Replace the salary cap with a luxury tax

'm not sure that any club would be able to 'stockpile' players. Any player wants to play in 1st Team, if they are unable to do this because te club is top heavy with talent, they will quickly move on. This is where a transfer market should be put into force, at least clubs that invest in their youth policies will get some rewards for the players hat they have educated. Yes, something must be done quickly, this years fiasc has proven this to be fact.

AB Fan The last NRL rights contractually secured from Sky NZ was $12m pa. That was in 2006.The code may not get the $20m which ,but one would have to be crazy not to believe a decent incerease will not be forthcoming.The salary cap in toto is not BTW dependent onwhether the NRL secures $12m $15m or $20m,it is extra in the kitty.

Thankyou soccer wake me up when you've effected cultural change in Australia to allow your flawed model to work.

Please don't take this as a potshot at your code (I like watching NRL, much more preferred than AFL:-)) but looking for $20m from Sky NZ for NRL is pie-in-the-sky stuff. When the TV rights for Southern Hemisphere were renegotiated, the NZRFU received $20m for the rights (not sure annualyy or over 5 year term of contract) to its domestic 14-team ITM Cup (think NRL without a team from across the ditch). This would indicate that any extra income the NRL may expect to get from NZ will be much lower (around, say, $2m) mark given that Auckland schoolboy rugby (apparently) rates much higher than the so-called-NZ Warriors.

Agree, and the only way back if you try to go head to head with other codes is to drop the salary cap. Not only will it destroy codes, it will create a top heavy comp. We seem to be plodding along nicely with minimal cash. I dont think we really need a war chest either, we need the people running the game to be able to sell the game to new markets.

Dan that assumption is that no one else would have used their newly available cap resources that came from the revenue fairies to poach any of these players. Melbourne didn’t keep their great team intact because they nobly stuck to free market economics they did it because they knew everyone else was constrained and out bid them illegally and in secret.

To expand: What grand plan can we construct today that isn’t entirely reliant on knowing how much money we are likely to have? I would be stunned beyond belief if we can design anything approaching an intelligent solution for what is effectively a budget without having the faintest idea what the revenue number is. A budget with just expenses is a wishlist. As to competing with Europe well in the long run, if rugby league grows, it is actually impossible. Europe has a bigger population and an economy some 16 times ours, trying to go toe to toe on top line salaries is an exercise in futility. This is why I often say be careful what you wish for, if rugby league genuinely takes off overseas the NRL will eventually be relegated to a second or third tier competition. You only need look at soccer in Latin America and Africa – massive producers of talent, the cream of which plays offshore in more lucrative markets. Likewise competing with union in Australia for equality in the top 15 players is madness – we need to be able to pay 400 elite athletes with the top ~60 to 80 odd taking a disproportionate share. They need to pay ~150 athletes with the top 15 to 20 getting the disproportionate share. It doesn’t take Einstein to see that we need to make very large multiples in revenue of Union to bridge that gap and you have to question if that is achievable on a sustainable basis. What we need to do is acknowledge that our weapon is depth and ensure that their number 300 guy is better than there number 150. But any plan to better sue that weapon can not be formulated until we have an idea on what we have to spend

Nope talking about the ownership structure i.e. are they effectively a co-operative owned by the community they service. And by community I’m using the definition of people with common interest or goals ie the supporters of the club.

Okay so we know there is a huge revenue event looming and we know that the cap tied to revenue. To me it seems like we are stumbling in the dark pulling our pud if we are coming up with plans without knowing what that revenue number looks like.

World Class Rugger I agree with your comments, to a certain degree, but the EPL is unashamedly a business, an industry even. Is Rugby League in business? Does Rugby League want to be a business? Yes it is hard, but not impossible to win a Premiership, but every team is still playing Rugby League (also see Barry's comment above re: Storm GF appearances) To take it to the other (riduculous) degree, does every player get paid the same amount, win - lose or draw, and get a premiership medal at the end of the year, because it's hard to do and everyone deserves a chance? Next we will be giving points for missing (also called a "behind" apparently) I would qualify your comment about sponsors, the following way. Yes sponsors do gravitate to successful clubs, and those sponsors pay a premium to be associated with those clubs. A local sponsor supporting a local team, with a great relationship between the organisations, will be a much more fulfilling experience for both parties. Hey even the Lotus F1 ( as does Virign and HRT) team has sponsorship on the end plates of the rear wing, the area with the least exposure, they are offering these sponsors something other than success. I would suggest the relationship wins out in this case. If you know what my point is please let me know.

spankee So you'd be happy to see and EPL situation in the NRL. Where the richer clubs buy the best of the best in terms of talent and leave other in their wake. Its not a healthy situation by any means. If a team has little or no chance of winning a Premiership it will be hard to build any fanbase or any commercial ventures. Don't forget sponsors gravitate toward successful club.

And that's all the more reason why a hard salary cap is a necessity. There are plenty of quality outside backs and forwards in every team - but in the positions that matter, a lot of clubs really struggle. Just look at the NSW origin team and the revolving door of halves, or the fact that Ennis and Farah are the only genuine options at hooker. Without a hard cap, a lot of money would be thrown at the game's premier halves and hookers, and they'd all end up in the same teams. Who would that leave for the teams struggling financially?

Abolish the cap. Establish a free market. Why should the clubs need to be protected from "themselves" Let them go broke, if they cannot spend in a sustainable manner. This will encourage the clubs to establish revenue streams outside of the club grant system. Rugby League was founded on the basis that the players get a cut of the proceeds. The players that leave to play overseas or change codes, are enacting this historical right, upon which Rugby League was founded. If a club cannot prove it's liquidity the Monday after the Grand Final, kick them out, they do not deserve to be there. Why should every part of the business be "professional" except the business side of it. "But the players will chase the big money at the bigger clubs," I hear all of the "smaller" club supporters say. Just bring back transfer fees, give the player a 15-25% cut of that fee, this equates to a form of luxury tax on big money signings. If a 2 tier competition evolves, foramlise it. This concept works elsewhere, it's called 2nd division (Championship, Serie B, Nationwide Series, you get the idea.)

An increase in the size of the grant and the salary cap may address the issues of player retention within the NRL but we will still have clubs that can a) generate income over and above the salary cap but aren't allowed to spend it and b) who develop / grow their own players and get no financial reward for it. From a playing talent perspective there's no incentive for clubs to attract sponsorship / membership / income beyond covering the gap between the grant and the cap. The cap will always be set for the lowest common denominator - the successfully run clubs dragged down to the level of the worst run. It seems to have become a dirty idea that clubs should have dynasties. I disagree. Of course no one wants to see a team dominate for 11 years like the Dragons did...but there's been a lot of footy since then and the most anyone has won is the Eels' three in a row in the early 80s. That Eels team would be ripped up after one or two years these days. Sterling would be playing for Manly, Steve Ella would be with the Wallabies and Price and Cronin would have gone to the UK for their pension fund. It's tainted now that we know about the salary cap scandal but it's not been all bad watching the Melbourne side back up each year. It should be noted that even with the salary cap breaches the Storm only won two of the four GFs - meaning that sides who spent significantly less than they did were still able to beat them.

They've definitely had the best side on paper. They've also played some of the most consistently dour, negative football of any team over the past 5 years. I'd say the cynical off-field attempts to cheat their way to Premierships also translated into their pretty dire style of play. No way known have they been anything like the best side to watch recently. To be honest I find the argument that the Storm somehow empitomise the evils of the salary cap pretty ridiculous. They cheated, flagrantly. And to cap it off they played negative football. They shouldn't be role models for anyone.

It is dependent on the next Tv deal.The bulk of the monies to sustain the NRL clubs comes from Tv monies.So it is therefore reasonable to say'wait until the next Tv deal",instead of the "big spender"syndrome. The NRL should be in a position to announce by mid 2011: 1) the competition will be expanded to 18 teams. 2)the salary cap and grants provided to the clubs will be lifted substantially,thereby ensuring the continued viability of clubs like the Cronullas. 3) there no doubt will be a new deal for longer serving players and 3rd party sponsorships. 4) forget any notion of drafts.Tried before and lost.I await the day an AFL player challenges the draft in court,as the chickens will come home to roost. 5) salary caps are an eveil necessity to protect the clubs from themselves.French ru clubs are talking about caps,English ru clubs are losing money despite benefactors. I agree with the $6.5m cap and $6m grant suggestion. Provided the NRL can secure a min $160m pa deal(and i believe it will top that),on 18 clubs that is: $108m to be utilised in grants still leaving $52m for admin/junior development,supplemented by another $15-$20m from sky Nz,and the NRL sponsorship deals which will be millions more,plus merchandising revenue and corp hospitality. It makes the current $100m deal including NZ look very poor indeed.

I wrote a similar post about the NRL introducing a luxury cap back in May. http://litresofink.blogspot.com/2010/05/could-luxury-cap-solve-nrls-salary-cap.html

I think we need to stick with a salary cap, forget a luxury tax or a draft. I agree with what Mushi and a few others have said... 1. We need a salary cap so clubs don't go broke trying to 'buy' a premiership, like Leeds Utd in the EPL. 2. We need a salary cap so every fan of every team can feel their team has some sort of chance of playing finals footy every year. I believe most fans would hate to see a repeat of the St George 11 year premiership run. 3. A salary cap also makes the game more valuable to sell to the networks. We need 8 competitive games, not like pre- 5 years ago when Souths would lose every damn game, sometimes by 60 points. As Brett said the cap is based on the club grants. If we can get an independent commission and a much better TV deal the suggestion is that the club grants go up to $6 million and the cap goes up to $6.5 million. The minimum wage for an NRL player can be $80K, the top players like Thurston and Hayne could be on $800K. The NRL would reduce the number of players going elsewhere dramatically. Problem is, it won't happen until the new TV deal in 2013. The NRL can not afford to until then, unless the IC decides to give more to the players in the interim.

it is interesting to note that the majority of the QLD spine is the Storm's spine, and when you look at the players that have come and gone out of the storm side over the years, it is the spine that you build from that makes you successful. this applies to QLD also, the storm's dominance in the club comp and QLD's dominance of the SoO comp are linked I liken this to Spain's success in the football world cup. most of that side all play together for Barcalona, they play week in - week out together. Almost all of the QLD side is made up of Broncos and Storm players, they mesh together very easily because two lots of say 40% play each week together. periods of NSW dominance all co-incided with periods of dominance by NSW (and Canberra) clubs. I think that it is foolish to think that the NRL hasn't had long periods of domination by clubs, look throught the list of minor premiers (moreover, the top 4 sides) and grand finalists through the years. the same names keep popping up... why? they all roarting the cap?