Great article re Roosters Salary Cap

[rustycage]

I could care less for the salary cap talk. What the Roosters do well is release players who are not great value to the club. They dont pay overs for bit players. They then identity and recruit who add to the style of play and culture they are trying to achieve.

Its them and the Storm who lead this league in clever recruitment and retention.

You can afford to dismiss "bit players" when you have 3 or 4 million-dollar players on your roster.

Ryan Matterson in 2019 was clearly as good as any forward that the Roosters kept on, yet Roosters could afford to let him move on.

It's the same with the Storm, but at least I'll grant that the Storm put their own resources in those key positions, rather than raiding other clubs.

**> When you have Tedesco-Keary-Cronk-Friend and Hughes-Munster-Croft-Smith as your spines, plus JWH-Taukeiaho and Bromwich-NAS as your prop combos, you can afford to be picky with the "bit players".**

Also the bit players are potentially happy to play for less money but in a team full of elite players. Imagine the difference in the output being asked of, say, Zane Tetevano vs Alex Twal.

Whislt the point is taken, I'm not sure Hughes and Croft are worthy of too much fanfare. Nor for that matter Munster really. I think he is somewhat overhyped. Much like Morgan at the Cows.

 

[Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan]

The thing to remember with nearly all the clubs caught cheating the salary cap is that they get caught well after they started doing it.

To my knowledge, the NRL investigators have never really caught anyone cheating the cap. Errors by cheating club personnel, self reporting, whistle-blowers or proper investigative journalists have only ever led to penalties.

You forgot our circumstance.
Tell everyone in the world what we are doing.

That was so crook. The Robbie Farah situation had been public knowledge since 2016/17. Then all of a sudden at the end of 2018 they decided to act on it.

 

[Tim Sheens]

@Tiger2135 It's inevitable that Sydney will stop producing enough talent. Athletes are raised on grass and in sunshine and fresh air, NOT in high rise apartments or in their shadows. There is a swing away from big cities and to the country. Where we live (near Yass, NSW) we are surrounded by tree changers from Sydney who commute to Canberra for public service salaries. Kids who breathe fresh air have a big advantage over those raised on diesel fumes. The Roosters may continue as they are for quite a while but the decline of Sydney clubs is inevitable.

@Madgic
I agree its better for your general health to live away from the city, but to say a kid being raised in a high rise apartment can't become a professional athlete is ridiculous. How many sports and athletic high schools exist near Yass? How many purpose built, million dollar facilities with thousands of highly trained, professional athletic staff teaching kids the most effective training methods do they have there? Kids in the city have access to all of this, so if anyone is disadvantaged its the kids out in the country.

Yass is a great part of the world, but eventually kids from there with aspirations to become professional athletes will eventually need to move in with a diesel heaving city kid - and the younger they are when they move, the better.

In general, you may be correct, but in this case the AIS, being the premier facilities in the country are just down the road from @Madgic at Yass.

 

[fibrodreaming]

I could care less for the salary cap talk. What the Roosters do well is release players who are not great value to the club. They dont pay overs for bit players. They then identity and recruit who add to the style of play and culture they are trying to achieve.

I used to think that too, but I'm not so sure anymore.

A couple of seasons ago there were some quite authoritative articles in the press concerning how much Easts were paying their players - not the marquee players but other squad members. They went into specifics, but unfortunately I have forgotten the details. I do remember that the articles raised some eyebrows at the time because it was claimed that many of their regulars were being paid substantially less than what one would expect their market value to be.

The obvious conclusion was that these players were in receipt of good TPAs. But, it appears not, because last year the NRL released official figures re TPAs by club and, to everyones amazement, Easts TPAs were middle of the pack.

So, that led me to conclude that either; (a) the bulk of the squad are happy to play for significant unders, which is possible; or, (b) their players are in receipt of other sources of money that does not have to be reported to the NRL, which I think is more likely.

The problem for the NRL is the lack of transparency around players remuneration. Until that is resolved, the NRL and Easts will continue to have a credibility problem.

 

[gallagher]

I could care less for the salary cap talk. What the Roosters do well is release players who are not great value to the club. They dont pay overs for bit players. They then identity and recruit who add to the style of play and culture they are trying to achieve.

I used to think that too, but I'm not so sure anymore.

A couple of seasons ago there were some quite authoritative articles in the press concerning how much Easts were paying their players - not the marquee players but other squad members. They went into specifics, but unfortunately I have forgotten the details. I do remember that the articles raised some eyebrows at the time because it was claimed that many of their regulars were being paid substantially less than what one would expect their market value to be.

The obvious conclusion was that these players were in receipt of good TPAs. But, it appears not, because last year the NRL released official figures re TPAs by club and, to everyones amazement, Easts TPAs were middle of the pack.

So, that led me to conclude that either; (a) the bulk of the squad are happy to play for significant unders, which is possible; or, (b) their players are in receipt of other sources of money that does not have to be reported to the NRL, which I think is more likely.

The problem for the NRL is the lack of transparency around players remuneration. Until that is resolved, the NRL and Easts will continue to have a credibility problem.

But $350k was enough for Matterson to go from the premiers to a club that rarely makes the 8. I think they pay alot of their younger blokes bugger all.

 

[NT_Tiger]

@fibrodreaming
If the John Singleton interview/article is to be believed, the salary cap and TPA's are irrelevant to the Roosters, and probably Storm as well.
The extra 'incentives' to play for the team come in the form of gifts which are beyond the scope of the NRL to police.
If clubs can find a 'legal' way to make the Cap and TPAs irrelevant, the NRL will continue to be impotent in that regard, and there will never be a level playing field for clubs that don't do the same. The bottom line then, is the bottom line, money. I don't believe that there is a way for the NRL to legally control the varied forms of recompense that clubs can make available to chosen players.
That makes me think that for the NRL to truly produce any kind of levelled playing field, they will have to openly allow clubs to do what the Roosters are doing. Unfortunately I do not believe there is enough money out there in fanland to support many clubs on that basis, and that would result in a reduction in the number of top level teams in the competition.
So if you look at where the likely necessary dollar flow will come from, it would be Sydney can support say two teams Roosters and Souths, Brisbane can support two teams Broncos and one other, Melbourne two teams Storm and one other, Canberra Raiders, and Townsville Cowboys.
I believe if the NRL truly want to create a spectacular viewing product they need to cut the number of first grade teams to six or eight. The rest just miss out, because I don't believe the NRL is capable of creating a levelled playing through any legal player pay management system and there is not enough support money out there and not enough top flight players to support the larger comp.
I say 'viewing product' advisedly because, to me at least, the game that I knew when growing up is dead.

 

[JD Tiger]

@gallagher True, yes but I bet there are a lot of side benefits outside of the cap, favours, discounts, and the players do not miss out.

 

[Krammy]

@TigerTiger You make a very good point here. In fact when you look at the history of both Western Suburbs and Balmain, in the 50 years between 1950 to 2000 they only had one premiership each - Western Suburbs in 1952 and Balmain in 1969. Now we have Wests Tigers who are also showing a very poor finals record. Ultimately this has to affect other people's perceptions about our club. Someone mentioned earlier on this forum about players who may have left saying, 'You can do better than being at West Tigers...' Ultimately something has to change to alter people's perceptions about this club. Yes, the simple answer is to be in the finals consistently, but there is so much more to this. It is about excellence with all the facets of the club: training facilities, player recruitment and retention, powerful corporate support, high standards across the board. I feel hopeful that Maguire and in particular, Pascoe, are smart enough operators to take this club into this new era. Sorry to the traditionalists, but if you want to hang on to operating like we did in the past, then we will continue to be a club in the wilderness.

 

[diedpretty]

I could care less for the salary cap talk. What the Roosters do well is release players who are not great value to the club. They dont pay overs for bit players. They then identity and recruit who add to the style of play and culture they are trying to achieve.

Its them and the Storm who lead this league in clever recruitment and retention.

Yes they are smart . But you don't have a roster like that just through shrewd retention and recruitment. They may not offer overs within the cap but its what is offered outside the cap that allows them to build the roster they have. And that's what peeves everyone off.

 

[851]

@Lauren Tigers hasn't made the finals now for eight years? Since 2011, well Balmain made it in 1990, then not again until Wests Tigers did in 2005. I doubt Wests were more successful in the 90s, did they make it that decade? I seem to remember them coming fifth one year in the early 90s?

Anyway, my point is, after the 80s, Balmain, Wests and Wests Tigers have been mostly pretty poor. We had one incredible year (2005), two very good years (2010,2011) but that's it in the last three decades.

West’s made the top 5 in 1991 and 1992, they made the top 8 in1996.

 

[diedpretty]

Just on the roosters and cap again - it was reported that uncle nick was paying for an end of year holiday for all players and staff. Surely that has to be included in their cap and could also be seen as an inducement.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

Just on the roosters and cap again - it was reported that uncle nick was paying for an end of year holiday for all players and staff. Surely that has to be included in their cap and could also be seen as an inducement.

Maybe he’ll cop a six month suspension....

bahahahahahah😂

 

[diedpretty]

Just on the roosters and cap again - it was reported that uncle nick was paying for an end of year holiday for all players and staff. Surely that has to be included in their cap and could also be seen as an inducement.

They did it last year too - but apparently its ok if the NRL consider the cost reasonable. This was about last years junket :

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/rivals-crowing-about-roosters-bankrolling-us-celebrations-20181122-p50hny.html

 

[fibrodreaming]

But $350k was enough for Matterson to go from the premiers to a club that rarely makes the 8. I think they pay alot of their younger blokes bugger all.

Not sure why you commence your sentence with "But". I allowed for the possibility that a lot of their squad may be prepared to play for unders.

 

[Russell]

@Lauren Tigers hasn't made the finals now for eight years? Since 2011, well Balmain made it in 1990, then not again until Wests Tigers did in 2005. I doubt Wests were more successful in the 90s, did they make it that decade? I seem to remember them coming fifth one year in the early 90s?

Anyway, my point is, after the 80s, Balmain, Wests and Wests Tigers have been mostly pretty poor. We had one incredible year (2005), two very good years (2010,2011) but that's it in the last three decades.

West’s made the top 5 in 1991 and 1992, they made the top 8 in1996.

and Balmain were in the finals 1956, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1969, 1975, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

Put the two together and it is not a bad record.

 

[851]

@Lauren Tigers hasn't made the finals now for eight years? Since 2011, well Balmain made it in 1990, then not again until Wests Tigers did in 2005. I doubt Wests were more successful in the 90s, did they make it that decade? I seem to remember them coming fifth one year in the early 90s?

Anyway, my point is, after the 80s, Balmain, Wests and Wests Tigers have been mostly pretty poor. We had one incredible year (2005), two very good years (2010,2011) but that's it in the last three decades.

West’s made the top 5 in 1991 and 1992, they made the top 8 in1996.

and Balmain were in the finals 1956, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1969, 1975, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

Put the two together and it is not a bad record.

I only went back to 1990 as the original poster was talkin about the last 30 years, but the record is not too bad as you say, my memory of wests making the 5 only goes back to about 1974, before that I would have to get old mate google on the job.

 

[gallagher]

But $350k was enough for Matterson to go from the premiers to a club that rarely makes the 8. I think they pay alot of their younger blokes bugger all.

Not sure why you commence your sentence with "But". I allowed for the possibility that a lot of their squad may be prepared to play for unders.

Because you said it was more likely they were getting money outside the cap. My example of Matterson suggests it more likely they are paying their lesser players unders.

 

[kiwitiger]

@Lauren Tigers hasn't made the finals now for eight years? Since 2011, well Balmain made it in 1990, then not again until Wests Tigers did in 2005. I doubt Wests were more successful in the 90s, did they make it that decade? I seem to remember them coming fifth one year in the early 90s?

Anyway, my point is, after the 80s, Balmain, Wests and Wests Tigers have been mostly pretty poor. We had one incredible year (2005), two very good years (2010,2011) but that's it in the last three decades.

West’s made the top 5 in 1991 and 1992, they made the top 8 in1996.

and Balmain were in the finals 1956, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1969, 1975, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

Put the two together and it is not a bad record.

And if you combine our record with the storm it's even better. Add in the Broncos and Canberra we dominated the 90's. Chuck in parra and the dogs we smashed the 80's.
In short we were separated then why combine balmain and wests when they were separate?

 

[Russell]

@Lauren Tigers hasn't made the finals now for eight years? Since 2011, well Balmain made it in 1990, then not again until Wests Tigers did in 2005. I doubt Wests were more successful in the 90s, did they make it that decade? I seem to remember them coming fifth one year in the early 90s?

Anyway, my point is, after the 80s, Balmain, Wests and Wests Tigers have been mostly pretty poor. We had one incredible year (2005), two very good years (2010,2011) but that's it in the last three decades.

West’s made the top 5 in 1991 and 1992, they made the top 8 in1996.

and Balmain were in the finals 1956, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1969, 1975, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

Put the two together and it is not a bad record.

I only went back to 1990 as the original poster was talkin about the last 30 years, but the record is not too bad as you say, my memory of wests making the 5 only goes back to about 1974, before that I would have to get old mate google on the job.

Wests had a good run around the same time as Saints in the 60's, played them a few times in the GF but like Balmain were beaten.

 

[jirskyr]

But $350k was enough for Matterson to go from the premiers to a club that rarely makes the 8. I think they pay alot of their younger blokes bugger all.

Not sure why you commence your sentence with "But". I allowed for the possibility that a lot of their squad may be prepared to play for unders.

Because you said it was more likely they were getting money outside the cap. My example of Matterson suggests it more likely they are paying their lesser players unders.

Your example of Matto is apt - for how long would Roosters "lesser players" be happy to be paid "unders"? Matto's example suggests around 50 FG games and 1 contract / 3 seasons is the duration, before wanting to move on.

After just one season at $350K, Matto now wants double that.

So the real question isn't how Roosters pay some lesser players lower wages, but how some of them are happy to continue to be paid at that rate on multiple contracts.

For example Taukeiaho, who is over 100 FG games now and a representative footballer. The article that @fibrodreaming referenced had Taukeiaho at something ridiculous like $250K. And even if you accept that he was on $250K back then, he's since more than doubled his FG experience and played rep footy, and is now into his 3rd contract with the Roosters.

So let's accept the argument that early-career novice players are paid a pittance by Roosters, in order to (a) boost their profile and (b) be part of a "winning organisation", but how do Roosters retain such players year on year? Why are they all not leaving for richer pastures like Ryan Matterson?