GOULD: SAVIOUR OR SACKER

[Bearfax]

Phil Gould has come out with a contentious plan which he believes will save the game and stop much of the salary cap problems. But it means opening the door to the richer clubs with strong corporate support, to be able to spend more than the lesser clubs. What's your thoughts?

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/ph...p/news-story/54761b22bbff37c249fae4e9ed53eae7

I'm a strong supporter of a draft but it failed in our courts and both players and cubs maintain it restricts open trade. But a draft would ensure that teams have a far better chance of reaching golden years, than exists now. In a draft system, a team can pay their players as much as they like. They just cant poach another clubs players because any player leaving a club has to go onto the draft list at the approved value of the player, and take their chances regarding which team picks them up.

Aussie Rules does it just fine. American football, baseball etc use various draft systems and succeed brilliantly. English soccer doesn't and that's why you see Man. U, Man City, Chelsea and Arsenal on top most seasons. No other club gets to the top unless they are bankrolled by a super rich benefactor. I dont want to see our game go that way and I do want to see it expanded. But allowing the rich to spend more, defeats the whole aim at achieving an equitable competition that develops larger crowds because teams have a better chance of winning.

What's your thoughts? I'm assuming he's replacing the TPAs with this expanding salary cap range. Seems to me replacing one bad system for another. But I may be wrong. Gould's idea would create a couple of super sides, that win consistently as they do now with TPAs. That certainly would create some top drawer games. But I cant see this benefiting the game as a whole, only benefiting the few.

 

[Chip and Chase]

They should revisit the draft concept. (Now that Tezza has retired it might have a chance of succeeding). If done properly you can still foster player-club loyalty and fan-player engagement. But it'll never get off the ground unless the players association backs it.

I do agree with Gus that TPA's are just a rort and massively benefit some teams - Broncos in particular, so if they could get rid of those and make the salary cap simply "you have $X,000,000.00 to spend and that's it".

 

[robbiea]

Draft system is the only way to go.

 

[Harvies elbow]

If ever they are going to revisit the draft now is the time to do it, with the agreement with the players being negotiated , albeit poorly.
The thing that I hate most about the current set up is players being able to sign elsewhere 12 months from the end of their contract. Addressing that is more important to me.
But for all its issues the current system isn't as bad as its made out.
The turnover of premiership winners in the last 25 years proves that the cap is working, despite the usual rorters taking advantage.
It is almost impossible to go back to back let alone string a dynasty together.
I'm probably in the minority but I prefer the uncertainty of winners.
Clubs get a short window of opportunity and if they miss it then they have to wait another 5 or so years.

 

[double hoops]

What rubbish. Open up the game even more to those clubs with money and it will simply be the Broncos playing the Roosters every year. A draft could and should be in place right now.

 

[Woodsie]

The day a draft system is introduced is the day the music will die. It will be the end of everything that made Rugby League and Manly great.

Why not just get the 16 teams under the same owner and CEO and then just have turns at winning. Fockit, let's have celebrity quests just pick the fuccken winner out of a bloody hat.

Unlike the other sports that have successful draft systems, RL produces very few players, what .. maybe 10 - 20 1st grade standard players each year.

How happy will you be when you see Jake drafted by Souffs and Tom drafted by Roosters ... but that's cool ... it's a fairer system, tribalism is so 70's.

Fukket your draft ..... focken your fair ..... tribalism rules, and power to the survival of the fittest.

 

[Bearfax]

The day a draft system is introduced is the day the music will die. It will be the end of everything that made Rugby League and Manly great.

Why not just get the 16 teams under the same owner and CEO and then just have turns at winning. Fockit, let's have celebrity quests just pick the fuccken winner out of a bloody hat.

Unlike the other sports that have successful draft systems, RL produces very few players, what .. maybe 10 - 20 1st grade standard players each year.

How happy will you be when you see Jake drafted by Souffs and Tom drafted by Roosters ... but that's cool ... it's a fairer system, tribalism is so 70's.

Fukket your draft ..... focken your fair ..... tribalism rules, and power to the survival of the fittest.

Depends on how you run a draft. There are drafts for established players and there are drafts for players yet to enter grade. This is where you can set a draft limit. Allow a free for all on all junior players but after a player is first graded in a club (say a limit of 30-35 players) from that point on, any transfers out of a club must be done by way of draft. This ensures a club that has nurtured a player through to grade is theirs if he wants to stay. But once he is playing grade and his true potential emerges, he can only move on by way of draft.

Players therefore who think they are therefore better than reserve grade put themselves on the draft after their contract expires if they want out. Teams that dont want to hold onto a player after a contract is completed, then puts the player on the draft. But as the draft does not apply to players not yet graded a first time, that way a team can hold onto their developing players, like the Trbojevics etc, if they want to stay dependent of course on the money a team is prepared to outlay. Someone like DCE would still look to other clubs when he was a junior coming through if the 'limited number of players for grading' becomes mandated and he is left out. This way rich teams cant plunder rising graded stars, but clubs can still hold their developing ungraded players

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

Please forgive my ignorance of how exactly a draft works but I've always "felt" it was too arbitrary in dispersing players and took the "Ken Arthursons" out of club control and team recruitment.

I will put a draft scenario below based on my fear/ignorance.

Scenario:

A few years down the track in a NRL Draft world.....

Draft Night 202?:

Manly are last years premiers.

After a stellar year in lower grades young Ben Trbolussicoate is listed as the NRL's number one draft pick.

Parramatta, as prior year wooden spooners get first option on young Ben's services and say "YES PLEASE".

End Scenario.

Can someone please explain how we are protected from this happening?

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

Depends on how you run a draft. There are drafts for established players and there are drafts for players yet to enter grade. This is where you can set a draft limit. Allow a free for all on all junior players but after a player is first graded in a club (say a limit of 30-35 players) from that point on, any transfers out of a club must be done by way of draft. This ensures a club that has nurtured a player through to grade is theirs if he wants to stay. But once he is playing grade and his true potential emerges, he can only move on by way of draft.

Players therefore who think they are therefore better than reserve grade put themselves on the draft after their contract expires if they want out. Teams that dont want to hold onto a player after a contract is completed, then puts the player on the draft. But as the draft does not apply to players not yet graded a first time, that way a team can hold onto their developing players, like the Trbojevics etc, if they want to stay dependent of course on the money a team is prepared to outlay. Someone like DCE would still look to other clubs when he was a junior coming through if the 'limited number of players for grading' becomes mandated and he is left out. This way rich teams cant plunder rising graded stars, but clubs can still hold their developing ungraded players

Ok @Bearfax you really should be answering my question after I ask it, not before, but thanks just the same.😀

 

[Woodsie]

Depends on how you run a draft. There are drafts for established players and there are drafts for players yet to enter grade. This is where you can set a draft limit. Allow a free for all on all junior players but after a player is first graded in a club (say a limit of 30-35 players) from that point on, any transfers out of a club must be done by way of draft. This ensures a club that has nurtured a player through to grade is theirs if he wants to stay. But once he is playing grade and his true potential emerges, he can only move on by way of draft.

Players therefore who think they are therefore better than reserve grade put themselves on the draft after their contract expires if they want out. Teams that dont want to hold onto a player after a contract is completed, then puts the player on the draft. But as the draft does not apply to players not yet graded a first time, that way a team can hold onto their developing players, like the Trbojevics etc, if they want to stay dependent of course on the money a team is prepared to outlay. Someone like DCE would still look to other clubs when he was a junior coming through if the 'limited number of players for grading' becomes mandated and he is left out. This way rich teams cant plunder rising graded stars, but clubs can still hold their developing ungraded players

You're not a lawyer are you Bear? Sounds like a scheme to provide endless employment to wigs. Throw in the salary cap and loyalty points and the answer is a pineapple. Some of these kids have 4 junior clubs by the time they are 19.

Just kidding, I just detest any plan designed to be fair or that strives to bring the successful clubs back to the standard of the Parra's and Norths.

 

[Bearfax]

You're not a lawyer are you Bear? Sounds like a scheme to provide endless employment to wigs. Throw in the salary cap and loyalty points and the answer is a pineapple. Some of these kids have 4 junior clubs by the time they are 19.

Just kidding, I just detest any plan designed to be fair or that strives to bring the successful clubs back to the standard of the Parra's and Norths.

I worked in criminal law but not as a solicitor, though a few of my best mates are corporate lawyers and need a constant supply of clientele

 

[Little Grubber Kick]

The day a draft system is introduced is the day the music will die. It will be the end of everything that made Rugby League and Manly great.

Why not just get the 16 teams under the same owner and CEO and then just have turns at winning. Fockit, let's have celebrity quests just pick the fuccken winner out of a bloody hat.

Unlike the other sports that have successful draft systems, RL produces very few players, what .. maybe 10 - 20 1st grade standard players each year.

How happy will you be when you see Jake drafted by Souffs and Tom drafted by Roosters ... but that's cool ... it's a fairer system, tribalism is so 70's.

Fukket your draft ..... focken your fair ..... tribalism rules, and power to the survival of the fittest.

Oh Woodsie, written from a position of wisdom.
I fear it will eventually fall on deaf ears.
Yes, the year we get 6 glorious talents coming through 5 will be shipped of to other clubs (entities) against their own preference.
the battle is like others in society today, that they will always make it 'sound' like a good thing, when it is in reality the opposite.

 

[Bearfax]

Please forgive my ignorance of how exactly a draft works but I've always "felt" it was too arbitrary in dispersing players and took the "Ken Arthursons" out of club control and team recruitment.

I will put a draft scenario below based on my fear/ignorance.

Scenario:

A few years down the track in a NRL Draft world.....

Draft Night 202?:

Manly are last years premiers.

After a stellar year in lower grades young Ben Trbolussicoate is listed as the NRL's number one draft pick.

Parramatta, as prior year wooden spooners get first option on young Ben's services and say "YES PLEASE".

End Scenario.

Can someone please explain how we are protected from this happening?

If he is with a club and wants to stay and they want to keep him, they just offer a further contract. No obligation after a contract has expired for the player to be placed on the draft unless the player and/or club want it. And what I was suggesting is that only graded players would be drafted. Many drafts do involve young ungraded players coming through junior ranks. OK for USA which has colleges and other institutions unrelated to specific clubs. But here in Oz, juniors tend to be aligned to clubs from a young age. Therefore I dont think a draft at that stage would be appropriate.

 

[Bearfax]

You're not a lawyer are you Bear? Sounds like a scheme to provide endless employment to wigs. Throw in the salary cap and loyalty points and the answer is a pineapple. Some of these kids have 4 junior clubs by the time they are 19.

Just kidding, I just detest any plan designed to be fair or that strives to bring the successful clubs back to the standard of the Parra's and Norths.

Should also point out that St George won 11 premierships in a row because they could afford to buy the best such as Raper from Newtown. Arthurson merely competed with them when Manly missed out on Langlands. Arthurson used the rules of the time to establish Manly to the force they became.

But consider this. Between 1953 and 1987, five teams shared the premiership spoils, St George 13, Souths 7, Manly 5 Canterbury and Parramatta 3. The only other side getting a look in was Balmain in 69, but they had to cheat the rules to win it. Newtown, Canberra, Illawarra, Cronulla, Penrith, Wests, North Sydney, granted some no longer in existence, some only in for 6 years by 87, did not get a look in over those 34 years. In fact St George and Souths won all but one premiership between 1953 and 1971, 18 years, all because they had the money and resources.

The game changed with Brisbane, another rich club, a brief period with the draft 90-91 and Superleague. But with the present system the signs are there again for another four or five teams to dominate, and that's not good for the game as a whole. The draft has its problems, but the present Salary Cap and TPAs and what Gus is proposing are potentially worse in my mind.

 

[Woodsie]

Should also point out that St George won 11 premierships in a row because they could afford to buy the best such as Raper from Newtown. Arthurson merely competed with them when Manly missed out on Langlands. Arthurson used the rules of the time to establish Manly to the force they became.

But consider this. Between 1953 and 1987, five teams shared the premiership spoils, St George 13, Souths 7, Manly 5 Canterbury and Parramatta 3. The only other side getting a look in was Balmain in 69, but they had to cheat the rules to win it. Newtown, Canberra, Illawarra, Cronulla, Penrith, Wests, North Sydney, granted some no longer in existence, some only in for 6 years by 87, did not get a look in over those 34 years. In fact St George and Souths won all but one premiership between 1953 and 1971, 18 years, all because they had the money and resources.

The game changed with Brisbane, another rich club, a brief period with the draft 90-91 and Superleague. But with the present system the signs are there again for another four or five teams to dominate, and that's not good for the game as a whole. The draft has its problems, but the present Salary Cap and TPAs and what Gus is proposing are potentially worse in my mind.

And yet the game thrived during those years.

Parra has been one of the richest clubs for the past 2 decades and it hasn't helped them .. so money isn't everything.

The salary cap sorted out the rich clubs ... everybody can only spend the same amount for players ... but then some mate of the lawyers decided to design a TPA system and completely ****ed it up and created the new "haves" and "have nots".

The immediate answer is an overhaul of the TPA's.

 

[Shoe1]

Good points there @Bearfax but easts won a couple too unfortunately.

 

[The Who]

One much easier way to level the competition is to look at the draw, which is totally skewed, and to stop a TV network from picking Brisbane every Friday night. The NRL should select the FTA TV matches and spread them evenly among all clubs. I know the Donkey fans will have meltdowns - but who cares?
I understand that we can't play each club twice, but let's have two divisions of eight where you play them twice a season, and you play the other 8 clubs in the 2nd division only once. Then the top four clubs from each division play in the finals.

 

[manly al]

No system is perfect and i am not sure what Gould is actually proposing but with the present situation with the N R L competition , it would seem that Woodsie has the most practical and valid points . Every club receives the same cap allocation to ensure at least a level and equal arrangement and then the onus is on the individual clubs to operate their respective operations in a professional and proficient manner to ideally achieve successful outcomes and of course this will naturally vary from club to club s then, but at least the same opportunity has been made available . And it then obvious that the T P A 's are the area that should receive the appropriate monitoring and perhaps regulation to avoid any blatant exploiting . Every sporting code has different and prevailing circumstances but the N R L is definitely of a tribal nature , first and foremost .

 

[Bearfax]

And yet the game thrived during those years.

Parra has been one of the richest clubs for the past 2 decades and it hasn't helped them .. so money isn't everything.

The salary cap sorted out the rich clubs ... everybody can only spend the same amount for players ... but then some mate of the lawyers decided to design a TPA system and completely ****ed it up and created the new "haves" and "have nots".

The immediate answer is an overhaul of the TPA's.

Trouble is Woodsie you are looking at the exceptions and also you arent comparing the game to justify the claim it was doing well. Crowds in League have been increasing year by year except for about 5 years after the Superleague war but there is a little false economy here with the Brisbane side which attracts at home double what the next best crowd gets since 1988 and Newcastle since 1987, which until recently secured the second highest crowds. Actually there has been little difference per capita attending matches since 1962, despite those two juggernauts The other issue to look at is the fact Australian Rules attracted in 2016, 6.3 million people to games. NRL attracted 3.2 million. This despite they only have 2 more teams. Of their 18 teams 14 average 30,000 plus per game and two others over 25000. In League only one team exceeds 30,000 and all others are under 20,000, five under 15,000 averages.

There are various factors here but one of the primary issues is that AFL teams know their team has a shot at the title every decade at some stage. That doesnt apply as well in league. Certainly the Salary Cap started to ensure all teams had a better show, but the TPAs and what Gould is suggesting will likely take us back to the days when only a couple of clubs win consistently. As long as we have that inequitable system, we wont begin to complete with AFL

 

[manly al]

It seems hardly realistic or pertinent to compare crowd numbers or comparisons between A F L and the N R L . The A F L are by far the dominant sporting code in Melbourne , Perth and Adelaide and also with their presence in N S W and Q L D and with this present situation existing , the A F L will always have an advantage with crowd attendances over the N R L . Also i just have not noticed any serious consideration or appetite for any form of a player draft from any section of the game since the Terry Hill ruling over twenty tears ago now and also taking into account the general culture of the N R L in past or present times in regard to this matter . So while every system should occasionally be reviewed and analysed , the salary cap provisions , some proper and fair functioning of the T P A arrangements , and just some reasonable efficient and professional operation of the present N R L clubs still seems to be the best and most practical way to go . Also i know that it may be some time off , but a second N R L team in Brisbane will definitely restore some balance and fairness to the whole club integrity matter or issue as well .