NRL needs marquee player rule

But then doesn't their value change based on where the coach chooses to play them? If you think that the salary cap is illegal (you can make a case both ways as many lawyers on this very site have) this would be outright laughed into oblivion.

I think a marquee player option for the NRL is a foolish suggestion. As a life long doggies supporter i would hate to see us waste money on a marquee, everyone is replaceable! There is not enough value in what these so called marquee's could add to the club, its membership base, its sponsorship income etc. There are so many new and younger players coming through the ranks that could potentially become stars of the future. Not to mention the ones who are late bloomers and get overlooked altogether who then plug away in lower level comps in obscure places, for peanuts. Also there are too many clubs who can barely pay thier bills now! Clubs should be aiming to be self sustainable instead of going to the ARLC to ask cap in hand for more.... If you wish to piss money up the wall give it to me and I will go to the pub with my mates!

Deserve? Utter tosh and nonsesne. You could haphazardly mount a case for worth to the NRL– which is quickly torn apart first by lack of alternative offers in this ridiculous range for the players, and second the inability to attribute enough revenue specific to that player to justify the disproportionate payment. But you cannot mount a case for deserve.

I couldnt agree more with this peice i'm an A League supporter what the nrl have to do is get out into the market place and say that our elite will not be tampered with financially buy other sports , their ours and nobody else's.

How many elite players have we lost recently? How many have stayed away for longer than a couple of years? Lote Tuqiri has spent more time sidelined with injury than he has playing Rugby Union. Big Dell and Israel Folau were almost like practical jokes we leaguey's played on rival codes. It's all talk. We only ever hear that the ARU are sniffing around these blokes when their contracts are up for renewal, and then surprise, surprise, they have a sudden change of heart and stay in the NRL for big money. Even the Superleague traffic has turned around. We ship off a handful of blokes on the wrong side of 30 (or the wrong side of their coaching staff) and they send back their rep stars like Gareth Ellis, James Graham, the Burgess boys, etc. The NRL isn't losing any stars, and even if we did, there's always someone waiting in the wings. Player turnover isn't always a bad thing. Israel Folau got his first run because Steve Turner had picked up an injury. He then went on to be the youngest debutant for both QLD and Australia, while Steve Turner continues to have a solid club career after a horror first (and last) game for NSW.

Would Parramatta have made Folau their marquee player though? He's a good winger, but not a superstar, and has now had 2 years out of the game - would Parra really have used up their one marquee player allowance on him? Even if the rule existed and they were keen to use it on Folau (it is Parramatta after all!), wouldn't they have already tied it up for the next 5 years bringing in Sandow last year? Making it unavailable to use now (not to mention sowing all kinds of resentment amongst Hayne and the other boys who aren't getting it). Folau and Hunt wouldn't have been in the top 3 players waiting for the marquee allowance at Brisbane (or earlier at Melbourne for Folau) so I suspect it wouldn't have kept them from moving codes either. Sorry not a fan of this proposal, it would just be a mess. It may work for the A-League (does it? I don't really follow it) due to their different environment, where luring a big name overseas player into an aussie team for a season or two is great for publicity but I don't think it would transfer well.

oikee, Dogs There are good people around. People who combine video analysis with analytics have the perfect back ground, but guys in player recruitment also would be great. Each player who change in value each year. E.g. Dogs point about Lote is a good one. he has never been a spine player although at his best he would have been around 300k, but he would be about 100k now that he turns like the Queen Mary. Just because a guy may have been in recruitment, that does not automatically give him a pass mark as we have seen some shocking purchases in recent years, especially at the Eels.

The A-League needs marquee players as a drawcard to a sport that isn't hugely popular within Australia. It allows them to recruit high profile international sportsmen on the downturn of their careers and get more bums on seats. It doesn't make sense to throw more money at NRL players just to reward them for being part of our great game. Does it matter if Johnathon Thurston earns $800,000 or $1,000,000? Does it make him a better player? Does it make the Cowboys a better team? The NRL a better competition? On the other hand, $200,000 makes a *massive* difference to grass roots footy. The Johnathon Thurstons and Cameron Smiths of the world wouldn't be where they are without fields, goalposts, line markings, jerseys, balls, tackling bags - say nothing of the kids that played alongside them and the thousands of parents who volunteer their time and effort to keep the wheels of the game running. $200,000 could pay for a few blokes like Nathan Hindmarsh to visit schools, run coaching clinics and tell kids how rugby league is the greatest sport in the world. That's a pretty big deal, and it's looking after former players at the same time.

Nothing comes close? Um sure

So you are saying three people should regulate what each club can pay each and every individual player?

Very good summing up. Is why golfers tennis players and even cricket players who have a large audience receive alot more. Thuis is why we have to keep growing our international TV deals. Origin is the best platform at the moment for that growth, along with the NRL riding the horses back so to speak. We need to make sure our players are talked about during the game. Promotion Promotion Promotion. Even PNG know all our players off by heart, we need to make sure India know, China know, America know. Even Brazil. Origin has to become and be promoted as Worlds Best Rivalry. Nothing comes close. Once we do that we can grow sponsers and worldgrowth.

Oikee at 200k a pop that is 10% of the TV Deal

In business it is called a 'marquee asset.' A marquee asset in business has extremely similar relevance to a marquee in sport. The definition - A company's (NRL club) most prized asset (player), one that is a highly visible symbol (influence) of its success and often the biggest contributor to its bottom line. A company with a coveted marquee asset (marquee player) may become a target for a bigger rival (Broncos/Bulldoga vying for JT's services), or one with deep pockets (Most money available to pay) even if the other assets in its portfolio do not amount to much (not superstars/marquee material). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marqueeasset.asp#ixzz2FPUnNViG Therefore, considering a marquee status would derive from what a business/club are willing to pay, means a players marketability or worth would be affected by the results they produce on-field and off. The NRL is the premier rugby league competition in the world. These players although having some affect would not generate the type of on-field and off-field results that a marquee in the A-league would produce. Example in chief - ADP vs Billy Slater. Adp = mass exposure world wide Slater = domestically Adp = increase in memberships/ticketsales/exposure/interest. Slater = slight increase in memberships (as noticed when GI went to Rabbits) and that would generally be it! Australians can watch Slater every week, see him every year for 10-15 years, support the club as it takes more than one person in rugby league in particular to create such an impact/influence. Ultimately opinions shall vary but the 'marquee asset' in rugby league would not fill this definition/criteria.

"Marquee players" have more often than not been the cause of a clubs demise. Take Chris Sandow for example, earning more than some lifetime players at Parra who've been there since Sandow was in nappies. So when the ball goes to Sandow, the Parra players say "you're so good, win the game". I've seen it happen before in other teams at other times ~ give the ball to the big dollar Hot-Shot & let him earn his money like everyone else. Unless a player has played his career at the one club, where everyone at that club respects that player's contribution & talent, he will likely cause more problems than solve them. Manly, Roosters, Parramatta, have all tried to buy premierships by buying big name players, and have failed. They each succeeded only when their players were local players. Marquees are for sitting in while you're having a few

There will only ever be 1 or 2 marquee players. They dont grow on trees. Inglis is probably the top marquee. Who is the Broncos marquee player. ??? Lockyer is gone , now we dont have one. Storm have 3, but no other star players, they do well with picking up fringe players. The Bulldogs might have 2, Barba and the number 6 will probably be a marquee player soon. Gallen, Thurston, ?? we dont have a lot that you could call marquee. They are rare, Sonny Bill could have been, not now, he is only back for 1 season.

A million a season - really? Do you have a source on that? I know what the players do, I watch every game every week. But it is still a small market. Was the game worse without SBW and Folau? No, but now you think a game where Nine clubs live in one city are going to be able to find $9million each and every year in Sydney alone when they haven't been able to find this money before? Why are they going to do that, to watch Greg Inglis? They can do that when he plays 18 of his 24 games in Sydney anyway (if he plays 24 games) Not going to happen.

Quite right The Storm had an unofficial marquee rule

NikO Where are they getting this "Few million" from? What I am saying is if the elite guys now are getting paid $500-$600k per season, nobody is about to get paid double! Clubs are flat out getting a sponsors combined to pay $1million a year so where are they getting another million for a single player outside the cap they already struggle to fund? These guys play infront of crowds of 15,000 people 24 times a year. On $500,000 that $20,000 per match - if they play every game. Or if you go by the philosphy of "you pay them to train and Sundays are free", they still don't actually do a 40 hour week. This isn't the USA with 300,000,000 people, it is Australia, and more specifically the eastern sea board of Australia. The people they are entertaining is a dot in the ocean They get paid PLENTY already.