The Salary Cap Effect

Yes and no.

Melbourne cheated.

Penrith are probably a good example of excellent administrators whereas the other top clubs are gifted favours in my opinion. A consequence of some conflicts of interest that are as obvious as dogs nads.
Weren't Penrith having financial difficulties, under or close to administration, likewise with Cronulla whilst still making finals?

Manly having board upheavals and under investigation for sports science issues whilst successful.

Melbourne and Canterbury were under NRL administrators however the dogs won a premiership and Melbourne remained successful.

Troubles in the front offices of those clubs didn't affect their recruitment, development or on field fortunes it seemed.
 
Wests also made the finals 3 times not twice in the 90s.

There could be other errors.

But great stats.
Even more proof the cap works lol. They spent most of the 80’s at the arse end of the comp.
 
Weren't Penrith having financial difficulties, under or close to administration, likewise with Cronulla whilst still making finals?

Manly having board upheavals and under investigation for sports science issues whilst successful.

Melbourne and Canterbury were under NRL administrators however the dogs won a premiership and Melbourne remained successful.

Troubles in the front offices of those clubs didn't affect their recruitment, development or on field fortunes it seemed.
Penrith’s financial difficulties’ was more about the leagues club itself.
I’m not sure where they are at now but about a decade ago they were in a lot of borrowers debt, but they also moved to upgrade / extend the leagues club removing the nightclubs and leagues club only presence and adding in more versatile features and functions.
Not sure how they are doing now but I remember In the midst of COVID it was mentioned that if clubs didn’t open up again they risk the chance of not being able to fund their operations / football club.
 
Penrith’s financial difficulties’ was more about the leagues club itself.
I’m not sure where they are at now but about a decade ago they were in a lot of borrowers debt, but they also moved to upgrade / extend the leagues club removing the nightclubs and leagues club only presence and adding in more versatile features and functions.
Not sure how they are doing now but I remember In the midst of COVID it was mentioned that if clubs didn’t open up again they risk the chance of not being able to fund their operations / football club.
Exactly. If you’ve got a good squad together through good administration and all of a sudden your major sponsor experiences some cash flow issues or there’s some turmoil in the board room, it hardly impacts on-field results, the players are happy as long as they’re paid.

Different to the long term failure of the organisation to field a competitive roster, leading to degradation of the brand and reputation of the whole operation.
 
Last edited:
A clubs administration is primarily responsible for it's finances and compliance.

Obviously Penrith, Canterbury, Melbourne. Cronulla and Manly failed in these regards but continued to succeed on the pitch.

Recruitment and development falls under the direction of the head coach and appointed staff. These are football operations matters.

Lucky for them, despite the financial and compliance failures the NRL allowed dispensation......allowing them to continue and in some cases retain their squad, aka Canterbury. Some penalties were meagre and in Canberra's case in 1991 non existent. Canterbury won the competition the following season. Melbourne despite their massive contraventions were not excluded......highly unlikely a Sydney club would have received as much clemency.
 
A clubs administration is primarily responsible for it's finances and compliance.

Obviously Penrith, Canterbury, Melbourne. Cronulla and Manly failed in these regards but continued to succeed on the pitch.

Recruitment and development falls under the direction of the head coach and appointed staff. These are football operations matters.

Lucky for them, despite the financial and compliance failures the NRL allowed dispensation......allowing them to continue and in some cases retain their squad, aka Canterbury. Some penalties were meagre and in Canberra's case in 1991 non existent. Canterbury won the competition the following season. Melbourne despite their massive contraventions were not excluded......highly unlikely a Sydney club would have received as much clemency.
I think you’ll find the best clubs have very strong interplay between football and non-football. Richo in particular is very hands on in football. As he should be.
 
I think you’ll find the best clubs have very strong interplay between football and non-football. Richo in particular is very hands on in football. As he should be.

I agree with this.

Pascoes star was to tied to Cleary.

Once he reneged and broke contract leaving our cap in a mess Pascoe should've been shown the door.
 
Last edited:
With regards Salary cap, Richo may have to look to create a separate suitably experienced recruitment and retention/development and Salary cap committee that answers to him.

The club has numerous sponsors and patrons and is going to have to find a way to use TPD to their advantage.

A review regards football operations and development should also be undertaken. Headed by Richardson and overseen by the board. Our juniors haven't borne fruit over the last 12 years.

Why.

Is it a below par crop, are they being ensnared by rivals or are talent selection and training methods below par.
 
Club is probably a bit too nice.

Probably, Richardson should be given free rein to bend just before it breaks, while the board can just temper that.
Gus’s quote from a few years ago always sticks with me,

“The trouble with the Tigers is they don’t know what they don’t know”

Richo knows.
 
The salary cap was at its best between 2010 and 2016. In that span, a different team one the grand final each year. Prior to 2010 cap cheating was rife, hence the domination of certain teams.

From 2016, the NRL introduced the November 1 rule, making it too difficult for bottom feeder clubs to rebuild. Until the November 1 rule is changed back to a regular end of season trading period like most other sporting competitions in the world, the NRL will remain lopsided.
Explain the Nov 1 rule that came in in 2016?
What was in place before that?
 
We did some absolutely horrendous contracts under the former administration, if these were all public I don’t think all of them would have occurred. At the moment the lower clubs can’t see what the players at the top clubs are earning, other than speculation through media, who we all know don’t do WT any favours.

Anyway, brown paper bags will always be difficult to overcome, but more transparency would make a difference in my view.
Every club has paper bags mate, or fans who have them. They dry up with the perennial bottom sides after a while because Investors will always want a return, regardless.
 
Every club has paper bags mate, or fans who have them. They dry up with the perennial bottom sides after a while because Investors will always want a return, regardless.
The perennial winners all have billion dollar owners or the biggest leagues club in the country backing them, a fact not lost on many.

Paper bags ain’t dryin’ up.
 
If the paper bags were as prevalent as some claim, why do we continually see the top sides shed good players? I’m not arguing they don’t exist, however the cap still ensures you can’t keep them all.
 
Great stuff Tucker. However, I think the data should be taken from the inception of the NRL. This is where everything was reset, took a few years to find its balance. Completely agree it’s on the administrators to sort. Climbing Mount Everest for the tigers.

Salary cap was never designed to even out the comp. It was to stop clubs devouring themselves.

The fact that you have to spend all (most) means bottom feeders have to pay overs over underperforming players.

Younger people (generalizing) as a group want success now. Much more difficult in the modern climate to foster club loyalty for them to stick around to develop if you’re losing.

Managers have worked out the system compared to 30yrs ago.

There are too many teams and not enough elite talent. Even Penrith lose top players.
 
If the paper bags were as prevalent as some claim, why do we continually see the top sides shed good players? I’m not arguing they don’t exist, however the cap still ensures you can’t keep them all.
The Roosters this year will be an interesting case study.

Losing a lot of top end talent and not a lot on the market.

What wonderful administration will they come up with?
 
Times have changed. The comp was more even 20 years ago. It's less even now. Same with the world in general.

Some clubs are seen as providing a realistic chance of winning the comp like Storm, Panthers, Roosters. Players gravitate to them.

Also, coaches like Bellamy, Bennett and Cleary are a draw for players, because they see how players improve under their tutelage.
 
The Roosters this year will be an interesting case study.

Losing a lot of top end talent and not a lot on the market.

What wonderful administration will they come up with?
If you look at the data set, the Roosters are a cyclical club. Consistently over the past 35 years, they have patches of low years mixed with clumps of high years. They are entering a low phase where they’ll struggle to make the 8 for a couple of years.
The difference with them is when they come back, they win comps.
 

Members online

Back
Top