Gallop was right, the Salary Cap does work

Maybe all clubs should have a 'sister' club in UK, that way talent can be shared. Love to see Wigan Storm play St Helens Dragons. and Wigan already have 3 Storm boys!!

Thanks Dazz. I look at Roosters and ask, WHy do they want to but players when they have the BEST recruitment officer in the league, he 'discovered' Inglis, Falou, Slater, Smith etc,etc. He can do same for Roosters.

Exactly! How do you think G.I.'s signing made the talented long serving Broncos feel? Kind of like EVERY AFL player now feels since the Hunt & Folau signings. Disrespected, unappreciated, and well they should. I understand bringing in a player to fill a hole in your team is what you do. But, as has been mentioned in the sports pages around Australi over the past week, do the Broncos REALLY need Inglis? How about the kid who thought he could have a go at a career in centres coming up through the clubs U20s team? What does that say to him? How do you think his club just made him feel by doing that, by signing an outsider to "his" position on the big club? Here we have the clubs, who like to play the role of the victim when players want higher salaries, actually serving as the catalyst to perpetuate this mercenary culture in their sport! Since G.I. is from the Storm, let's look at them. Who has Bellamy gone after from other clubs over the past five years? Their superstars? No, their cast offs! OK, every team doesn't have a genius like Craig Bellamy who has the sharpest eye for spotting talent in rugby league, but too bad. Life's not fair, maybe the rest of the clubs need to focus more on their scouting departments and less on pillaging other teams for their best players. We are in complete agreement, Jef, teams are like families, and you need to look after your own before you worry about someone else's. Buying players just because you can will do more harm than good to your team and to the rest of the league.

well summed up Dazz. I want to see players that 'make a name' with our club, stay with our club. and yeah TEAM WORK beats SALARY every day, in fact I also believe that importing top paid players (In this case Inglis) does more harm to a club than good ............ it can totally destabilize the team., is it coincidence that Broncs have not won a game since telling the world that Inglis would be playing for them at Zillions per season??. ....

Hey - you're point about admitting an australian team into the SuperLeague is actually an interesting idea. What a great way to hang onto players in the NRL...sub-contract them out to a Kangaroos UK-based team. Have all players sign an ARL contract (ala cricket australia) and lease them out and recal them when needed...perhaps the clubs could be allowed to do that them selves?

My point was that the cap (obviously where followed) doesn’t lead to the destruction of teams, in fact it is designed for to protect them from supporter driven stupidity. Now I used Melbourne as an example because even though they have had amazing on field success it hasn’t translated into stand alone commercial success, which is required if you are going to meet larger obligations. This would be even further exacerbated if a true bidding war were allowed to occur. The other reason I used Melbourne was relevance, given the amount of times they were mentioned above. To suggest that in reality clubs will always find the money to pay players in a pure free market I think is a fairy tale given we just saw Cronulla require intervention for survival (let alone the countless examples across other sports) yes I am well aware of the ability to pay via unrelated (unrelated being the key aspect) third party payments, many of the technical breaches you speak of weren’t just declaration they were also categorisation. The storm had some of these prior to the “scandal”. But the reason behind why I think this is available is that it, in theory, doesn’t simply reroute funds from the club which is what is in reality happening when it is a sponsor as that is revenue forgone and given directly to the player. To make these payments they actually have to find an external commitment of funds that was b first then commit it to the players also they aren’t on the hook should that funding stream dry up. As to the MBH. As a standalone entity Melbourne has been a commercial failure. Sure it operates in a tougher environment, doesn’t have the same infrastructure and it fills a role that adds value to the rest of the league. I personally think it is valuable to rugby league as a whole but if we were to remove support from it then it would struggle mightily to survive. You give many reasons, the junior support new market etc as to why they should be viewed positively but sorry that is business, different environments provide differing opportunities. Now has Melbourne performed in line with other clubs if you indexed revenue and expenses for the addition burdens – perhaps but you can’t pay your power bill with dollars from “burden indexed” profits only from actual ones so even though they had on field success it did not provide an instant panacea for their commercial survival. Yes they may have “been on track” to finally become profitable on a 12 month basis for the first time, but how many years does the most successful on field club need to make a respectable return on the investment which is what I would consider commercial success. Up until then it can still only be considered as a black hole for capital investment (on a standalone basis). Bear in mind I think Melbourne is valuable to the NRL and delivers value to other clubs that it currently doesn’t get o monetise, and I doubt ever will, but it’s onfield success has not made it a commercial one.

I have not been to a game in years. I just got fed up with the way the League takes on any loony idea some journo comes up with. Every year there are rule changes just to confuse the supporters so they do not know what penalties are for. Who knows the rules anymore? It used to be a simple game. If I wanted to watch a complicated mess I would watch Gridiron. Video referees and the second referees have only made it worse. You are going to finish up with more officials than players.

"Does anyone honestly believe an extremely wealthy club would develop its own juniors,when it could simply nick the stars of the other clubs.A short term attack for a long term gain.I sometimes ask myself this question when I look at the Roosters. I want all current teams to survive." I agree that the league needs at least 16 clubs to be a viable professional sports league, and I would like to see all of the clubs survive, even Manly because after all, everyone needs a team to hate as well as love ;-). This may be irrelevant to the small time nickel and dime Australian sports market, I've only been here 8 years (and staying permanently now) but coming form the US where sports are so massive AND national (if your city has a football team, it also has a basketball team, ice hockey team and baseball team) as opposed to regional like here in Australia, but I would still like to throw up the NYC example. The NY Yankees, one of the most famous sports franchises on the planet, has won (since the era of big money began in the 70s) seven championships. That's seven in over 40 years. That is not terribly dominant when you consider that the Yankees are the living breathing embodiment of your worst case scenario-yes, all MLB clubs have 3 levels of feeder teams, but the Yankees prefer to use the rest of the pro league as their "farm team". They allow others to develop talented players, and as they emerge as superstars (say after their initial 3 year contract) the Yankees make an unmatchable offer to them, and effectively build a team of all stars. However they do not dominate the sport, they do not win the championship year in and year out AND new young talent keeps coming into the league through the various feeder clubs in the US, Canada and US territories. There is an old sports axiom "A Great Team will Always beat a team of greats". Craig Bellamy has continued to build great teams to great success, but then has them torn apart by a cap system that simply does not work (unless you are the Broncos). To prove this axiom even further look at the NSW Origin teams of the last several years. Game after game the selectors assemble the best players from NSW but play them out of their natural positions just so that they can say they put all of NSW's best players on the paddock! Each game the QLD team, the core of which has been playing together, win or lose, since 2004, still whups them. I'm not saying that the QLD isn't made up of greats, many are the best at their position in the world, but others wouldn't be as good as some of their NSW counterparts, but they are playing in their natural position with players that they are familiar with and therefore they keep winning. Without a true team mentality a team of all stars is always going to play like a group of individuals. Chemistry in an X Factor in sport and it develops through familiarity, shared vision, confidence in those around you. The Blues have a team of great players but there is no trust or familiarity and that holds them back from playing to the best of their ability. So I think that the All Star team mentality isn't as big an issue as you are making it. Players would stay put, not all of them would chase the $$$. Why isn't Thurston a Bronco? He and Lockyer combine well together for QLD, he was recently out of contract, why didn't he jump ship? If the Broncos have room for Inglis under their cap surely they could fit JT. Although it pains me to admit it, I don't believe that the majority of players are as mercenary as your fears makes them out to be. Remember we are not just talking about the men on the field, but their wives and children having to move, lose friends, change jobs and schools. I just don't believe that the upheaval would be so massive and that anyone worth anything would rush to those five teams and abandon the rest of the league. At least we are in agreement on concessions for developed and long serving players, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest of the solution (not that the idiots running the NRL will listen to us anyway). Cheers. D

dazz. I will reaffirm my thoughts than all rl players ,should not be restricted in their ability to earn.I too like the parry and thrust of sporting debate, and therefore I respectfully take issue with your hypothesis. We can use hypothetical extremes such as your example,the NRL may be dumb at times but not that naive. The salary cap I suggest to you is designed for the players in the 25 registered within the club.ie the $4.1m or majority thereof be utilised for the club contracts,which are scrutinised by the NRL cap mob.I submit to you that the suggestion of placing all players on the minimum would (@)stick out like the proverbials as an obvious rort eg paying Inglis $75,000 as a base figure B) Not follow the current cap guidelines. I have already stated the NRL should have a long serving,club grown allowance so as to retain players such as Inglis. We forget at times ,the NRL is made up of 16 clubs,not 4 ,not 10.They are members of the NRL. Not owned by the NRL such as the example of banks that was thrown up as an argument.A banks head office,ensures by their audits that each branch is operating per the law,they are serving the community and some no doubt perform better than the others.So branches are not all equal.Some branches have a higher savings component ,others a higher loan component and others still a higher business banking component. Banks are responsible to their shareholders and demand profits.Banks compete on a level playing field due to govt regulations. The NRL clubs were originally set up as community clubs for the districts,to provide entertainment for youth and try to break square or make a dollar or pound whatever. If all clubs were of supposed equal status under the current(not ideal ) cap regime,then why is St George out on its own on 34 points and why are the Cowboys near the spoon and the Doggies done and dusted.I will tell you why,the great uncertainty of sport,which means you stack a 4 or 5 teams with the creme de creme ,you would have Broncos 1 st George 2,Easts 3 Parra 4 and Doggies 5 on a monotonous basis. I will agree nonetheless that the salary cap and opportunities must be available when the next Tv contracts and sponsorship deals are in place.The majority and I repeat the overwhleming majority of the NRL clubs want a salary cap ATM,simply because they know a handfull only would survive if there was none. The only current alternative is to have all clubs privately owned,and compete in the marketplace. Does anyone honestly believe an extremely wealthy club would develop its own juniors,when it could simply nick the stars of the other clubs.A short term attack for a long term gain.I sometimes ask myself this question when I look at the Roosters. I want all current teams to survive.

NRL is dead.The club in Melbourne will be retained ,and the sport will continue to grow,simply because comments such as yours makes a code more determined than ever to ensure it does grow.Particularly when large sums have already been expended and grassroots growth is starting to bear fruit.

The NRL is dead to us here in Melbourne. It is laughable to suggest the Broncos and a host of other clubs are under the salary cap. The recent signing of Inglis is just rubbing Melbourne's nose in it. Why don't you just shut the club down and relocate it instead of doing it by stealth?

Exactly, Kid, that is exactly what Gallop seems to be trying to move the league to.

I must respectfully disagree, Crosscoder, which is what makes these forums so much fun! In your example, with the current salary cap and Brisbane's massive list of financial backers, they could already stack a team like that by simply paying them all the league minimum wage and allowing their 3rd party sponsors (c'mon, let's call a spade a spade here) top up all of their contracts. $4.1 (that's less than $2 million all up, and it makes them look like model Cap-Compliant Citizens that Gallop could use as the poster team for how well the cap works. Cynical as I often am about the motivations and character of professional athlete, I believe that pride and pride of place still count for something with them. For those who have been scouted and developed by a team, so long as there are no personality clashes at the team-ie. player/coach hating each other, I believe that the players would still want to stay where they began to build success. Slater, and co. have all wanted to stay put, because they all started with the Storm and they built something together there, and the club has a positive culture that is friendly to the players and their families. I'm sure plenty of other clubs have similar cultures, with players over the years forced to leave for cap reasons who would have preferred to stay. The salary cap in its current form is clearly not the answer, maybe the cap plus concessions for long serving players and for players that clubs have recruited and developed to allow them to stay at the club so the club can retain them rather than have them pinched. In the US, the NBA has a salary cap, it is a joke, but it is there and an NRL concessions based system could work similarly to the NBA cap, but better. Under the NBA cap, when you re-sign players on your team, who are already on your roster, they don't count toward the cap, only new recruits count against your cap. Didn't you ever wonder why Michael Jordan never played for the NY Knicks, La Lakers or Boston Celtics, instead of the lowly Bulls, who nobody had ever heard of before MJ arrived? It is because once he was a Bull and emerged as the talent that he is, then no one else could afford to sign him. Something similar (but less drastic) could be put in place for the NRL. Let's take Greg Inglis, because he is the current hot property in the NRL, as an example. He was discovered as a skinny 14 year old kid by the Storm scouts, he was recruited by the Storm and developed by the Storm and grew into a world beater, Golden Boot /Dual Premiership/Origin winning superstar by the Storm. Logically, if you want to strengthen the league and ensure PLENTY OF FUNDING for grassroots recruitment and development (as the QRL keeps whining about in their selfish attempts to block the IC) then you need to help clubs keep the talent that they discover and develop. Maybe a system of concessions, based upon term of service, maybe broken down into 3 year increments could reduce the amount of his salary that counts against the Storm's cap. However if the Broncos (again, for example) want to sign him, then he must be paid an equal or higher salary, based on his player rating value, and 100% of that counts against the Broncos cap. No gray area, if you want to sign Player X, he is valued at $X then you have to be able to afford all of that under your cap. Simple. Accountable. and the clueless NRL cap auditors, who signed off on all of the Storm budgets for the past five years, have the benefit of a more transparent system. Thoughts, anyone? I'm just thinking out loud here...

If we must have 16 clubs all equal then what's the point in each club operating independently? We should have 16 NRL branch outlets and all the players should be employees of the NRL. The NRL can work out big $ deals to keep the top players in the game like Folou and Inglis, or go head hunting ARU or AFL players, but the NRL should also be able to direct every player to whichever NRL club it thinks fit.

Can't agree Dazz.A free market could conceivably mean the Broncos team lining up as: F/B Slater WTuqiri and Hayne Centres inglis and Jennings 5/8 Lockyer Half Thurston Lock Anasta 2nd row Gallen Learroyd las Props Petero and Thaiday Hooker: C Smith bench C Cronk,Mateo,K Gidley,Gasnier and that is before the top 25 are in place.Throw in another 8 topliners. it is realistic to expect 4 teams could lock up the elite playing talent.Just as the EPL seems to be able to do. if the country had 50million plus people to support 4 codes , I would agree with the open slather policy .Simply we dont',we have 22million and 4 highly competing codes. The way to get players to stay on board and not go overseas or to other codes,is expand and increase the Tv money pile. The SL war brought in huge wages for players,yet some teams were not really competitive. If a team like Cronulla can snare Wade Graham and Jeremy Smith under the current cap conditions,it has something going for it. Which teams could operate well under an open slather policy:Brisbane,Easts,St George,Canterbury,possibly the Eels.Stacking 5 sides with the real elite players is really going to assist 11 other teams ,whose supporters would drop off like flies viewing their teams were there to make up the numbers. i believe elite players should be able to earn big bikkies,however i believe that is where the head body should take each one on its merits and arrange national or large corp sponsorship.Alll open and above board.maybe that could have prevented the likes of Gasnier,Folau or Hunt taking the money on the run,the latter two for no other erason than commercial grandstanding.

Sensible reasoning there Dazz, I have sai a few times that each team can only afford to keep so many players, elite players want to be in the 1st team, so if they can't get a place regular. they will want to move on.

Agreed, the NRL would do well to follow the AFL model in how it looks after its clubs, particularly its non-heartland clubs (not just the Storm but in future hopes of expansion). The NRL has, however, treated the Storm like they are an AFL which it is competing against. The NRL vs the Storm mentality is felt by many in Melbourne. Rather than treat the Storm like part of the league and be inclusive with them, it seems that the NRL always feels like they need to be "against" the Storm. It makes no sense to me, but for some reason the NRL, maybe due to fan pressure or the fact that it is run by too many governing bodies with an "old boys club" mentality who resent there being rugby league in Melbourne at the (perceived) expense of another "heartland" team. Hopefully going forward the new Storm board will review 3rd party deals more wisely. you can count on the players agents being a LOT more savvy about organizing them going forward. Inglis is leaving because he wants to go, you can't think for a minute that there haven't been Melbourne businessmen lining up to offer non-Storm sanctioned 3rd party deals to Slater, Smith, Cronk and the others. As for the overall benefits of the salary cap, I confess that I am in the camp if those who believe that it lowers the standard of play in the league not levels the playing field. People have been complaining about the Broncos getting Inglis, but it seems they are cap compliant, they just have tons or non-affiliated backers willing to offer their players massive 3rd party deals. They can retain their stars and attract others (gaining their 2nd Storm superstar centre in 3 years). Clearly the cap does not work. The Broncos have hired a team in their front office who have been able to figure out the ways around it and canvas the area for non-sponsor businesses to agree to invest heaps of $$ in their organization. In the NFL, which has been mentioned a few times, has a hard cap and a fair draft system (something that WOULD level out the NRL talent distribution, but they ready spat the dummie and chucked that in) each team employs a full time salary cap staff whose entire job consists of crunching past, present and future salary numbers to ensure that they are compliant AND to determine how muhc money they have to spend going forward. If you want a level playing field and a higher quality of teams and a higher retention rate of players then do away with the cap. Let the NRL give each team the same amount of money to start with, let's say the current "cap" of $4.1M. Then all of the teams start on a level playing field. What they and their sponsors do from there is up to them. Those with good marketing teams, passionate cashed up supporters, will have more money to spend, but how is that different from what is happening now? It is already going on to a large degree, but now the league retains a pretense with which to punish some teams for not doing it as well as others. Dump the cap and let the free market even itself out. As has been pointed out by others above each team can only employ eighteen players and can only field 13 at a time on gameday. Unless the talent pool drops to the level where there are only 20 good players left in the game then it cold be an issue of one team trying to stockpile all of them. Even then, I doubt that every single NRL player would want to sign with The Broncos (for example). After all, superstars come in all shapes and sizes, all of the best players don't play the same position and team can only hold so many players at each spot. In American sports Baseball and Ice Hockey do not have salary caps. Yes the two richest teams the New York Rangers (NHL) and the New York Yankees (MLB) do tend to have the highest salary totals in the league each year but the Rangers have won 1 Stanley Cup Championship since WWII and the Yankees have won only 7 World Series Championships in the past 45 years. So no salary cap does not automatically mean dominance and success is guaranteed. Will some teams benefit more than others? Yes, particularly in the first two or three years, after that the market will balance itself out. All of the best fullbacks/centres/wingers, etc. can not play for the same team, only one gets to take the field at a time. Sure the initial salaries might get ridiculous but again they will come back down to Earth and balance themselves out (no team has unlimited financial resources). I say let the free market and free agency strengthen the league and increase player retention (as well as attract more players from abroad).

Excellent point again about the Storm's "Blackhole" status, people forget to include the fact that they are the sole flag-waver for RU in Victoria and those expenses are included in their figures, where the QRL and NSWRL cover those costs in the northern states. Interest, media coverage and membership as well as revenue has continually increased over the years, particularly the past five. True the recent scandal may hinder them, as the AFL-Centric Melbourne media will use this as an opportunity to further disparage the Storm and Rugby League in the AFL heartland, which is a shame. Also with the Rebels launching next year, it will hurt interest in rugby league in general. Where league is an alien concept in Melbourne/Victoria, rugby has a long history there and will instantly thrive and enjoy plenty of support and interest (as much as the AFL-centric media will allow). Going forward the Storm face an up hill battle, but thanks to their recent success they are better placed to deal with this. I hope that they do succeed and thrive again, it is not only good for the NRL (which league officials and non-Melbourne supporters are loathe to admit) but good for the Melbourne sports scene. Melbourne wears so many hats: "Festival Capital", "Fashion Capital", "Foodies City" , "Sports Capital" but until now that sports capital is because they host a tennis Grand Slam for two weeks a year, THE major Cricket test the week after Christmas, the Grand Prix (which loses $36Million+ each year) and has a team (now) from all of the sporting codes. All codes are not equal, they are not treated equally by the media, nor do they enjoy equal representation. One team each for League and Union is a start. Getting the Melbourne sports fans behind them is another thing (hell, A-League which has only been around for 5 years already has a 2nd team in Melbourne). Promoting the code and showing strong support for the Storm in the Melbourne market is what is needed. Remember the Storm alone represent the "N" in the NRL, so to keep the league from becoming a farce or a regional attraction, the NRL needs to sort out its salary cap issues, and get on the front foot with promoting teams outside of Sydney. Expansion should only be considered after the league has stabilized the teams it already has. If they don't plan now and go forward half arsed like they usually do, then the result will be teams going under and struggling, flailing around in the dark. Does the NRL really need two more "heartland" teams? Shouldn't they worry about ensuring the future of the clubs they already have in place?

danny mac I have a differing imterpretation again it is my view. :Fox sports is as you also stated partially owned by News ltd.and of course News Ltd is part owner of the NRL.The fact that there was so much subterfuge and underhand dealings by a few ("rats in the cage") left the NRL with no other alternative but dissasociate itself from the Cam Smith deal involving really itself. Else it would seem to be in some sort of collusion with the massive ""rort"involving itself. My gut feeling is if there had been a genuine error in exceeding the cap just by the Cam Smith deal,the club would have been fined and that is end of story. Again the deals involving the likes of inglis , for the life of me ,can't believe in toto ,the club /sponsors,the same applicable to the Eels dealing ls with Q Cooper have not at some stage pursued outside people to sponsor.There may well be some who lob in voluntary .Was it not the FOGs that got involved with assisting Inglis,are they not involved with rl and NRl and broncos people. I put it to out this way.Sponsor ,knows business man A,who knows another wealthy businessman B,the latter is willing to get involved.The nexus is broken with without sponsor or businessman A bieng dierectly involved.Itcould be at a Rotary /Lons/Seminar you name it .QED the club has in effect not arranged it ,but word of mouth in thids day and age is very effective'the grape vine". My view<I just believe there are too many grey areas,open to abuse.The storm should have been given greater business opportunities in a new environment,be it greater 3rd party deals in the first 5 years and additonal funding to establish itself dare I say it similar to theAFL .

The problem with this 3rd party payment that we all think is killing the game, its only for high profile players. Peter wallace at the Broncos, he has no chance of being paid huge 3rd party deals. Who would pay. There is only a certain amount of superstars. Maybe the clubs need to take a leaf out of the rabbits books, go look for some overseas. I can think of a few players in superleague i would be chasing. Also Lebanon has a star who they think is the next greg Inglis, plus Jamaica has some bruising talent. Their is talent out their, maybe clubs need to start looking outside there own backyards. Invite them over and pay them peanuts, (only joking). Pay them , i am sure they would be willing. Look no further than the Mannah boys and Farrah, plus El-magic was a beauty.