The 2010 NRL grand final was billed the ‘Sydney derby’, with the media marketing all sorts of geographical and culture divides to define and demarcate two tribes of supporters.
However, what was largely ignored was the more legitimate divide between the two clubs; the battle between junior ‘developers’ and the junior ‘poachers’.
It is a commonly held belief that the NRL salary cap provides little incentive to promote junior development among clubs. While such a statement deserves deeper consideration, given that as yet the NRL salary cap does not recognise nor give concessions based on junior development, it is difficult to suggest otherwise. This is endemic of the nature of the salary cap which has attempted to promote absolute equality seemingly at the expense of traditionally held values such as local juniors at local clubs, one club men and the notion of club loyalty.
Discussion involving clubs ‘pulling their weight’ is understandably sensitive and given that the exact definition of what constitutes a ‘local junior’ is largely up to interpretation, one must be careful in criticising individual clubs for under-performance. However, one only has to look at the Roosters 2010 grand final team to see the disparity between clubs in terms of junior development.
While an admirable total of nine of the Roosters seventeen grand final players debuted for the club, none of the seventeen players can arguably be called ‘local’ juniors based on geographical location of their junior clubs. Ironically, the Roosters fielded a starting thirteen with three St George Illawarra juniors in it. This however is not overly surprising given the Eastern Suburbs junior league is the smallest of any NRL club.
While the Roosters have perhaps received the most criticism for their lack of juniors, perhaps attributable to their success during the last decade, they are certainly not alone. One only has to look at clubs such as Manly (who themselves have benefited heavily from St George Illawarra juniors) and Cronulla to see that not all clubs are equal when it comes to junior development.
The NRL has stated that for this reason, creating greater salary cap concessions for the development of local juniors and for long serving players would create a greater playing disparity, ultimately benefiting some clubs such as the Dragons, Brisbane and Parramatta at the expense of others such as Easts, Manly and expansion clubs such as Melbourne.
While it is worth noting that often players relocate on their own volition seeking greater opportunities, one cannot help but have a sense of sympathy for clubs who have the capacity and have exerted the effort to develop local juniors only to see them moved on due to forces beyond their control.
This sense of punishment would have been particularly bitter to Dragons fans had the Roosters managed to win this year’s grand final with a team consisting of more St George Illawarra juniors than Eastern Suburbs juniors in its ranks, even after over one hundred years to develop its own junior nursery.
Luckily (for some) this was not the case and the Dragons victory was not only a win for ‘the working class’ but a win for junior development.
Jason
Roar Guru
Who in their right mind thinks there's enough people for a small suburb or three of Sydney to have it's own comp? Of course they've combined.
mushi
Guest
Link I can never understand it - why are rugby league supporters so ready to cut ties with one of the wealthiest regions in the country?
mushi
Guest
The article is somewhat flawed based on its fundamental tenant, that the salary cap promotes absolute equality because it does not it promotes a responsible and sustain able sharing of revenue that also helps even out, but can never equalise, the competition. To assume that it promote absolute equality falls down in two parts (well three but the third is irrelevant here). The first is that the only factor in any decision made by a human being when looking at employment is the salary. Whilst salary is generally a high ranking concern, every study I’ve ever seen in the area of job satisfaction and recruitment have shown that many other factors play into the decision. For footballers these would be along the lines the role they play in the team, proximity to family, the desire to work with certain people (be it players or coaches), winning (seen as vitally important), the opportunity to develop, the exposure for rep teams, prestige. By suggesting that the cap promotes absolute equality to are assigning a value of 0% to all the above which would make the NRL unique amongst industries in the world. Even investment bankers and lawyers give consideration to factors outside remuneration. The second part is that there is no benefit to junior development – this implies that every club values players in the same manner and has perfect knowledge of every single individual on the planet that is capable of playing in the NRL. Now I know some individuals believe this to be the case but nothing I’ve seen in my life time suggests it is even close to being true. Most clubs value players almost exclusively on prior performance thus undervaluing juniors (in a contract sense). This is why juniors matter, clubs with large junior bases identify younger developing players and generally get more players that outperform their contract. They get up and coming stars on below average salaries that play at or around a rep level. Also they are able to more readily replace departing players without venturing into a shrinking established player market. This is an absolutely huge advantage. It then also plays into the first point of the other elements, when it comes time to pay the palyer the market worth, because people are aware of their abilities now, so long as he is satisfied with his situation he is highly unlikely to change clubs for the exact same salary. Which means you either get to retain him for lower than market value (a win), or force clubs to pay higher than market value (also a win for you if you have the same salary cap).
The Link
Guest
Any talk of getting rid of the Roosters is sheer lunacy, have you blokes learnt nothing in the last 15 years?
RJ
Guest
I remember not so long ago when St George were flat broke and went cap in hand to the Roosters for a merger. Whatever they do at the Roosters, they sure know how to turn a quid. It took two club's to beat the Chooks in 2010, let's hope we can go one better in 2011. It would be a victory for all of us toffs who support the Roosters. Who wants a coffee...my shout.
Ken
Guest
Gasnier, Nightingale, Stanley were all St George district juniors in the grand final squad (although Stanley was dropped off the bench). That's still more than the Roosters had and that's only 1 half of their junior pool.
JVGO
Guest
Bilbo you are kidding yourself saying the Sharks have similarly poor juniors to the Roosters. What are you basing that statement on? Sharks have 16 clubs, fielding 238 teams and a viable A Grade comp. Roosters have 4 clubs who have to play in Souths league. What is the similarity? The Roosters have a lot of little old jewish ladies playing the pokies in Bondi junction. That's what their team is based on.
Whites
Guest
It's not really St George junior development but Illawarra junior development.
Whites
Guest
Actually it is suggested the Sharks should be relocated or dropped in response to most expansion articles. The Sharks are number 1 for relocation with the Roosters at number 2.
bilbo
Guest
The Roosters might not have the best juniors, but they are the most financially secure club and provide ties to the big end of town. They have a reasonable crowd average - 17K - , and playing in the SFS cant really help too much. They only got one 7K crowd this year, which was a Monday night game v the Cowboys. It would be a huge mistake to get rid of the oldest continuing club in the league which provides great rivalries with St George and the Rabbits. Cronulla have similarly poor juniors, but arent as sucessful so they dont get people running around saying they should be culled.
IT
Guest
To be honest the Roosters should of relocated ages ago in the 80's interstate to Perth or Adelaide it may of being risky at the time but the AFL did it with the Swans so it will be no different. The Roosters would have majority of there away games at Sydney anyway so Sydney fans can stilll see them. The Roosters have the lowest fanbase in Sydney since the Eastern Suburbs are mainly all union & football so it won't really be missed there.
elbusto
Guest
This all sounds marvelous except for one thing. The St George District (I am not including Wollongong here) cannot even run an A Grade competition. Like Balmain and Canterbury, its Senior Club numbers are so poor that they have all amalgamated from under 17s up to have combined competitions. What does it say about the strength of Rugby League in Sydney that three districts such as these must combine to give anybody 16 years and older the opportunity to play footy? What will the Independent Commission do about this? As far as I am concerned it says so much about the direction that NRL Clubs are taking that they have allowed this to occur.
Corey
Guest
Great article. I still do think promotion of Juniors needs to be given some incentive or poaching will just become the norm which will actually lead to the decline of our game. Poaching is cheaper and more cost effective with the current salary cap. Sydney Roosters get around 7k to an average game, the only big crowds they get is when its an ANZAC derby or at the SFS and the majority of support is the away team (St. George) - which shows how lackluster the Roosters supporters are, they have more Away supporters at matches then Roosters supporters. Get rid of the Roosters and bring in 3 teams in 2013 - Perth, Central Coast and Central QLD. All we have had from the Bondi Junction is a bunch of "bad boys" ruining our game in the last decade.