As we move once again into Stop Everything It’s Origin Time – the most wonderful time of the year – the mighty Indian elephant still swaying about with Zoochosis in the mahogany meeting rooms of League Central is this:
The players’ demands for mo’ money
What do they want? A percentage share of revenue.
When do they want it? After the next collective bargaining agreement.
Or now. Now would be good.
But they won’t get it now because the NRL says it doesn’t have the coin, and it says its willing to open the books to prove it. Plus there’s the clubs who want more money.
The players’ union had a private meeting the other day with NRL (and clubs) from which RLPA CEO Ian Prendergast emerged.
“The RLPA welcomed the information and remain committed to ensuring players receive a fair outcome out of the negotiations,” he said.
“All parties are treating the negotiations seriously and respectfully and we look forward to making further progress in the weeks ahead,” NRL Chief Operating Officer Nick Weeks added.
So nothing happened. They laid their cards on the table. Eye-balled one another. Pissed for distance. And went away with their lawyers and accountants to plan strategy.
Thus it’ll be a drawn-out process. And in the end the players, if they don’t get what they want, will mention the “S” word:
Sex.
No, “strike.”
S-s-s-strike?
Yes – s-s-s-strike.
Granted it’s a last resort. But it is a resort. A very bad resort. Like Great Keppel Island after they changed their motto from “Get Wrecked on Keppel” to “Don’t Come Here The Pools Are Green With Algae And The XXXX is $10 a Tin.”
Strike action would be like that. A very bad island off Yeppoon.
And yet, within the RLPA – the voice of all players – there’s a solid core group of men prepared to stand up and say they’re not happy with how it is.
James Maloney is one. Cam Smith. Johnathan Thurston. The enigmatic Cooper Cronk. Heavy hitters. Cynics. Blocks, they’ve been around them.
And if the NRL is fool enough to disrespect, partronise, and not give them a fair suck of the old Heinz dead-horse bottle, if these cynical heavy-hitting enigmas believe that strike action – or at least the threat of it – is the only significant thing the NRL will take seriously, then that’s what’ll happen. Not ideal. But if they feel they have no choice…
What the players want is to be dealed in at the big table.
(AAP Image/Lukas Coch)
As it is players are “put forward” to media in front of plastic sheets full of sponsors to mouth platitudes.
It bores them, it bores the journos, and it bores you, footy consumer type. And that can’t be good. It isn’t good.
They’re greedy? They’re not, according to Maloney, Smith, Thurston and Cronk, they just want a fair go. And coming from these guys it resonates. Not just because they’re statesmen. But they’re at the end of their playing days.
Thurston and Smith are in to bat for their mates who do the same hard yards at training but aren’t superstars who can set themselves up for life. Any benefit from a percentage share of revenue will benefit the majority of players, the kids, the bushies, the greater rump of non-Origin guys on $200k.
Bottom line: using players as stars to promote games get bums on seats. And now the stars want a cut.
Appearance money for stars to promote golf tournaments works a bit like it.
One way it would work is for the NRL to have their normal budget and salary cap, and a prediction how much they’ll make by year’s end. And they would distribute money through salary cap, welfare, education, retirement fund, all that.
And at the end of the year if the NRL can point to an extra $20 million, say, part of that would be divvied around the players. The players – all of them – would see a tangible return. Players would be invested in it.
Consider the players’ retirement fund. If you play four or more games a season you get $10,000 in your fund. About 30 players a year debut, play four games. It’s been running five years. And there’s an estimated $20 million in the fund, which is not earning the players any interest.
Rather it’s held by NRL who “manage” it. Shouldn’t it be the players? Shouldn’t RLPA control it?
Shouldn’t players be able to individualise their own nest-egg? Like a self-managed super fund? As it stands it’s earning interest – but the players aren’t seeing it.
It’s not seen by NRL as the players’ money.
Consider transitioning from full-time player on good money to “normal” person on normal money. It’s hard for players. We fans might scoff – “Please. Get a job, hippy.”
But it’s a thing. Players enjoy a lifestyle, a standing in the community, a feeling of who they are – footballer.
And each weekend they are thrilled and thrilling on a big stage. It’s a heady rush. And when they’re done, they’re done. They’re left cold turkey.
The retirement fund helps players “breathe.” They can do a course, get a qualification.
RLPA wants welfare and education grants to go up to help players get educated throughout their career. It’s getting better. But guys need to be aware, time’s a factor.
Footy is full on. When players get time off you want to spend it with family, or just relax.
Footballers weren’t always the best kids at school. They’re aren’t many accountants among them. There are guys doing courses, but it’s not easy. Footy comes first, it’s their major thing.
All that stuff, part of the CBA. Part of the RLPA’s demands for a cut. But industrial action? A strike? Really?
“It’s the last thing we want,” said one senior player. “That’s not good for anyone. But we also don’t want to be stuffed around and not taken seriously.”
Mushi
Guest
Looking more into it the players are getting the benefits. The promise is to pay X in Y years time. First it means at the moment it isn't the Player's money. Just like a player doesn't get to demand interest on the last 4 years of their contract payments. Second this means that the NRL will have X / (1+expected compounded return) to invest. So in reality if they are saying you'll get 10k in say 10 years then the NRL is really only willing to part with far less than that today. So players are getting a guaranteed return in a way (like a pension)
Mushi
Guest
They should right, but we kind of know they are not. Hence why do we magically think it changes here. Even then I think we are vastly overestimating the advisory industry.
Big Daddy
Guest
You can't blame the players for poor crowds. NRL have to take responsibility for poor programming. They have sold the public out to channel 9. There is no incentive for people to attend because of Thursday night matches and not enough Sunday arvo matches.
Londoner
Guest
Nothing events like the World Cup.....Thats a sad comment to hear, but probably reflects how a lot of Aussie Fans feel.....Its a shame as International RL could be a lot more if it was supported by the NRL better.
Big Daddy
Guest
Dave_s, You are right about getting good advice from a financial advisor. They do charge fees particularly if they are aligned with a bank. What intrigues me is the player/managers don't do too much in the way of pointing them in the right direction except for taking their percentage. I believe that a good player/manager should be doing this. Make them earn it. Some players make good investments in property etc but should be looking at their compulsory super payments as part of their contract. They are not around for long. In the old days players that earnt good money bought a pub or brewery truck.
Mushi
Guest
Um okay. That still assumes they make rational decisions on employing said "honest financial advisor" and can guide them to appropriate risk based outcomes. How did that work for the columnist here Craig Wing? NRL players from what I've observed do not get best in class advice and lack the life experience, generally, to recognise that.
Mushi
Guest
Actually it depends on if it is legally theirs or not. If it's the way you are saying the players don't have economic interest in it prior to the qualification.
Nostradamus
Guest
Why are the players negotiating with the NRL anyway ? Shouldn't they be negotiating with their Clubs, Ever Since the SL War the Game seems to have become about the Players. IMO it should be about the Clubs and Fans first
Jimmmy
Guest
Even at the NRL's preferred salary cap the average player payment will be over $ 300.000 per year. I support the players making a decent living. It is not a long term career proposition . Most players are done before 30 so being able to put some away is really important. Most RL supporters howeverwould feel the proposed cap is more than fair. The excess funds need to go to lower level and junior development . A game without a strong base will whither in the long term . The base needs more support. A player strike when the average wage is $300,000 will see any goodwill for the players from the public evaporate.
Craig
Guest
I think it's a safe assumption that football players aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. I'm not bagging the blokes, they're exceptional at what they do and are often great blokes who do wonderful things for our community, but I'm purely pointing out the obvious. Sure, everyone makes mistakes. But if you're going to trust someone with 10k of your money to invest in something, I'd probably lean towards a school teacher, accountant, lawyer, real estate agent before entrusting a footy player.
Dave_S
Guest
It's not hard to find a decent and honest financial advisor to put them on, and keep them on, the right path in that regard. So it can be the best of both worlds - individual freedom to make decisions within the bounds of professional assistance.
kk
Roar Pro
Don't feed the animals.
Mickyo
Guest
It is about 4% on last year, but in Sydney seems to be down much more, horrific crowds in Sydney. This time of the year crowds drop again
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
A 1% drop is a "collapse"?!?!
Alan
Guest
I suspect that the interest earned goes into the NRL's coffers rather than being credited back to the retirement fund - so yes, both statements can be correct. It also means that the value of the fund goes backwards each year by the rate of inflation.
Albo
Guest
Norm Gallagher was more an "action for results" type rather than a sweet talking convincer ! I would like the discussions held in a public forum so we can see exactly who is who in the zoo here ! I'm still not sure who are good guys and who are the bad guys , but there does seem to be plenty of leeches in the mix ?
Aem
Guest
"Any benefit from a percentage share of revenue will benefit the majority of players, the kids, the bushies, the greater rump of non-Origin guys on $200k." Will it, though? I think you'll find the vast majority of additional money in the player salary pool will go towards the guys who are already (or will be at the time of new contracts) the highest earners. That's pretty much always how it works in reality across sports and industries (unless there are artificial barriers like a minimum wage). Unless they're also campaigning for a rise in the minimum wage in line with or above the level of cap increase? I somehow doubt they are...
mushi
Guest
You say they should be able to invest it like a self-managed super fund. But then also say hey these guys aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed and aren’t accountants. So basically we should let them make really bad decisions? The NRL shouldn’t control it (not sure they do outside of an advisory capacity like a corporate super fund) but you kind of argue, very well mind you, against the players being the right ones to control it as well.
mushi
Guest
“And there’s an estimated $20 million in the fund, which is not earning the players any interest. …………. Shouldn’t players be able to individualise their own nest-egg? Like a self-managed super fund? As it stands it’s earning interest – but the players aren’t seeing it. It’s not seen by NRL as the players’ money” Um how can both of those statements be correct?
ac
Guest
I think this is relevant but i just checked the crowd figures for 2017 -1% on last year. Attendances have collapsed in the NRL over the past few weeks. Maybe the players are not in a positon to ask for more $ if they general public can no longer be bothered supporting the code.