Dave Smith should abandon his 'war chest' idea

Get over yourself EJ. Firstly, disagreeing with you does not constitute a lack of understanding. You are wrong and anyone with any knowledge of economics can clearly see it. You are taking a simplistic view, I would argue, because that is all you are capable of. You haven't answered any of my earlier concerns rather just gone on about how much SBW makes your pants tight. It is a terrible, knee jerk reaction that doesn't and can't fix the fundamental issues behind player deflection, whilst also creating an two tiered system of the haves and the have nots. Canberra will never get this luxury because they do not get FTA televised games and so no superstars can be created. It isunjust and will be a huge benefit to the four or five clubs who might receive it. It won't solve the problem because AFL still has tonnes more money than NRL and Rugby Union is a huge world game with operating revenue that belittles our own.

Salary cap increases will generate the same effect as the $7000 first home owners grant. Property prices automatically went up by that amount. If the cap goes up, manly may be able to offer DCE and foran more money, but other clubs will be able to offer the same percentage increase while the players will request more, based not on their market value but on how much extra cash is floating around

Well said mate. Just have to keep bringing in more cash to the game so that the overall salary cap grows.

There's been plenty of stars before now - and there'll be plenty more after this crop leaves. The very fact ARU, AFL etc want them confirms what great athletes they are, and the fact so many of them return also confirms RL is the superior product. Like the Federal Govts budget, its an unecessary reaction designed to appease a few.

The NRL doesn't really have much of a choice in this situation. If a true star can be kept in rugby league, I think we should do whatever possible to keep them here.

Yes Epiquin, there may well be another club that could straight match the $1.7 mil, but SBW has already got his target, thanks to NRL top ups, and can now 'choose' to stay at the roosters with his desired wage rather than be forced to head to a club he doesn't want to be at or take a pay cut to stay, he has just 'manipulated' his pay rate, both clubs and the NRL. This scenario isn't fair, particularly if the roosters now win the premiership with this extra $500,000 of player input. SBW would potentially be able to by- pass lesser clubs that could afford him and need him, and stay with stronger clubs that can't afford him and don't deserve to keep him, all because he can hold the threat of heading to rugby to get his desired outcome.

I think you'll find that contracts, signed or unsigned, will usually have a confidentiality clause attached to them. You can't just grab and contract from somewhere and then 'shop it around' to all and sundry - but good managers will create the expectation that their player is worth a lot more that he is currently getting - which is easy to do if several sides express interest.

It would be more than a rarity. If the player is indeed a superstar of that level there will ALWAYS be another club with space under the cap. If they choose not to use that room, or make room, then they lose.

Sorry Anakin. I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's correct for two reasons. Firstly, player managers aren't stupid. They know if a club is undervaluing their player. Plus if the club reduces their offering, knowing that the NRL will chip in, they will most likely fall shirt of the rival code's offering. They also allow other clubs to outbid them. If a club REALLY wants to keep a player, they won't let that happen. This brings me to my second point. Any other club that wants to bid will ALSO have that money coming from the NRL. So they can do the exact same thing you are proposing. I do agree that the money would do a lot of good at grassroots level.

Epiquin, I know it's going to be a rarity, but this 'chest' can allow the bigger stronger, richer clubs to maintain the better players. It also allows these 'superstar' players to dictate where they go. To explain the the SBW $1 mill scenario, If SBW gets interest from a a NZ rugby club and it's in the ball park of $1.7 mill. Meanwhile the roosters sign the last of thier out of contract players and have $1 mill left which they would use on SBW. They let the NRL know he's leaving for more money cos the roosters can't afford, so the NRL top up an extra 500,000 to keep SBW in league, so if every other club has a roster of $6 million, the roosters now have a roster of $6.5 million, doesn't matter who's paying it , NRL or whoever, their list is unfairly valued $500,000 above every other club.

While I do understand where you are coming from Anakin, you ignore that other clubs can put in offers for the player. The club he is currently at may offer $1m, knowing that the NRL are chipping in $500k. But what is stopping another club offering $1.3m? Effectively taking his value to $1.8m. By undervaluing the player by only putting up $1m they are opening themselves up to losing the player. And if the player agrees to terms, and they have offered over market value, then there is no problem. All clubs are given an opportunity to bid for the player. You could only say a club was getting an unfair advantage if the NRL did not offer the top up to all the clubs when viewing this particular deal. Which wouldn't be the case. And remember this top up will only be given if there is a genuine threat from another code for a genuine superstar. One that brings in additional revenue. The NRL won't be just handing money out for every player that their agent "claims" will leave the game. It will be for "exceptional circumstances" only

Oh Jay C you really don't understand this do you.

Technically this CAN free up $$ under a club's cap. Without the NRL top up, the club (whatever club) may be prepared to offer what the player wants, say $1.5 million, over 'x' number of years .. and this may well be enough to entice the player to stay .. however if they're aware the NRL is throwing cash the player's way, they may now table an offer of only $1m - with the knowledge the extra top payment will get the deal over the line; essentially saving them $$ they may have otherwise expended on their cap limit. Compare to this to another club who wants to keep a player that the NRL does not consider eligible for a top up payment, yet the player is demanding for example $1.2 million. Suddenly this latter club is worse off than the former. Now before anyone goes on about player value, and the relative merits of different clubs offering players different amounts (ie: the player is worth whatever a club is prepared to pay), that is not the point. The point is a club has now essentially gained a $$ advantage over other clubs in terms of cap spend because they have been subsidised by the NRL.I'm against the cap itself - for many reasons - but that's an argument for another day; and I'm also opposed to this new system. Let players do what they want to do, and if that;s chase $$ elsewhere, then so be it. IMO the new funds the NRL have can be better spent at a grassroots level and simply keeping the production line of stars rolling through League's ranks.

Seriously!?! Why don't people understand this??? This scheme does not give an unfair advantage to any club! Once again, using the SBW example, I will spell it out point by point. - If SBW is offered big money to go to rugby, the NRL will offer him a bonus to stay in Rugby League (eg $500,000). - the Roosters can then offer him whatever money they have under the salary cap (eg $1million). - If he signs with the roosters, he will get $1million from the Roosters + $500,000 from the NRL. - this does NOT free up $500,000 for the Roosters to spend on another player. - Another club (eg the Raiders) have every right to offer SBW whatever money they have under the cap (eg $1.1million) - if SBW signs with the Raiders, he will get $1.1million from the Raiders + $500,000 from the NRL. - if SBW signs with the Raiders, the roosters have $1million, not $1.5million to spend on another player. - if SBW turns down more money at the Raiders to play at the Roosters, it is NOT an unfair advantage because he didn't make the decision based on more money from the NRL because he gets that money regardless of who he signs for. The money is not linked to the club. He does not only get the money if he signs with a certain club. He does not get more money based on signing with certain clubs. Does this make sense yet?

Ah true true

I agree Fil, but I think concessions for long serving players should be handled under a different scheme, with more management from clubs, rather than the NRL.