The salary cap game needs more ladders than Snakes

Execution is different to intent. And to be clear I have no real problem with the intent, if we genuinely believe that the intent is parity then we have to believe that privately run leagues like the NFL, NBA and NHL all willing said no to revenue during strikes because they loved parity oh so much. If by the last pass you mean the last comment, I’m confused your article is partially based on them “winning” so if I hadn’t convinced you that happened then why did you write it? If the last pass means something else then whilst a nice 1980s league analogy it is somewhat indecipherable as to its meaning. The cap system is fine it’s the enforcement of it that is flawed. It’s difficult to get caught breeching the cap unless we employ about 80 forensic accountants and get the players to open their accounts and the accounts of every person they are close to. Yet the punishment is almost no existent. Even the Melbourne season of doom was hardly a deterrent for ignoring the rules to create an enduring team (and that’s been taken away because it didn’t just punish the one team it affected the competition). So low risk of getting caught combined with little ongoing costs = incentive to skirt the rules. They need to have a penalty which far exceeds the benefit, if you intentionally cheat on your tax do you think the tax office just says oh that’s okay just pay back what you should have and we’ll be square? I’d think you have a penalty of something like reducing the cap for the number of years you broke it by a rate of 1.10^(years breaking the rules) x (Average percentage of the cap you broke the rules for). You can still field a team, though it's theorertically less competitive, and the ebenfit you got at the expense of the elague is returned back to it

But then it isn’t a “gamble”, it’s an option where the premium isn’t counted in the cap. These are known risks that need to be factored into the offer.

First issue is that we keep thinking the NRL has a salary cap to encourage parity. The primary objective of a salary cap is cost control. That’s why you need to have the amounts count against the cap. If you want to keep costs at the current level, and you allow things like early release payments not count from the cap but come from clubs bank accounts, then you’d have to lower the cap. The notion it increases parity (it doesn’t deliver it as there are still so many other means by which to distort the product on the field that are either natural advantages or ones you are entitled to spend on) is a nice little side effect that they can use to sell it to fans. Then the issue of consistency – the Eel’s got special treatment last year because essentially the NRL has no idea how to govern the cap. We shouldn’t use that as the basis for how we do it in the future. Though if after seeing what happened at Parra (and all previous cap scandals) if your team isn’t just rampantly breaching every rule in the cap they are either pure as driven snow or not trying. The NRL seem to think you can retrospectively take away the advantage a club gained (which is preposterous and basically means they have no idea about how markets or human beings work and disagree with a few nobel winners) and the only other option is enter the realm of the moral hazard and torch the current season. So the Eels, probably inadvertently judging by the benny hill-esque manner with which they did it, played a great game of let’s call the NRL’s bluff and won convincingly.

Hello Mr Common Sense! Thank you for this.

Article about two retiring Manly legends just didn't have enough references to how good Souths are...

I wonder if it would be possible for the NRL to introduce a 'final contract' exception whereby a player and club could agree to the player signing a final contract after which they would not be eligible to play in the NRL. If they retire early due to medical reasons - either new injury or as a result of general knackersge, they can still get paid out without counting to the salary cap. in order to limit rorting, such contracts would be restricted to players over the age of (say) 30, and limited to a length of 3 years. Maybe only make them available to players who have been with a club for 5 years too. Something like that would increase the number of 1 club players and reduce the risk for clubs while reducing the chance for exploitation. Everyone hates seeing club legends like Brett Stewart play their last season at a different club, or Corey Parker retire a year early.

These days if a club has access to finance they will only seek competitive benefit from an alternate source if that money cant be spent on a players. Such means include coaches, rehabilitation providers and facilities. Time to pay the players what they deserve and focus on good corporate governance.

Should the NRL appoint an independant doctor to complete a full medical before a player is resigned to a contract? Duty of Care? A Dr could give player/nrl/insurer independant advice on physical/mental health issues associated with playing on or transitioning into retirement from the game. Would it be discriminatory to limit the length of a contract once a player has reached a predetermined age?

As I understand it Watmough had a knee operation to repair an ongoing injury. He re-injured the same knee leading to his retirement from the game. How is that different from Stewart having had operations to correct hamstring injuries but then re-injuring it again. Only difference is the anatomical part and if that's what its based on, I'll have to check Greenburg ad Cos medical licences. They gave Parra a break because of their major salary cap illegalities to ensure that the west had a competitive team to counter the soccer and Aussie Rules., thereby rewarding a team with gobbldy gook rationalisation. I said back then that they were fools for setting a precedent. Now they are trying to weasel their way out of it.

Bear, I this case while similar, isn't the same, so the precedent from the Parramatta decision isn't relevant to the Manly decision. The NRL did however clarify how the decision with Parramatta was made. The Manly situation doesn't fit that decision. So no precedent has been set at all. Just because one supporter base doesn't like the decision, doesn't mean the NRL is playing favourites either.

Serious question. If you move a player on, like Chris McQueen and Tim Grant, to make way for a player like Sam Burgess, why would it not be included in your cap? You have a player signed and you want them to leave your club, it 100% should be included. I would imagine (as mentioned) you would have bartered a deal with the Titans to pay some or most of McQueens wage. As with Tim Grant. and Tigers. Like the West Tigers paying a majority of Farahs wage for 2017 to play for the Rabbitohs. This is a completely different situation where players are retiring unable to play..

Just trying to help 3 Hats...it felt like your post could have been just a little bit more pro-Souths.

So does every club that moves on a player before the end of their contract. Souths are nothing special in this regard.

Because TB also wants to be a rich man. I think TB respects your knowledge and know how. Kinda like terms of endearment. Whatever, the Roar is indebted to you both.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Manly in the past few decades have been one of the few clubs not to go out and buy stars. Most of the top players they had in the past decade became stars at Manly, not before. Lyon and Kennedy were probably two of the cream players they bought at the peak of their careers, and that was a decade ago. Manly does buy young players on the rise, but they are amateurs compared to Sydney City. And suggesting Manly is now one of the richer teams shows how little you know about the finances of clubs. Just to remind you about teams having trouble with the salary cap, Souths have been fined three times, 2003, 2006 and 2007 for overspending. Manly is one of the few clubs that has never been fined and has kept within their budget. The reason Manly are now having difficulties over the salary cap at the moment, is that they developed so many stars, they have had to pay big money to keep them. That happens to every successful club, including Souths. That's why Souths had to let go Walker. And this constant attack on Manly for what happened in 1971-2 when they grabbed three Souths players (because Souths couldnt afford to keep them) is getting just a little tiresome. No comments of course about Easts grabbing Cleary and Coote, or Canterbury grabbing McCarthy, Parramatta grabbing Pittard. No comment about Souths grabbing Phil Blake. The big money teams are Sydney City, Canterbury, Brisbane and Souths these days. And going on about juniors shows a failure to appreciate that the NRL are locked into a geo-social structure based on club areas 60 years ago. The NRL should have long ago made the distribution of juniors more equitable and only now with second tier clubs are they beginning to show sense. Manly has Blacktown Workers, Souths has North Sydney Leagues. But its only a beginning