juniors at a top level though as clubs would no longer have an incentive to invest.

Us fans would also have to get used to seeing young players come through and then go elsewhere.

Imagine Turbo who blitzed it coming through getting drafted 1 by the Tigers.

Oooooft.

Not quite sure I agree with the EPL comparisons.

Im sure in the 80s dome complained that Manly, Eels and Dog would forever dominate.

In the early 90s the Broncos and Raiders would be on top forever.

Mid to late 90s Manly and Broncos.

Early 2000s Dogs and Roosters.

You then had some Storm and Manly dominate years.

Storm and Roosters after.

And now the Panthers era.

Nothing last forever and the top dogs will change like they always have.

Look at Panthers, 5 years ago they were just a team making the finals every other year (attached)

 

[Nordburg]

I do agree a rookie draft would be great.

Would entail heavy investment in juniors at a top level though as clubs would no longer have an incentive to invest.

Us fans would also have to get used to seeing young players come through and then go elsewhere.

Imagine Turbo who blitzed it coming through getting drafted 1 by the Tigers.

Oooooft.

Not quite sure I agree with the EPL comparisons.

Im sure in the 80s dome complained that Manly, Eels and Dog would forever dominate.

In the early 90s the Broncos and Raiders would be on top forever.

Mid to late 90s Manly and Broncos.

Early 2000s Dogs and Roosters.

You then had some Storm and Manly dominate years.

Storm and Roosters after.

And now the Panthers era.

Nothing last forever and the top dogs will change like they always have.

Look at Panthers, 5 years ago they were just a team making the finals every other year (attached)

Watch the drop off of the Penrith system if they don’t get first pick of their youth players.A draft is good in theory,but it would take a massive overhaul of the league eco system

 

[47MVEagle]

I was surprised both Girds & Wade Graham on triple M yesterday were adamant the issue is with club administration & not a problem with rich clubs always getting the pick of the crop.

I don’t know about that, it’s been apparent ever since Freddy Fittler left the panthers to go to the roosters that the roosters have attracted most of the marquee players ever since. There was one season they had a gun Pommy winger either playing in reserves or on the bench because of the talent they had in their top 17.

Penrith are strong due to their draft area & pathways system set up by Gould, Storm have their pick of the QLD cup players & have a strong recruitment team with Bellamy’s character test the final step in selecting players. The Bulldogs had a war chest to spend after clearing out their top 30.

Of course individual club management plays a part, but there are definitely ways of circumventing the salary cap that clubs like the Storm have been proven to use in the past.

 

[LeonardCohen]

The thing is, the Tigers have purchased some good players and it hasn't changed their fortunes. The Panthers have lost a lot of talent and still remain at the top...not to mention the players that ended up leaving Penrith were essentially developed by the Panthers, rather than purchased from other clubs due to their healthy financial position. Melbourne buy rejects and develop them into first class footballers; again not a salary cap issue. It's easy to see how they can afford Stefano when they have guys like Nick Meaney, Grant Anderson, Will Warbrick, King, Blore, Katoa, etc. who are a combination of late bloomers and/or rejects from other clubs. They just released Reimis Smith to free up funds. I also think Manly miss out on signing good players as much because they don't want to come, as it is our cap.

For this reason, it's difficult to suggest the problem is the salary cap. The only club I look at and question how they keep managing to find marquee players and fit them in, is the Chooks.

 

[Nappa]

The only fair system is a draft. NFL , AFL do it and they don't have the same teams dominating premierships year after year. NRL has become like EPL only a few teams can win a competition. You still might have the odd basketcase clubs but at least they get a fair shot at some decent players particularly up and coming players.

Well said, also get rid of the negotiation of a players contract with a year to run on it, we need true free agency to start during the offseason once a players contracted years have finished.

Also start up official trade window between clubs, as it is now its amateurish and run by player agents not the NRL.

 

[The Who]

The thing is, the Tigers have purchased some good players and it hasn't changed their fortunes. The Panthers have lost a lot of talent and still remain at the top...not to mention the players that ended up leaving Penrith were essentially developed by the Panthers, rather than purchased from other clubs due to their healthy financial position. Melbourne buy rejects and develop them into first class footballers; again not a salary cap issue. It's easy to see how they can afford Stefano when they have guys like Nick Meaney, Grant Anderson, Will Warbrick, King, Blore, Katoa, etc. who are a combination of late bloomers and/or rejects from other clubs. They just released Reimis Smith to free up funds. I also think Manly miss out on signing good players as much because they don't want to come, as it is our cap.

For this reason, it's difficult to suggest the problem is the salary cap. The only club I look at and question how they keep managing to find marquee players and fit them in, is the Chooks.

Fair points, but it's worth considering:
Tigers have had to pay "over" to attract name players which impacts a balanced roster. But it's more the fact that so many Tiger juniors have been recruited by other clubs. There are dozens of them in the NRL, many of which have become Australian and SOO representatives. Money was the prime motivator in most of these moves. A points-based system would reward clubs for local juniors.
Melbourne has a pipeline/pathway into the best Queensland juniors, who are the foundation of the Storm's on-going success. The Storm is basically a Queensland team, but I concede Bellyache is skilled at getting the best out of players.
Easts have been rorting the salary cap for decades. Something has to be done about it.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I just dont see how a pounts system could work.

Way to many holes in it for me.

I agree. A player's value is so fluid even over a short time and most importantly, also depends who is asking.

The only fair system is a draft.

A draft would be harsh on players. Imagine being told you have to move your family to a different state even though you have kids settled in school (or even to a different country!) Don't think it would happen.

There’s no perfect system. Publishing players’ salaries along with all formal offers received during a negotiation would help with transparency. That’s the thing that’s missing.

I think making players also responsible, and not just the clubs, would be a big help.

Let players and their managers and clubs arrange as much as they can from endorsements and TPAs, etc, but only if approved by the NRL. If the deal restricts a player to a certain club (such as the absurd James Maloney situation a few years ago) the NRL will veto it. If a player is found to have made a TPA without seeking NRL approval, then the player's NRL contract is instantly voided and they can't play.

There are a number of industries where employees are prohibited from having other employment at the same time. So I don't see any legal impediment to this scheme (as opposed the draft idea, for example)

There would be obvious naunces/loopholes, such as offering Matt Orford to buy a very cheap apartment (fictitious example) or GI to be given a nice boat (not fictitious), and things like agreements to employ someone in future. So, working out the fine print of what a player's obligations are under the standard NRL contract might be a fiddly exercise.

However putting the onus on the player (as well as the club, not instead of) could significantly aid in enforcement of the cap, which to date seems the biggest problem with it. Which player would be prepared to jeopardise their entire career?

 

[mickqld]

I agree. A player's value is so fluid even over a short time and most importantly, also depends who is asking.



A draft would be harsh on players. Imagine being told you have to move your family to a different state even though you have kids settled in school (or even to a different country!) Don't think it would happen.


I think making players also responsible, and not just the clubs, would be a big help.

Let players and their managers and clubs arrange as much as they can from endorsements and TPAs, etc, but only if approved by the NRL. If the deal restricts a player to a certain club (such as the absurd James Maloney situation a few years ago) the NRL will veto it. If a player is found to have made a TPA without seeking NRL approval, then the player's NRL contract is instantly voided and they can't play.

There are a number of industries where employees are prohibited from having other employment at the same time. So I don't see any legal impediment to this scheme (as opposed the draft idea, for example)

There would be obvious naunces/loopholes, such as offering Matt Orford to buy a very cheap apartment (fictitious example) or GI to be given a nice boat (not fictitious), and things like agreements to employ someone in future. So, working out the fine print of what a player's obligations are under the standard NRL contract might be a fiddly exercise.

However putting the onus on the player (as well as the club, not instead of) could significantly aid in enforcement of the cap, which to date seems the biggest problem with it. Which player would be prepared to jeopardise their entire career?

For $250K upwards I'd move anywhere to any NRL club location in a heartbeat.

 

[Disco]

Worth noting 2 of last years top 4 likely wont make the 8 with possibly 4 of last years teams not making it.

 

[Will on the hill]

Worth noting 2 of last years top 4 likely wont make the 8 with possibly 4 of last years teams not making it.

And 3 of the bottom 4 have played in the last 3 GFs.

 

[manly al]

Not too sure how a points system would be practical when there would still be presumedly no restriction on 3 rd party deals or arrangements .
Just like the draft , it would take only one court challenge in the restriction of trade application and the whole concept or policy would be null and void , again like the draft scheme was in the early 90 's or so .
Always good to look it worthwhile alternatives but would tend to think if it had any general appeal or interest from N R L clubs or N R L administrations , it would have been attempted many moons ago

 

[The Indian]

So if you bring in a points based system its either going to have to be discretionary or based on some sort of agreed formula.

If it's discretionary it'll be argued one way or the other until the cows come home. The what about him, and never ending comparisons based on differing opinions would be a complete sh*tfight.

If it's a straight points based system with no human input you could get players who are given such high salary cap ratings that few clubs would really want to acquire them or at least greatly reduces their bargaining power to attract clubs. I doubt players would be too happy to have their livelyhood impacted in any negative way based upon a magic number from a computer.

This sort of idea is the sort of solution a genius like Rothfield would float in the Telegraph....and that's where it should stay.

 

[The Who]

The points system would be something like this:
5 points for a current Australian/international representative
4 points for a current SOO representative
3 points for a former International or SOO representative
2 points for a NRL or overseas player of at least one season experience
1 point for a local junior (until they had achieved higher representative honours)
Strict rules around defining a "local junior" would need to be established to thwart Easts' rorts.
There would also be deductions of points for players who had racked up 100, 200 and 300 matches for the one club. For example: DCE: 5 points less 3 points for 300 matches = 2 points value.
Each club's top 30 would have to remain under, say, 80 points.
At the end of each season a computer program would produce a list of all players with their points. Clubs would then have to make adjustments, as they currently do based on salary. It would be a much more transparent system. Every fan, administrator and player would know exactly where their club's roster stood at the end of each season, when transfers would be able to commence, and before the start of the next season.
Players would not be restrained in what they could earn, nor how they could earn it. They have the right to privacy, and this would make speculation about salaries redundant.

 

[Nordburg]

The points system would be something like this:
5 points for a current Australian/international representative
4 points for a current SOO representative
3 points for a former International or SOO representative
2 points for a NRL or overseas player of at least one season experience
1 point for a local junior (until they had achieved higher representative honours)
Strict rules around defining a "local junior" would need to be established to thwart Easts' rorts.
There would also be deductions of points for players who had racked up 100, 200 and 300 matches for the one club. For example: DCE: 5 points less 3 points for 300 matches = 2 points value.
Each club's top 30 would have to remain under, say, 80 points.
At the end of each season a computer program would produce a list of all players with their points. Clubs would then have to make adjustments, as they currently do based on salary. It would be a much more transparent system. Every fan, administrator and player would know exactly where their club's roster stood at the end of each season, when transfers would be able to commence, and before the start of the next season.
Players would not be restrained in what they could earn, nor how they could earn it. They have the right to privacy, and this would make speculation about salaries redundant.

Bit tricky lumping all players into points categories like that.For example,using this method,wouldn’t David Fifita be on similar,give or take X amount of coin,as David Klemmer?

 

[The Who]

Bit tricky lumping all players into points categories like that.For example,using this method,wouldn’t David Fifita be on similar,give or take X amount of coin,as David Klemmer?

I'm glad you are considering the system in principle, which took me just minutes to conceive. In reality, there could be a lot more complexity and categories. In the example you gave:
Klemmer would have a one point reduction because he has played 100 matches with his current club. This can be tweaked to bring it down to 75 matches, or so. I'm sure, over time, we could have a workable points system.
You must surely agree that it would be better to know each roster's relative value than the current system where all fans are just guessing. Everyone agrees that Easts' roster doesn't pass the pub test, so why are they allowed to get away with it?

 

[Nordburg]

I'm glad you are considering the system in principle, which took me just minutes to conceive. In reality, there could be a lot more complexity and categories. In the example you gave:
Klemmer would have a one point reduction because he has played 100 matches with his current club. This can be tweaked to bring it down to 75 matches, or so. I'm sure, over time, we could have a workable points system.
You must surely agree that it would be better to know each roster's relative value than the current system where all fans are just guessing. Everyone agrees that Easts' roster doesn't pass the pub test, so why are they allowed to get away with it?

I’m not as upset about the Roosters and their “salary sombrero” as so many people are,mainly because they’ve only won 2 comps in the past 10 yrs.You’d think they were winning every 2nd year by the way some carry on.They lose players every year,obviously not as high profile as those that are out the door this season.
I don’t disagree that the cap needs to be more transparent.Whether you believe/trust them or not,the journos seem to know what the majority of the players are on,so what’s the problem with making the salaries public?American sports are open with their salaries and most CEO’s of major companies are the same

 

[Disco]

The points system would be something like this:
5 points for a current Australian/international representative
4 points for a current SOO representative
3 points for a former International or SOO representative
2 points for a NRL or overseas player of at least one season experience
1 point for a local junior (until they had achieved higher representative honours)
Strict rules around defining a "local junior" would need to be established to thwart Easts' rorts.
There would also be deductions of points for players who had racked up 100, 200 and 300 matches for the one club. For example: DCE: 5 points less 3 points for 300 matches = 2 points value.
Each club's top 30 would have to remain under, say, 80 points.
At the end of each season a computer program would produce a list of all players with their points. Clubs would then have to make adjustments, as they currently do based on salary. It would be a much more transparent system. Every fan, administrator and player would know exactly where their club's roster stood at the end of each season, when transfers would be able to commence, and before the start of the next season.
Players would not be restrained in what they could earn, nor how they could earn it. They have the right to privacy, and this would make speculation about salaries redundant.

Honestly, I just dont see how it becomes a workable system. I see so many issues without much thought.

For starters Harry Grant is a current Kangaroo, Havili was in the last Tonga squad, are they both worth 5 points?

Is Cleary now cheaper on points cause he didnt play Origin? Okay maybe he obviously would have made it so he counts as current, but if he counts, does his replacement who otherwise wouldn't have still count for 4?

What about Jack Wighton withdrawing from Origin? Is that a loophole could a club offer Cleary 8mil a year and tell him to spurn rep footy to keep his points down.

What constitutes 1 years experience?
A full season, a debut, 5 games. Is Lachie Galvin worth the same next year as Jayden Berrell.

How long does 'former SOO or international' count? Is Aaron Woods the same as David Fifita.

Anyhow...that is just poking at the points set up.

My bigger issue is that clubs still have to pay players for their services in a relatively free market.

Say 7 clubs want Blaize Talagi, he is cheap on points and a phenominal talent. Not cap so a bidding war breaks out. Penrith win paying him 1mil a year on a 3 year deal. Great, he is worth bugger all in the points cap......but next year he wins the Dally M, plays for the Blues and Australia and wins the Clive Churchill. His points have exploded and Penrith can't fit him in the points cap with Cleary, Yeo, Martin, To'o etc. So he is a free agent only 3 clubs have the point space but they are broke and can only pay 300k. Blaize has a contract, do Penrith have to pay the difference. Does Blaize sit out seasons and collect his mil?

Or is the suggestions that all contracts a 1 year deals and every year is some mad merry go round of players with zero loyalty and affiliation?

Or is the thought that salary is linked directly to points.....a) good luck getting the RPLA on board and B) we are back to, does Cleary get the same as Havilli.

Honestly....it seems a mess to me.

I'm all for publishing offers and salaries...but again, not sure the RLPA will be on board.

 

[Disco]

Another random thought.
...a points cap would essentially guarantee the best player in the league would also play at one of the two or three richest clubs.

I think we can all agree that Cleary is currently no1 in the league.

Expensive in points no doubt but every team would be delighted to build around him.

He'd cost the same points to all clubs (bar maybe a slight reduction for Penrith).

Seems fair, but realistically not all clubs can get Nath. The richest clubs, Broncos, Roosters, Redcliffe etc could offer him 5mil a year or more, Manly could never afford that. Ergo Manly would never have the best plyer in the comp.

 

[The Who]

Honestly, I just dont see how it becomes a workable system. I see so many issues without much thought.

I'm all for publishing offers and salaries...but again, not sure the RLPA will be on board.

We'll never know the truth about offers or salaries so you can forget that pipe dream.
The current salary system doesn't work. It hides the truth and lends itself to rorting. There needs to be a better way. I'm sure a points-based system would be fairer and welcomed by fans.