Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Player contracts: "Because" Manly did it, it's time for the ARL to stop it.

DUFFMAN

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
2,254
I'm for the rule, players have been playing the home sick, travel, personal problems card for years to go elsewhere for more money.

The players managers aren't helping as if the player doubles their value with a new contract so does the manager. Maybe the managers should not be paid a percentage but a fixed fee, it might stop them shopping players around after a above average season.
 

Eagle of London

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
1,520
Reaction score
3,583
Love this story. we go best when the RL world hates us. Bring it on. Lets raid opposition troops. Lets start on the calves blood again. lets be what we are supposed to be. Winners that everyone hates.
 

Brissie Kid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
3,777
Reaction score
2,864
Lost loyalty is purely the result of clubs culling players before the end of their contract leaving them out of pocket. Clubs do it because they can and because the cap's purpose is to move and spread the talent around. THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON THERE'S A CAP FFS!!!!! The cap ensures disloyalty.

And meanwhile coaches can come and go for more cash. No cap there.

Even the sports media journos are allowed to break a contract and go for more money elsewhere.
 

Damien2812

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
430
Reaction score
602
Well teams like the Rorters will top up players contracts with Brown paper bags. So really doesn't make a difference but hurt those teams that don't have those brown paper bags.
 

Heckenberg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
757
I 100% like this rule. Remember you can get an upgrade with your current club! You just can't break a contract to sign elsewhere for more money... if you're a rookie and are expecting a breakout year then don't sign a long term deal on a minimal contract! Its a good rule

Why would a club offer an upgrade if they don’t have to though? The only reason they would is because they know that players have the ability to break contract if they are dissatisfied.
 

The better Robbo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
2,178
Reaction score
7,050
Why would a club offer an upgrade if they don’t have to though? The only reason they would is because they know that players have the ability to break contract if they are dissatisfied.
Because if they don't upgrade them the player will leave and chase the money when their contract is up! All it means is young kids will only sign 1 to 2 year contracts. If a club has a young superstar that has a breakout year it would be in the clubs best interest to upgrade and extend them
 

Mataiforerver

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
982
Reaction score
1,275
I think it will be a positive but there still is some concern

How long do basement bargain plays play at $120k for?

So your telling me Harry Grant can only earn more than $120k starting in 2023?

That would be a huge issue

I think there should be a limit but it should be no pay increase for 1-2 years (and can’t be backended to offset)

People will say “don’t sign long contracts then”

Won’t that reduce the talent in the NRL? No one will lock in for more than 2 years, and it will probably be a similar scenario anyways, only that Union / SL / Other sports will be able to offer way more

I’m all for reducing the shambles everything has been lately... but still want a free market for the players. If you have a blinder for a year or two, you should be able to get a contract upgrade... if you’re club is a horrible cap manager, you shouldn’t be punished for that.

It’s well and good to reduce the shambles lately but who really benefits... the clubs, who have far far more money than the players. The rise it transfer fees and player swaps has looked to normalise things slightly - maybe this could be an avenue too?

Or another IF - say Paseka becomes the next Taumalolo. He’d be on what $300-400k for the next 4 years? Surely he has proven to deserve an upgrade?

Could this disincentivize players to perform well?
 

The Wheel

https://membership.seaeagles.com.au/
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
16,085
Reaction score
15,104
I think it will be a positive but there still is some concern

How long do basement bargain plays play at $120k for?

So your telling me Harry Grant can only earn more than $120k starting in 2023?

That would be a huge issue

I think there should be a limit but it should be no pay increase for 1-2 years (and can’t be backended to offset)

People will say “don’t sign long contracts then”

Won’t that reduce the talent in the NRL? No one will lock in for more than 2 years, and it will probably be a similar scenario anyways, only that Union / SL / Other sports will be able to offer way more

I’m all for reducing the shambles everything has been lately... but still want a free market for the players. If you have a blinder for a year or two, you should be able to get a contract upgrade... if you’re club is a horrible cap manager, you shouldn’t be punished for that.

It’s well and good to reduce the shambles lately but who really benefits... the clubs, who have far far more money than the players. The rise it transfer fees and player swaps has looked to normalise things slightly - maybe this could be an avenue too?

Or another IF - say Paseka becomes the next Taumalolo. He’d be on what $300-400k for the next 4 years? Surely he has proven to deserve an upgrade?

Could this disincentivize players to perform well?
All great questions, unfortunately there is no magic solution.

I like the afl model where the clubs trade draft picks and players etc, often involves multiple clubs as well. Seems a fair way to compensate both sides (player and club) and is done during a defined trade period.

Anyway that is a pipe dream for NRL at the moment.
 

globaleagle

stay tuned
Staff member
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
25,096
Reaction score
31,641
There's a rule about minimum age to play first grade: - that looks set to be "broken" because the "rorters" now have a player that could "potentially" play before he is deemed old enough.

So...happy to break a rule designed for players welfare.

But...now it's hitting the fan because some players don't want to play for some teams and as it's Manly....it's gotta be changed.

Ugh...shemozzle.

Trying to say there should be more faux outrage from the faux journos regarding throwing a youngster into first grade.

Also...that youngster seems to have gotten out of a contract (without even playing mind you) so why isn't his pic splashed all over the future toilet paper that is the DT?


(sheesh, that's not well written. OK...if you're reading this, don't bother about reading the other bit...you know...up there!)
 

The better Robbo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
2,178
Reaction score
7,050
I think it will be a positive but there still is some concern

How long do basement bargain plays play at $120k for?

So your telling me Harry Grant can only earn more than $120k starting in 2023?

That would be a huge issue

I think there should be a limit but it should be no pay increase for 1-2 years (and can’t be backended to offset)

People will say “don’t sign long contracts then”

Won’t that reduce the talent in the NRL? No one will lock in for more than 2 years, and it will probably be a similar scenario anyways, only that Union / SL / Other sports will be able to offer way more

I’m all for reducing the shambles everything has been lately... but still want a free market for the players. If you have a blinder for a year or two, you should be able to get a contract upgrade... if you’re club is a horrible cap manager, you shouldn’t be punished for that.

It’s well and good to reduce the shambles lately but who really benefits... the clubs, who have far far more money than the players. The rise it transfer fees and player swaps has looked to normalise things slightly - maybe this could be an avenue too?

Or another IF - say Paseka becomes the next Taumalolo. He’d be on what $300-400k for the next 4 years? Surely he has proven to deserve an upgrade?

Could this disincentivize players to perform well?
I would argue if you are a young gun you should not be signing a minimum wage contract for more than 2 years anyway so no real need for your suggestion to cap it at 2 years. Why would Harry Grant have signed a 120k contract for 3 years or more? That's bad management.
 
Last edited:

StuBoot

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
3,173
Because if they don't upgrade them the player will leave and chase the money when their contract is up! All it means is young kids will only sign 1 to 2 year contracts. If a club has a young superstar that has a breakout year it would be in the clubs best interest to upgrade and extend them

Remember when the Knights signed Ponga for what most thought was overs at the time.
5 years wasn't it?
They put their balls on the line with that and they hope that loyalty is rewarded when it comes time to renegotiate.
Don't let the players you really need/want come off contract.
 

conanu

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
4,172
Manly have benefitted recently due to this loophole, time to close it.
We have a history of these types of decisions by the NRL when we benefit from something. 2 that spring to mind are:

Obstruction lead runner rule was changed after Jamie Lyon scored against the Tigers after it had been going on for ages.

Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team was gotten rid of after we got benefit of it with the hand of Foz when we beat cowboys in the semi's in 2012.


They never seem to change the rules when the Storm benefit though, they can't even police the ones they already have in place when it comes to them.
 

Waz13

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
3,366
I would argue if you are a young gun you should not be signing a minimum wage contract for more than 2 years anyway so no real need for your suggestion to cap it at 2 years. Why would Harry Grant have signed a 120k contract for 3 years or more? That's bad management.
Also he young what’s not to say Harry Grant won’t regress in his 2nd year. It’s happened to a lot of rookies who have had breakout years. Unlikely for sure but happens.
 

maxta

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
6,070
Reaction score
12,701
To be fair, I don't mind the message...but 100% agree in a way, as there's been 100 of these issues in recent seasons, yet Manly coincidentally is the team at the centre of the entire article...again....but kind of expect it these days.
As the T-shirt says "We hate them too"
 

Latest posts

2020 Ladder

Team P W D L PD Pts
1 Panthers 20 18 1 1 299 37
2 Storm 20 16 0 4 258 32
3 Eels 20 15 0 5 104 30
4 Roosters 20 14 0 6 230 28
5 Raiders 20 14 0 6 128 28
6 Rabbitohs 20 12 0 8 169 24
7 Knights 20 11 1 8 47 23
8 Sharks 20 10 0 10 0 20
9 Titans 20 9 0 11 -117 18
10 Warriors 20 8 0 12 -115 16
11 Tigers 20 7 0 13 -65 14
12 Dragons 20 7 0 13 -74 14
13 Sea Eagles 20 7 0 13 -134 14
14 Cowboys 20 5 0 15 -152 10
15 Bulldogs 20 3 0 17 -222 6
16 Broncos 20 3 0 17 -356 6
Top Bottom