Why bother to have a salary cap?

Krump wrote:
Troll much?

What did he say was not 100% correct?

Is OSM actually McFlavour/Heisenberg?

Big Diesel wrote:

What did he say was not 100% correct?

And what did I say that wasn't 100% correct?

McFlogchops wrote:OSM has always been a fuckstick.


Basically what he is saying is that the salary cap shouldn't be in place, as the team he supports is the only team in a massive league crazy city.

Carry on.

I've clearly said that it should be in place??
Merely that the NRL should continue to grant exceptions for the teams that actually add value to the comp.

Anyway, I'm not even convinced that you are even McFuck-knuckle himself.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I've clearly said that it should be in place??
Merely that the NRL should continue to grant exceptions for the teams that actually add value to the comp.

Anyway, I'm not even convinced that you are even McFuck-knuckle himself.

Why not just have the Broncos play with themselves every week

Krump wrote:
Why not just have the Broncos play with themselves every week

The polesmokers would love that

With the third party agreements, there is literally no point in having a salary cap.
Teams like the Broncos, Roosters and Souths and co all have powerful rich backers who can pay what ever player what ever they want. They have such an advantage over other sides, its crazy how this is seen as fair.

This isnt bronco bashing, but the NRL really puts them in a position to put the best roster in the league together.
1 Team town.
All the friday night free to air games - which means companies are more inclined to put in agreements with them because they will get regular exposure etc etc.

They might as well scrap the salary cap if they are going to continue with the third party payments and all a team like the raiders (who are prob the richest club in the league) - pay players what ever the hell they want.

Pieman wrote:With the third party agreements, there is literally no point in having a salary cap.
Teams like the Broncos, Roosters and Souths and co all have powerful rich backers who can pay what ever player what ever they want. They have such an advantage over other sides, its crazy how this is seen as fair.

This isnt bronco bashing, but the NRL really puts them in a position to put the best roster in the league together.
1 Team town.
All the friday night free to air games - which means companies are more inclined to put in agreements with them because they will get regular exposure etc etc.

They might as well scrap the salary cap if they are going to continue with the third party payments and all a team like the raiders (who are prob the richest club in the league) - pay players what ever the hell they want.

And this gives such a huge advantage that these teams have dominated winning exactly how many premierships lately?
Broncos - one of the last 15 seasons
Roosters - one of the last 13 seasons
Rabbits - one in the history of the salary cap.

Perhaps it's not as big an advantage as you're making out.

Krump wrote:
The issue it that they are given a nominal value by the NRL and that value has to go on the cap. According to the NRL Burgess is only worth 600k so thats all souffs have to pay him in the cap. If the NRL used his real value theres no way they could get him under the cap and he'd have no choice but to go elsewhere.

I have been told by a mad Souths supporter that Surgess is on $1.5m a season. Apparently, there is unrest from a few of the players because of this and that they accepted less to stay with Souths. Madge and Rusty aren't very popular atm!