The NRL's player movement system has to change, but can it actually be fixed?

red white and bluesters

Go roosters

What a load of bull. Souths didn't steal GI! Inglis had left the Storm due to Salary Cap cheating. Inglis had agreed to join the Broncos but Inglis was discouraged as no one from the Broncos couldn't be bothered to meet him at the airport. It was after that that Inglis himself through his manager approached Souths and Shane Richardson, NOT Crowe about a possibility of coming to the Rabbitohs. The NRL refused to register his contract as the News Limited Run and Owned Broncos wanted Inglis and they protested that they had an agreement, even though NO Paperwork was ever signed. Ian Schubert turned down Souths 3 attempts to register him, it was Christmas eve yet Schubert wouldn't budge on the matter. It was when GI himself rang the then NRL CEO David Gallop, he told Gallop that if his contract wasn't registered today that GI would defect to the AFL. His contract was registered for a then HIGH of $650k or 15.2% of our total cap for only 1 player. The Salary Cap was only $4.3M for 25 players. To give you an indication of how high a figure this was Souths had to release 3 players with Beau Champion being the highest profile. Players like Cooper Cronk, Billy Slater and Cam Smith were all down on the cap at $300k Yet GI, not a spine player back then was on more than the Australian Captain and halfback combined. HOW is that FAIR? These are the FACTS.

I get the gut feel that the Chrichton issue is far more controversial because of the historical antipathy between Souths and the roosters as opposed to just a player moving clubs. Souths stole Greg Inglis from the Storm for supposedly more money (brown paper bag Russell?) after he had 6 years there, so what's the big deal. The furore over TPA's is only fanned by the clubs who can't get the well off supporters on board, so that's a case of dragging the better managed clubs down to the basement. Maybe those underachieving clubs need to get off their backsides and court a few multi-millionaires as benefactors. Clubs that give savvy players the opportunities to mix with high achieving business people will always be a club of choice for players who see beyond their short footy careers, you can't retire at 30 no matter how good your footy contract was. Nobody has ever improved a competition by weakening their best participants.

I have read the responses and agreed with many of them. Only the top 6 to 10 players at most clubs would be demanding massive 3rd Party deals say $200k plus. Player 11 to say 17 to 20 may be getting mid to low end TPA deals. from as little as $50k to $100k. Player 21 to 30 probably isn't getting any at all. Not too many companies are going to invest in players without a profile or just starting out. Maybe the best Junior Rep players on the rise may get a little. ****************** I am not sure why NOT one single person has said... Let us just abolish the Salary Cap and make it open slather. This will solve all of the cap rorting issues. Of course, the detractors will say that the comp will end up being uneven with the same 4 or 6 clubs winning all the time. That is life though. ***************** As for Crichton to the Rorts as a Souths man, we are all devastated but I am not sure if his actual Salary is the sole reason for leaving. Someone wrote that certain Clubs pay managers for access to their players. I believe this to be true! There is some evidence that David Rawlings from Runway Sports do have connections and friendships at the Rorts. If Crichton had signed for the Sharks, Knights or back to YAWNion then the Hostility wouldn't have been so great. But... to defect to our Hated Enemy, the SCUM, that is the issue! Crichton is going to get a torrid time and relenting abuse from Souths fans this season. Every week! So much so he will be begging for a release by April. Maybe then Souths can put a Million Dollars transfer fee on him OR... Back to the Bears for mine! Why continue his development just so it can benefit the pathetic SCUM?

Mushi, having regards to other comments you've made, let me try to be clear. If the League wants the game to develop, it needs the optimum number of supporters and people watching the game, and with each team having an equal chance of winning the comp. That has never seriously existed as we all know, but it should be what the League should be aspiring for. If the game is dominated by one or two teams because of financial advantage, it reduces the interest in the game because of a fall off of support. The League has lost a large number of supporters for example in the northern area of Sydney because North Sydney were kicked out. The supporter base over all has been reduced with the amalgamations of St George and Wollongong and that of West and Balmain while not also giving full ownership of the Campbelltown side to the locals. The crowd numbers overall have improved only marginally overall since the mid 90s. This is in part because some teams were more equal than others, and many teams could not compete with the money available. A lot of the problem is allowing the wealthier teams a means of bypassing the salary cap, which was intended to create equity. There is no problem about being wealthy, but in sport if you want the code to develop, you MUST play it on an equal footing. That's where the game had a chance to improve. When St George, then Manly then Brisbane and Melbourne, and the Roosters throughout that entire period, were consistently dominating, it damaged the supporter base overall, which is what the game relies on I have no problem about people trying to make profit from the game, but if you want to seriously allow the sport to flourish, you must ensure each team has an equal chance of being in the finals half the time, to be in the grandfinal once every 8 years and to win it once every 15-16 years. Of course that is speaking statistically, but the principle should be to ensure that we are heading in that direction. TPAs only are always going to be of most benefit those teams in the central business district of major cities, such as the Roosters and Bronkos. That is why it needs to be scrapped post haste. And Mushi this has nothing to do with Roosters supporters. They are just League supporters like the rest of us. This is about the structure of the game to ensure all supporters get a fair deal with their team.

Of course it’s possible. Same thing could be said of every single club and by that logic anyone who is financially successful could be a criminal.

Well I thought I knew what your comments were referring to, though only on a post by post basis as the underlying theme seems to zig and zag quicker than Benji Marshall in his prime, hence I said you missed the point. Your comments about not being naïve seemingly refer to the part that I said you were being cynical about, you do nothing to dispel the notion that you naively believe that the concept of a salary cap is primarily intended to achieve equality and that, if we did away with TPAs, would be capable of doing it. The fraud you’re actually talking about is a risk regardless of TPAs. Hence I can’t marry up the two diametrically opposed views form the same person. I still believe, despite you having more experience with reality than any person on the planet, it is naïve to sit here and think the issue is TPA’s when what you’re really saying is the people involved in the NRL are more likely to commit fraud than other sports. If that is the case then perhaps the reason for this is risk vs regard. I’ve written about this several times, the benefits a club gets systemically circumventing outweigh the consequences that we current level, overlay the probability of getting caught and the only reason teams aren’t committing cap fraud is ethics and reputation. Now clearly you’re of the view that East fans have less ethics and less concern for their reputation, that’s an opinion that you’re entitled to have and I’m entitled to disregard and show no respect towards. So it is naïve to sit here and think the issue is TPA’s when what you’re really saying is the people involved in the NRL are more likely to commit fraud than other sports. If that is the case then perhaps the reason for this is risk vs regard. I’ve written about this several times, the benefits a club gets systemically circumventing the cap outweigh the consequences that we current level, overlay the probability of getting caught and the only reason teams aren’t committing cap fraud is ethics and reputation. Now clearly you’re of the view that East fans have less ethics and less concern for their reputation, that’s an opinion that you’re entitled to have and I’m entitled to disregard and show no respect towards.

At the moment a fair amount of comment is directed at the Roosters alleged clever or dodgy payments to players. I haven't got any sensible evidence either way other than to not grasp why they have an ability to sign players who are very highly regarded much more easily than other clubs. If it is all above board then they are to be applauded but I admit I have my doubts. I'm sure clubs who have admitted to cheating the cap on a grand scale after they had no choice had valid arguments as to how their figures all added up just like the Roosters do at present. I can't recall what the Storm , Eels or Dogs were saying about their roster and how they put it together but whatever they said it was lie. Is it not possible that the same thing is happening now? I have no evidence or figures or anything to make a case against any club but based on history I don't accept that any figures presented to me by anyone as being 100% reliable. Call it cynical but history shows it to be a realistic stance.

Mushi your title suits your comment. Mushi!. You well know what my comments were referring to. Muddying the waters does nothing to change your obviously parochial position

I live & work in regional Qld. The biggest issue that affects the health of bush footy is the local economy, not anything that the NRL has or hasn't done. Strong local economy > jobs > families > players > coaches > administrators > volunteers > supporters > juniors. At the moment, the town where I work can't get enough volunteers to form a committee to run the Club, so no footy next season.

I saw bearfax took the time to respond below but nothing about his rampant hypocrisy about not liking others enforcing double standards but him being free to do so? Maybe it was a technogical glitch that stopped him apologising for being a hypocrite.

And politis has often said they don't back end of heavily incentivise contracts (something I've independently verified) , so it's unlikely they have carry over. I can understand the non incentives part, if players are undervaluing them then don't offer them up.

Again you completely miss the point the naivety was with regards to the cap being a tool for parity, I actually said you were cynical with regard to the points you raised. But thanks for instilling confidence regarding those that monitor our criminal justice system...

Mushi this is not naivety, its reality mate. Having worked in the criminal justice system for over thirty years, I'm hardly one to be called naïve. I've probably seen far more reality than you will ever see. The dirty tricks behind the scenes, the manipulation of power and money, the increasing inequity in our Australian society. I speak from first hand experience regarding how these little games are played.

Good points Mushi I wrote and submitted an article this morning about the Roosters 2018 salary cap and some of the misconceptions floating about. When you put conservative values on the six players the Roosters have released, it comes to about $2M. Conservatively. Plus the cap is going up next year by $2.4M. So that gives the Roosters $4.4M to spend. Of course that's going to be offset by salary cap increases that have been built into players contracts and upgrades but it's not difficult to believe that the Roosters would have money to spend. If you look. And think. The Roosters squad also drops off very steeply in terms of experience (and price) after the top 17 or so players. The rest of their 30 man squad consists of rookies or players with a couple of first grade games. Gee it feels dirty defending the Roosters...

What you’re arguing here is the system is open to fraud. And then saying everyone would commit fraud (despite the wider reputation risk) , I find the cynicism with which you approach this a double standard to the utopian naivety with which you cling to a salary cap being about creating a truly level playing field which the only end game of that is every season being determined by luck? Every other league has the same system and yet we are the only ones with an issue. If it is because of the prevalence of fraud either than means NRL people are just inherently more dishonest or the governance is wrong (which I wholeheartedly think it is)

Well that is different content to the original post above but let’s address your wholesale rewrite. You don’t like double standards. But you believe that NRL players should be treated in a way entirely inconsistent with that of other Australian residents and should not enjoy common law protections prevalent across western society?

I just don't like double standards Mushi in these arrangements, because in the end it destroy the product you are trying to expand and grow. The concept of TPAs leaves the field of exploitation open wide for those wealthy enough to seemingly indirectly find benefactors willing to part with or conduit large packages of cash. Wouldn't be hard to have your personal funds being reallocated through other parties to seemingly appear as independent contributions. And if your fortune is in the hundreds of millions, such reallocations would be just pocket money. The TPA arrangement is just an open door for some very wealthy identities to use carte blanch methods to gain advantage.

And apparently originally had escalators if he played for specific teams. you'd have NRL fans storming the gates at Moore Park over such a ridiculous display of commericalism