Smith to Break Cap for Burgess

[Disco]

Who is this Folou fellow of whom you speak?

Ha, out of sight out of mind

But thanks for offering a valid point on this topic..............oh wait

 

[Captain Moondog]

Who is this Folou fellow of whom you speak?

Ha, out of sight out of mind

But thanks for offering a valid point on this topic..............oh wait

Remember this is Dave Smith we are discussing. He did'nt know the name of the Australian captain. It's highly likely he could pay big money to lure Folou to the NRL.😀

 

[globaleagle]

Happy to be 'closed minded' if it means the nrl stay loyal to players that are loyal to the nrl.

To throw money at mercenaries is just another sleight on the game.

How the nrl can ever expect the current or the next gen of players to turn down o/s lucrative offers is beyond me when all the players see is mercenaries like sbw and burgess idolised by the nrl admin.

As has been mentioned before......players like gifty are treated like crap because they don't make a song and dance about going elsewhere. Players who throw a few forward passes whilst being in the league for 2 mins are deified by the current admin.

edit: that said, nothing's been actually done re burgess, etc.

 

[Rodo]

So now we know how the NRL plan to keep the Bunnies at the top of the competition for the foreseeable future. Great work.

A better system would be to give all the teams the same amount of money that this signing would take them above the salary cap. But then this would not be sustainable and would just drive the cap up.

The NRL need to come up with a fair system so that all teams would benefit equally.

 

[Disco]

Believing a view a view is “close minded” doesn’t mean I find it scary or that I don’t value your right to express it.
And I certainly understand your sentiment in not wanting to reward mercenaries but I am thinking what is best for the game.
My model does not simply jump at someone threatening to go to union but instead rewards the game’s most marketable commodities
Like it or not, players like Burgess, Inglis and Hayne bring fans through the door, and the game should be taking measures to ensure they stay with us.
Also the comparison to Gift is a poor one, Stewart could not be accommodated at Manly and took up a better offer at Souths.
Even if the NRL offered G Stewart a 200k top up he would still be faced with a reduced contract at Manly or 600k a year at Souths

 

[Eagles2nv]

This current administration is awful.

I understand the need to 'break the cap' to lure good players to stay in the NRL, but it has to be a fairer system.

Based on that logic, let use 'Break the cap' for DCE or Foz, but they wont.

 

[jbb/james]

Id wait and see a few variables around the arrangement before id get upset. If burgess signs for 1.5 million and 8 or 900 k is included in the cap id say thats pretty fair as that is all he is really worth to a team in view of the cap. Not for 400 k though. For that to happen the have to release players like other clubs do. In fairness a nominal salary cap amount should be agreed on before any deal is considered, and all clubs should be able to bid in the process. all those that accept the minimum cap contribution anyway.You would have to believe the uk team would throw a bit of coin in to get him back also.

Smith should get burgess, falou and sbw back . If he is he will be doing well

 

[SeaEagle21]

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

Valid points, I guess what I was trying to say is big name players should be assigned to clubs (by NRL) not doing as well to help with marketing as well as on field benefits. The NRL supposedly has values for players so that amount should be counted in the cap but the top up amount should be based on where the club is positioned on the ladder.

There are ways of making it fair, however the way the NRL is run atm it will benefit certain clubs.

The NRL won't care about situations like Gifty's because he isn't lost to the code.. Sad

 

[Tareeeagle]

My question is what cap?? With third party agreements the so called cap is moot anyway. Fifita's contract with Canterbury was supposed to be $800k with half of that coming from third party payments and therefore exempt from the cap. I think if they want a salary cap, only have a salary cap. All this crap around the edges is only making things less transparent.

 

[The Who]

Do we need a salary cap? Yes. In it's present form? Not so sure.
My understanding of how US sports work may be the answer. I believe they have a 'Nominal cap' and that clubs can spend anything they want. However, for every $1 over the cap they have to pay a 'Luxury Tax' that is spread evenly among all the other clubs. Sounds interesting.
I believe the Yankees spend around $160-M a year while a club like the Oakland A's spend closer to $45-M - yet the A's consistently perform well because of their strategic recruitment.
I'm sure posters on here, such as Global Eagle, can explain it more accurately. My point is simply that it seems a team like Easts is getting away with not abiding by the cap rules, so let's consider change.

 

[manlyfan76]

The la dodgers new owners bought an entire team of stars, the total of their contracts over their life is a billion dollar investment,over 200million this year alone, they are in the playoffs with a great chance to win, they can afford the tax.

 

[globaleagle]

I can.


(lol)


The NHL has a hard salary cap so there is no need for the luxury tax.

Basically (from wiki):
The NHL salary cap is the total amount of money that National Hockey League teams are allowed to pay their players. It is a "hard" cap, meaning there are no exemptions (and so no luxury tax penalties are required).

The actual amount of the cap varies on a year-to-year basis, and is calculated as a percentage of the League's revenue from the previous season; for instance, in 2007–08, the NHL's salary cap was approximately US$50.3 million per team; for the 2008–09 season it was $56.7 million;

But if you think it's that simple - players are categorised into about 10 different groups, each with their own provisions. Still...the hard cap stands though.

If you think it's easy...check this site out:

http://www.capgeek.com/faq/

Also from wiki:

A luxury tax in professional sports is a surcharge put on the aggregate payroll of a team to the extent to which it exceeds a predetermined guideline level set by the league. The ostensible purpose of this "tax" is to prevent teams in major markets with high incomes from signing almost all of the more talented players and hence destroying the competitive balance necessary for a sport to maintain fan interest.

The money derived from the "tax" is either divided among the teams that play in the smaller markets, presumably to allow them to have more revenue to devote toward the contracts of high-quality players, or in the case of Major League Baseball, used by the league for other pre-defined purposes.


....Whilst no system is perfect, I agree with the sentiment that implementing one of the nth american systems would be a lot better.

I'd say one with a 'hard cap' like the national hockey league.

It also has a myriad of contingencies so a club doesn't get stuck with the "we have injuries but can't bring a player up to first grade" conundrum.


For all the hoopla that smith and greenberg are said to bring the game.....they are miles behind professionally compared to so many sporting organisations it's not funny.

Even implementing a lot of the best system from other sports would drag our great game from the stoneage.

It's disheartening at times.

Oh well....hockey season starts October the 10th!!!!! woo.

 

[Fluffy]

I thought there was a marquet player allowance for this exact thing?

 

[silvertail]

Can't ignore that league needs to match or exceed what Union is willing to pay.

Keep it simple. The NRL provide clubs with 8 million towards the each club's cap. Club are then allowed to spend another 5 million a year, giving each club a 13 million dollar salary cap to play with.

13 million a year, 2-3 big guns in any team earning anywhere between 1.5 to 2 million a year.

Melbourne could continue to pay top dollar to their big 3. We could retain our halves on 2 million each per year.

Souths could share their spoils on the burgess clan ... no need to chase the lure of the weaker Union dollar.

Roosters could sign SBW for life and stops this year by year, code by code swapping.

Parra and Canberra would continue to spend top dollar on the wrong players.

...and Des would be silly enough to sign t-Rex on a million a year.

 

[Ralphie]

Getting rid of the cap would be a disaster for us. Brisbane would spend $20 million a year, as would souffs & the rorters. Those three would take turns to win premierships and we wouldn't win another.

Not true Ralphie. Melbourne would also win some.

No they wouldn't, News Limited doesn't fund them any longer. Their private owners are not quite as wealthy as is made out (See owner of Jayco Caravans). They would be in the top 8 for sure, but they wouldn't win the comp.

 

[wedgetail eagle]

Of course Rules for some but not others
While your at it Smith go and get SBW back too

And while you're at it Smith, bring back the Biff!

 

[HoldenV8]

If Bargearse wants to come back to the NRL at some point and play again for Souffs then good luck to him really. But he should be subject to the same salary cap conditions as everyone else.

Smith coming out and saying what he did is a clear pointer that the NRL favours certain clubs and high profile players.

And people thought Arko gave Manly a free ride when he was the boss of the ARL.....

 

[mmmdl]

Do we need a salary cap? Yes. In it's present form? Not so sure.
My understanding of how US sports work may be the answer. I believe they have a 'Nominal cap' and that clubs can spend anything they want. However, for every $1 over the cap they have to pay a 'Luxury Tax' that is spread evenly among all the other clubs. Sounds interesting.
I believe the Yankees spend around $160-M a year while a club like the Oakland A's spend closer to $45-M - yet the A's consistently perform well because of their strategic recruitment.
I'm sure posters on here, such as Global Eagle, can explain it more accurately. My point is simply that it seems a team like Easts is getting away with not abiding by the cap rules, so let's consider change.

here's the problem with that.

Lets pretend that the cap is 10m. Brisbane/Dogs/Souths/Roosters each spend 20m, whilst every other team spends 10m.

That additional 40m is split up between 12 other teams - meaning they get 3.3m extra each. Yes, that's extra money to spend, but still nowhere near the 20m the other clubs spend, and still won't be enough to attract the absolute marquee players.

It will simply be a case like the EPL where only 4 teams can win the league every year and who wants that?

 

[wombatgc]

Happy to be 'closed minded' if it means the nrl stay loyal to players that are loyal to the nrl.

To throw money at mercenaries is just another sleight on the game.

How the nrl can ever expect the current or the next gen of players to turn down o/s lucrative offers is beyond me when all the players see is mercenaries like sbw and burgess idolised by the nrl admin.

As has been mentioned before......players like gifty are treated like crap because they don't make a song and dance about going elsewhere. Players who throw a few forward passes whilst being in the league for 2 mins are deified by the current admin.

Well said. The lovefest has to stop.

 

[fLIP]

Nobody will part with their money quicker than a Rabbitohs Bulldogs tigers fan.

That's all the NRL want is our money anymore. Give success to the dumb fans make more money.