Prev
Next

The salary cap fits and we should continue to wear it

Peter Holmes a Court

by Peter Holmes a Court

06 May 05:40am

Must Reads

Thomson didn’t answer the question everyone is asking - this is a caption

Thomson didn’t answer the question everyone is asking

296

Disco, the music that stubbornly refuses to die - this is a caption

Disco, the music that stubbornly refuses to die

36

Live blog: Craig Thomson’s statement to parliament - this is a caption

Live blog: Craig Thomson’s statement to parliament

179

Filed under: Melbourne Storm, Nrl, Rugby League, Salary Cap, Sport

36 comments

We are in the middle of a complex and highly charged barbeque-stopper involving the NRL salary cap and a good old-fashion cheating scandal.

Chris Merrit: born and bred in Redfern, without a salary cap he might play elsewhere. Photo: Getty Images

They are, however, two completely separate issues, related by proximity but not causation. The salary cap issues can perhaps be understood in a simple four-step logic:

1.  First, you have to decide where you stand on the principle of having a team equalisation system. If you don’t want a system, then you get teams that are so much better that they are in a different class to the other teams in the competition. 

I am told this works brilliantly for the UK’s premier league soccer, where only a handful of teams are contenders each year.  But I don’t think it would fit Australia well. 
If you accept this, then it is just a matter of which particular equalisation system you use.

2. There are number of systems: drafts (the more crap you are the previous season, the better the labour you are allowed to buy the following year), a points system (each player gets allocated points based on his achievement in the game and each team can only field a team with an aggregate of the player’s points below a certain threshold), or a salary cap (total wages of the players you field can’t exceed an aggregate maximum).

They all encourage clubs to try to squeeze the most out of the system, they are all valid, they all can work, and they all have weaknesses. Rugby league has chosen a salary cap, the AFL has a cap and a draft, the Rugby Union has a club-based maximum player payments system plus a centralised contracting body for top-ups, A-League has a cap with marquee player exemptions.  Horse racing puts lead in the saddlebags of the fast horses.

A salary cap is seen (and I personally agree) to fit League as it increases the number of juniors who can go through the ranks of their local junior teams and then wear the colours of the Club they love when they become professional.  I like that about our game. I love seeing Nathan Merritt training and working in Redfern and I know what that means for kids of the area.

3. Then there is the operation of the cap itself, and its many rules. The Club can fly your parents in when you play your first game but not your 11 brothers and sisters when you play your 200th, there can be long term discounts, father/son discounts, bonuses for performance, outside payments that reward player IP, so called third-party agreements.  Very technical stuff, and in my opinion the most urgent and important thing to address, but not controversial in any public way.

And finally, step 4, if you accept a balanced competition is a good thing, that using a salary cap is as good as any other way to do it, and that the technical workings are satisfactory, then the only issue is that of the quantum of the payments a Club can make.

And that is simple: it should go up.  And up and up.  Players deserve to be paid more, and the trend towards a higher share of any game’s total pie is unstoppable.

What is not so simple, is that if it goes up faster than the least wealthy Club’s ability to pay it, then equalisation is not achieved.  There in lies the conflict and one that every sport grapples with, how to bring in more money, pay stars, and not go broke in the process.

But all of that is an entirely different issue from the rorting that occurred at the Melbourne Storm.

Cheating is cheating. A rort is a rort.  It has nothing to do with the salary cap.  Team have tried to cheat with a draft (by throwing games at the end of season), without a draft (US College football enrollment scandals) and without an equalisation system of any type (steroids anyone?).

Sport is a study of how humans behave under pressure.  When some people are under pressure, they chose to cheat.  Simple as. A tiny proportion of bankers do the same thing, a tiny sliver of lawyers do it, bus drivers, even priests.  It is not a sports issue, not a rugby league issue (as much as the classists might enjoy sticking the boot into League). 

Cheating is hard to detect quickly. The fact is that when top management of any business cheat a business owner and the taxman they usually get caught. But they usually get away with it for a long time. 

If the top three people in any business decide to keep a separate set of books, lie to directors, sign statutory declarations that are false, look at you in the eye and say everything is hunky-dory, no business systems will stop them straight away. 

Catch them and cut off their hands, I say, but that is a different issue to what you may think about the Salary Cap.

Most commented

349"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
296Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
24612 bigger issues than gay change and climate marriage
245A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
241They must pay for one's bitter disappointments
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld
224Punch on: Open thread 17/05/2012
215Punch on: Open thread 18/05/2012

36 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      06:51am | 06/05/10

      Peter,
      “Team equalisation” is just another name for handicapping, it has nothing to do with sport. Rather it is about making the game a viable business.

      What ever happened to the concept of “may the best team win”, to handicap clubs is to retard the game.

      Your only concern, is that supporters will leave a unsuccesful club and the subsequent loss of revenue.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      07:44am | 06/05/10

      It has nothing to do with business. It’s about giving opportunities to all clubs, regardless of financial resources, to win the premiership. Without a salary cap, the wealthier clubs would simply buy up all the best players, and the AFL/NRL would end up like the European soccer leagues where only three or four clubs challenge for the championship.

      It’s all very well to say ‘may the best team win’, but without a salary cap,  the premiership would be won by the wealthier clubs, rather than simply the best teams.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:03am | 06/05/10

      Dan,
      If you are going to load the dice!!  Why have competition at all?
      Successful clubs, become rich clubs, successful clubs get good gates and have large followings.

    • Dan says:

      08:37am | 06/05/10

      JAN, it’s not that simple. North Melbourne was one of the two most successful clubs during the 90’s on-field, yet off-field they were consistently faced with relocation. Port Adelaide has been successful on-field in recent years, less successful off it. Alternatively, Essendon in recent years has been less successful on-field, much less successful off it. Even Richmond has more members than several more successful clubs.

      The wealthier clubs are wealthier for a whole host of reasons, not simply on-field success. If you get rid of the salary cap, you prevent another North Melbourne from emerging, and you remove any possibility of clubs, who for various reason are not that wealthy, from competing with the clubs who will remain wealthy regardless of on-field success.

    • PG says:

      09:12am | 06/05/10

      Yeah John Easts have “MASSIVE!” crowds attending their games because they are filthy rich—yeah right.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:30am | 06/05/10

      Dan & PG,

      You can look at any sport you like, handicapping is about business eg gambling on or off course.

      Regarding successful clubs, attendances are only one aspect of wealth, management are another as are pokies.

    • Macon Paine says:

      09:38am | 06/05/10

      @ John A Neve

      “Team equalisation” is just another name for handicapping, it has nothing to do with sport.”
      Correct, Im no great fan of it, it’s like a sporting version of socialism. I want to see my team win and win often, with a cap thats less likely to happen because they cant pay the players what they are worth. On the flip side of it, look at the mid 90’s NRL though teams like manly where spending $6M per year and teams like souths could barely afford a decent weights room.

      “Rather it is about making the game a viable business.”
      Well wasn’t that the whole point of the super league war? Super League wanted to get rid of the uncompetitive sides (eg souths etc) who where holding the game back and have a strong, viable, professional and lucrative competition. Yet the geniuses at the ARL thought they knew better.

      “What ever happened to the concept of “may the best team win”, to handicap clubs is to retard the game.”
      Ultimately yes, it sets an artificial ceiling. It’s like saying to a team “ok you’ve been successfull now its time to for someone else to have a go” it’s ultimately self defeating. Maybe the NRL could have a system like the NBA, so when you go over the salary cap by say $1M you pay a $1M fine to the NRL which could be distributed evenly amongst the other 15 NRL clubs.

    • wk says:

      09:54am | 06/05/10

      @ PG
      Easts had the largest sydney crowd average a few years ago, and even after finishing last in 09, continue to have higher this yr than most syd clubs.
      Souths were playing to empty stadiums in 04,05,06…
      er, Do you actually follow the game?!?

    • Dan says:

      10:22am | 06/05/10

      JAN, the salary cap is about business in that it allows less wealthy clubs to survive, but in the AFl it is about the fact that during the in both the 70’s and 80’s there 4 premiers, and in both the 90’s and 000’s there were 7 premiers. The game wouldn’t have survived if the only 4 clubs won premierships every decade.

      Furthermore, whether it be pokies, limited membership, lack of access to business or other reasons, some clubs do not have the capability to be as financially successful as other clubs.

    • acker says:

      11:01am | 06/05/10

      @John A Neve if we took your concept to the ultimate end point we would end up with sporting competions like the Scottish Premier League with Celtic + Rangers + a heap of nobodys. Hardly a beacon for a competition.

    • John A Neve says:

      11:02am | 06/05/10

      Dan,

      Talking about a comp with only 4 clubs is a bit extreme, however, I’d rather have 4 clubs that were there on their merits. Than a comp that was loaded. 

      We could make much more interesting by having the better team play with one arm tied behind their backs.

    • PG says:

      11:14am | 06/05/10

      Yeah WK I do follow it mate and I hear the echo in SFS every time Easts play. This is the club that is only held together by a few elite people for a few elite people and a couple of deluded yobs who think they are elite It is based on a Feeder Area smaller than Newtowns used to be-Easts could hold a fans meeting in a phone box. To compare their hard core support to the Doggies Panthers the Eels or even Manly is laughable. It is only their money that saves them!

    • Dan says:

      11:36am | 06/05/10

      JAN, I don’t mean that there were only four teams in the competition; I mean there were only 4 premiers. During the 70’s, only 4 teams won premierships, and the same thing during the 80’s. During the 90’s, 7 teams won premierships, and the same thing during the 2000’s.

    • kel says:

      11:50am | 06/05/10

      Yeah, those ‘elite’ people must be amazing PG. Considering easts are the only ‘stand alone’ club to have played in every year of the competition. Imagine, being around for over a hundred years, and a few ‘elites’ are to thank for it? wow.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:12pm | 06/05/10

      Acker,
      I am sorry, but I don’t buy your logic. If there is a lack of competition, it is a sign that there is a lack of desire.

      With the acception of some foot races eg Stawell other sports aren’t handicapped. The only reason the football has this situation is as a result of clubs wanting to make money. TV, sponsorship and media are the real drivers of capping. Forget “sport” this is about business.

    • Adam Diver says:

      01:40pm | 06/05/10

      What do we want from a sport? Entertainment.

      What is argubly the best entertainment in sport? A close game.

      Whats the best way to achieve this result in the professional era? A salary Cap

    • Boo Hoo Struggle street says:

      02:21pm | 06/05/10

      DISAGREE adam diver.
      Watching the greatest athletes perform in their chosen sports, is the best entertainment.
      ...And league is losing those one by one… It used to be filled to the brim with talent. The struggling clubs scared of raising the cap or scraping it, need to move into the bloody 21st century and focus instead on running a successful business… this is a professional sport isn’t it?
      or should we all just hold hands and let afl & union continue to laugh their heads of at us?

    • acker says:

      07:09am | 06/05/10

      I am an AFL supporter and strongly agree about draft picks being used in the first 2 rounds of a draft (example 1-32) but I think clubs should have the opportunity to draft their own nutured talent in the picks after that. And end father son drafting.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      08:15am | 06/05/10

      Good article Peter, I find you extremely difficult to read due to your relationship with the insipid Rabbitohs, but I’ll congratulate you despite that glaring mistake in your public persona.

      In the end, the Salary Cap needs to ensure that Rugby League has the best competition it can afford. Clubs cannot go bankrupt trying to win premierships, and Rugby League will succeed (in NSW at least) with or without Israel Falou

      Also, this is not a debate on AFL vs League vs Soccer / Football vs Union, first one who does that is a royal knob.

      Reply

    • harry says:

      08:59am | 06/05/10

      His name is Nathan Merritt.

      Just sayin’

      Reply

    • Jo says:

      10:18am | 06/05/10

      If you want equalisation, pay all players the same wage. It isn’t rocket science. If you really feel that the “better” players deserve more, then perhaps install pay grades. A person who is new to the game gets paid A, a person who has played for a few years gets B, and so on and so forth. Make it performance based if that floats your personal boat, and throw a cap on that, so teams with better finances aren’t stacking the teams. Hell, pay them in peanuts and pina coladas.

      But whatever is done, it should be transparent. That’s the real problem with the cap at the end of the day. There’s too much wiggle room.

      Oh, and sorry Peter, but they don’t deserve to be paid more. My aunt, who spends long days on her feet wiping the backsides of dementia patients deserves more than she receives - these men get paid up to 8 times more than she does and are rewarded in many other ways as well. Get some perspective on life, and the value of work. Real work that is, not being paid to play a game and subsequently be installed as some sort of idol.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      10:30am | 06/05/10

      Jo, the reason sportsmen get paid so much is not because they ‘deserve’ it, which is highly subjective and as it happens I disagree with you, but because they bring in the big bucks. Ultimately, the amount of money they receive is determined by how much people watch the game. If more people agreed with you that they don’t deserve it, and as a consequence, don’t watch it, then they wouldn’t be paid so much.

      Plus, don’t forget that it’s an elite environment. There aren’t that many footballers in any code, and with the money that the codes bring in, you can’t be too shocked that they would make so much money. Basically, it comes down to the market.

    • Jo says:

      11:36am | 06/05/10

      @Dan, you’ve drawn a bit of a long bow with that conclusion. The fact that people watch a sport, or support a team doesn’t mean they all automatically believe the players should be payed as much as they are. But let’s play pretend and say that’s the case, as no doubt many staunch supporters do believe this is true and will say so here. It’s precisely that elitist attitude that causes problems in the sport such as salary breaches, sexual harrassment and overweening egos. We’ve created a massive sense of etitlement in these men, and their sycophants (or managers, staff, whtever we like to call them now).

      I’m not shocked they make so much money, I’m sickened by it, or more specifically by the fact they seem to think it’s okay to flout the rules and grab for more. Their contribution to society is no greater than anyone else’s, and in many cases probably less so - take the Great Matty Johns for example.

    • Matt says:

      12:49pm | 06/05/10

      jo, what we believe they should earn is irrelevant. as much as we would like policmen, nurses, firmen, teachers etc. to earn more money,  and as much as they deserve to, its not practical because theres limited money to spend. of course they deserve more then people who throw a ball around for a living if one looks at it from that arguement. but we live in a capitalist society so if you bring more money in you get more money back. i.e.

      fans like to watch a sport. fans want to see this sport played at the highest level i.e. the best players. companies see lots of fans and see a large customer base they can reach by associating themselves with the sport. companies pay big money to broadcast/sponsor/advertise throughout the sport. hence there is a lot of money in sport. this money is in there because we like to watch the best players playing sports we love at the highest level.

      rightly or wrongly the players bring in an obscene amount of money into various sports so another argueent is that it is only fair that they get a fair share of the money they bring in.

      the sad reality is that if your aunt had 20,000 people paying $25 per person to watch her do her job she would be earning a lot more money. but people would rather watch a gary ablett or billy slater play sport then watch your aunt do her job

    • Dan says:

      11:51am | 06/05/10

      Jo, I’m not saying that people who watch the sport believe the players should be paid as much they are. I never said that. I’m simply saying that it’s a case of supply and demand. They get paid the money because people watch it; the more people who watch it, the more they get paid. Simple as that.

      “It’s precisely that elitist attitude that causes problems…” That may be so, although it is a massive generalisation, but it doesn’t change the reality that they are the elite, and they are the elite in a market environment. Personally, I have no time for Rugby League (I’m an AFL fan), but I acknowledge that X and Y are among the best League players in the country, and since they are responsible for League bringing in hundreds of millions dollars, they will be paid more than my social worker mother. She, BTW, is IMO incredibly underpaid, but that has to do with the sportsmen.

      The AFL is expected to sell its next TV rights deal for over a billion dollars. That is due to the players.

      “I’m not shocked they make so much money, I’m sickened by it, or more specifically by the fact they seem to think it’s okay to flout the rules and grab for more.” Uh, it wasn’t the players who flouted the rules and grabbed for more. It was the club who offered them more money to bring them to the club. Anyway, I’m not sickened by it.

      “heir contribution to society is no greater than anyone else’s, and in many cases probably less so - take the Great Matty Johns for example.” While I wouldn’t call him great, I don’t really care what he does in his private life.

      Reply

    • Jenni says:

      11:54am | 06/05/10

      If you want to see a sport that operates without a salary cap - and yet still manages to have a relatively even competition - take a look at Major League Baseball in the United States.

      The New York Yankees are widely considered to be the most expensive baseball team in the league - they have the highest paid players, best staff, best facilities, etc - yet they don’t win all the time. The way the “poorer” teams stay in the competition is that the teams that do well each year and earn more money through higher gate attendance, merchandising etc, pay a portion of their profits into a communal “pool”. This money is then apportioned to the lower-standing teams, to enable them to spend more money on salaries, facilities, etc, meaning the next year, they will be a little closer to the higher teams.

      An example of how well this CAN work is the Arizona Diamondbacks, who were elevated to Major League status in 1998. In their first year as a MLB team, they spent less money on their ENTIRE YEAR’S SALARIES (that includes player salaries, other staff such as coaches, physio etc) than the Yankees did that same year on only FOUR of their players salaries (did I mention they’re rich? wink. Naturally enough, the Diamondbacks sucked LOL

      However, they went on the become the fastest team in MLB history to win a World Series, doing it in only their third year in the game. This was possible partly through the monies they recieved from the “pool” to enable them to build their team. Quite a story!

      Obviously it’s still not a perfect system, none of them are, but it illustrates there are different ways to manage a sport, without salary caps.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      03:50pm | 07/05/10

      MLB doesn’t have a salary cap, but there is a cap beyond which you pay a tax if you exceed it. From memory, in most years the Yankees end up paying something like 95% of the revenue from that tax scheme - i.e. they are spending far more on players than any other club.

      And I don’t think that is a great example of an even competition, the Yankees have won 27 titles whilst the St Louis Cardinals are 2nd, with 10 titles…Additionally there is a huge amount of skulduggery involved in the competition, such as cork in the bats, widespread steroid use etc.

    • Bruno says:

      12:17pm | 06/05/10

      No point reading this article, a capitalist espousing socialist ideals so that he doesnt lose money on his capitalist investment

      Reply

    • Sky says:

      12:25pm | 06/05/10

      @Macon Paine - Id just like to congratulate u on being the only person here to come up with a viable solution (at least one that i agree with)

      This idea has merit. The NBA is a “world class” competition. While it has the Elite teams like the Lakers and so on it does also have teams that will match it with them. I think that is an excellent example and maybe Gallop n his goons could use it as a guideline. Nice work MP.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      12:28pm | 06/05/10

      i completely agree. a salry cap is vital for sporting competitions. without it the title would be contested by the same few teams every season and the others would slowly die as fans, media, sponsors etc. jump off them because they could never win. then eventually you would be left with a league of about 6 teams. a salry cap is vital to ensuring competitions remain competitive for all and halps grow the game.

      however there is no doubt that it needs to be raised significantly. the NRL lose too many good players to other sports or england. as strong as the game is on-field it would be so much stronger if the cap was say $6 million. players would be paid more and hence be less likely to leave for financial opportunities. the difficulty is ensuring every club can afford it. hopefully by the next TV rights deal they can

      Reply

    • Bensville Bear says:

      01:22pm | 06/05/10

      Again with the “English Premier League” rubbish.  Its total and utter bollocks. 1. They have a first past the post system so if you buy the best players on average you will win - we have a semi-final system that adds a whole new level of risk to the “lets buy the best team” strategy.  Remember 1981 - when Newtown, a team of no names and has beens that were about to go broke knocked Manly out?  2.  Our League has less games and is far more dangerous to the players so if you run a marquee player strategy than you run the risk of them being injured - and you have nothing.  Look at the Cowboys.

      The Cap is socialist nonsense that is propping up disfunctional clubs at the expense of growth areas and driving away players and potential sponsors.  “Equalisation” is a recipie for low-rent mediocrity.  For a start the League should simply tender the responsibility of representing an area out, with milestones to be met such as junior development. By all means grandfather existing clubs in but after a while no more favours. 

      “The Australian Rugby League desires to establish teams in North-West and South West Sydney, the Central Coast, Central Queensland and Perth. We invite expressions of interest. The successful tenderer will receive a minimum payment from the League over a four year period, will be expected to demonstrate certain capablities and will be expected to achieve certain milestones.  Existing clubs are encouraged to apply”
      Get rid of the stifling cap and let the game run free.

      Reply

    • Hearth of the heath says:

      03:01pm | 06/05/10

      I don’t accept that an even competition is a good thing. It’s like sporting communism. Billy, Cameron, Matt King, Steve Turner, Cooper etc etc etc were all developed from promising youngsters to ledgends of the game at Melbourne. The Broncos under Wayne Bennett have done the same thing for decades. Clubs don’t simply buy premierships, they spend 10 years earning them. It’s not right in my mind that clubs like Souths and the Cowboys who turf out coaches that have turned their teams around should be able to demand player talent parity with clubs like Melbourne and the Broncs. Brisbane has lost a lot of players, and so had Melbourne. Melbourne crossed the line, not to just buy players, but to keep hold of their own investments. So no Peter, if you wan’t a good playing squad and a Trophy… earn it!

      Reply

    • Jack says:

      06:55pm | 06/05/10

      John A Neve - go back to the ALP supporters blog, the other two guys are missing you.

      Peter - you seem like a good guy and NRL needs them. However when you have uneducated fools playing and retired uneducated fools, sprinkled with sharks, property developers and some two bit hack ALP politicians running the sport, it isnt going to flourish. You know as well as I do the shady back room 3rd party deals are the issue.

      I say the players agents, a modern day Union leader is to blame for wanting more and more to add to their 10%. Most of the players would play for fun and a few beers on a Saturday arvo.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      08:18pm | 06/05/10

      The English premier league argument is irrelevant because their best clubs have to compete in European competitions with other big clubs from across the continent. They also have 3 professional divisions beneath the PL with clubs all vying to move up the divisions. There is a natural pecking order of clubs.

      If people are going to draw parallels with European soccer, compare the NRL to the Champions League. Not one club has managed to win this tournament back to back in its current 18 year format. Salary caps basically reward mediocrity and restrict the earnings of players.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      04:10pm | 12/05/10

      Steve the consequences of a ‘no salary cap competition’ are clear within the EPL. All you are doing here is citing the reason why the EPL moved to this model.

      If anything you are contradicting yourself, as given that RL has no equal international competition means it is even more important to keep the competition even.

    • Scott says:

      11:03pm | 06/05/10

      Please do some research on the Rabbitohs before including them in your post.

      Coaches have been sacked from the Rabbitohs for poor on field performances and 1 was for off field drama since the club came back into the NRL in 2002.

      Have a look at the South Sydney juniors currently running around in the Rabbitohs first grade side, U20’s and in the Bears. Plenty of local kids there probably making up 40%. Plenty of kids who were also contracted at a young age but kept playing at home to be with family in QLD and NZ.

      Since Russell and Peter won the vote to own the club, they also changed everything involved in the management side and helping to bring up the performance side of the club, something that was over 10 years behind the current system that other teams were using. This was done by upgrading our training facilities formerly Erko (Erskineville Oval) while waiting for the re-built Redfern Oval to be finished, which is now one of the top facilities in the NRL.

      With this and the upgrading of the image of such a beaten club we were able to attract proven first grade players. With plenty of talent, leadership and experience to help get the best out of the Juniors.

      Roy Asotasi was bought in, in their (Russell and Peter) first year at the helm with some other players with plenty of talent as well. With these inclusions, we were able to get into the finals for the first time in 18 years.

      This year the signing of David Taylor and Sam Burgess. Though showing plenty talent are not proven NRL players (Burgess does have the International experience though). Remember David Taylor was playing QLD Cup for a few months last year and came out and had a good end of the year for the Broncos and has continued to produce similar efforts in the last few rounds of these seasons.

      Don’t forget the talented players the club has produced though. Issac Luke,Nathan Merritt, David Fa’alogo and Craig Wing (what type of player could he have been if the Rabbitohs were not kicked out)

      Now to the article on hand.

      Competition needs to be fair and players need to get paid better. Players come and go, I do feel sorry for teams losing players to rival codes. I am sad that Craig Wing left to Japan because he would have a great 2010 with the talented players we have bought and the experience our younger guys in the team have this year. Though I understand that he made some bad choices outside of the sport and needed to fix it himself. Doing it in 2 years in Rugby compared to maybe 5 years (which he probably doesn’t have) in NRL is something he needed to make.

      The problem now is how does the NRL juggle these increasing pressures of keeping the competition fair as well as giving the players, fans and clubs the value for money they deserve. It isn’t a very easy thing to do. The main thing though is it just needs to be fair.

      The problem with the Storm though is they cheated to keep those players together by over 1 Million Dollars. I understand the club did get some kids together in their QLD Cup feeder team Norths Devils at such a young age in 2003. These players being their main spine at the moment in Cooper Cronk, Billy Slater and Cameron Smith. This is where the NRL needs to work something out in regards to discounts on years at a club and other things. As the Storm might not be over the cap if they let another player e.g. Greg Inglis go to keep this spine together and let a junior like Matt Duffie get his first grade experience earlier.

      Then you can also look at the decline of the Brisbane Broncos over the last 2 years because of the first grade talent they had let go, which turned the form of the Bulldogs around last year after winning the wooden spoon the year before and has since put the Broncos in the bottom end of the ladder so far this year. The problem with the Broncos is their team is now a young team for a few experienced players. This year might be a re-building year and next year they might be back to their winning ways or it could happen in the later stages of this year.

      Another example to finish off is a player like Josh Dugan for the Raiders. Has played all his junior footy for the Raiders and is now showing some great talent at such a young age and can be anything in the sport as well as flying under the radar. With the Roosters told to be floating a 350k cheque in his face isn’t fair to the Raiders who have put all this money into getting him to this level so far.

      To sum up. Something needs to be done. Raising the salary cap won’t solve the problems for some clubs like the Sharks who can’t even spend to the cap as it is. As Peter pointed out there are just so many options available to the NRL and it needs to be done. It just needs to be done correctly to make sure the competition stays fair, which one though and to what extent is now the hard part.

      Cheers,
      Scott

      P.S Excuse any spelling mistakes.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 12 10:32AM

Sorry ex-premier, I'm not paying for your lunch. http://t.co/Kg0G8PBl

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 22 May 12 10:20AM

SA. It's the middle bottom bit. (PS I think I heard that phrase on @triplej, apologies for nicking!) http://t.co/YOhdLSlj

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 22 May 12 09:23AM

Complimentary packing, free childcare & convenience aplenty. Thats what i want from the supermarket. How about you? http://t.co/FV4tgjji

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 12 08:24AM

#Thomson will never get brothel tapes, CCTV-in-brothels experts tell the ABC. http://t.co/7YFORBBJ

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

by Ged Kearney

90

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

by David Penberthy

101

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

by Tory Shepherd

81

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed