Smith to Break Cap for Burgess

[MadMarcus]

Sooner or later the cap will be challenged in Court and struck out as unlawful. We need to come up with something better.

How about a transfer fee to be paid by recruiting clubs to the player's former club calculated as a percentage of the player's new contract? The fee would not count under the recruiting club's cap but the recipient of the money would be able to spend it in addition to the cap over the period of the player's new contract. The fee would be payable whether a player was off contract or not. No fee would be payable for recruitment of players from other codes.

That would encourage clubs to develop their own talent, lessen player movement between clubs, compensate clubs when they lose good players and encourage clubs to raid RU ranks. The contractual obligation would be on clubs not players and therefore less likely to be a legal challenge.

 

[fLIP]

The only reason the NRL thinks players are special is if channel 9 have nothing but consistent praise for them.

If Phil Gould says you're amazing 40 times and sterlo wraps you for a try you are knocked out for while it was scored the NRL and its cronies think you are the ducks nuts.

Don't expect every crowd drawing player to get this sort of treatment regardless of whether they could be the greatest player that ever lived. You have to get through wide world of sports litmus wanknfest before you're considered a player that could be appreciated and worth preferential (over the integrity of the salary cap) treatment.

 

[Dan]

Corruption is alive and well in our game, and now it is being legitimized. So basically they want to take out the level playing field that we all knew was only ever really an imagined thing anyway

 

[bones]

Sam's huge head would break any cap.

 

[Snake]

It seems that Souths success has served to highlight just how much interest and revenue their club can generate for the game, and therein lies the problem. Dave Smith has one purpose, and one purpose only; to grow the game. The problem is they are not allowing the game to grow organically; it's being beefed up like a chicken on steroids...the end result tastes like **** for most of us.

 

[tookey]

Stop being so closed minded, thr NRL should be getting involved as the game is stronger with Burgess, SBW, Folau and Hunt involved!

That said I do believe there should be some more structure to it. I believe there should be a centrally contracted list released each year of 10 players who are used by the nrl to market the game......so essentially they are hired by the nrl as ambassadors

This list changes yearly based on marketability and performance with clubs having no bearing on who is chosen.

Each player receives 200k for the season with bad behavior voiding payments

A current list could look something like

Hayne
Inglis
Cherry-Evans
Graham
Smith
Thurston
Johnson
Then I dunno, 3 others

Gallen doesnt make it due to ASADA but would have made this years list, Barba would have made the 2013 list (after a big 2012) but has since faded, Cronk whilst a great player doesnt bring the marketability, Farah could be there but is a bit to prickly and outspoken etc etc

You can have multiple players from 1 club if thats the way it falls.....players like Folau would be told that if they return to the NRL they would be on the following years list and would remain there if their form and brand remains strong.

This not only helps players stay in the game but also encourages them to engage with the media whilst building there own personal brand

It also has no advantage to any particular team

---

I don't have a problem with the NRL using $$ to lure players from rival codes. What I do have a problem with is luring them back and allowing them to play with the premiership winning team.

He would be good to the code, aside from the few indiscretions, but should be brought back to play at one of the struggling teams only, outside the 8 as a minimum criteria.

Otherwise it is a clear rort of the cap.

That is also a rort and also would disadvantage well run clubs such as out own

The nrl topping up a deal cannot be reliant on them playing for any club be it a strong or a weak club.

If the NRL offered Folau a 500k top up he can the choose to sign for the roosters at 300k, Parra at 500k or the raiders at 1.6mill.......the salary cap is not affected by his top up

---

As fluffy said these players are accommodated under each club's marquee allowance.

The NRL is going to break the cap only to entice players back to the NRL such as Burgess, Folau and SBW.

There are not 16 players worthy of breaking the cap so that means that souths will benefit from having Burgess come back, roosters from SBW ad parra or dogs or whoever gets Folau.

The other 13 clubs get nothing so how is that a fair playing field that the salary cap is supposed to do?

Another example of the NRl having no idea. At least gallop wasn't stupid enough to introduce such a scheme even though certain clubs wanted it brought in a few years ago.

 

[silvertail]

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

― George Orwell, NRL Farm

 

[bob dylan]

Is it true the Dally M's will be known as the Sammy B's from next year?

 

[Ramrod]

So they want to get him back and give him to the strongest club, that's smart. I would be happy with this if they were giving him to the wooden spooners, but that would be sensible and logical, which is a foreign concept to the NRL.

I hear what you are saying although there are no real weak teams in the NRL, just poor decision makers (front office, coaches and players combined). Even a wooden spooner on their day can beat the top team. Poor form and injuries can also be taken into consideration on how well a team is travelling.

 

[Hamster Huey]

Sooner or later the cap will be challenged in Court and struck out as unlawful. We need to come up with something better.

How about a transfer fee to be paid by recruiting clubs to the player's former club calculated as a percentage of the player's new contract? The fee would not count under the recruiting club's cap but the recipient of the money would be able to spend it in addition to the cap over the period of the player's new contract. The fee would be payable whether a player was off contract or not. No fee would be payable for recruitment of players from other codes.

That would encourage clubs to develop their own talent, lessen player movement between clubs, compensate clubs when they lose good players and encourage clubs to raid RU ranks. The contractual obligation would be on clubs not players and therefore less likely to be a legal challenge.

It won't go to court any time soon, if ever. Between the clubs, RLPA, NRL admin, players and managers, all realise the negative impact of opening up the market and the impacts on the vast majority of players.

Limiting success to rich clubs will impact on the codes appeal to Australian fans, managers will concentrate resources on the rich players, lower level players will likely see their minimum wage reduced, money will dry up for many clubs as Premiership prospects dive...and so on and so on.

With such tight competition between the NRL and AFL (and slow emergence of football, which also have a Cap) for supporters, in a country with a small population, no code (or player association) wants to concede ground with a lopsided competition.

 

[Dan]

Sooner or later the cap will be challenged in Court and struck out as unlawful. We need to come up with something better.

How about a transfer fee to be paid by recruiting clubs to the player's former club calculated as a percentage of the player's new contract? The fee would not count under the recruiting club's cap but the recipient of the money would be able to spend it in addition to the cap over the period of the player's new contract. The fee would be payable whether a player was off contract or not. No fee would be payable for recruitment of players from other codes.

That would encourage clubs to develop their own talent, lessen player movement between clubs, compensate clubs when they lose good players and encourage clubs to raid RU ranks. The contractual obligation would be on clubs not players and therefore less likely to be a legal challenge.

It won't go to court any time soon, if ever. Between the clubs, RLPA, NRL admin, players and managers, all realise the negative impact of opening up the market and the impacts on the vast majority of players.

Limiting success to rich clubs will impact on the codes appeal to Australian fans, managers will concentrate resources on the rich players, lower level players will likely see their minimum wage reduced, money will dry up for many clubs as Premiership prospects dive...and so on and so on.

With such tight competition between the NRL and AFL (and slow emergence of football, which also have a Cap) for supporters, in a country with a small population, no code (or player association) wants to concede ground with a lopsided competition.

It opens up an opportunity for an enterprising sports management company to sign a lot if lower lever players to diversify funds and score large volume of low commission signatures...... Which in turn gives them power, controlling interest and a voice

 

[MadMarcus]

It won't go to court any time soon, if ever. Between the clubs, RLPA, NRL admin, players and managers, all realise the negative impact of opening up the market and the impacts on the vast majority of players.

You could have said that about the draft. The difference is the salary cap actually prevents players from earning as much as they possibly could (at least in the short term), which makes it more likely to be challenged in my view.

All it will take is one greedy player manager with a star client who isn't interested in switching codes. You think they will care about the long term future of the game? They are only interested in their next commission.

 

[Hamster Huey]

It opens up an opportunity for an enterprising sports management company to sign a lot if lower lever players to diversify funds and score large volume of low commission signatures...... Which in turn gives them power, controlling interest and a voice

And someone couldn't do that now?

---

It won't go to court any time soon, if ever. Between the clubs, RLPA, NRL admin, players and managers, all realise the negative impact of opening up the market and the impacts on the vast majority of players.

You could have said that about the draft. The difference is the salary cap actually prevents players from earning as much as they possibly could (at least in the short term), which makes it more likely to be challenged in my view.

All it will take is one greedy player manager with a star client who isn't interested in switching codes. You think they will care about the long term future of the game? They are only interested in their next commission.

The previous draft attempt was seriously flawed, and in no way reflects what the AFL use now, as an example. It was deservedly scrapped. The AFL still have a Cap too, so player earnings are also capped. Yet to see a case raised on their current draft/cap structure, as per the NRL also seeing their cap continue with the support of the RLPA and managers.

You'd think if it was going to be targetted by a 'greedy player manager', we'd have seen it amongst the 1000's of players to have operated under it so far.

 

[MadMarcus]

You'd think if it was going to be targetted by a 'greedy player manager', we'd have seen it amongst the 1000's of players to have operated under it so far.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the future (except in the case of the Sharks never having won a premiership, which does conclusively establish that they never well).

The phenomenon of players routinely asking for releases and negotiating well ahead of their contract expiry dates is relatively new, which is an example of how player contract negotiations are dynamic.

The change to negotiation tactics is also a reminder that agents (and probably players) are wanting a bigger slice of the pie as there is more money in the game than ever before.

The more money there is the more likely someone is to bring a legal challenge.

 

[Daddycool08]

We had a draft but Terry Hill successfully challenged it and won.

From what I remember he didn't want to play for Wests but for Easts at the time.

As we all know he won, he came to us and did a great job but in the end ended his career playing for the Wests Tigers. Irony?

 

[Ralphie]

The Salary Cap couldn't be challenged because it is an agreement between the clubs and the NRL about how they are going to run the private competition. Players can choose to play in the NRL, ESL, Super Rugby, European Rugby, Japanese Rugby etc etc. Each player can earn any amount of remuneration they can negotiate with the Clubs so there is no Restraint of Trade.

A challenge would be akin to an employee of a Private Company challenging the award rates of pay because they want to earn more money. It could only happen if a player, with the support of a club, challenged the agreement between the NRL & the clubs. No Club would do that.

 

[Peter C]

We had a draft but Terry Hill successfully challenged it and won.

From what I remember he didn't want to play for Wests but for Easts at the time.

As we all know he won, he came to us and did a great job but in the end ended his career playing for the Wests Tigers. Irony?

Other way around, he wanted to play for Warren Ryan [ don't know why]at Wests. but Easts had a pick on the draft ahead of Wests.
Same thing happened to us, we had Kevin Iro agreeing to play for us but Balmain had a pick on the draft ahead of us, Keith Barnes said that Kevin Iro wants to play with his brother at Manly so Balmain would not be pursuing him, which was rather decent of Barnes, considering Iro was the hottest property at the time.
Can't say the same for Norths though, another player from the UK, Emosi Koloto, who was coached by Graham Lowe wanted to play for Manly, but Norths ruined that by picking him ahead of us on the draft, Koloto told Norths to shove it.

 

[MadMarcus]

The Salary Cap couldn't be challenged because it is an agreement between the clubs and the NRL about how they are going to run the private competition. Players can choose to play in the NRL, ESL, Super Rugby, European Rugby, Japanese Rugby etc etc. Each player can earn any amount of remuneration they can negotiate with the Clubs so there is no Restraint of Trade.

A challenge would be akin to an employee of a Private Company challenging the award rates of pay because they want to earn more money. It could only happen if a player, with the support of a club, challenged the agreement between the NRL & the clubs. No Club would do that.

If a player has to go to another country or play another sport to avoid the agreement then that goes a fair way to establishing it is in fact a restraint of trade. If Terry Hill wanted to avoid the draft he could have gone to Japanese rugby too...

 

[Hamster Huey]

Nobody argues that it isn't a form of restraint of trade. It is simply an accepted element of the competition, recognised by all stakeholders as the most appropriate manner in which to benefit the code.

The old draft was a step too far and so completely flawed in its structure, as to be a case for other competitions as to how NOT to implement one.

As long as the NRL continues to grow the Cap level sufficiently to allow clubs to pay more for the best each season, we won't ever see it appear in the courts.