2018 Salary Cap

Got to love the bronco's fans arguing this. Brilliant.The club that poaches the milfords, roberts, birds etc of the world then sook about losing above average players like Moga and blair or they cry about guys leaving for opportunity or because the club isnt willing to pay as much as another club. Does the cap play a role in it? Sure sometimes. But fark me, if bennett really wanted to keep Hunt he would have kept him. I mean fuck, he values the halfback so damn much that he dropped him, benched him and now has moved him into another position. Damn salary cap hey.

yes, the cap works to spread talent around. Does it do it well? No. The same teams are on top of the table every year, or thereabouts. Pretty hard to argue that the same handful of teams each year are the only sides that are realistic chances of winning the comp.

Yes the cap stops you from keeping literally every play you want to keep - but picking and choosing between jack bird and moga is pretty easy. Losing Hunt and replacing him with most likely Ash Taylor... not exactly a fucking big loss there. The rich clubs eg the roosters, still get to keep just about every player they see value in unless another club pays overs to get the player. Is that the cap working? Yeah prob, but it still doesnt stop the rich clubs from buying the best young talent in the league then letting older/guys who can be easily replaced go.

Its also not always the salary cap that is the reason players leave. Players want to be first grade starters so they leave for opportunity. They want a change. They want to play for a different coach. Their mrs wants them to move. There is any number of reasons someone leaves a club. There is only 17 spots to fill each week - most players arent going to want to stick around and play QCup even if they were being paid well. To say the reason any player (or even just all the players listed) leaves is because of the cap is just dumb as fuck.

Personally, I dont think the cap works all that well - not in its current state with the way its policed and with TPA's not being used the way they were intended. I dont want an EPL style league but far out, its clearly not as even as people think.

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.

That is again, how its intended to work. But its not how it works, its "legal" cap rorting. "We can pay you 500K, 400K from the cap and 100K if you do 5 ads for company xyz". As I have said a number of times, if they were used the way it was meant to be with absolutely no assistance from the club, then perfect. Good. But its just not done that way. Sure, some would be done legit but far out its just naive and dumb to think that the majority arent done in that dodgy way.

And thats with every single club too.

Pieman you forgot to mention getting players to break contract based on family reasons because they don't poach contracted players.

Pieman wrote:Got to love the bronco's fans arguing this. Brilliant.The club that poaches the milfords, roberts, birds etc of the world then sook about losing above average players like Moga and blair or they cry about guys leaving for opportunity or because the club isnt willing to pay as much as another club. Does the cap play a role in it? Sure sometimes. But fark me, if bennett really wanted to keep Hunt he would have kept him. I mean fuck, he values the halfback so damn much that he dropped him, benched him and now has moved him into another position. Damn salary cap hey.

- Saying Broncos "poached" Roberts implies that Titans were hopeful of retaining his services. Simply not true. They burned all bridges with him.
- Moga is not "above average". He's a journeyman centre who'll have 5 clubs the age of 25.
- Nobody is "sooking" over losing Moga, nor Blair.
- Nobody is "crying" over players going elsewhere for better opportunities or better pay.
- Claiming that the salary cap didnt drive Ben Hunt's departure is idiotic.

Theres so many strawmen and so much factual inaccuracies in the first paragraph, you can only assume the rest of that wall of dribble isn't worth the bandwidth it took to download.

The last 12 premiers, Manly aside, have all been different teams. Only 3 teams have more then 1 premiership since the turn of the century. Arguing that the competition isn't even, because of the salary cap and TPA structure, is ridiculous, even for you.

ED: Fuck me, there have only been 5 premierships in entire the history of the NRL that have gone to a team winning multiple titles. Yet apparently the comp isnt even. Spare me.

Pieman wrote:Got to love the bronco's fans arguing this. Brilliant.The club that poaches the milfords, roberts, birds etc of the world then sook about losing above average players like Moga and blair or they cry about guys leaving for opportunity or because the club isnt willing to pay as much as another club. Does the cap play a role in it? Sure sometimes. But fark me, if bennett really wanted to keep Hunt he would have kept him. I mean fuck, he values the halfback so damn much that he dropped him, benched him and now has moved him into another position. Damn salary cap hey.

Which bronco's fans are 'sooking'? We are simply pointing out that the cap does it's job of dispersing talent by noting the players we wanted to keep but couldn't, hardly the definition of 'having whoever we wantt..... the only person i've seen in here having a 'sook' is you: "wahwah, TPA's aren't fair so we might as well just hand the Broncos premierships", the fact that Broncos fan are arguing you on this should drill into your head that your idea of a salary cap is fucking stupid - were the NRL to adopt your idea, we'd have a premiership at least every other year, and yet WE are the ones that have to tell YOU that you've got rocks in your head.

just on a side note and unrelated to the argument at hand: i do love when other clubs buy rising players from other clubs *cough*PONGAWATSON*cough* it's called good recruitment, but when the Broncos do it, it's called poaching

I haven't yet worked out whether you're just really bad at trolling Pieman, or that is what you actually believe.

For starters, you complain about, and basically the whole premise of your argument is about the Broncos signing good players from other clubs. For starters, you're starting complaining about a team that has 12 of their 17 named for tomorrow night's game having made their debut for the club. The Broncos buy less than any other club in the comp.

Next you say the comp isn't even, (despite statistics showing it is actually pretty much the closest footy comp in the world) and that only 2-3 clubs can win each year. I hope you loaded up at the start of the season Biff Tanner, because no club had odds of 3/1, so you could bet your life savings on those 3 clubs each year and be rich. There has been no back to back premier this century, and the team you say has a massive advantage has played in 1 grand final in a decade (and lost). Probably the next richest team in terms of corporate support has one win and one loss in a grand final in the same time. The most successful team in the same time (Manly), is one of the poorest teams with the least corporate support. This all in a competition where the salary cap is basically the only method of equalisng talent. No draft, no players on loan, no transfer fees. Just the salary cap.

Jesus, you talk about us signing guns, not one of whom has yet played for Australia, and includes one who has yet to play origin, compared to only losing "above average" players. The "above average" player including the guy who has played 39 times for NZ, including as captain. 39 times. That's as many games as Thurston has played for Australia you know. Yeah, above average. If he is only measured as above average (and I know you use that term as a comparison to the "guns" you name, then so are all the guys you named. As a 39 game test player for one of the two best teams in the world, Blair should be regarded as in the top tier of forwards in the game (together with all origin forwards).

Then you say the rich clubs buy the best young talent. No, they develop the best young talent. Have a look at U18 & U20 origin teams and see who they play for, then compare that to when they're 23. In your example about half backs you talk about replacing a guy developed by our club with a guy developed by our club. I'm not sure how this proves your point. In fact, I'm not even sure what your point is.

Dammit Dip, don't say the 't' word, now he has a ready-made out for backtracking on his stupidity.

ryno_ wrote:


- Claiming that the salary cap didnt drive Ben Hunt's departure is idiotic.

Claiming anything other than single handly losing a grand final, not being able to replicate his 2015 form for the last 2 years and the Dragons paying massive overs is the reason for Hunt's departure is idiotic. If you have enough money to throw at Ash Taylor you have enough to keep Hunt.

No Worries wrote:

Claiming anything other than single handly losing a grand final, not being able to replicate his 2015 form for the last 2 years and the Dragons paying massive overs is the reason for Hunt's departure is idiotic. If you have enough money to throw at Ash Taylor you have enough to keep Hunt.

Pretty widely reported that Hunt is getting $1.2M/Yr Sure we might have been able to keep him for less, but it likely would have taken $1m or the best part thereof. I'd expect Ash Taylor at this stage is someone who'd go for around the $700K mark, so the salary cap would definitely have been the major factor, and I have no doubt that if we are able to sign Taylor it will be cheaper than what we would have had to offer Hunt to keep him.

Just because 18 months ago some clubs were going stupid with inflated offers because they expected the salary cap to be more, doesn't mean we did. I'm sure had some clubs known what the salary cap has ended up being, the money thrown around 6-12 months ago wouldn't have been offered for the likes of Hunt, Foran, Hayne, DCE etc. Now that they know what the cap is a guy like James Moloney, who's every chance of being the World Cup Winning 5/8 in 3 months time is allegedly struggling to have an upgrade to his $500K offer.

I reckon even with now knowing the cap your figure of about $1M is right, but for both. Taylor would easily bank more than $700K. With Taylor you are paying for potential for Hunt you're paying for potential to return to form. There's not $300K in difference there.

No Worries wrote:I reckon even with now knowing the cap your figure of about $1M is right, but for both. Taylor would easily bank more than $700K. With Taylor you are paying for potential for Hunt you're paying for potential to return to form. There's not $300K in difference there.

According to Zero Tackle;

Johnson - $1000k
Brooks - $550k

You can't tell me Taylor is worth the same as SJ and almost $500,000 more then Brooks. If Norman, JRey and MBye are all on $700-750k (zero tackle again), Taylors value probably sits around that mark.

No Worries wrote:I reckon even with now knowing the cap your figure of about $1M is right, but for both. Taylor would easily bank more than $700K. With Taylor you are paying for potential for Hunt you're paying for potential to return to form. There's not $300K in difference there.

I don't think there's $300K difference either right now, but personally I also don't believe Hunt is a $1M player. I reckon he's probably a $800K player. That wasn't my point though. The point was at the end of 2016, when Hunt was negotiating contracts, he was able to get $1.2M per year from 2018. The whole salary cap management game is a big Moneyball exercise, and to say if we wanted him we could have kept him because of what we are now prepared to offer Taylor is rubbish. If it weren't for the salary cap we could have offered him $1m+ (or JT $2M, Cronk $1.5M or whoever - or even all of those 3 players), but that might not have left enough money under the cap to keep other players, or make a play at someone we want to get. Bennett may well have thought that for $1m we could get Niko/Marshall for 2018 + another good player, who would more than make up the shortfall between Hunt and Niko. Seeing that halves seem to be going on the market cheaper now than what they were 12 months ago, they're probably right.

While we're talking halfbacks, did anyone watch the U16 origin game which was the curtain raiser to Origin 3? I can't remember whether it was QLD's half or 5/8, but whoever it was had a kicking game that was better than probably 75% of NRL halves. He kept us in the game against a NSW team that was much bigger and more organised, and to be honest, apart from him I reckon we'd have lost by 30 instead of losing in the last minute.

surmo13 wrote:

Which bronco's fans are 'sooking'? We are simply pointing out that the cap does it's job of dispersing talent by noting the players we wanted to keep but couldn't, hardly the definition of 'having whoever we wantt..... the only person i've seen in here having a 'sook' is you: "wahwah, TPA's aren't fair so we might as well just hand the Broncos premierships", the fact that Broncos fan are arguing you on this should drill into your head that your idea of a salary cap is fucking stupid - were the NRL to adopt your idea, we'd have a premiership at least every other year, and yet WE are the ones that have to tell YOU that you've got rocks in your head.

just on a side note and unrelated to the argument at hand: i do love when other clubs buy rising players from other clubs *cough*PONGAWATSON*cough* it's called good recruitment, but when the Broncos do it, it's called poaching

Mate it was you guys who turned this into an imaginary attack on the bronco's. You guys brought up the bronco's. That its self shows that you guys feel that there are some underlying issues that you feel you need to defend, even when I never even specifically brought up the broncos first. It means you guys know you have an advantage by being able to find TPA's for players, when a good portion of other clubs cant do it.

And yeah, I was merely pointing out that "the salary cap" isnt the only reason players leave clubs. Roosters and co have the TPA advantage now - and it forces desperate clubs like e.g. the dragons to pay a disgusting amount for a pretty good halfback. Just because eg. the bronco's dont want to meet eg hunt with that amount of money doesnt mean its a salary cap issue. If you can go out and sign Bird for a million AND prob sign Ash taylor for anywhere between 750 - 1mil, you had the ability to keep hunt. If Taylor doesnt sign with the broncos, he will get a fucking massive offer from the Titans and numerous other clubs because of the glamour club's abilities to pay him a fortune of cap money and TPA. Either that, or a desperate club (eg titans or eg what Newie did with Ponga) will give him way too much money.

Sorry, the word Poach has rubbed you the wrong way mate. Have we poached Ponga? Fucking oath we have. We had to do something, and we paid a fortune for him. Have we poached Watson? ... possibly. Considering he was a newcastle jr in the first place is it poaching bringing him back? Call it what you want. Its signing young guys from other clubs.

My biggest issue with it, is the bronco's shouldnt have to do it. They have the best facilities in the comp and the best and biggest RL nursery to develop players from. 9/10 times, they do develop their own jrs and do it well. They are reportedly the pride of the league and carry the NRL because channel 9 wants them on tv every weekend. But then they go out and sign the milfs/birds/roberts and co of the world. Do these guys want to go there? Fukin oath, why wouldnt they if they can get paid just as well if not better than anywhere else and live in a RL city with world class facilities etc etc. I mean fark, this is just speculation buuuut if the bronco's didnt pinch milf they would have been able to keep Taylor. If they didnt sign Blair/Sims etc, they would have been able to keep Wallace and Arrow. And so on in so forth. Obviously its not that simple, but that is still a fairly decent argument. Of course teams are allowed to sign who ever they want, but to basically deny that the bronco's and roosters and co have an advantage over other teams because of TPA's is .. odd.

The same teams wouldnt have a premiership every other year - because if you go over the cap you pay extra fees. The % fees go up every year you are over and depending on how much you are over (with the NBA model). NRL clubs generally dont have billionaire owners like NBA teams - who even have limits on what they will spend. Boards wouldnt allow clubs to recklessly spend. Team's generally are successful for a few years then drop back down because the owners dont want to keep paying out to go over the cap year after year. Also, You are severely under estimating how wealthy sides like the Raiders, Panthers and Warriors are. Sides like that all of a sudden become way way more successful.

TPA's (the way they are used now by clubs - not just the bronco's fellas, every club does it) are a fucking blight on the game and they directly work against the purpose of the salary cap.

The only reason you guys think its a "stupid idea" is because it would hurt the bronco's pockets a bit because you know they have a TPA advantage. Thats why you all got your backs up. IMO it would make the comp way more even because TPA's become less valuable.

Thanks just my opinion anyway

ryno_ wrote:

- Saying Broncos "poached" Roberts implies that Titans were hopeful of retaining his services. Simply not true. They burned all bridges with him.
- Moga is not "above average". He's a journeyman centre who'll have 5 clubs the age of 25.
- Nobody is "sooking" over losing Moga, nor Blair.
- Nobody is "crying" over players going elsewhere for better opportunities or better pay.
- Claiming that the salary cap didnt drive Ben Hunt's departure is idiotic.

Theres so many strawmen and so much factual inaccuracies in the first paragraph, you can only assume the rest of that wall of dribble isn't worth the bandwidth it took to download.

The last 12 premiers, Manly aside, have all been different teams. Only 3 teams have more then 1 premiership since the turn of the century. Arguing that the competition isn't even, because of the salary cap and TPA structure, is ridiculous, even for you.

ED: Fuck me, there have only been 5 premierships in entire the history of the NRL that have gone to a team winning multiple titles. Yet apparently the comp isnt even. Spare me.

Mate, in the last 19 years, since the NRL was formed - 9 of the comps have been won by 4 teams. When melbourne, brisbane or the roosters win this year too, it will be 10 of the last 20 comps won by 4 teams. In the last 19 season, 8 of minor premiers have been those same 4 teams.

Stats are awesome hey.

surmo13 wrote:Dammit Dip, don't say the 't' word, now he has a ready-made out for backtracking on his stupidity.

There is def a little trolling in there Surmbro, but also plenty of truth.

Pieman wrote:
Mate, in the last 19 years, since the NRL was formed - 9 of the comps have been won by 4 teams. When melbourne, brisbane or the roosters win this year too, it will be 10 of the last 20 comps won by 4 teams. In the last 19 season, 8 of minor premiers have been those same 4 teams.  

Stats are awesome hey.

So 12 of the 16 teams have won a premiership? And every team besides Raiders who has been around since the NRL kicked off has played in a Grand Final? Seems reasonably even.

Compare that to the NBA, whose luxury tax system you seem so desperate to bring to the NRL... you need to go back to 1979 to find 12 different champions... when Seattle beat the Bullets! :lol:

ryno_ wrote:

So 12 of the 16 teams have won a premiership? And every team besides Raiders who has been around since the NRL kicked off has played in a Grand Final? Seems reasonably even.

Compare that to the NBA, whose luxury tax system you seem so desperate to bring to the NRL... you need to go back to 1979 to find 12 different champions... when Seattle beat the Bullets!

So 9 (soon to be 10) of the last 19 (soon to be 20) comps have been won by 4 teams.
So that will end up as 50%, yes, half of the last 20 comps, won by only 4 teams.

How fucking good are stats mate!!

Pieman wrote:

So 9 (soon to be 10) of the last 19 (soon to be 20) comps have been won by 4 teams.
So that will end up as 50%, yes, half of the last 20 comps, won by only 4 teams.

How fucking good are stats mate!!

I'm not sure what background you have in statistical analysis, but 25% of the teams winning 50% of the premierships is a remarkably even comp compared to world or historical standards. Compare that to the EPL, or NFL, or AFL, or ESL. Hell, compare it even to the ARL before that. Between 1908 and 1971 Souths had won a third of the comps themselves. Add in St George, who weren't even in the comp for the first decade, and the Roosters, and those 3 teams had won probably 75% of premierships. In the 80's and 90's Parra, Doggies, Canberra, Broncos, and Manly won almost 90% of the premierships.

How good are stats!

1. The NFL and AFL have drafts. They are meant to work with a salary cap. Totally changes the dynamic of a comp.
2. Cant compare pre salary cap ARL days to now.
3. ESL sucks
4. EPL .. totally different beast with the amount of cash over there. Also, its prob the most supported and exciting comp in the world, if its not its in the top few. Some of the most famous sporting teams in the world are in the EPL.. maybe dynasties are a good thing??
5. They are different sports....

All I have been trying to say, is that TPA's work directly against a salary cap. They totally defeat the purpose with how they are used at the moment.

Yes, the salary cap works to spread talent around the league to a certain extent, I said that a few times. TPA's work against a cap tho IMO, especially when the cap comp doesnt have a draft each year to keep the shit teams in it.

Pieman wrote:

So 9 (soon to be 10) of the last 19 (soon to be 20) comps have been won by 4 teams.
So that will end up as 50%, yes, half of the last 20 comps, won by only 4 teams.

How fucking good are stats mate!!

As pointed out by Dip, im not sure this post makes the point you think it is.

so 50 % of the competitions have been won by 25 % of the teams and you are using this to win your argument ?