Can the NRL afford to have marquee players?

Nah Mush, I admitted that it was news to me, my bad, that good enough? I Assumed and made a mistake, but i know now thanks to you pointing it out Mushi, Its all good. Didn't change my story, just having conversations on how to solve the issue of trying to keep and attract stars to the game, haves and have nots that are already existing with or without a marquee allowance, youve pointed your concerns, do you have the answer?

I believe the penalties you refer to are for disputes around related third party sponsors. The level of relationship is a grey area. Which was my point earlier - if they are related then effectively you can just siphon money that was going to go to the club straight to the player. You then said that what you were talking about were companies completely unrelated which then would not be covered under the cap. You’ve then of course now completely changed your story to talking about directors and owners of the club.

That's news to me, considering all the third party penalties dished out by the NRL almost every year, maybe that turns off potential sponsors off. IMO a club should not be held back if it has wealthy and influential directors/owners, why have them if you can't use them to their full potential. I'm starting to think Gus was right all along, give the club the annual grants, but pay the players whatever they can get.

Genuine third party sponsors without ties to the club aren't counted now, and to my knowledge never have been. As to the money yes I've written that countless times the issue here was the suggestion that the CEO hiring cycle would create some kind of balance which contradicts real life

All that might apply if it were club sponsors willing to pay players, but not if it were a sponsor that had nothing to do with the club, whose only interest is in the player and his marketability to help sell more shoes, clothes, cars etc. It's impossible to have a 100% completely even competition, there will always be haves and have nots, as there is in life. Money is only one factor when comparing the positives and negatives of signing for particular clubs, the coach, captain, management, club owner, club culture, club popularity, squad strength, rep footy opportunities, nightlife, after career opportunities, family, location, would a player rather live in Townsville or Bondi? Ask a lot of League fans and they would argue there are already haves and have nots. GI, SBW, Cam Smith, Slater, Cronk are all at there respective clubs for different reasons, exposure, flexibility, community work, club culture, loyalty, to win a premiership as well as money.

Picture this – you are an NRL club, you have a gun player you want to buy but you are at the limit of the cap but the NRL allows you to arrange uncapped sponsorship for the player. The first call is going to be to a club sponsor right along the lines of “hey instead of paying me 2m a year, and then me paying Billy Bob Half Back 1m of it, how about you sponsor Billy pay Billy Bob Half Back for 1m and then just give the club 1m?” - Marquee player purchased - cap still intact - club has same cash flow impact as having paid the player - the market for players receives the same increase in average value as if the club had paid him So in effect you have just created an uncapped league. Also the notion of that who would be powerful would move in relatively short cycles is some what confusing. Generally in that environment you would expect to see leagues develop into haves and have-nots with vast disparities in budgets breeding success and exposure that gives more brand value and sponsorship thus extending the potential disparity in budgets.

Well you are comparing a non-salary cap sport (with regular bankruptcy problems) and an individual sport which has no "club" salary of course it looks different.

Marquee players won't work. This system would allow only 16 marquees one per club. This would have opposite effect, inviting top players not in the top 16 to switch codes. Every year 40 players shape up for SOO plus top line kiwi and English players means that there are at any given point 50 top line players. A marque system does not address this.

I agree. I understand the need for a relatively even competition. I think the NRL club grants ensures 'minimum standards' if you take my meaning. The rest should be up to the skills and management of the clubs and players.

Marquee players would be great for the Nrl but I think we need to use the a system like the Afl. In the Afl once you have played 10 years with a club you salary is halved under the cap. The Nrl needs to do something like this. After 5 years with one club you salary should lose 10% under the cap and 10% every year after that you play for the same club. This would help Benji players like Lockyer hazem johns could have had more at the end of there careers for beaning a one club man

I like the concept Warren I'm an A League supporter first and then league and union, there was a similar type thread a week or two ago, I made the point that whatever the other sport AFL or Union is prepared to pay the player I.E SBW back to Union I would immediately say to him any form of "genuine "bid from the Tahs or AFL your salary in NRL will increase by 20% over the last bid of the other sport, simple, if they then go to another code its then not for money, how many will flop then. The NRL have to act and promptly you have two other sports here where any player almost can flop from code to code very dangerous territory. Just out of left field I think J O'Connor will go and play AFL.

Exactly, the first thing NRL superstars will do is threaten to leave for other codes, guaranteeing them a marquee allowance next contract negotiations. No the salary cap is increasing every year, the big guns are well payed now including rep bonuses, if they start to see union superstars come over then NRL players won't want to leave, the grass will be greener on our side.

Restraint of trade, no one limits how much Lebron or Messi or Tiger earns, why should the NRL do it to SBW, GI, JT? Think about it, the promotion of these stars via TV ads, internet, billboards, papers, catalogues, clothing, shoes..... FREE advertising for the NRL!

Id like to see the marquee allowance outside of the cap for non NRL players only. That way Parra can pay Hayne what hes worth inside the cap, & if they can get the money aggressively try to sign a JOC/Beale etc. It could be a win/win for the code. At the moment all we see are league stars leaving the game for other codes, but no Rugby/AFL stars leaving their codes to play NRL. We can make this happen with some strategic salary cap exemptions & the NRL can thrive.

I don't understand the idea of sponsorship counting against the cap. I believe that players have every right to earn as much sponsor money as they are able to. If clubs are unable to organise themselves to be able to attract sponsors for their players, that is their fault. As long as media contracts allow the NRL to pay each club the salary cap minimum, then there ought to be no cause for complaint. It's simply a natural thing that some club CEO's will bring success, at least commercially, to their clubs for a while before they move on or something else causes their status to drop. Eventually other clubs will rise and the cycle continues. That's just how life is and I think the league has no right to restrict a player's earnings outside of the salary cap.

Davey, I understand your point but you are missing the other side of the coin. A marquee system should also help us retain the current superstars. Losing Folau and Hunt has detracted from the quality of the game and the prestige of the competition. It is not business as usual. I know that other players take their place, but that always takes time and sponsors and young fans are impatient. They want to see superstars now, not in three years. If Inglis, Slater and Hayne left tomorrow to play Union, it would have a major negative impact on the perception of the game from sponsors and fans. Crowds and TV ratings would be at risk. Do we want that for the game?

If the ARLC thought strategically, they could sign the biggest union stars from England, NZ, France and South Africa, would put the spotlight on the NRL competition worldwide, capture cross over union fans/interest and potentially grow massive new audiences, and by default improve international Rugby League competition as well.

I think they should give it a go as Id love to see players like Dagg/JOC etc playing NRL. The clubs cant/wont sign them under the current model as its a big risk to spend a large chunk of your cap on an untested rugby player. If we had a marquee allowance then we can attract the best talent from other codes instead of them poaching our players. It could also make for some shrewd signings from clubs as they begin to think outside the box.

Agreed, the marquee system will only work if it's used to get players from other codes such as Dan Carter, for promotional purposes, like what AFL/Gold Coast Suns did with Karmichael Hunt. Even then NRL players will probably exploit that and cross codes for a couple of seasons with the purpose if signing back for even bigger money.

The Marquee players in the A-League has work well because the player is a Marguee superstar from the best leagues in the world and mostly are former internationals with huge profiles around the world but also for expats living here. Bulldogs signing Thurston or Billy Slater isn't really marquee its just business as usual. The closest thing to it in rugby league will be the Bulldogs signing Ma'a Nonu or a British & Irish Lions player from up north. A good example is Folau is a marquee signing for the Waratahs and the ARU and it work out pretty well for both of them.