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

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.
 
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.
 
The better Robbo said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Heckenberg said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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?
 
Mataiforerver said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!)
 
Mataiforerver said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:
The better Robbo said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
The better Robbo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 273 (members: 13, guests: 260)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Online statistics

Members online
13
Guests online
260
Total visitors
273
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom