How do the Dragons fit Gasnier under the cap?
Roar Guru
By Steve Kaless, 2 Jul 2010 Steve Kaless is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Mark Gasnier, NRL, Rugby League, St George Illawarra, State Of Origin
Mark Gasnier rallys up his team-mates. AAP Image/Action Photographics, Grant Trouville
So he’s back. Mark Gasnier makes his NRL return this week, although some of the gloss has been wiped of it by the match lineups being heavily depleted due to Origin.
Gasnier’s return is a boost to the game whose major problems this year have been on player retention. I’m not sure who would have rejoiced at his signature more – David Gallop or the Skull.
Gaz will undoubtedly add a few more bums on the seats and should also provide an extra boost for Fox’s Monday game (who must be overjoyed to have ended up with that fixture on the Monday night).
But if my role is to question things when others blindly follow, here’s my beef …
How does the deal work? I understand the whole back-end loading deal, where he gets a little bit now and a whole lot more later, and that the Dragons will be shipping out players to make it all work.
But there is something a bit wrong with a team coming first on a full cap, suddenly being able to fit in a former Australian centre.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see him back playing league, and Christ knows the Blues could do with him in the centres. But in a year in which the salary cap has been under such intense scrutiny, it just strikes me that things have been made to look right so the game can score a marketing coup.
Should Gasnier score the Grand Final winning try, how many other fans from other clubs or even the others clubs will not think that it was a bit of a con.
I don’t expect the success starved Dragons fans to give a toss, but I argue it’s a question worth asking.
Could the Storm be allowed to keep their big four if each of them opted to play for beans on different years and then got cashed up to the max on others?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- An open letter to Channel Nine (107)
- Gallop and some of his precious Sydney NRL clubs must go (101)
- The NRL is back baby! (65)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (48)
- Bulldogs setting benchmark for Sydney’s NRL clubs (46)
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (24)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (49)
- An open letter to Channel Nine (109)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- Is the All Stars match increasing the divide? (25)
- Channel Nine needs NRL-cricket ODI compromise (36)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Explore:
- Mark Gasnier, NRL, Rugby League, St George Illawarra, State Of Origin
LT80 said | July 2nd 2010 @ 6:23am | Report comment
Steve,
To me the question is simple. Personally I couldn’t care how much he is paid, and whether the club is under or over some arbitrary number which the league seeks to cap player salaries. I just want to see him play football.
Some people seem to think that if a club is paying a player less than he might earn elsewhere that it’s somehow against the “spirit” of the salary cap. That belief is wrong on so many levels.
Firstly the “spirit” of the salary cap is nothing to be admired or protected. It’s a spirit that punishes and restrains success and competence and rewards and protects mediocrity. It is one that fosters and entrenches the ability of an group of employers (NRL and clubs) to dictate unfair terms to a group of employees (the players) – ostensibly to benefit the entire sport, but in reality only to benefit the paymasters and few others.
Secondly the league itself has advanced the argument in the past that salary alone is not the only determinant in a player’s choice of club. So here we have a player who is happy to take some kind of haircut, at least in the medium term, to play for the club of his choice, and still people are not satisfied.
The salary cap has done enough damage to football without the addition of some perverse “salary cap code of ethics” above and beyond the objective rules.
The code of rugby league only came into being as a result against an unfair restriction on player salaries. We got by for 90 or 100 years on the principle that a player is entitled to earn whatever a club is willing to pay him. The sky didn’t fall in.
If you really want to question some beliefs that are blindly held as articles of faith, you might perhaps consider whether a salary cap or equalisation policies in general are actually good for sport and the NRL in particular. Where if any is the evidence for this? Or are they actually only good for certain narrow and vested interests, particularly within the administration.
The cap has to go.
Col the Pom said | July 2nd 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Firstly, once again Steve you have created a ‘searching article’, again my thoughts are mirrored by your questions. I will proudly admit to being an avid Storm supporter and I cannot see how St George can fit a player under it’s cap when the player has received a salary from another code for the last six months that was higher than the Storm players who have lost all they have worked for . LT80 — ALSO A GOOD SUMMARY ON MY THOUGHTS, i HATE THE SALARY CAP AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE OF IT. iN MY OPINION IT IS WRONG THAT A PLAYER CANNOT BOOST HIS SALARY FOR THE FEW YEARS THAT IS AT HIS PEAK, JUST BECAUSE wE WANT TO SEE ALL TEAMS EQUAL. all TEAMS ARE not EQUAL NOW!!. sOMEONE NEEDS TO GET SOME BALLS AND SAY “this IS not WORKING, scrap it!!.”
Col the Pom said | July 2nd 2010 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Sorry about the Caps, I guess I musta hit caps lock. — didn’t mean to raise my voice LOL
Gob Bluth said | July 2nd 2010 @ 10:52am | Report comment
yeah I really though you must have enjoyed LT80s summary to shout about it.
Tom said | July 2nd 2010 @ 11:17am | Report comment
But is the salary cap not working? Before the introduction of the salary cap, in the 50′s and 60′s only 3 clubs won the premiership in each decade (including the 11 year St George reign of terror), and in the 70′s and 80′s, only four clubs did. In the 90′s, 7 clubs won the premiership, and 8 clubs in the 00′s (including the Storm). If the goal is to ensure no club enjoys an extended period of dominance, and most clubs have an opportunity to win, then the salary cap has been a success. No doubt the salary cap has had some undesirable side effects, but too much of the criticism of it ignores the fact that it has largely succeeded in doing what it was designed to do.
BennO said | July 2nd 2010 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
Agreed. Without it we would see the Broncos play the Storm in the GF most years from now on. With a few other profitable clubs rounding out the top 8.
LT80 said | July 3rd 2010 @ 6:55am | Report comment
Why is it a good thing that many clubs are winning the premiership, if it has to be brought about by the administators artificially rigging the competition to even it all out? If an even competition is so important why don’t the clubs just draw lots for the players at the start of each year, or better yet a panel of experts could allocate each player to a club in the name of fairness and equality?
It devalues the whole concept of a premiership if it almost becomes something that the NRL administrators rig up so it’s shared around equally. I hate the idea that the NRL should have it as a goal to “ensure no club enjoys an extended period of dominance” – you might like the idea, but each to his own.
When St George were so dominant during the 50s and 60s (possibly the most dominant run of any football club in any code worldwide), what happened? Did the supporters turn away in droves, as all the salary cap cheerleaders are so quick to predict? No. Attendances were steady or rising during that time. Rugby league went from strength to strength.
Ken said | July 3rd 2010 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
I don’t think the chief benefit is the rotating winners (although it’s useful to keep the sponsors involved in this super-professional era). I think the true point of the cap though is to keep costs from spiralling out of control. Look at Cronulla – they’re the only team at the moment that can’t keep up with the cap and they just can’t compete. Blake Ferguson, their most promising young player, came out today saying he loves the club but is going to look elsewhere because he wants to win. Without the cap this would be a common story for half the teams in the comp. Over time, lack of success and lack of ability would ruin some of these teams.
BTW the administrators of the time obviously didn’t think the Dragons dominance overly healthy for the game. They substantially changed the rules to try and stop them. It worked too, they lost the ’66 GF when the limited tackle rule was introduced
Tom said | July 5th 2010 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Yes, but today considering the much larger salaries involved compared to the 1960s or whatever the problem would be even greater – quite a number of clubs would go to the wall, completely unable to compete. Basically we would see the Storm and Broncos fighting it out every year. Regardless of what happened in the 50s and 60s, I find it hard to believe fans wouldn’t turn off knowing their clubs were no realistic chance of ever winning a premiership.
Jeff said | July 3rd 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
If you look at recent games, you will see what the salary cap is doing. Eels game last week abysmal, Tigers performance last night abysmal. next year St George team and Bunnies will be torn apart (Guess only). we are not seeing teams gelled together by playing a few seasons. Yeah it is working if you look at the Premiers, No it isn’t working if you look at the quality.
Mushi said | July 2nd 2010 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Why is there something wrong Steve?
Every other team in the comp can and do the exact same thing hell it happens in every league that allows it – it just puts them in a worse position in the future.
Ken said | July 2nd 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
There is no fan that would have cause to complain though because it’s very likely that their team is using similar deals to manage the cap. While this one is very high profile, these deals are very common.
The reference to the Storm is disengenuous, the situation is completely different. Even before the Storm’s issue blew up people understood they had built and maintained a team that could not be bought on a negoitating table for 4.1mill. The belief was that they had provided a professional environment and a great culture which encouraged players to stay with them even if they could earn more elsewhere. I don’t think anyone has a problem with this, the primary aim of the salary cap is to keep costs manageable – if clubs can encourage players to stick around for less money because they engender loyalty then good on them. Once it has been uncovered that they were actually just signing a second paycheck for these guys though the situation turns big time.
Your poser – ‘Could the Storm be allowed to keep their big four if each of them opted to play for beans on different years and then got cashed up to the max on others?’ Not now – for the same reason we can’t just allow them to each drop 15% of their salary and keep the team together – while both of things would normally be legal you can’t allow them easy outs to keep a team they created against the rules.
The Dragons on the other hand have signed Gasnier on an NRL legal contract using well utilised and open techniques. This signing is no freebie, as a Dragons fan I’m a bit worried about the cost in up and coming players over the next few years when it starts to bite. Costigan’s gone now, Kyle Stanley looks like a better prospect than his brother (who we already lost to Melbourne ironically!) but he’s got to be considering his future too with 3 rep centres in front of him and not much money likely becoming available in the next few years
M1tch said | July 2nd 2010 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Dont give a hoot..they will cut some other players to fit him
Brett said | July 2nd 2010 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Back ended contracts should be banned because they rely on there being a greater revenue in the future than at present and no one can guarentee that.
I have a hypothetical
What if the AFL said to Channel 10 and Channel 7 – We will sign you guys on to a 10 year deal, with only a CPI rise in what you are currently paying for our TV rights – plus the addition of now going into West Syd and the Gold Coast and the extra game each week that this involves and in return you sign on that you will not cover NRL matches.
If that happens then who bids for rugby league? – Channel 9 and no one else. And why would they spend more than they already do? The cap then can’t go up, the game is in disarray. Clubs with heavily back ended contracts will be screwed and rugby league struggles will grow bigger and bigger..
I love my league, but if AFL pulled something like this it would kill League.
M1tch said | July 2nd 2010 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Couldnt happen…why would 7 and 10 give up 10 years for afl machines in nsw and qld when they dont rate
agree it would hurt league..but 7 and 10 arent that stupid
danwighton said | July 2nd 2010 @ 11:33am | Report comment
And it would also provide Channel Nine with a considerable advantage, knowing that they would be the only channel that could broadcast the code with four of the ten most watched programs each year, and the dominant east coast sport in terms of ratings, and the dominant sport in the most sought after Sydney market.
As for backending – it is not speculating on future income, it is basically snaring a player who is on (or will soon be on) the open market, with a promise to pay them more in future because there is currently not the room under the salary cap. Therefore it is a decision now which will mean some tough decisions later. It is a problematic approach, but it is legal under the salary cap – anything that can be done legally under the cap to keep stars in the game should be lauded.
As for paying stars a large amount varying each year – as in over four years, one of the Storm’s ‘big four’ getting one million a year, and 100,000 in every other year – I dont see the problem with that. Look the salary cap is a tough restraint on clubs, but is one that is necessary, and therefore I dont see the problem with some creative accounting to ensure success on the field (as long as its legal….and not too creative).
Brett McKay said | July 2nd 2010 @ 10:22am | Report comment
“Back ended contracts should be banned because they rely on there being a greater revenue in the future than at present…”
Brett, that’s not quite right anyway, because all contracts are sliced, diced, and signed to fit under a set salary cap over the length of the contract. St.Georage/Illawarra can pay Gasnier more in future years because they have more room to move under the cap in future years, not because there might be more revenue. Any future salary cap increases open the scope for contract upgrades, but even then the club is still governed by whatever the new cap is..
Brett said | July 2nd 2010 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
I understand your point but I respectfully disagree. it does rely on revenue. They are assuming the cap will increase and th eonly way the cap will increase is if revenue increases and who can guarentee revenue will increase? It iis most likely, but no guarentee. And if it does increase by how much? In the Dragons case for example, to what cap level can they sign players for for say 2012? If they have numerous contacts back ended to the value of $4.5million, but then cap can’t increase, then what? You have to break contracts to release players. Clubs can get themselves into seriously dangerous legal problems..
Springs said | July 3rd 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
It’s not that complicated. They will not resign players that are coming off contract in the next few years. They are not assuming, they know who is coming off contract next year and who they will cut. They have already cut Costigan, so around 150,000 frees up for Gasniers contract.
Ken said | July 2nd 2010 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Yep it’s a hypothetical that would never happen. Firstly AFL would have to concede huge money in their own contract to obtain this stipulation. Now, I’m not naive enough to say that the AFL doesn’t want to push League down but I doubt they would do it at that much expense to themselves. Especially since such a spiteful move would turn people against them anyway.
The other point is, hypothetically, there’s nothing stopping League doing the same thing… except for the previously mentioned problems of negotiation and backlash.
Also, as pointed out by the other Brett backended contracts don’t have anything to do with predicting future cap increases. It’s simply about distributing a players payment unevenly amongst the years of the deal – this, and similar, arrangements are common in the NRL and wouldn’t even be commented on except for the media interest in a mid year signing of a player of this profile.
Redb said | July 2nd 2010 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Seriously you blokes need help.
Not everything is a conspiracy, stop reading Roy Masters articles.
Seriously (ten)
Mushi said | July 2nd 2010 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Red don’t mention TV channels we’ll have the holly trinity of cap, code and coverage
st penguin said | July 2nd 2010 @ 9:19am | Report comment
“But there is something a bit wrong with a team coming first on a full cap, suddenly being able to fit in a former Australian centre”
I sort of see your point, but given that gasnier is st george through and through I think it’s only right that he should return to the dragons (yes, I am a dragons tragic!). Maybe if it was Sonny Bill suddenly joining the dragons I would see your point.
As for your question about the Storm, my understanding was that they could not re-structure existing contracts to meet the salary cap.
Why doesnt the NRL just require clubs to publicly disclose salary payments? That way we wouldnt have to second guess whether teams are cheating or not.
Brett McKay said | July 2nd 2010 @ 10:23am | Report comment
St. Penguin, clubs are required to register contracts now anyway. Disclosing all offers made in recruitment would certainly help though…
Dan said | July 2nd 2010 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
Gasnier is STG through and through… FINE
Gasnier is an asset to RL… FINE
NRL should do all they can to keep Gansier in RL… FINE
Gasnier will only play for STG, NRL should make sure this should happen? OF COURSE THIS SHOULD BE FINE
people want club heros, who truely love the club and want to play for that club only… the problem is that the NRL provides no assistance for this to happen if the players are at the top of the game.
Inglis, Slater, Smith, Cronk are all Storm thorugh and through
Inglis, Slater, Smith, Cronk are all assests to RL
Furthermore, Inglis, Slater, Smith, Cronk are all assests to RL in Melbourne/Victoria
NRL should be doing all they can to keep these players in RL and in Melbourne to grow the game
Gasnier had to leave STG because they could no longer afford him… but what if the Panthers, or Parramatta could? you’re just going to turn the game into a bland, mediocre mercinary game.
you want to take on the AFL’s massive surge into SE QLD? make sure that the Titans get assistance to have a good side, that the people will relate to.
I mean, only this week the NRL is talking about pushing into WA… how are you going to make that stick? having a team that gets flogged each week just wont draw people through the gate. it just wont. nobody warms to a bunch of no-hoper losers. they only people that will go and watch them are already ex-pat RL fans, and that doesn’t grow the game. thats how the NRL pushed into melbourne, adelaide and perth in the first place and how did that work again? none of the AFL’s expansion sides have fallen over? why? because the AFL made sure that they didn’t.
Wayno said | July 2nd 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Mid season too… Farcical!
Razzle said | July 2nd 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
You’re right Steve.
Dragons fans don’t give a toss.
Brisraider said | July 2nd 2010 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Not too worried about the red V and Gasnier, but it is about time someone did a forensic job on the Roosetrs salary cap. They have just signed another up and coming Raiders player in Justin Carney after he said he was going for the money. The Raiders had offered him a new deal, but the Roosters gave him more. The Roosters seem to be in the market for every good or up and coming player on the market. I smeel another melbourne here.
Norm said | July 2nd 2010 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
Lay off the Roosters.
ptovey01 said | July 2nd 2010 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
It sounds like a lot of people have some real sour grapes that he can be fitted into this dominant team (this year).
I am sure that the dragons have made sure that all the boxes are ticked as to the leagllity of this given the Melbourne storm debacle. However, as a dragons fan since birth I have the same sentiments as a few others here and that is I fear we are going to be paying this bloke too much and not bringing through (or holding onto) some of the great juniors which are coming through.
I remember reading an article on how the dragons cut up their salary cap last year, and it seems to me that whilst they do have some marquee players they are all fairly much on an even keel compared to some of the other clubs which pay far too much for one or two and then give didly to the others. This has been a Wayne Bennett trait for many years at the Broncos as well as now at the dragons. Keep it fairly even and then the egos stay down and the layers will play well together. If a team is succeeding then they are more likely to stay for less money. There are obvious exceptions to the rule.
Trying to find the article link.