The NRL has issues with player retention: the salary cap stands at a level whereby a players earning capacity cannot be maximised at all clubs. Clubs like the Brisbane Broncos maintain a monopoly in a city of over three million.
Third party sponsorship is fairly easy to come by, and as such, the Broncos are able to attract some of the best players in the game. In Sydney there are eight teams all fighting for the same corporate dollars.
Is it any wonder that teams like the Broncos have been so successful for so long?
Other codes, like the Australian Rugby Union and Cricket Australia, have a system whereby top tier players are payed by the national governing body on top of their Super 14 or state cricket contracts. Although there is more emphasis placed on the success of the national teams in these codes, the NRL should have a closer look at a similar system.
There are currently 16 teams in the NRL with a view to expanding to 18 during the TV deal negotiations in 2011.
With all three major networks expressing a keen interest for the rights, the estimated deal is set to be worth around one billion dollars. It is fair to say that the NRL will be in a great position to tinker with the salary cap system.
My proposal is the following:
• Two elite players from every club, as chosen by the clubs, can be eligible for payments of up to half a million dollars each or a combined total of one million dollars.
• These payments will be paid by the NRL and will not be included in the salary cap. These players have to be earning a minimum of $250,000 from their clubs to be eligible for this scheme. These club payments are included in the salary cap.
• The length of these top-up payments will be in-line with the players’ club contracts.
• A player has to play a minimum of twelve games to be paid the top-up payments.
• Therefore, for 18 clubs, the total cost for the NRL every year will be eighteen million dollars for this proposal.
For example, if this proposal was in place currently, Israel Folau and Darren Lockyer may have been chosen by Brisbane, along with Benji Marshall and Robbie Farah from the Wests Tigers, and Darius Boyd and Mark Gasnier for the Dragons.
All clubs, especially smaller ones like Cronulla, who have trouble attracting elite players, will certainly benefit from a scheme such as the one above and the competition will be even closer as a result.
Furthermore, our elite players such as Karmichael Hunt. Israel Folau, Sonny Bill Williams and Craig Gower, will have less reason to leave our code for a more money elsewhere.
bilbo
Guest
Tend to agree that the hype over the departure of these players is bigger than the actual effect, but I still think that the game does not benefit from losing players of this calibre. A player like SBW brings people to games, and helps to build interest in the sport. While there are only three elite players who have been lost in the prime of their careers and are yet to come back to RL - Hunt, Folau, SBW - the game is poorer for not having them there. The bigger issue, though, is the loss of the mid-level calibre of player. These guys strengthen the game itself at all levels. Even guys like Beaver Menzies and Danny Buderus - who were past their best when they left - should have never been forced to go. They should have been one club players and retired at the teams where they built their name. The NRL is the most attended (both average attendance and aggregate) and the most watched Rugby competition of either code anywhere in the world - there should be no problem retaining and attracting players - as opposed to losing them to other codes/leagues.
Gareth
Guest
How many elite players have we "lost" in recent times? Hunt and Folau, obviously - but they're exceptions to every rule. They're marketing prospects for the AFL's foray into "hostile" territory. They're both being paid well above their worth in any code because their athleticism is secondary to their primary role. It's not something we're going to see repeated in a hurry. Before that, Sailor, Tuqiri and Rogers? Another marketing exercise that ran its course and is unlikely to be repeated at all. I guess you could argue Gasnier and Sonny Bill, but has the NRL really missed them? Both teams experienced remarkable turnarounds of form on the back of the recruitments they made in lieu of both players, and the Dragons have seen a turnaround in the other direction now Gasnier is back, in addition to losing some quality players in Saffy, Costigan, Smith, Fai Fai Loa and Henry. Honestly, for all the talk, I like the way things work now, but's that's probably just me. I'm very excited to see young blokes getting their opportunity and seizing it. There's a tendency for the highest paid employees of any organisation to become complacent, and league teams are no exception. It's the blokes fighting their way to the top that give it a real go, and I really enjoy watching blokes like Matt Gillett, Josh Dugan, James Maloney, Justin O'Neill, Tim Grant, Nathan Gardner, maybe even Sam Burgess and I shudder at the idea of these blokes going around in NSW Cup because there's an indispensable "elite" player in front of them. Before Inglis and Folau, the Storm had what, Matt King and Jake Webster? Both internationals, both still young enough to be going around in the NRL, but look at what their departure made way for.
bilbo
Guest
This is a difficult idea to implement because it quite easily becomes a marquee player style set up - which is something that most league fans oppose and would cause difficult issues at club level. While the drain of the big name players is a threat, it is the drain of the mid level players which is of the biggest concern to the NRL, and results in a poorer quality competition and reserve grade competition - which hampers the development of the game. This cannot be stopped by a two player per club top-up. The best approach in keeping the big name players is a dramatic increase in representative payments. Players should receive something like 100-200K for playing in each representative fixture across a season - only the top ten or so Australian players, and ten or so Kiwis would qualify. This would be, in effect, a form of marquee player allowance but from an impartial decision maker (selectors). There have been moves towards this already, and these need to continue. This would allow club money to be spent across the first and second grade roster to prevent the player drain.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
The number of teams in the NRL ,should only be limited by the money made available by the new Tv contracts and sponsorship.If there is sufficient monies to provide full grants for 20 teams,provide large sums for grassroots and game official development and cover admin costs. leaving a surplus for a rainy day, then why not go the full hog. You would then have your Perth/CC/Central Qld or PNG/2nd brisbane side. The NRL has a distinct advantage of areas that want to get in Perth/CC/CQld/PNG and Ipswich,Plus other areas that will be no doubt be opne to expansion ie Wellington/Christchurch/Adelaide/Brisbane Nth. There will always be NRL clubs that have a bigger sponsorship and fan base.You can't change demographics.What you can do is provide a competitive comp,such as the current one,where virtually every team on its day can beat a tall poppy.
M.O.C.
Roar Guru
Although completely unrealistic, it almost seems like the NRL needs to start from scratch - figure out how many teams they want in a comp and where the populations bases for each team are located and create new teams using the existing club sides to populate them. Create north, west, east and south teams from Sydney and Brisbane, and a team from each other city ie, Canberra, Gold Coast, Central Coast, South Coast, Sunshine Coast, Penrith, Parramatta, Rockhampton, Townsville, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. This suggestion would be met with massive resistance and it would never happen but imagine how good it could be. They keep trying to renovate the old house because it has happy memories, but sometime, you just have to bulldoze it and build a new one.
billiris
Roar Rookie
If the NRL sets out plans to move to Perth, the ratings will hit close to a billion dollars. Surely theres enough money then to further increase the contributions by the NRL to the clubs.
billiris
Roar Rookie
Dumpping a couple of sydney teams will not solve anything. Thousands of fans will be lost to the game and quite possibly jump to other codes. But expansion is key to the NRL future.
billiris
Roar Rookie
When the current crop of young players become elite players, teams like Cronulla will be able to compete with the bigger clubs for them.
mona
Guest
Dump some Sydney teams then not so many would be fighting for the corporate dollar eh?
James
Guest
Brisbane's population is actually 2 million. Anyway, all of these suggestions are bandaids for the real problem in the NRL - MASSIVE disparity in the level of INCOME of each club and the sources of that income. If you look at the NFL in the states they share revenue a lot, eg visitors get 40% of gate takings. The fundamental problem is that the NRL is a bizzare gaggle of very different clubs. We need more TV money to be spread over less clubs - cronulla should be forced to move to Adelaide or fold. This would open up new revenue from ratings from Adelaide. And give us a Perth team to open up that TV market too.
anopinion
Guest
How will this change anything? The Broncos have Lockyer and Folau and The Tigers have Benji and Farrah. Even teams such as Cronulla have two top players.