Is the Salary Cap working?

Sabre

Well-known member
I don't just mean in terms of creating equality so the rich teams forever dominate the poor ones, I also mean the purpose of the 2nd tier cap. If the salary cap is there so the competition is equal in terms of buying the games top players then why should it also mean we are unable to give an 18 year old kid his debut? That's not what the cap should be for.
It should be solely to prevent clubs poaching all the best players in the game.

For this reason I think it is of great importance that incentives are given for developing and using your own juniors. We have been exemplary at that. Just look at our team this week, 11 of the starting 13 made their debuts with us, and 3 of the 4 interchange players, so 15/17\. Although Bucanan played for Dragons U20s.

Lets look at our opponents, Cronulla, of their starting 13, 4 debuted for them. 2 of those came in for injured players who debuted elsewhere, 1 has signed for the warriors, and the other played in u20s for the warriors. On their bench only Tyrone Peachey debuted for the Sharks and he is off to Penrith next year.

With that mentioned above which do you think the salary cap should be favoring and which do you think it should be trying to eliminate? I think it is an area of our game that needs to be looked at. I do not believe it is achieving it's intended purpose. Cronulla aren't the only club in that situation, but the fit the bill for this problem perfectly.

Developing junior players takes a lot time, effort and money, simply buying a whole team is a cop out and overall has a negative effect on the game as it means the amount of quality young players being produced and coming through the grades is much fewer. When teams neglect to develop these players it is having a direct effect on the number of great players in the competition.

So it is this concept of buying players rather than producing them that I think the modern salary cap needs to draw it's attention too, rather than the signing of marquee players. If the NRL did step in and make amendments to the cap in this regard I think we would see more clubs being inclined to give priority to their juniors over signing players from elsewhere. This in turn would the quality of the average player, the number of quality players, and the overall quality of the NRL would improve. It would also mean improvements in the U20's and State Cup competitions.
 
@Saber said:
I don't just mean in terms of creating equality so the rich teams forever dominate the poor ones, I also mean the purpose of the 2nd tier cap. If the salary cap is there so the competition is equal in terms of buying the games top players then why should it also mean we are unable to give an 18 year old kid his debut? That's not what the cap should be for.
It should be solely to prevent clubs poaching all the best players in the game.

For this reason I think it is of great importance that incentives are given for developing and using your own juniors. We have been exemplary at that. Just look at our team this week, 11 of the starting 13 made their debuts with us, and 3 of the 4 interchange players, so 15/17\. Although Bucanan played for Dragons U20s.

Lets look at our opponents, Cronulla, of their starting 13, 4 debuted for them. 2 of those came in for injured players who debuted elsewhere, 1 has signed for the warriors, and the other played in u20s for the warriors. On their bench only Tyrone Peachey debuted for the Sharks and he is off to Penrith next year.

With that mentioned above which do you think the salary cap should be favoring and which do you think it should be trying to eliminate? I think it is an area of our game that needs to be looked at. I do not believe it is achieving it's intended purpose. Cronulla aren't the only club in that situation, but the fit the bill for this problem perfectly.

Developing junior players takes a lot time, effort and money, simply buying a whole team is a cop out and overall has a negative effect on the game as it means the amount of quality young players being produced and coming through the grades is much fewer. When teams neglect to develop these players it is having a direct effect on the number of great players in the competition.

So it is this concept of buying players rather than producing them that I think the modern salary cap needs to draw it's attention too, rather than the signing of marquee players. If the NRL did step in and make amendments to the cap in this regard I think we would see more clubs being inclined to give priority to their juniors over signing players from elsewhere. This in turn would the quality of the average player, the number of quality players, and the overall quality of the NRL would improve. It would also mean improvements in the U20's and State Cup competitions.

I Agree!
 
Unfortunately the rich clubs without a good junior base will strenuously object by way of inequality

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
Good thread and agree with what is being said. However, like cq has posted, the clubs that don't have big junior bases would try everything to stop it from happening.

Personally, I don't like the salary cap as it is a system that is open to abuse. Whilst some breaches are discovered, I believe many aren't.

I understand the cap is complicated and that teams go through ups and down wrt their rosters. Every year you look at certain sides and ask yourself how are they under the cap. You can try and work it out but at the end of the day it is pure guesswork, as there is not much transparency to the cap. Take this year for eg. The playing rosters of the Rabbits/Roosters compared to the Eels/Dragons. Chalk and Cheese. The Rabbits could almost field another side in the NRL and be competitive.

It was mentioned on another thread that the value of the annual NRL grant to each club is approximately that of the cap. If this is the case then why don't the NRL look at managing player movements/contracts instead of the clubs? You would no longer see a repeat of Storm fiasco.
 
Back
Top