NRL Fantasy 2023 Part 63 - Oloapu mid DPP when?

robelgordo wrote:If the Roosters get Hunt, I give up.

It probably is legal, but they probably have an extra 1-2m on every other Sydney team in 3rd party deals, so it’s definitely not fair

TBH dunno why you’d go from one bottom 9 team to another anyway

Well they did release Whyte, so the money he would have freed up is exponential. Could buy a small continent if they wanted to now

lukeayee wrote:AFB TU
Haas TD

Have to stick with one from this round til the end of season.

Leaning AFB given he will play more games are likely to average similar.

In a similar boat deciding between JDB, Yeo and AFB

Leaning Yeo, they all miss 1 game to finish season, not needing R19 cover until I lose another 3 players in R19

Camo123 wrote:
In a similar boat deciding between JDB, Yeo and AFB

Leaning Yeo, they all miss 1 game to finish season, not needing R19 cover until I lose another 3 players in R19

Had not considered Yeo. Will have another look.

Would a soft cap/luxury tax work in the NRL? Say a 100% tax on the first $mil over the cap, 200% on the next $mil etc. with all luxury tax takings being distributed to the other teams?

Not sure if there's any teams left these days that struggle to fund a full cap spend, but this should eliminate that problem.

3 origin players atm, making some cleary funds a priority

SoylentGreen wrote:Would a soft cap/luxury tax work in the NRL? Say a 100% tax on the first $mil over the cap, 200% on the next $mil etc. with all luxury tax takings being distributed to the other teams?

Not sure if there's any teams left these days that struggle to fund a full cap spend, but this should eliminate that problem.

NRL grants are around 120% of the salary cap so no team should struggle to find money to spend the full cap

Luxury tax would just create super teams from clubs that can spend more (Broncos, Roosters, Storm) and probably put teams in bad long term financial positions

Article from 2017 states that only 2 teams actually made a profit (https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/nrl-clubs-rack-up-substantial-losses/)

The NRL is stronger if all teams are competitive, no doubt, but no amount of leg ups from the NRL is going to stop the Dragons etc from being a basket case of a club.

It doesn't have to be a financial leg-up. The NRL could just demand basic good governance as a requirement for league participation.

Things like a majority of unlinked, term-limited non-executive directors of mixed backgrounds, from fair and open elections, full financial transparency, and sensible risk management plans. These would have a major impact in making sure decisions are sensible and in the best interest of the club as a whole (instead of the old boys room). Not hard, not controversial outside the in-group, but would require a touch of spine.

L-Jimmy wrote:Things like a majority of unlinked, term-limited non-executive directors of mixed backgrounds, from fair and open elections, full financial transparency, and sensible risk management plans. These would have a major impact in making sure decisions are sensible and in the best interest of the club as a whole (instead of the old boys room). Not hard, not controversial outside the in-group, but would require a touch of spine.

Sounds like some sort of political utopia

my tv broke wrote:

Sounds like some sort of political utopia

Eh, if you're a large (say ASX200) company that wants serious investment (super funds, Blackrock, Temasek, large PE, and the like) then you need to have basically ok corporate governance and be able to prove it. It's really really standard, just needs someone to say 'make it so', with a timeline of funding loops for non-compliance.

These are large orgs that handle decent amounts of cash. Should be treated like they are.

@L-Jimmy Ru saying it currently is run like a horses ass across the board?

L-Jimmy wrote:

Eh, if you're a large (say ASX200) company that wants serious investment (super funds, Blackrock, Temasek, large PE, and the like) then you need to have basically ok corporate governance and be able to prove it. It's really really standard, just needs someone to say 'make it so', with a timeline of funding loops for non-compliance.

These are large orgs that handle decent amounts of cash. Should be treated like they are.

I don't know much about all this stuff. I would have thought (at least the bottom half of clubs) are operating on a far smaller scale than those sorts of organisations. I don't disagree with what you suggest but then the clubs have to find the money to pay for proper guidance (and/or proper guidance be willing to get involved). Again, I don't know what I'm talking about anyway.

The Broncos really fucked things up with proper guidance in the last 10 years too. Financially well off but the football dept was a mess. The fall out re Bennett. Hiring Siebold types who interview well in front of a board but can't actually pull together a group of footy players.

SoylentGreen wrote:Would a soft cap/luxury tax work in the NRL? Say a 100% tax on the first $mil over the cap, 200% on the next $mil etc. with all luxury tax takings being distributed to the other teams?

Not sure if there's any teams left these days that struggle to fund a full cap spend, but this should eliminate that problem.

Salary cap could be solved easily.
Professional league players waive their right to privacy RE their tax returns and allow the auditor to check them.
The NRL auditor signs a Non-disclosure so the info isn't made public.
(Of course that won't stop the Roosters, Broncos etc. offering post-career jobs/deals for players to sign them).

The NRL auditor adds up the players earnings (3rd party deals and all) and if the club is over the cap, they get fined, lose points, are banned (which may be a nice punishment for the Roosters), have their cap further reduced for 3-5 years to punish them etc. so clubs stop the cheating and fans can start to trust that the comp is a level playing field.


It won't happen though. Uncle Nick, Gus, Belamy, Bennet etc. and various other power brokers are too invested in certain teams being dominant.

For mine the bigger issue is certain teams/players get offered fines for blatant foul play (injuring other players etc.) rather than suspensions.
Yes, I'm looking at you JWH and Tino.

Revraiser wrote:@L-Jimmy  Ru saying it currently is run like a horses ass across the board?

my tv broke wrote:
I don't know much about all this stuff. I would have thought (at least the bottom half of clubs) are operating on a far smaller scale than those sorts of organisations. I don't disagree with what you suggest but then the clubs have to find the money to pay for proper guidance (and/or proper guidance be willing to get involved). Again, I don't know what I'm talking about anyway.

The Broncos really fucked things up with proper guidance in the last 10 years too. Financially well off but the football dept was a mess. The fall out re Bennett. Hiring Siebold types who interview well in front of a board but can't actually pull together a group of footy players.

Let's look at Cronulla, a smaller club. Last year they turned over about $36mn in revenue, with an asset base of around $47mn. Low profits, but that's cool - should be for a community org.

Compare Insignia Financial - ranked about 200 in the ASX (and with seemingly dodgy corporate governance - see their worrying sub-brand IOOF). About $15.bn in revenue, with $1.9bn asset base.

So yeah, fair enough mtb. Two orders of magnitude different in size. And they have bad corporate governance too.


But, rev is right. The thing about better governance is that it improves a range of financial and non-financial outcomes (even for little Aussie companies!). So, yeah, you'd get less of the Siebold effect, and less of the stupid contract churn. And more profitable clubs with more money to put into juniors.

But, much less fat at the top. Less nice meetings, less favour-swapping. And that's why the dual clubs fare so badly - dependent on those mechanisms for board functioning. Same as the small family clubs (Manly, Titans); no effective oversight means shit outcomes.


drain the fucking swamp, bitches.

Forget it

L-Jimmy wrote:drain the fucking swamp, bitches.

maybe i'm an idiot but i thought peter beattie was trying to get things moving in a good direction.

NRL types didn't like that though and in comes PVL...

my tv broke wrote:

maybe i'm an idiot but i thought peter beattie was trying to get things moving in a good direction.

NRL types didn't like that though and in comes PVL...

Really good point. Swamps are resilient.



Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Dttragic2016 wrote:Anyone up watching the Ashes?
57-0 chasing 281 - Aussies looking in control here.

I stayed up til 3:20am mate feel asleep missed last 40mins. Losing Smithy late was a massive blow advantage England I feel

Rabbits21 wrote:feel asleep missed last 40mins

absolutely piss weak

my tv broke wrote:

absolutely piss weak

Lol I did work 10 hours Sunday and 9 hours yesterday I was cooked I’m shocked I lasted that long!