The Salary Cap Effect

[Tucker]

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.

Yes, but the cap deters them all from congregating at just those three clubs. 4 of the past 5 Dally M Player of the year winners do not come from these clubs.

 

[Tucker]

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.

When do we think professionalism began in the game? By that I mean all players could make a living from the game, not just the best.
I took data from 1990 onwards because the introduction of the cap included a minimum wage of $55k.

 

[innsaneink]

Agree.

Penrith appear to be the purest form of a properly run football club. Authentic from grass roots through. They built their factory properly and are, and will continue to, reap the benefits. It's hard to be mad at them for that.

Melbourne develop grown men better than any club I've seen. Credit for that. But they have history with cheating. As do Bulldogs, NZ, Parramatta, Manly and Cronulla.

Paradoxically and hilariously, even us, through the Farah ambassadorship debacle.

Roosters are in a league of their own when it comes to intangibles. Arguably the most financially well-backed club (other than maybe the Broncos), with countless financial heavy-hitters and elites involved in the club. There are former players, as recently as last month, openly stating that the brown paper bags ongoing joke isn't entirely a fabrication.

That's not to mention the networking environment created over there. Whilst this can be explained away as a well-run football club, which it undeniably is by most metrics, it creates an irrefutable advantage, not based on football, to a football club.

That is a major shortcoming of the salary cap. It struggles to capture or regulate these intangibles. Purely in my opinion.

Clubs need to use what ever advantage they can. For some, it's a nursery, for others, it's networks and dollars.

None of that refutes the fact that poorly performing clubs are, more often than not, poorly run clubs, but I don't think it is as simple as that.

As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Well done Tucker on the time taken to put this together.

Interested in this....can you clarify or post a link plz.

Id put Penrith up the top with the financial side of things, they have clubs everywhere now

 

[supercoach]

The salary cap is just one thing that determines clubs ability to play final football. Take the draw for example, the Sharks have had a dream draw for about the last three years. Than there is the schedule, Bronks played every Friday night for years, no short turn around.

Than the clubs ability attract people to supply third party deals plays a part. A club’s geographical location also is a factor when recruiting players. Finally a clubs perceived reputation plays a big part.

Most of the above we have struggled with, mainly due to our incompetence. Fingers crossed the club is now focused on what needs to be done to control the things than can be controlled

 

[BAGNF05]

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.

I wonder how much incentive there is at HQ to lessen the gap between the haves and have nots? I think the heroes and villains narrative probably creates more interest in the game than just spreading around trophies. Would like to be a fly on the wall when the league discusses parity in the competition.

 

[BAGNF05]

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.

Their troughs generally only last a little while though because they have some kind of advantage in recruitment. Whether that advantage is unfair is I guess what the debate is. It’s probably somewhere in between master administration and full on cheating.

It interests me that their players seem to retire or leave the NRL when they finish up in a lot of cases, a cynic might think there’s some kind of inducement post career if they don’t go to a rival.

 

[BAGNF05]

The salary cap is just one thing that determines clubs ability to play final football. Take the draw for example, the Sharks have had a dream draw for about the last three years. Than there is the schedule, Bronks played every Friday night for years, no short turn around.

Than the clubs ability attract people to supply third party deals plays a part. A club’s geographical location also is a factor when recruiting players. Finally a clubs perceived reputation plays a big part.

Most of the above we have struggled with, mainly due to our incompetence. Fingers crossed the club is now focused on what needs to be done to control the things than can be controlled

The NFL applies science to their draw using a strength of schedule equation that benefits the lower teams, feels like the NRL just use some free online randomiser.

 

[Kelce68]

Interested in this....can you clarify or post a link plz.

Id put Penrith up the top with the financial side of things, they have clubs everywhere now

I had a brief look when I posted it, but wasn't able to find it. I thought it was Isaac John's podcast, but I'll keep digging.

Penrith are well backed from a Leagues club point of view, I was more referring to external backers, such as a Gyngell, Bouris and the likes at the Roosters.

 

[Needaname]

The salary cap is just one thing that determines clubs ability to play final football. Take the draw for example, the Sharks have had a dream draw for about the last three years. Than there is the schedule, Bronks played every Friday night for years, no short turn around.

Than the clubs ability attract people to supply third party deals plays a part. A club’s geographical location also is a factor when recruiting players. Finally a clubs perceived reputation plays a big part.

Most of the above we have struggled with, mainly due to our incompetence. Fingers crossed the club is now focused on what needs to be done to control the things than can be controlled

Draw is a factor. They analysed the draw to finishing positions at the start of the year. I wonder where it matched up vs the eventual table at the final round.

 

[BAGNF05]

When do we think professionalism began in the game? By that I mean all players could make a living from the game, not just the best.
I took data from 1990 onwards because the introduction of the cap included a minimum wage of $55k.

Probably when pay TV got involved around 1995.

 

[twentyforty]

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.

Just like the perennial losers have billionaire supporters but they won't all continue to throw big money at them if it doesn't have a positive effect.
Another point about the cap, if a well organised club receives $16m each year chances are they will know what to do with it and manage it a whole lot better than a disorganised club.

 

[Siberian Kitten]

Yes, but the cap deters them all from congregating at just those three clubs. 4 of the past 5 Dally M Player of the year winners do not come from these clubs.

That's at least partly because top players at weaker clubs have less competition for maximum points.

Still, everyone knows that some clubs have a realistic chance of winning in the next few years and some don't. So weaker clubs have to pay overs for good players, and that works against the cap.

 

[BAGNF05]

Just like the perennial losers have billionaire supporters but they won't all continue to throw big money at them if it doesn't have a positive effect.
Another point about the cap, if a well organised club receives $16m each year chances are they will know what to do with it and manage it a whole lot better than a disorganised club.

I’m a vocal advocate for winning starts in the front office.