2018 Salary Cap

I read it in an article last week (that's how I got the number), but the article was about Dessie

Honeysett wrote:Look I wouldn't mind us signing Lillyman for small to medium money. An older head who's played lots of Origin, does all the hard stuff up the middle. Give him a year with a year in the clubs favour

Agreed mate. He could def do a job for newie for a year.

Also, I dont like this BOH thing if its true.
They need to put a cap on TPA's not administration and costs associated with training etc etc.

Pieman wrote:

Honeysett wrote:Look I wouldn't mind us signing Lillyman for small to medium money. An older head who's played lots of Origin, does all the hard stuff up the middle. Give him a year with a year in the clubs favour

Agreed mate. He could def do a job for newie for a year.

Also, I dont like this BOH thing if its true.
They need to put a cap on TPA's not administration and costs associated with training etc etc.

Exactly!

Pieman wrote:
Agreed mate. He could def do a job for newie for a year.

Also, I dont like this BOH thing if its true.
They need to put a cap on TPA's not administration and costs associated with training etc etc.

I get that it's a loophole that is most probably exploited but the TPA's will only work towards doing what the salary cap is already doing i.e. levelling out the player's/talent between clubs.
And I personally think the teams are even enough in terms of players (that is just my opinion).

The BoH cap is attempting to level out what I personally think is a bigger contributor to an uneven playing field.......my issue is just how it can possibly be managed.

So yeah I agree with the sentiment (despite the fact my club has worked to gain probably the biggest advantage in this area), I just can't see how it can be fairly executed.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I get that it's a loophole that is most probably exploited but the TPA's will only work towards doing what the salary cap is already doing i.e. levelling out the player's/talent between clubs.
And I personally think the teams are even enough in terms of players (that is just my opinion).

Why should a club be able to essentially pay its players more than other teams with zero repercussions or limits?
At least in the NBA when a team goes over the salary cap they have to pay a tax to the league, and it increases every year they are over. If the NRL is happy for teams to go over the cap (which is essentially what TPA's are) then the clubs should have to pay a fee to do it. That way the rich clubs can do it but at least the league can benefit from the spending.

The BOH thing is insane. Unless players or their wives are still being employed by clubs in unjustified coaching/admin/recovery related roles there is literally no valid reason to stop clubs from pumping as much cash as they want into their facilities/staff/marketing.

Pieman wrote:
Why should a club be able to essentially pay its players more than other teams with zero repercussions or limits?
At least in the NBA when a team goes over the salary cap they have to pay a tax to the league, and it increases every year they are over. If the NRL is happy for teams to go over the cap (which is essentially what TPA's are) then the clubs should have to pay a fee to do it. That way the rich clubs can do it but at least the league can benefit from the spending.

The BOH thing is insane. Unless players or their wives are still being employed by clubs in unjustified coaching/admin/recovery related roles there is literally no valid reason to stop clubs from pumping as much cash as they want into their facilities/staff/marketing.

I'm not sure the NBA is the best model to use as an example of where we want to be heading. For starters, don't NBA players get a direct purchase of their own branded merchandising? Talk about uneven playing field. I'm sure JT getting a share of every Broncos 7 JT jersey would be a very big amount based solely on the market (especially compared to say the Cowboys, Raiders, Knights,l Roosters etc.) This would likely have a bigger effect in growing the bigger teams than TPA's.

Also, the NRL is pretty much the closest major sporting competition in the world with the exception of MLB (which will inherently be close due to the nature of the game). The NBA is far from a close sporting competition. Even in the upcoming season the heavy favourite to play in the finals series are the two teams that have met in the last 3 series. The West seems a forgone conclusion and consensus is that the Cavs only competition in the East are the Celtics. For a competition with twice as many teams as the NRL, I don't think that's something you should be striving for.

Also, I think there is a bit of a culture difference between Australia and USA. The USA seem to love dynasties, and looking back at all time great teams. In Australia, we seem to value evenness more. At club level, the general public wants to tear apart good teams rather than promoting other teams to catch up (which is much harder in Australia because we don't have the depth of numbers).

This is going to be like drinking hemlock, but I agree with OSM. The amount of money a rich club can spend on better facilities / staff / cutting edge medical over what a poor club can skews the playing field. Being a supporter of a traditionally poor club with poor facilities it always seems like our players take longer to come back from injury. The result is poor clubs trying to keep up with the Jones and sending themselves bankrupt and the NRL having to bail them out. Rather than restrict what clubs can spend maybe the NRL own the licences and when a club sends itself broke they take back the licence and wave good bye and hand over the licence to the Perth Pirates or Central Coast Bears, even the Ipswich Meth Heads. Currently 1/4 of the competition are surviving off the NRL's tit.

Im not saying the NBA is the perfect model to use - my point is that when teams go over the cap "legally" in the NBA they have to pay a fee to do it. In the NRL a team can "legally" go over the cap by utilising TPA's but there is no fee to pay when they do it.

TPA'S have nothing to do with the club. They are organised by the manager, the club merely advises where there may be opportunity. You can't tax a club because they sign a player with an astute manager

Pieman wrote:In the NRL a team can "legally" go over the cap by utilising TPA's but there is no fee to pay when they do it.

What? No they can't. Thats what Parra did last year and it cost them the 2016 season.

Pieman wrote:Im not saying the NBA is the perfect model to use - my point is that when teams go over the cap "legally" in the NBA they have to pay a fee to do it. In the NRL a team can "legally" go over the cap by utilising TPA's but there is no fee to pay when they do it.

So if I want to have an open day for my business, so contact Matt Gillett's manager about him coming to make an appearance and sign some autographs, the Brisbane Broncos should have to pay a fee for that? That doesn't make any sense. And should he pay it or should the QRL if the reason I'm getting him is because he's part of the all conquering QLD side? Or perhaps it should be the national side, if I'm getting him because he's part of the side that I expect to be the world cup winning team?

How about when Powerade use Billy Slater for their TV ads, but he's not wearing any NRL colours or jerseys at all? Why should Melbourne pay a fee for that? Or the Bulldogs when James Graham appears on NRL360? Or the Sharks when Lewis does some sideline commentary on games?

I'm also not sure what you're trying to achieve? Don't you agree that the NRL is a very even competition compared to other football codes around the world?

Pieman wrote:
Why should a club be able to essentially pay its players more than other teams with zero repercussions or limits?
At least in the NBA when a team goes over the salary cap they have to pay a tax to the league, and it increases every year they are over. If the NRL is happy for teams to go over the cap (which is essentially what TPA's are) then the clubs should have to pay a fee to do it. That way the rich clubs can do it but at least the league can benefit from the spending.

The BOH thing is insane. Unless players or their wives are still being employed by clubs in unjustified coaching/admin/recovery related roles there is literally no valid reason to stop clubs from pumping as much cash as they want into their facilities/staff/marketing.

As I said, it is a loophole that is probably being exploited (and probably outside of the rules) but that doesn't mean you can just ban TPA's altogether.

That would equate to limiting what a player can earn outside of what the club pays him and we all know that doesn't legally stack up.

For all we know there are players out there with third party agreements to contract in for labour hire or other services and it would be pretty unfair to limit what they can earn doing that, just so that we feel better about levelling out the talent pool another fraction.

As Dip and I have pointed out, it is a bloody level comp in terms of players anyway.
Every single club has players that other clubs would want (even Newie) and that is all you can ask for with a salary cap.

I believe the difference between ongoing success and inconsistent results (and it's obviously what the NRL thinks too) is what happens off the field.
The question is how can you practically level that out and probably more importantly, do you want to level that out??

I'd argue that each club has to work hard off the field for that consistency advantage and given it doesn't guarantee them the premiership, they should be allowed to maintain it.

No Worries wrote:This is going to be like drinking hemlock, but I agree with OSM. The amount of money a rich club can spend on better facilities / staff / cutting edge medical over what a poor club can skews the playing field. Being a supporter of a traditionally poor club with poor facilities it always seems like our players take longer to come back from injury. The result is poor clubs trying to keep up with the Jones and sending themselves bankrupt and the NRL having to bail them out. Rather than restrict what clubs can spend maybe the NRL own the licences and when a club sends itself broke they take back the licence and wave good bye and hand over the licence to the Perth Pirates or Central Coast Bears, even the Ipswich Meth Heads. Currently 1/4 of the competition are surviving off the NRL's tit.

The Tigers and the Ipswich Meth Heads would be a match made in heaven.

The hemlock would be flowing in celebration!

Oz Sport Mad wrote:
The Tigers and the Ipswich Meth Heads would be a match made in heaven.

The hemlock would be flowing in celebration!

That's the first I've heard of the Newcastle Knights being relocated

No Worries wrote:TPA'S have nothing to do with the club. They are organised by the manager, the club merely advises where there may be opportunity. You can't tax a club because they sign a player with an astute manager

Haha yeah mate thats how they are done. Clubs never find them for players and clubs never tell a player "We can offer you 500, 250k of which will be on the cap and 250k of which will be on TPA's.

I mean, there is a reason a player will leave a club when his third party deals aren't honoured.

ryno_ wrote:

What? No they can't. Thats what Parra did last year and it cost them the 2016 season.

You wot? Parra legally went over the cap did they? Or did they do it illegally and get caught and stung for it? I suppose Melbourne legally rorted the cap too hey?

Dip wrote:

So if I want to have an open day for my business, so contact Matt Gillett's manager about him coming to make an appearance and sign some autographs, the Brisbane Broncos should have to pay a fee for that? That doesn't make any sense. And should he pay it or should the QRL if the reason I'm getting him is because he's part of the all conquering QLD side? Or perhaps it should be the national side, if I'm getting him because he's part of the side that I expect to be the world cup winning team?

How about when Powerade use Billy Slater for their TV ads, but he's not wearing any NRL colours or jerseys at all? Why should Melbourne pay a fee for that? Or the Bulldogs when James Graham appears on NRL360? Or the Sharks when Lewis does some sideline commentary on games?

I'm also not sure what you're trying to achieve? Don't you agree that the NRL is a very even competition compared to other football codes around the world?

Again, that is how its meant to work. A player or the manager go out and do some work for a company and get paid for it. It should have literally nothing to do with the cap. But thats not how it works. Players are told they will get paid a certain amount and some of the money will come from the cap and some will come from TPA's. Thats why players leave clubs when their third party agreements dont deliver, because the club promised them the cash.

If it was done legit I totally agree with you. A player should be able to earn what ever the fuck he wants outside of the NRL salary cap, but its just not done the way it was intended when it was implemented.

The way I think it should work - is have a soft salary cap like the NBA. When they reach the cap and go over, they must pay a fee to the league. That way the rich clubs can buy who ever they want, just as long as they are willing to pay a fee for the player.

TPA's should have literally nothing to do with the clubs, but its just naive to think that its they aren't used to lure players to clubs.

I dont agree that the NRL is all that even. The salary cap doesnt work the way it was intended because of cap rorting and TPA agreements being abused by clubs. There are always a few certain teams on top - sure we have a different winner every year but realistically 2 or 3 teams can win the comp each year and they are generally the same teams. Yes, you cant stay on top of the ladder every year because the salary cap doesnt allow it but the wealthy teams can still buy basically any young superstar in the game away from the poorer teams meaning they generally will have a better chance of winning each year than the other clubs.

I think spending on training/admin/marketing etc etc shouldnt be capped. Its silly. They are the reasons as to why a player might go to a certain club. Most clubs train the same way, do the same drills etc etc. If everyone is only allowed to spend the same amount (it will get rorted 100% if it comes in anyway) it takes away some of the advantages some clubs have build over time with their facilities and with their marketing strategies and so on. And how it would be policed is fucking beyond me.

Why shouldnt a club who can afford to get stem cel goats blood injected into JT's cock be allowed to do so?

Pieman wrote:The way I think it should work - is have a soft salary cap like the NBA. When they reach the cap and go over, they must pay a fee to the league. That way the rich clubs can buy who ever they want, just as long as they are willing to pay a fee for the player.

so let me get this straight, you don't like TPA's because it makes the comp uneven, but instead, you want to introduce system that ensures every grand final would be Broncos vs Roosters until the end of time?

surmo13 wrote:

so let me get this straight, you don't like TPA's because it makes the comp uneven, but instead, you want to introduce system that ensures every grand final would be Broncos vs Roosters until the end of time?

What is the difference between that and now? They buy who they want anyway pretty much.
At least with that system the league/grassroots (whatever the money goes towards) benefits from the over spending.

Pieman wrote:

What is the difference between that and now? They buy who they want anyway pretty much.
At least with that system the league/grassroots (whatever the money goes towards) benefits from the over spending.

except they don't, otherwise other clubs wouldn't be reaping the benefits of the work that's been done with Wallace, Moga, Ese'ese & Blair, all players we wanted to keep, but couldn't due to the salary cap. On your second point, the very nature of TPA's means that the Broncos aren't 'overspending' on them, that money goes from the company that employs a player's service, straight to said player.

surmo13 wrote:

except they don't, otherwise other clubs wouldn't be reaping the benefits of the work that's been done with Wallace, Moga, Ese'ese & Blair, all players we wanted to keep, but couldn't due to the salary cap. On your second point, the very nature of TPA's means that the Broncos aren't 'overspending' on them, that money goes from the company that employs a player's service, straight to said player.

Throw in a few others like Ash Taylor, Corey Norman & Ben Hunt; and (if you aren't a moronic simpleton like Pieman) it's hard to argue the cap isn't working as intended.

Pieman wrote:
I dont agree that the NRL is all that even. The salary cap doesnt work the way it was intended because of cap rorting and TPA agreements being abused by clubs. There are always a few certain teams on top - sure we have a different winner every year but realistically 2 or 3 teams can win the comp each year and they are generally the same teams. Yes, you cant stay on top of the ladder every year because the salary cap doesnt allow it but the wealthy teams can still buy basically any young superstar in the game away from the poorer teams meaning they generally will have a better chance of winning each year than the other clubs.

Don't you hate it when wealthy clubs buy players from under the nose of other clubs to stay on top and maintain their strangle hold on dominance. Dragons with Hunt. Eels with Norman. Warriors with RTS. Raiders with Sezer. Titans with Taylor.

When will the struggling clubs who develop their home grown stars like Melbourne, Brisbane and (of late) Sydney get their turn at the top of the table?

Oh. Wait.