Salary Cap 2013

Muffstar

Well-known member
THE exodus of stars from the NRL will become history under a new television rights deal that will lift the salary cap to $7 million for the 2013 season and provide minimum $100,000 pay-rises to senior players.
At least 80 new "jobs" will be created for stars who have been lost to the English Super League and rival codes in recent seasons under the plan which will also double the NRL's annual grant to the clubs from $3.65 million to $7.5 million. The bonanza will ensure league never loses players of the calibre of our list opposite again.

The money from the soon-to-be-negotiated TV deal, worth an estimated $1 billion over five years, will allow clubs to increase their current 25-man NRL rosters to 30 to address the serious issue of player burnout in a season crammed with 26 rounds, finals, Origin, Tests and City Country.

For the first time in the game's history, the grant to the clubs will be higher than the salary cap and should ensure the long-term survival of all 16 clubs. Likely expansion into Perth, Central Coast or Brisbane would not impact on the handouts to the clubs because of extra television revenue that would be generated from an additional game every weekend.

Even with the huge club grants and the player payment windfall, the NRL would have enough money left over to build a war chest of up to $20 million a year for the game's future development.

This would at least put the game in a position to hold their ground in heartland areas and fight AFL's push into the Gold Coast and western Sydney.

Even with the $20 million put away for a future fighting fund, it would still leave the NRL with $60 million a year for operating costs - a substantial improvement on its current budget.

Further costs will be saved from a streamlined organisation that removes duplication of administration under the current NRL, ARL, NSWRL, QRL and CRL arrangements.

The bold new plans to future-proof rugby league for the next generation will debated and dissected in finer detail once the new independent commission is up and running - hopefully by this year's finals series. Players agents across the game are now instructing or advising their stars to hold back on signing long-term deals because of the expected windfall that will come with the 2013 salary cap.

Not all the cash from the new television agreement will go to the superstar players like Greg Inglis, Johnathan Thurston, Billy Slater and co.

But efforts will be made to entice recent code-switchers back to the fold.

The players' own union is pushing for - and is expected to achieve - an increase from the current minimum wage of $55,000 to $70,000\. Having to pay salaries for five extra players in bumped 30-man squads will also soak up some of the difference from the current $4.3 million cap.

"First of all we've got to do the television deal," said NRL spokesman John Brady, "after that there will some robust debate involving many parties to ensure players, clubs and fans get the best outcome."

Even financially struggling clubs like Penrith, Cronulla and the Titans would be capable of surviving and matching it with the premiership heavyweights under the new grants and salary cap.
 
An instant jump from $4.5mil to $7mil is VERY dangerous. I hope the NRL/ARL has enough sense to stagger the rise or put measures into place to stop clubs blowing their dough
 
How much money will the league grant to each club, & i hope there is no jobs for the boys & the juniors & country league are looked after.
 
@Muffstar said:
THE exodus of stars from the NRL will become history under a new television rights deal that will lift the salary cap to $7 million for the 2013 season and provide minimum $100,000 pay-rises to senior players.

There is always going to be people that will go for the money. An increase of $100,000 wouldn't have kept Hunt or Falau who nearly doubled their salaries by becoming promotional material for the AFL.
 
Didn't the stupid AFL get $1.25 billion in their TV deal? Why would the NRL only be getting $1 billion? Should be getting at least as much as the AFL. If not, there's something seriously wrong.
 
I'm sure clubs like Cronulla, Manly or Penriff could still find a way to throw it against the wall and still plead poor.

I'm all for anything that makes clubs less reliant on leagues clubs. Clubs should be given other incentives for increasing memberships and gate takings and be given better salary cap exemptions for retention of their former juniors in FG.

I'm not sold on the 30-man squad idea yet. It may stop clubs from losing fringe first graders and retain their depth, but I don't think there is enough FG standard talent in the current competition. Raise the salary cap first, stop the off-shore raiding and then see where it takes us when every club has a quality run on side each week.
 
@TigersFan4Life said:
Didn't the stupid AFL get $1.25 billion in their TV deal? Why would the NRL only be getting $1 billion? Should be getting at least as much as the AFL. If not, there's something seriously wrong.

I agree. The NRL outrates the GayFL. The pay television figures alone are massive. If we settle for less than 1.2 billion, we are not serious. Go for 1.5 bill and stick it up the girls from the south.
 
Maybe some thought could be given to a reserve grade comp for the fringe first graders to develop to NRL standard if good enough and at the same time offer somewhere for the NRL players who don't make the 17 each week, a comp to play in as well as talented U20's players. With the extra money clubs may be able to pay to keep such players. The NRL would have to put rules in place in relation to the allocation of funds within each club so all the money isn't blown on the top few players- if the reserve grade was to work.
 
@Team Tiger said:
@TigersFan4Life said:
Didn't the stupid AFL get $1.25 billion in their TV deal? Why would the NRL only be getting $1 billion? Should be getting at least as much as the AFL. If not, there's something seriously wrong.

I agree. The NRL outrates the GayFL. The pay television figures alone are massive. If we settle for less than 1.2 billion, we are not serious. Go for 1.5 bill and stick it up the girls from the south.

The only way we'll get more than the AFL is if we introduce 2 new teams (and one of them in Perth), AFL will have 9 games a weekend, and as it stands, we'll only have 8\. However be fully prepared for Gallop to criminally undersell the TV deal again.
 
If they want to keep juniors, they should also be bumping up the salaries of the Toyota cup squads, to stop the undercurrent of merry-go-round trading that happens just below the surface, and give greater concessions for loyalty - even a two tier setup. with loyalties being bought so easily, we would need to be realistic to what is defined as long service at a club these days.

e.g - five years at club - 20% discount on cap then at ten years at club - 40% discount on cap. and if players make it to this level, then the whole "going to super league for greener pastures" wouldn't have to happen, as the players who have been around for a while could potentially make their big money in their last seasons here.

Long term though, players salaries wouldn't get so out of control. _MOST_ players will be loyal to a club if the club does the right thing by them from a younger age. Its win win. (and yes, i'm an idealist)
 
Hopefully the IC can get the TV deal valued correctly. It will be the first real test for them. League is a TV product should be in my opinion worth one and a half times that of the AFL deal.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
@Marshall_magic said:
The only way we'll get more than the AFL is if we introduce 2 new teams (and one of them in Perth), AFL will have 9 games a weekend, and as it stands, we'll only have 8\. However be fully prepared for Gallop to criminally undersell the TV deal again.

True, but to counter that, our season is longer than theirs - 26 rounds vs 24\. We also have 3 state of origin games that are top raters plus a couple of tests.
 
Whatever happens, News cannot have their grubby fingers in the pie when they still own the game. We copped the crappy end of the stick last time around, and I'm willing to bet the Pay TV portion of the NRL deal was probably worth sweet FA.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
@underdog said:
If they want to keep juniors, they should also be bumping up the salaries of the Toyota cup squads, to stop the undercurrent of merry-go-round trading that happens just below the surface, and give greater concessions for loyalty - even a two tier setup. with loyalties being bought so easily, we would need to be realistic to what is defined as long service at a club these days.

I don't think bumping up salaries of Toyota Cup players is a good idea. Most of them will be park footballers, who play part time, and only around 30% will wind up as NRL regulars long term. Paying them all more may create an illusion for them that they will be fulltime footballers, and if it all goes south for them they may have nothing to fall back on.
 
Top post MM.

If anything, clubs should be subsidised for helping players forge an alternative career path should footy not work out or a debilitating injury strike.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
There's no way the NRL is going to get $1billion in TV rights. They were/are aiming for $750-$800 million and the AFL was aiming for a billion. The free to air ratings for AFL far outweigh that of the NRL, seeing as they have interest in pretty much every state in Australia, while the NRL really only depends on NSW and QLD.

The article is stupid in thinking we'll get a billion for the rights, all these numbers are made up. God I HATE the telegraph when it misleads people like this.
 
@Bismark said:
There's no way the NRL is going to get $1billion in TV rights. They were/are aiming for $750-$800 million and the AFL was aiming for a billion. The free to air ratings for AFL far outweigh that of the NRL, seeing as they have interest in pretty much every state in Australia, while the NRL really only depends on NSW and QLD.

The article is stupid in thinking we'll get a billion for the rights, all these numbers are made up. God I HATE the telegraph when it misleads people like this.

The ratings are very similar, the Swans only get about 100 000 viewers live, prime time.
Down in Melbourne, Storm matches shown at midnight by ch 9 get a little bit less.

Add to that we have State of Origin which rates extremely highly and we also play more matches then the AFL (26 rounds compared to 22).
 
I still think that the salary cap needs a serious overhaul. The current mechanics of it has too many loop holes and it should reward clubs for bringing their juniors through to first grade. It costs a lot of money to bring juniors through to first grade and clubs should be rewarded for outlaying the money as well as the time to bring them through. You'll find clubs shifting from buying a premiership to nurturing one through their junior programs. Such programs would also make it difficult for the AFL and Union to eat into our nursery.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Back
Top