RLPA expect gradual NRL cap boost

Interesting that they have a plan. By the look of it the plan is to allocate additional funding to teams hampered mostly by insufficient infrastructure (training and development); debt; or poor stadium deals. I guess this is an indirect way of focusing on revenue sharing. Of course, I agree absolutely with the plan. If you just made billion+ dollars, for God's sake pay off all your debt and have eighteen healthy clubs.

Interesting that they have a plan. By the look of it the plan is to allocate additional funding to teams hampered mostly by insufficient infrastructure (training and development); debt; or poor stadium deals. I guess this is an indirect way of focusing on revenue sharing. Of course, I agree absolutely with the plan. If you just made billion+ dollars, for God's sake pay off all your debt and have eighteen healthy clubs.

Now thats a stupid analogy, comparing footy to poker

Correction AR The last Tv deal was $564m over 6 years ie $94m pa Sky NZ $12m pa (the Warriors are part of the NRL)which cannot be ignored in the revenue factor. ch9 $40m pa admitted by Gyngell 7/3/10 Foxtel $42m pa

Ian, if you think that the only way forward is your ‘hard’ cap, you are deluding yourself. Obviously the opposite, like giving a big increase in the Salary Cap is also a mistake. I am in the middle ground, believing in gradual increases in the Cap, allowing individual player sponsorships for 1-2 marque players (to save them from defecting) and creating a ‘war chest’ for future necessities. Details anyway can vary, but those are my main points. They all can be achieved simultaneously. If the IC management will be as good as in other codes, NRL will have a great future.

CJ, I'd recommend you have a look at the AFL's disequal funding model. Google 'afl disequal funding strategy' (no quotes) and it should be the one that comes up first. Note how central funding is linked to outcomes - see page 5 and 10 for example.

Frank, If you dont see what has gone right and wrong in other codes, then you call on your code to repeat the same mistakes they made. The NBA is the other league you should look at for when cap-based systems, off field earnings and players moving to win a flag all hit a salary cap head on. And none of this has anything to do with whether you like whatever it is that they play or not.

I'm personally of the opinion that revenue sharing, not payroll caps, deal with the fundamentals of this issue. If all sixteen clubs have identical revenue, then a salary cap is entirely unnecessay. Some clubs will buy expensive players, some will buy expensive coaches, some will do a bit of both. This has the added effect of not artificially suppressing player wages, which I find silly and unfair (imagine ANY other industry doing this). You, of course, need to think of a plan for revenue sharing without removing the incentive for clubs to grow their fanbases and generate their own revenue instead of "free riding", but the NRL can pay some very smart people hundreds of thousands of dollars to get this right. You have to ensure you don't reward teams that "should" be making more money but aren't because of lacklustre marketing or brand awareness, and you shouldn't punish teams that are making money from years of success and forming a strong local brand. The problem here is that you need to define how much a team "should" make, based on market size (eg. penalise Brisbane for being the only show in a big city), alternatives for entertainment (eg. subsidise Melbourne for being in AFL heartland), historical TV ratings and years in the league (as a proxy for the popularity of the sport in the region); and who knows what other variables.

The real problem is simply that some clubs are weak. If you were building a National Rugby League competition today you wouldn't have these provincial Sydney clubs, and you certainly wouldn't have one club in Brisbane. "Tradition" simply isn't a good enough reason. If you rearranged the competition now: sixteen teams, five QLD (that Brisbane has one team is laughable), six NSW, WA, ACT, Melbourne, NZ and whatever, then THAT would be "tradition" in thirty years' time. And if we had this setup, nobody would say "You know, we should put more teams in Sydney, a saturated football market where some clubs will be financially unviable". Nobody! The number of teams in NSW is nothing but a relic of an older time, and the fact that it's allowed to harm the competition is... silly. If you're going to let teams keep juniors, then you probably need a draft as well - otherwise you'll get under-the-table (or outside-the-cap) payments and handshake agreements that keep kids playing for the richer, better clubs and you might get to a point where rich teams get all the players AND don't have to pay for them to boot.

Sorry, it is all Chinese to me. I do not follow the other winter sports. Anyway what’s wrong if say ex-Premier Greiner or Ray Martin (perhaps George Piggins via Flower Power) throws in a mill each next year and buy a Premiership for you by buying Johnno Thurston? One marquee player outside the Cap surely won’t break any Club.

Frank, Then money that should be going to sponsor the club directly gets shifted into cap-free player sponsorship (*cough* Chris Judd and Visy). As well, once you get a tradition of off-cap direct player sponsorship by well-off supporters going , it gets very tempting to spread the wealth a little (*cough* Carlton *cough*) ... and oops, remember that salary cap we used to have ?

Oh, no. I meant if it is outside the Cap, private sponsors would come in to the game and pay that. No Club would be disadvantaged by this. Couple of well off South supporters would be keen to buy you a halfback this year, I am sure...

Frank, This one move, "I’d be excepting if every team would have 1-2 marquee players (another winter sport has already similar rule) outside the cap" explodes the cap by about $1m, maybe $2m. Remember, if Sandow, say, is paid outside the cap, the Parramatta have another $700k or so to spend on players, which they will. This puts a team like, say, Cronulla even further behind the eight ball.

Now you telling me…Easter Bunny…closet eiefel fan (in a light hearted way, no drama). I have no idea about the names you throwing around, I am a one eye NRL and Cricket fan only (happy for the Sixers last night), ex-Sydney man myself, now north of the Tweed. Anyway, we went far away from the original subject which is I support DG to a slow increase in the Cap rather than a explosion. On the other hand sometimes we have to fight for our best talent and because THEY are being a generation behind us have 2 questions; where is the MONEY and is that all? So either you pay them or they leave. Full stop. You sure do not mind them being a pitcher and receiver as well.

League Fan, Yes. Thats why Im proposing to give NRL clubs a reason to care - namely cheap juniors and cap room.

Frank, As a Bunnies supporter, I dont call Inglis first rate either. Regarding Folau, as a GWS supporter, Im excited to see him at full forward - he's a rare talent at that position. That said, Hunt and Folau going to play in the AFL wasnt the best-case scenario for Andrew Demetriou. The best case for the AFL was that the NRL matched the bid, and kicked off another cycle of elite player payments that the clubs can't afford, thus killing Canberra and Cronulla at least. Hunt and Folau's pay packed didnt do anything to Jonathon Brown's, or to Dane Swan's, or to Andrew Goodes' pay packet, as the AFL can say 'If you are a high profile recruit that got us that much media in Queensland and NSW, we'd pay you a million bucks outside the cap too'. But it would have done things to Thurston's salary, and to Inglis' and so on, as them staying in rugby league is more valuable than Hunt and Folau are ... and if you match payments to AFL defectors, then you need to match them to rugby union defectors too. Therefore, the pressure to soften the cap would have been overwhelming - and with the low attendances of rugby league, the crap TV deal and the lack of sponsorship because of clubs across the country, several clubs just can't afford that. They either go broke quickly trying to match it, or slowly as supporters and sponsors dont want to associate with a club for whom nine wins is a great season.

Ian you make some good points there. I certainly agree that there should be some concessions for local juniors and players that have only played for the one club. I believe a club should definately have an advantage in retaining juniors as well as long serving club men. Hopefully this would bring a bit more loyalty back to the game. I like the idea of a club looking after a developing nations as I am fan of spreading the game internationaly and I can certainly see the benefits of it however I am not sure if the NRL care too much about the international game.

Ian, I do not disagree with most of your comments. It is not hard or soft cap I was talking about, but such one which prevents our best talents leaving. We have to pay competitive salaries with our major competitor in the winter sports otherwise we will lose. Enough said. I strongly disagree calling Folau a second rate talent, he was on par with Inglis when he started, some even said that he was better. It is not really critical question, who is/was better, but why he left. More MONEY. How you would have stopped that? Why it is not the other way around? MONEY. To be sure. No drama.

NF, I love the great game of rugby league. I also love a number of other games. First thing, end the low-grade civil war and announce the IC isnt interested in folding any club, or reloacating them against their will. Everyone is going to get through this together. Second, broken time for clubs in rep football. If a player is broken, the club gets a cap rebate to help pay for their replacement. Just getting selected is worth a smaller rebate. Thirdly, each NRL club gets a developing country or region to look after - St George gets Wales, South Sydney gets the USA, and so on. Clubs can get $100k in cap rebates by providing player-coaches and other help to that country and region, and need to report annually and publicly what they've done. Players from that region count as "local juniors" for that club. Fourthly, local juniors get a 10% cap discount, and five year players get a 10% cap discount, and ten year players gets a flat $50k discount. These stack. Clubs have a mandatory minimum spend of 92.5% against the cap. Fifthly, set up NRL TV with the aim of having pay TV subscribers subscribe to that directly rather than via Fox Sports. This will probably involve going to war with News Corp (note the AFL is giving strong hints they are planning this). Sixthly, as part of the new TV contract, set the schedule in advance, so fans know when they are playing. Finally, Origin is there to pay for country football. After costs, players get 20%, QRL gets 20%, NSWRL gets 20%, 'NRL Ground Fund' gets 20% and 'NRL Rainy Day gets 20%. Players pay their coaching staff etc.

To be fair, it wasn't so long ago that the AFLPA were weak. They only really started to show strength with the latest agreement (and free agency), but until then? One of the weakest unions in international sport, much to my shame.