Look how happy rugby league is

Your shadow is shaped like a goose!

Well, not since Andrew Gee got caught handing out brown paper bags in the Broncos Red Hill car park. Where the Broncos are advantaged is in having such a massive junior nursery and a monopoly and culture of support within Australia's 3rd largest capital city. A large demographic that is Rugby League crazy and where everyone who lives there wants to play for the Broncos. The Broncos play on this unshakable loyalty and use this to lowball players who are willing to accept less for "the honour" of playing for the Broncos. Case in point Darren Lockyer, Corey Parker and Matt Gillett. Compare that to the changing demographic of the inner-city and the territorial boundaries of the Rabbitohs and the Roosters. As more and more younger families move west and south-west of Sydney and singles and retirees move into these areas the junior nurseries of both clubs continue to shrink and loyalty to the brand because of junior involvement becomes less of a factor. Of course with the current exceptions of John Sutton, Adam Reynolds, Alex Johnston, Campbell Graham and Cameron Murray. I'll also claim Kyle Turner in that as his Dad grew up in Redfern and we went to the same school and played footy together along with Nathan Merritt's Dad.

Broncos, with a soft spot for Souths and Canberra. The Broncos haven’t won since before my kid in high school was born. Not sure how all that alleged rorting of the cap is doing them any good.

Wow! THAT is quite a colourful analogy and clarifies your position but NOT the answer to my question, which club do you support? Is it the Broncos? If so, then along with the Rabbitohs, and the Roosters the Broncos and the Storm stand to have the most to gain if the salary cap and TPA system is abolished. Let's have no salary cap and a free for all and see what the Rugby League landscape looks like after multi-millionaire Russell Crowe and billionaire James Packer who is in the top 7 richest people in Australia (see link below) bankroll Souths recruitment drive. Not to mention all the corporate and commercial connections that both men have at their disposal. Btw, Nick Politis was not even on the radar on that list. I can't wait for Souths to have the majority of the Australian test side run out in cardinal and myrtle. Mind you the Glory, Glory that Souths have covered themselves in over the last 111 years have been the result of phenomenal success in a fair competition were for much if the clubs history over the last 50 years they have been the clear underdog. They didn't have a major media broadcaster that feeds the game financially doing them any favours unlike the Storm and the Broncos. https://amp.abc.net.au/article/10731700

That is what I am arguing against mate. Who is responsible for compensation in the game due to injury, the clubs or the NRL? The clubs are stakeholders but they do not run the competition. Contracts have to be registered with the NRL and meet their guidelines in regards to the salary cap and eligibility of that player to play in the NRL. That being the case, as the games governing body and OWNERS of the competition, the buck stops with the NRL. The clubs pay players to do one thing, PLAY to the best of their ability. If you are unable to work in the real world you get a period of sick leave or compassionate leave but then that's it. If you are no longer able to perform your role after that you are either on leave without pay or you lose your position. In either case SOMEONE ELSE IS HIRED TO DO YOUR JOB! In the case of workplace compensation this is a little different but essentially if you cannot perform your role you are compensated financially and the employer then hires someone else to perform your role. They are NOT forced to keep paying you each week but leave your role vacant as they are unable to hire someone else for the position. What a ridiculous outcome that would be! As to compensation and who pays the best analogy I can think of is a real world example. If you slip and fall in the lobby of the leased building you are employed to work in it is the leasor of the premises that is liabile. The NRL are ultimately responsible for the safety and welfare of it's players. The clubs also have a responsibility but it is ridiculous to suggest that if a player can no longer play the game or is out for the majority of the season that their club should not be allowed to fill that position with the balance remaining of that players value on the salary cap. Otherwise it only takes one bus/coach accident to have an entire team injured and yet the club cannot promote their second tier team or sign available playing talent in order to field a side.

"Red herrings about restraint of trade are irrelevant " you can't contract to evade the law, no matter how you dress it up. The young Asian girl isn't a practical slave in a brothel. She is a guest worker, her contract says so.

Are you seriously confused about the difference between a player who only plays ONE or TWO games in a season compared to a player who MISSED ONLY ONE GAME in the season through injury? Do I REALLY have to draw a picture and help you to think? Greg Inglis played ONLY 8 mins effectively on two legs in the 2017 season and was on the sidelines for THE WHOLE SEASON except for that round 1 game against the Tigers. Similarly this year he ONLY PLAYED TWO GAMES! In 2011 (Darren Lockyer's last season) he played 22 games for the Broncos. He played 21 of the 24 games in the regular season (26 rounds with 2 Bye rounds), the 3 games he missed in the regular season were due to intelligibility due to origin game 2 and 3 and 1 due to the ANZAC Test match. The ONLY game Lockyer missed that year was the 26 - 14 preliminary final loss to Manly. You CANNOT count the GF by a fallacious argument that HAD Lockyer played in that prelim final they would have won and advanced to the GF. Q.E.D. Lockyer ONLY missed ONE game in 2011 due to injury and THREE games due to ineligibility due to representative commitments (which are NOT compensated). It is believed that Lockyer was on $200K in 2011 (LOL). Divide that by 26 games (24 regular season and 2 finals) the result and the most the Broncos could claim on the salary cap is $7,692. Don't spend it all at once! Bahahahahahaha

Still, if NRL contracts stipulated that ALL player payments had to be paid to the NRL FIRST to be registered who in turn are responsible for the disbursal of these funds to players the system can be safeguarded IF it is centralised and controlled by a neutral third-party. There could then be a clause in each contract warning that if players are caught receiving payments directly either from the sponsor, the club or their player manager then there is a mandatory 2 year ban from the game. Red herrings about restraint of trade are irrelevant as a player has willing entered into a contractual agreement and can still earn additional income over and above their salary cap payment. If honesty and integrity existed then clearly such draconian measures would not be necessary. However the system continues to be abused and is falling apart so either ALL payments are centralised or the NRL remove the salary cap and TPA system altogether! Currently the system favours the clubs with the best accountants, "politicians", salesmen and lobbyists and disadvantages all clubs who try to play by the rules. The Rabbitohs are one of only a few clubs in the game that would benefit if there was no salary cap or TPA system but they have always played by the rules while other clubs have bent or broken them to gain an advantage. Either the NRL act to fix the inequality in the system or scrap it altogether!

Hardly mercenary but it is a business and this has been happening forever? How many players who pick up severe injuries are looked after post contract? The club/NRL's duty of care is to keep them in peak physical condition during their time employed and in best possible condition when they leave. Post contract, they're paying their own way with whatever job they can find like the rest of us. To our point, I'm for the player getting paid out their contract, that is the risk the club takes with injuries. I'm also happy for the club to be compensated for next year up until the contract finishes but I don't think the club should be compensated for this existing year. Eitherway the player is fine but the club wears to hit just as they would if the player done as ACL and out for the season.

Why should Souths be allowed to obtain a replacement for Inglis after one match, but the Broncos not be allowed to replace Lockyer for the last 3 matches? What’s the difference? They are both season ending injuries. They both have a major impact on their team’s ability to compete.

Does anyone know how many sponsors have left the Dragons since the JDB saga began? Is the Dragons major sponsor experiencing any negative feedback from its customers?

Game survived the rabbit cull in the 2000’s, no one missed you

Souths and Easts share same geographical areas, Easts are capable of effectively recruiting top class players within the rules and regulations of the game but the “pride of the league” the “forever in our shadows” and let’s not forget the children’s story “book of fueds” can’t! The billionaire, the Hollywood “great” are definitely living in a shadow Shaped like a Rooster

John Allan, 100% mate I have no time for an educated, privileged sportsman, supposed “role model” getting away with what is a “crime” everyday courts are filled with examples where many are not so fortunate as mr Inglis. And to try find anything positive about his behaviour is shallow

That sort of arrangement in the US works because many of the players are on 10's of millions of dollars. The MLB minimum is 550k (US) and NBA is near on 600k (US). TPAs in the US are millions of dollars for many players, many of them 10s of millions. In the NRL some of the TPAs are probably 10k here or there from car washes or local business not a Nike or car companies. I think most of us would be surprised how complicated a mess it would all be trying to tie down TPAs and what constitutes a payment, a care on a "lease" for instance.

Obviously Greeberg will credit Jack De Belin for these pleasing figures. Probably give him a job in marketing the game. Thanks Jack.

You're being ridiculous. The scenarios I have discussed are to address long-term disadvanges, like Souths losing Greg Inglis after 8 mins of their round 1 game against the Tigers or losing Inglus from round 4 similarly to the Dragons losing Widdop. It is not an argument to do a Tonya Harding style knee capping of a non-performing player in order to sign up a star player that suddenly appears on the market. If clubs would only act with integrity or if the NRL were better able to run and manage their own game this forum wouldn't need to be utilised to address such glaring inconsistencies or inequalities in their flawed systems. The bottom line is that injuries will always happen to some extent. There is always some risk that clubs can be missing players during the finals. In your example, assuming Lockyer was signed for the following season and not playing in one of the last games of his career, the Broncos would be entitled to receive a rebate on Lockyer's contract for the following season (IF he were unavailable for the majority of the season). They would not be entitled (or at least able to use) the remaining couple of thousand dollars for the last 3 games of the season.

Check your own bias against Souths JA to be dredging all this up about a retired great of the game just because I referenced a hypothetical car accident. It was the most realistic hypothetical scenario that could see 4 players taken out of the game for a considerable period of time. I did this to emphasise a huge flaw in the system and in thinking that clubs should still have to count players who can now longer play under their salary cap. It is illogical to argue against this view without undermining the intended purpose of the salary cap itself. After his DUI Inglis missed out on ever playing for Australia again and worse, the honour of captaining Australia. As for Mal "forgiving him", well did he get to captain Australia or was he picked to play for Australia after that? No. As for the incident with his wife, well that's their business and we weren't there so our opinions mean very little in the scheme of things. Congrats on the typical Roosters supporters attempt to misdirect an argument that either directly proves or questions any system that advantages the chooks.

Okay – here’s an awesome scenario from 2011: Darren Lockyer cracks his cheekbone in the qualifying final, wins the game with a drop goal. The Cowboys get knocked out that week playing against Manly. Darren Lockyer is medically retired due to his facial fracture. Who could possibly slot in for such a great player? Gee… can anyone maybe think of a pretty decent halves player who has nothing to do next Saturday….

No. I'm not suggesting putting a cap on a single players earnings but on the club they are contracted to who would have a salary cap and a TPA cap to adhere to. If a club wants to give 100% of their allotted TPA cap to one player then fine. You are arguing the cynical line that allows the unscrupulous to rort the system and give some clubs a material advantage over others. What system do YOU favour? The status quo? Clearly that system has failed. Compare the disparity between the Roosters roster and the Tigers or the Bulldogs for example. Btw, for the sake of transparency and honesty please confirm WHICH team you support elvis?