2018 NRL salary cap

They can put a cap on TPA's if they want, they can ban them entirely, or they can include them in the cap. It won't make any difference!

The clubs that go down the rorting road are paying players OUTSIDE the rules, so outside both the existing cap, and the shady TPA deals the NRL knows about. They are not telling the NRL about them.

So no matter what happens with TPA's, they won't change a club who wishes to cheat and pay players outside the rules.

What they need to do if they really wanted something even close to fair:

1) Is have TPA's allowed, and just put a cap on them. Each team can have an additional $500k in TPA above their cap. Not really enough to pad out a team with all elite stars, but enough to attract a few higher quality players.

2) Have every players salary published. We tend to find out what they are anyway, the only reason to keep them private now is to hide how much each players and club has in TPA showing how unbalanced the system currently is. Publish them in addition to the above rule so there is no hiding, no speculation.

3) At every player contract signing, have the player, the players agent, and club CEO sign a declaration outlining exactly what the player is being paid to play for that club. In fact, they could enforce this for every existing contract also. Do it during an off season to minimise disruption to teams. And for any players, agents or administrators caught rorting, life ban, no chance of getting back in.

The above would mean we would know what a player is getting, have some confidence that that is exactly what they are getting, and have confidence that the playing field is fairly even.
 
for me
1 Scrap TPA
2 give 50% discount to the cap for players at a club for 10+ yrs (Maybe more then 50%?)
3 give say 20% discount for Juniors who have come through the ranks and only played for that club
4 another option could be the club gets to chose 1 player to have exempt from the cap but that player cant be someone who was brought with in say the last 2 seasons

maybe something like that could work? Rewards 1 club players while rewarding clubs for picking juniors from with in their own club?
 
josh2010 said:
for me
1 Scrap TPA
2 give 50% discount to the cap for players at a club for 10+ yrs (Maybe more then 50%?)
3 give say 20% discount for Juniors who have come through the ranks and only played for that club
4 another option could be the club gets to chose 1 player to have exempt from the cap but that player cant be someone who was brought with in say the last 2 seasons

maybe something like that could work? Rewards 1 club players while rewarding clubs for picking juniors from with in their own club?
Click to expand...

TPA should be abolished but I just can't see the RLPA and the players agreeing to a restrict of earnings.

The discounts for long serving and juniors sounds like the way to go but with the way clubs are being run now it just isn't financially viable for at least 80% of the club's. They are already running at losses now with club grants exceeding the cap.

If clubs are then able to pay that little bit extra then they just won't survive. The NRL will forever be bailing clubs out who overspent.
 
Something I have always wondered with TPA’s is how are they taxed? Are they a second income and theirfore taxed at a match higher rate? If not could the NRL change the way contracts operate to make it so they are seen as a second income and taxed at a higher rate making them significantly less valuable to clubs.
 
There is no doubt NRL allows tonnes of dodgy stuff, quite simply.

All third party agreements to be between NRL, player managers and players.

Any involvement from clubs is an automatic 6 point deduction from points and $500k fine no matter how big or small the offence.

And external auditing of the NRL itself as well as the clubs.

That Maloney TPA literally makes my blood boil, honestly......... How wasn't there more of a fuss over it or of Greenburgs reign in general.

People suggesting that the NRL should in any way be able to restrict third party agreements is kidding themselves, players should never be able to be restricted in selling their own persons. BUT THE NRL must take control of them directly, that way it should eliminate clubs getting unfair advantages if done right.
 
cowboyman said:
TPA should be abolished but I just can't see the RLPA and the players agreeing to a restrict of earnings.

The discounts for long serving and juniors sounds like the way to go but with the way clubs are being run now it just isn't financially viable for at least 80% of the club's. They are already running at losses now with club grants exceeding the cap.

If clubs are then able to pay that little bit extra then they just won't survive. The NRL will forever be bailing clubs out who overspent.
Click to expand...

That's like someone telling me because I work for woollies I can't go and drive for pizza hut of a night doing deliveries.

No way people should be restricted in their earning.
 
The only restrictions the NRL can put on TPAs would be that you can't use any branding or whatever belonging to the NRL or clubs and you can't do anything that would damage the reputation of the NRL. At a stretch they might be able to stop players representing brands that compete with NRL sponsers maybe.
Trying to stop players making money without a good reason would be turned over in court for sure.
 
Quinny said:
Thanks have wondered for a while how the whole system worked from a taxation perspective.
Click to expand...

Now that you've brought that up I would of thought the TPA would then be from a different employer thus meaning a 2nd income/job..

Never thought about it in that view. Surely the taxation office would be all over that and getting more money out of the players.
 
You could work 6 jobs... at the end of the day, it all gets rolled into one income, and you pay tax on that total income.

Any 3rd party deal will be taxed at 45% (assuming the player earns over 180k, which all the ones with 3rd parties likely would)
 
Melbourne, Brisbane, Penrith the biggest third party agreement spenders in the NRL



Paul Kent, The Daily Telegraph
February 19, 2018 6:30pm



IN a landmark change, the NRL is considering revealing what clubs spend on third parties each year in a bid to kill off the damaging whispers that give rise to suspicions of salary cap rorting.

NRL chief operating officer Nick Weeks has admitted the current system is no longer acceptable.

The two options currently being considered are to anonymously reveal what each club receives in third parties by simply labelling them Club A, Club B and so on, or revealing what each club is actually receiving in third party agreements.

Only one is acceptable.

What eventually gets agreed upon by the clubs and the RLPA will depend on how mature they can be in the conversation.

“What we have done,” Weeks said, “is we have agreed with our clubs to have a discussion about that and we need to engage the players association in that as well.

“There is a lot of misinformation around about third party agreements.”

A working party of NRL chief executives will form next week to discuss changes to the current system.

As part of its information gathering, the NRL disclosed to certain sections of media how much is being spent in legal third parties. It was a mature decision designed to correct the often damaging narrative around third parties.

But the secret is out.

For years the game has pedalled the line that the salary cap and produces parity across the competition.

That was supported in Monday’s presentation, which included the statistic that, since 2000, 75 per cent of NRL teams have won the premiership (the four who haven’t are Gold Coast, Parramatta, Canberra and Warriors).

“That’s significantly higher than any other league around the world,” Weeks said.

In the same time frame just 50 per cent of the competition has won the Super Rugby title, 56 per cent have won the AFL flag, 34 per cent have won the Super Bowl, 40 per cent the major league baseball pennant, 27 the NBA championship and a mere 25 per cent the English Premier League.

It reflects well for the NRL.

Last season, $3.76 million was paid to 93 players across the NRL in arm’s length third party agreements. The great majority — 77 players — were Origin level or other tier one internationals, already among their clubs best earners.

The NRL would not reveal each club’s spend, which averaged to $235,000 each club.

It is known Melbourne Storm benefited most. Storm players earned an extra $788,000 in third parties.

Brisbane was next, more than $200,000 below Melbourne but still commanding more than half a million dollars in third party income. Penrith was third, also benefiting by more than half a million dollars paid to its players in third parties.

The other club significantly above the average last season was Manly, spending more than $300,000.

The bottom club, St George Illawarra, got only a small third party benefit, receiving $26,000 in extra income.

Third parties are the ugly rebuttal in the NRL’s claim of competition parity.

While 75 per cent of the competition might have won a grand final since 2000, a lesser known fact is that of the 18 grand finals played, 15 have featured either the game’s top two third party spenders, and Melbourne and Brisbane, as well as Sydney Roosters.

Is that merely a quirk, or competitive advantage? Clearly the old sell, that the competition is a level playing field, no longer works.

While some clubs will be reluctant to release their spending advantage the difference in total salaries has real world impact that few fully consider.

For example, in the first five rounds beginning next month Ivan Cleary’s Wests Tigers face Melbourne twice and Brisbane, ranked one and two and third party spending, as well as Parramatta and the Sydney Roosters.

The Tigers could conceivably be 0-5 based on roster strength, a position that could naturally lead to fans questioning their season prospects and to begin theorising whether Cleary’s recruitment was any good, whether he can coach at all, whether the players can play.

In an industry where job security is impossible, the disparity could decide careers.

Tigers fans should know their club is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars less than their opponents. Cleary and other coaches in similar positions, like the Dragons Paul McGregor, should be afforded a sympathetic hearing before judgment is applied.

That extra $788,000 that Melbourne has to spend nearly equates to a marquee player. It is the difference between having a Jesse Bromwich or Cameron Munster in your side, or not.

Trying to argue that clubs should get off their backsides and generate more third party deals, as some suggest, is ridiculous.

Firstly, it is illegal for clubs to generate these third parties.

More importantly, it gives no thought to the different commercial realities of each market.

Sydney has nine clubs to split among its population of five million, Melbourne and Brisbane are the lone NRL teams in cities of 4.7 and 2.3 million respectively.

All dwarf the likes of Newcastle (436,000), Canberra (435,000) and Townsville (178,000). And add to that the competition for sponsorships from other sporting codes, which differ with each city, and the commercial realities for each club emerge significantly different.

It is impossible for all to be the same and, really, for all to be considered the same.


https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...l/news-story/7cd2a47eed77fa3004a3ab65ec1db6d5
 
Good article. I was hoping our clubs TPA spend would come out, just for curiosity sake but I am sure we would be very low, considering the talent we have had over the past few seasons.

The NRL has a chance now to actually change this system and make an impact. Of course, the cynic in me suggests they are going to make virtually no change, maybe just anonymously announce teams TPA spend from top to bottom and that is all.

How they can announce this, showing clearly a competitive advantage, making a mockery of their salary cap, but not actually fix anything is beyond me. But I'm sure they will try.
 
If the TPA is being used legally by clubs then they should have no issue revealing the figures! As a matter of fact they should wear it as a badge of honor that they are so well supported and regarded in their respective business communities. However, if as most of us believe the entire TPA process is nothing but a rort orchestrated by club insiders manipulating and endorsing secret deals, then that is a completely different proposition for the clubs to consider. Clubs doing the wrong thing are not going to invite any outside scrutiny of the deals, by exposing them to the public and especially the media! In my view there needs to be full disclosure of each clubs total TPA income, with no players named, just a figure. If the clubs cannot agree to that it should remain as it is, because just revealing the top spending figures and not the clubs they are attached to, will only muddy the waters even further!
 
cowboyman said:
TPA should be abolished but I just can't see the RLPA and the players agreeing to a restrict of earnings.

The discounts for long serving and juniors sounds like the way to go but with the way clubs are being run now it just isn't financially viable for at least 80% of the club's. They are already running at losses now with club grants exceeding the cap.

If clubs are then able to pay that little bit extra then they just won't survive. The NRL will forever be bailing clubs out who overspent.
Click to expand...

Goes back to the old argument of 'what is the Nrl doing with the rest of the revenue and why isn't it going to the clubs?'

The Nrl was able to run at a non profit $0 to $0 balance sheet with less money before the IC, I remember David gallop said one year its $140m which is nothing these days yet there are all the rumours of borrowing money etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top