The Panthers have reportedly signed Michael Jennings to a four year $2m contract. He has proven himself to be one of the best centres in the game, an elite attacking weapon who regularly breaks the line and is a proven try scorer.
So why do I think with this decision the Panthers have made a grave mistake?
Realistically, unless they have an absolute glut of cheap quality juniors, a team can only afford to have one 500k player.
A team can stretch to two, but you are looking at having at least three or four journeymen priced players in your starting side when your top two players account for almost 25 percent of your cap.
Of course, some clubs manage to get around this where veterans agree to sign on for less to either stay close to home, with their team mates, or with a successful team.
The Broncos, for instance, get a good home team discount with their premierships and single team town status.
Generally the key players for any team are the two or three forwards who get the metres and make the bulk of the tackles, the halves, the hooker and the fullback.
Centres and wingers score the tries, but these are the guys who will handle the ball the most, get you the most metres, make the most tackles and organise the team in both attack and defence.
If I’m putting together a team, it would make sense that when allocating funds, I want at least the top three or four paid players to be amongst those six or seven positions and the remainder should be above the average wage.
I’d hand over two 400k contracts to two top level props without batting an eyelid.
A centre, by contrast, has a relatively limited role.
Now for Greg Inglis, I can understand paying above the 350k mark. He handles the ball more and for an outside back is quite involved.
Folau I can also get reasonably comfortable, but not happy, with 400k-ish, because you can build a kicking game around him.
But Jennings is a centres centre. He’s very good at it, no doubt, but the consistent impact he can have on a game is limited by the position he plays.
By paying him key position money, they are basically committing to having a journeyman at one of their actual key positions.
Now I’m not saying you can’t win with that structure, stranger things have happened. But you are certainly hamstringing yourself to a degree.
Terry Kidd
Guest
Hoy, you aren't alone. I don't think he is worth $500G, maybe $300-350G .... I would have spent the rest building bionic knees, ankles and toes for Petero .... to keep him going for another 10 years .... now he is that good !!! especially to the team and culture.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I might be on my own here, or maybe Mushi is with me, but I don't actually think Jennings is that good. Sure he is fast. Sure he can run the length of a field to score. But he can't really tackle, and he can't really break a game open and influence it to the point of changing the game completely.
mushi
Roar Guru
That’s all well and good if you’re happy with having mediocre players touch the ball 60 times each whilst your most expensive touches it 15. Also you say “yet” with your key position players. How do you pay these guys if they are “quality starters” when their next contract roles around whilst also paying for two key forwards? Doing the math position by position to pay these guys as passable key position players you need to be trotting bench player quality players in the first 13 and have no depth to cover for injury.
Glenn
Guest
If you look at the Penrith team for next year the key postions being 1,6,7, and 9 are Coote or Sammut, Graham, Walsh and Iosefa. None of those players deserve to be the highest paid in the club, yet. The two front rowers are Petero and ?. Petero would be one of the highest paid in the team. Their most influential player is Lewis and he plays lock. I don't see a problem in him being the highest paid, if you look at the games he didn't play this year they are 1 win and 4 losses.
mushi
Roar Guru
The problem I see with discount though is that it would defeat the purpose of the salary cap in two ways. 1. cost control doesn’t work if you give people a way around the cost controls. If we think the NRL clubs can only afford the current cap then any “discounts” would need to result in a cut to the cap so in the end not that much of a benefit 2. It would form power clubs whilst others die. Certain clubs have larger junior systems just through geography. They already get an advantage by having the best access to that talent, sustaining that advantage over the course of the player entire career would, I think, result in a few “haves” ruling the competition. Following other cap sports I think about this a lot, and the value of players under a cap system, and it seems any system that gives the ability to go over and above the cap to retain players (a soft cap) seems to have more entrenched haves and have nots. I think ti would be even worse in the NRL because of the lack of a draft.
Terry Kidd
Guest
When o when will the NRL start allowing salary cap discounts for home grown juniors and length of service? How do clubs accommodate the up and coming 20 year olds who can longer play in the Toyota Cup? Should the Toyota Cup be U21 not U20?