'It's the only way bottom dwellars will fight their way up': NRL world reacts to draft proposal

On the NRL teams should be involved earlier. I couldn’t disagree more. It would be fundamentally destructive. I liken it to having tech companies take of primary school math, or any other highly skilled business run the building block education for their skill set. Just like those companies the best thing the NRL can do is give cash to organisations that are well placed to do it – which is what the ARLC model is supposed to do Now they could just brand it “Bulldogs” (a lot of areas do this already) but the strategy, staffing and executing has to be centralised to make it effective. The quality argument Quality is relative to each other anyway. Part of the issue the last two years needs to reflect the higher injury rates exacerbate luck and squad depth. Quality in management and strategy is the issue. Consistency NRL teams are about winning professional football games. In competition with a bunch of other NRL teams. Their involvement in the junior system would by nature need to be competitive which isn’t destructive to delivering anything approaching consistent junior strategy. Time frame Plus in a league where short term thinking is an issue giving club money to spend on a 10-15 year investment time frame seems incredibly odd. A minority focus is contrary to success Junior’s is about participation and enjoyment. NRL clubs will be rightly focused on creating NRL players which narrows participation and places additional pressure in an environment where kids have multiple options to enjoy time with their mates. Now if it was an area with a single dominant code that might easier to do but really everywhere league is played AFL, basketball and soccer are an easy alternative. Skill set Educating and engaging young people is a skill different to helping professional athletes win games in a cut throat business of succeed or expire. Do we think that NRL team’s are awash with the skills to engage junior footballers?

As for the Widdop etc Luck is always going to play a role in roster construction because even if you make the right decision the pay off isn’t equal or certain. If some one offers me a 90% shot at double or nothing it’s the right decision to take that even if it turns out the 1/10 event occurs. Building the biggest cache of junior talent gives you the best chance but that doesn’t mean that through sheer luck the next cam smith isn’t in someone else’s junior pool. Making the right decision doesn’t always yield the right results, it just increases the chance of it happening. Especially when dealing with decision about which players to put on a field hoping they win one particular 80 minute stanza in October. Given no team is certain to win it’s remembering that by definition every grand final winner is lucky.

On the patchy record of success query it really again comes down to defining failure. If it’s failing to win a premiership then every model will typically fail as if more than one team follows the model then each year there is failure. But if you look at the teams which have built sustained periods of success they’ve typically had a lot of one club or cheap early career buys on the roster (whether as stars or as the filler to create cap space for stars) or had a lucky risk reward flier pay off. The recruit/retain balance is a building block. It will maximise the value you can extract over time from your cap spend. There’s just no way that you can outbid 15 other teams effectively over the long term better than you can use those same assessment skills to simply recruit them before they become NRL players. But because all you need is patience then it’s a matter of degrees to which you can take advantage (the irony being that if everyone goes into a patient mode there is probably then value in being selectively aggressive as patience will become overvalued). You also need talent identification, talent maximisation, cap management and most of all… luck. Same in the real world it’s a building block not the pointy end of differentiation. General industry figured out quality of labour and retain vs recruit generations ago and hence so like any competitive advantage over time it just became part of the generic operating model for survival. The only reason it is a point of differentiation in the NRL is that most of these teams would have collapsed in the “real” world.

On the original question: “There needs to be incentive/reward for clubs to invest in junior development.” The first part was the issue I raised. There is already an incentive, retention is on average easier, cheaper and lower risk than recruitment especially if a salary capped league. This isn’t just rugby league or sport in general it is universal in employment with graduate programs and cadetships at law firms, accounting firms, industrial companies, banks, insurers, retailers, miners, airlines etc. Anywhere there is a sought after skill set there is strategy to buy a portfolio of potential rather than over pay to lure production in the work force. There are some departures in upper echelons of senior management but that is more akin to coaches etc. So I don’t see a question of “need”. The incentive for clubs to invest, or not, largely now comes down to fans patience. “’If that is the objective, I don’t understand how a draft system could be the answer?” To put it simply it isn’t the objective. The value of a draft system is predicated entirely on the idea that having young talent = good. The caveat being there has to be a “potential” based pay structure that mirrors the risk. A draft will never solve the problem you posit because a draft assumes the exact opposite situation for value of junior talent and that evening access is better for parity because any sensible team will prioritise it to the extent it is viable.

Thanks for the effort Mushi, appreciated. I wholeheartedly agree that dollars are not the only motivation, and also that some clubs seem to underperform in areas of administration/management/retention/coaching. I also recognise that sometimes the spiral can begin (or dramatically accelerate) through injury or off field stupidity and once a club is in trouble it can go badly wrong. For mine, there always seem to be too many ex St George Illawarra players performing really well at other clubs while we are spending big money to buy talent. Spending big money on an import as a quick fix, particularly for a long term contract is a high risk tactic that can stink of desperation. Especially if it involves buying whoever happens to be available at the time (hello Corey Norman), but also high risk when it is an exceptional player who is expected to become the team leader and subsequently has personal issues (eg. Hunt, Foran), or recurrent injuries (eg. Widdup), or just inconsistent/poor form for whatever reason (eg. Milford), or unacceptable and self indulgent off field behaviour (eg. … good grief, so many… let’s go with Ben Barba). I hear Andrew Johns talk about the Newcastle model for success in his time, build a team of exceptional local juniors and fill the missing piece/s of the puzzle with an exceptional import (Ben Kennedy in his example). I’m sure that’s what the Broncos intended with Milford. Great that it worked in Johns’ time, but so often it just doesn’t go to plan. I won’t go on about a rookie draft (or draft of any form), i don’t have any clear understanding of the intricacies of how these would work and defer to yourself and Brett Allan as you have both obviously put a lot of thought into it. I began this with a short question to which I still don’t think there is a clear answer, and i think that largely comes down to how junior development(/coaching) is defined, or how the scope of junior development is defined. I still have the same question: “There needs to be incentive/reward for clubs to invest in junior development. If that is the objective, I don’t understand how a draft system could be the answer?”. I understand your reply to be that junior development should be directly funded by the NRL, not by the clubs themselves. Maybe that’s my key point of issue. I think there is a role for both in junior development well before 16/17 age group. And adding this after initial posting: i do not believe the game is anywhere close to good enough with junior development and coaching, if it was there would be no debate about whether there is sufficient talent available for all 16 teams to be competitive and for expansion.

This is pretty rushed and not proof read but I figured 1100 words was already going to far. The conclusions for the TLDR: "So in the end when you’re under a cap system a club making more “retain” decisions that “recruit” effectively is playing with a larger salary cap because. They are taking less risk (have better information ) don’t have to pay the player for taking risk (change) and presumably retained optionality during the development process over which asset (player) to prioritise." First we need to clarify that when we say “invest in juniors” we mean teenagers who have already demonstrated that they are incredibly good at rugby league. It isn’t new players, it doesn’t expand the player or fan base. It leverages off the investment of the ARLC, the community and the government. The vast majority of funding is done outside of the clubs but it is the clubs who get to monetise that investment. They’re ostensibly the same people that would be selected in the 500+ NRL squads anyway. It’s an unsubstantiated proposition that this junior “investment” in players already largely developed creates anything material for the game. It is simply about making sure that the development of that player’s talents are aligned with one particular clubs needs, there is no benevolence. Look at other sporting models. The reasons drafts exist is that trillions of dollars in capital believes that access to younger talent is the core building block to success. Some even have a hybrid model, hockey and baseball, where you draft players who aren’t ready yet and put them in feeder systems and create optionality over their talents. In soccer/football some clubs commercial existence is predicated on just being that talent pathway. Because the pay off on the marginal additional investment, if you have the scale of juniors, is like running a top decile hedge fund. Before you say “but they have transfer fees” we have them too. It’s just that $ aren’t as valuable to a club as cap space so it’s not a focus. Clubs (hopefully, some I do wonder if they grasp it) know they’re already reaping the commercial benefit. It is why they run the vacuous argument for cap discounts for their investment. But the club never invested any of their salary cap into junior networks, what they’re trying to do is create some kind of exchange to turn normal cash into new “cap money” from thin air. Even better because the majority of investment is actually made by the state body 16/17th of the money was paid effectively by other clubs. Genius! The real reason though is the basics of risk versus return and optionality. On risk return a player in the 17 that is on their first contract is usually the most valuable thing you have at a club. That isn’t just the NRL it’s pretty much global in sports that productive first contract players are the best $ for production investment in the playing list. The issue is the conversion rate, for every 10 young men there might only be one NRL calibre player and it might require 10 of those to have one that can start straight away and be a boon for their entire contract. Running a big “junior” program is essentially like running a venture capital fund of start ups. Most will fail but the one that does succeed will be worth a fortune. Even better it’s really buying options (because the majority of equity is actually funded elsewhere you get a leverage effect) in these players using real world money where the pay off happen in return of Cap dollars. An option is a financial instrument that ahs a lucrative pay out upon success and no future downside other than what you paid upfront. In finance markets try to fairly value that upfront payment however in sports these are typically poorly valued or not understood. “But they can just be poached” Here we get into recruitment versus retention. First the pre NRL player can only be “poached” if you don’t have the contracted, that’s the clubs fault. But leaving that aside the advantage in a battle between retaining someone or recruiting (poaching) them is always with the retainer. People sub consciously value risk, maybe not accurately but there’s still an attempt, we typically need to be incentivised to take it. And change is risk. So leaving to a new situation generally will require a better offer meaning that all else being equal the “recruiter” has to be willing to pay more than what the “retainer” is. Furthermore the players true “value” should, all things being equal, be far better known by the retainer. You’ve observed them more, you’ve trained them specially for their team role and all their ability to perform that role has been tested. I.e. you might know that Johnny Boot really can only play well with a ball running edge forward who cuts back against the seam and he makes terrible reads on when to put the ball on the outside shoulder. So you never run a structure like that – thus the recruiting team has no idea about this flaw when they’re evaluating him because there isn’t any information from game tape. Recruitment is an incredibly inexact process in every industry because it’s impossible to perfectly glean how well a person will perform in your organisation based on their observed results in another organisation. There just isn’t anyway to tell how much of the success or failure was the result of other factors. That’s in an all else being equal world. But in the real world everything isn’t equal and this is where a retainer has more advantage. Even in cut throat industries studies about what people value in a job never have money at #1. Money is a mechanism not an outcome in and of itself and often there are aspects which money can’t purchase. It may be feeling like you contribute (having a shot at the NRL 17), enjoying your work mates or coach, having the little things looked after (larger medical staff, better hotels ) or a plethora of other non contracted salary matters. Here again is where a large junior pool creates option value for the retainer. A recruiter has to wait for players to hit the open market and then go into competition with 16 other clubs. They can’t make decisions around changing some of the aspects at their club to just suit one player. But the retainer sitting there looking at say 4 prospective halves in their junior system has the option of adjusting some their culture or structure to appeal to the talent years in advance of the recruiting teams or prioritising the player that fits their existing frameworks and ensuring the recruiter has to massively overpay to offset those non monetary benefits. So in the end when you’re under a cap system a club making more “retain” decisions that “recruit” effectively is playing with a larger salary cap because. They are taking less risk (have better information ) don’t have to pay the player for taking risk (change) and presumably retained optionality during the development process over which asset (player) to prioritise. The question might be then “why then are some of the big junior nurseries rubbish” the answer is management and fans. The retain pathway takes patience to deliver results management and fans lack patience.

Plus self inflicted off field incidents.

Agree Gus O. If I look at the issues that some clubs have had in recent years - Bulldogs, Parra, Dragons, Manly, West Tigers, Knights - and don’t think it is all to do with player roster. Poor salary cap management, rookie coaches, dysfunctional boards, recruitment and selfish CEOs have played a bigger part.

Didn’t the Cowboys think they were doing exactly this with Ponga? Thurston would retire and Ponga would be their next superstar - but Thurston stayed longer and Newcastle made him an offer too good to refuse and said “don’t be generation next in Qld, come and be generation right now in Newcastle”. And all the resources the Cows had invested in Ponga’s development moved south with him. They can all recognise extraordinary talent, but where is the system that gives assurance to the clubs that if they invest in junior development they will receive the benefit, or get first option for some defined period.

Thanks Brett. Two queries: firstly, i see in principle how this could benefit underperforming clubs (if, if, if). However under this model i can also see how clubs that make serious and direct investment in junior development (in your example - Penrith, Parra, Souths) can lose out to the clubs that do not make such investment, maybe more so than the current arrangements. My question: if the system does not provide greater direct incentive for each individual club to directly invest in junior development how does the competition as a whole benefit? Secondly, i look at the Wests/Tigers, they had Brookes, Moses, Teddy, Woods and Tapou coming through, my understanding was that this was the cream of a generation of local juniors and somehow they completely cocked up their recruitment and repeatedly churned through coaches. None of these players were rookies anymore, but all (i think?) were local juniors. How could a draft system provide incentive for retention of local juniors? Maybe the Tigers were beyond helping. It just seemed like the club had the opportunity for another period in the sun and the more successful clubs simply poached/cherry picked their home grown talent. How could any draft system prevent decimation of teams showing potential to rise?

Hi Succhi, i remember when Bennett was signing up the mob of young, mobile forwards at the Broncos we had journalists talking up his foresight and nous, he was ahead of the game, with NRL head office signalling further reduction of the interchange and acting to speed up the game. Seibold inherited a Broncos team that didn’t fit Seibold’s game plan and it didn’t turn out well. So many wanted to lay the blame on what was now proclaimed to be Bennet’s misguided recruitment. Meanwhile Bennett has taken Souths to compete for a place in three successive grand finals and missed a premiership in 2021 by a couple of points in the absence of Mitchell. IMO the same Broncos players would have been a different team had Bennett stayed. Again, speaking as a St George supporter… he certainly had an impact at Kogarah. Both when he came and when he left.

Thanks Mushi. That sounds worthy of an entire article. I’ll look forward to it :)

If you give me sufficient time I'll write new one stepping through comparisons to other sports models, financial principles of optionality and most behavioural models that have money never being the primary motivator.

Happy for you to point me to a previous post.

Apologies I've spelled this put so often that it's tpught to know if I'm just jamming the same message or not

Congrats to Chad Townsend and his manager, didn’t sit on his hands waiting for the club/new coach to decide his future. They read the game of musical chairs and pounced on his best opportunity while other halves were still weighing up the options. A really smart move for him. Sorry to see Sean Johnson leave the Cronulla too. Seems happy to be heading back to Warriors, hope he is has a better run with injuries in 2022.

You proclaim “giant furphy”, you proclaim there “has always been an incentive to develop”. But no explanation. Can you please explain where the direct incentive is for an individual NRL club to directly invest significant resources into junior development programs when competing clubs have equal opportunity to subsequently contract (ie. poach) or bid up the value of players who have benefitted from such investment? Where is the furphy?

The incentive/reward is a giant furphy. Most of the spending on juniors is outside NRL clubs, that's part of the ARLC's reason for being. The other is.. there's always been an incentive to develop, it's just been most junior heavy teams had short sighted management

There needs to be incentive/reward for clubs to invest in junior development. If that is the objective, I don’t understand how a draft system could be the answer?

Debatable...