Gould: Enjoy it, Tigers fans, because you'll soon lose stars

[DeeGan]

Enjoy it, Tigers fans, because you'll soon lose stars
By Phil Gould
October 16, 2005
The Sun-Herald

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Senior players, salary caps, contracts and loyalty; seems I've heard this song before. Welcome to the dark side of the NRL. The latest reports suggest trouble at the Dragons concerning the future of popular players Lance Thompson and Shaun Timmins. The club appears in salary cap trouble for next season.

Under the first-in, first-out system of problem solving used by clubs these days, the Dragons are looking to remove their two longest serving players, although both hold contracts for 2006.

We have seen this situation so often in the past 10 years. Not always with such high profile players but it takes someone like a Thompson or Timmins to highlight the ridiculous nature of the archaic salary cap laws.

This is happening to players of lesser stature all the time and the NRL has to get its head out of the sand and address the issue. The problem will not go away and bragging that the game is in such great shape because of salary cap laws is akin to saying Tiger Woods is a great golfer because he uses a certain brand of golf balls. But more about the salary cap in a moment.

Advertisement
AdvertisementFirst consider this hypothetical situation. Five-eighth Trent Barrett walks into the Dragons tomorrow and says he wants to play for the Auckland Warriors because they are missing a five-eighth, they are prepared to pay him a load of money, he is looking for a change of scene and he thinks he can win a competition with them.

The Dragons would say Barrett has a binding contract and there is no way they are letting him out of his deal. Funny how contracts become important when a club doesn't want to lose a player but they are very negotiable when the player is surplus to requirements.

Second, if Trent Barrett was coming off contract at the end of the season and he was naturally fielding huge offers from rival clubs, you can bet your life the "L" word would be thrown in his face by his club, Dragons fans and the media in general in an attempt to make him feel morally obligated to stay with the Dragons.

The L word, of course, refers to loyalty. It is the most overused and least understood word in rugby league. Many clubs have selective loyalty - they are loyal when it suits them. Players come and go and clubs are well aware that when one leaves another arrives on the next bus.

If loyalty was at the backbone of rugby league there is no way the Dragons would be trying to unload Thompson and Timmins.

We are not talking average performers here, but long-term servants of the club, juniors for the St George Dragons and Illawarra Steelers who have never played for another team.

Think of the service these two have given. Think of the number of times they have trained and played with injury to help the team.

They are only 27 and 29 years respectively but the club is now in a position where it needs them to go because of salary cap restraints.

There is way too much of this. The NRL loves it because these players could end up at Souths or Newcastle and that would help those clubs climb out of the cellar and into the top eight.

Just the same way as the NRL says teams can't stay at the top of the competition for too long because we need someone else to have a turn.

Don't laugh, Tigers and Cowboys fans, because your pain is just around the corner. Success is punished in this game, so make hay while the sun shines because the salary cap will get to you, too.

Players are pawns in a bigger game of chess. If they don't go to another NRL club they will play in England. Far too many players with plenty of good football left in them have had to go to England to earn a crust. It's ridiculous.

The NRL is not solely to blame for this fiasco at the Dragons. Remember the Dragons re-signed Luke Bailey (one year) on August 5; Clint Greenshields (one year) on September 22 and Corey Payne (two years) on June 23. They are the only signings or re-signings I have been able to track down.

Surely, they re-signed these players knowing full well the impact it would have on the salary cap for 2006.

Remember, too, that the Dragons have already cut Willie Manu (who was earning about $150,000), Michael Ennis (who wouldn't have been playing for any less), and now they are saying they need Thompson and Timmins's money - let's call it $400,000 total, which is very conservative - to be removed so they can get back under the salary cap.

That's a conservative figure of $700,000 they would've been over the cap in 2006.

Who makes these kinds of accounting errors? And why have they left it so long to address the problem? But then again, the club is in this unenviable position because of its success in developing junior talent.

Why shouldn't the Dragons be allowed to keep all their players if they have found them and developed them through to first-grade status and beyond? I have gone blue in the face talking about this over the years.

Clubs should get concessions for developing junior talent. Players should never have to leave their one and only club.

It's a simple concept and one that rewards loyalty, junior development and fans.

The NRL says these things are important to the game but an obvious reluctance to adequately address the negative effects of league's salary cap laws would suggest differently.

The song the NRL is singing is hopelessly out of tune.

I have to agree with Gus on this one, perfectly summed up and IMO not much more to add to a well written article I hope the NRL give more thought too.

If anything, I would like the NRL to counter with the reasons WHY we cannot look at something like the above from Gould.

DeeGan

[Steelers]

Fantastic story there by Gould. Something like a concession for loyalty is needed, otherwise we could end up like America, where players will usually play for multiple teams in their career.

[Super Cronk]

Yeah i agree with gould on that...ive always said that clubs need consessions for juniors, thats also another reason i dislike the idea of a draft.

[..::Coops::..]

yeah i agree with gould on this ( i am actuallyagreeing with gould :eek: )

development of juniors and loyalty concessions - like if you had been with club more than 5-6 yrs,

[Dakink]

yeah i agree with gould on this ( i am actuallyagreeing with gould :eek: )

development of juniors and loyalty concessions - like if you had been with club more than 5-6 yrs,

I know its painful to agree with him isnt it?

They definately should have concessions for long term players and juniors developed through the ranks.

[Queenslander]

I know its painful to agree with him isnt it?

They definately should have concessions for long term players and juniors developed through the ranks.

Yeah im trying to pretend that he didnt write it congrats Dakink on 1000 posts as well

[Eel 33]

As much as we either love or hate Gus Gould, you have to give it to him for a superb article. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the bloke a lot of the time either, but when he puts pen to paper like the above he can be very good.

Having said that, i agreee with the concessions for loyalty. You could name so many players who've come thru the grades at a particular club and they don't get any benefit for that. The only recognition you really get is when the Roosters come and "rape" the junior ranks.

[Steelers]

As much as we either love or hate Gus Gould, you have to give it to him for a superb article. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the bloke a lot of the time either, but when he puts pen to paper like the above he can be very good.

Good to see you are putting biast aside in reviewing the article.

[League Freak]

I dont agree with him. Its a load of crap!

Its just another of his agendas....the salary cap is bad and it must be scrapped.

Lets look at the Tigers for a moment.

Paul Whatuira, Brett Hodgson, SCott Prince, Pat Richards....players the Tigers would not have been able to sign with the salary cap.

Benji Marshall....do you think he would be at the Tigers who couldnt afford to spend anywhere near their full salary cap in 2005.....or would he just stockpilled at a big club with deep pockets?

Do you think a coach like Tim Sheens even looks at signing with a lower table club like the Tigers if there was no salary cap.



The salary cap keeps team like the Tigers in existance!!!



So forget about Phil Gould. He's just upset that the Roosters cant sign the 5/8th from the 2004 Premiers, the star lock form the 2004 wooden spooners AND they cant get their hands on the likes of Benji Marshall.

[Inferno]

He's not saying that the Salary cap is bad and needs to be scrapped, He is saying concessions need to be made and he's right.

But then again suppose there were concessions made loyal players. Take the Broncs for example, Webcke has been there a while, suppose the Broncs were able to offer him something without it counting towards the Salary cap, then they would have the money to go after another star player, would that be fair to other clubs?

Personally I have no idea what to do and would welcome suggestions.

[Dakink]

But then again suppose there were concessions made loyal players. Take the Broncs for example, Webcke has been there a while, suppose the Broncs were able to offer him something without it counting towards the Salary cap, then they would have the money to go after another star player, would that be fair to other clubs?

I dont really see that as a bad thing. Clubs should be rewarded for developing and maintaining loyalty to players. If clubs dont want to spend the moey doing that bad luck to them.

[League Freak]

I think League just needs to sort out one last thing and thats retaining the games elite players.


We can either stick our heads in the sand....or we can do something to keep the best athletes in Rugby League.


I believe players like Andrew Johns, Darren Lockyer, Sonny Bill Williams and the like are worth MILLIONS to the game. I think they should be rewarded for the profile they bring to our sport.


I would have the NRL set up an elite sponsorship program that one player from every club could be put forward for. This program would be run by the NRL itself so there would be no room for a club getting a top up from a sponsor to move to a big market.


This would not only see players rewarded for their high profile, but we would once again see League stars in TV adverts as opposed to fat boys that roll around in mud and who didnt get selected for the schools League team.

[Dakink]

I would have the NRL set up an elite sponsorship program that one player from every club could be put forward for. This program would be run by the NRL itself so there would be no room for a club getting a top up from a sponsor to move to a big market.

I reckon that is a good idea - dont the Union have something similar. Where the States pay their players and the better players are topped up by the National Union.

That way only the bigger stars get the extra, and the Aus Union is always cutting players from their top squad.

Cricket has something similar with their ABC contracts.

[League Freak]

In union I believe there is a maximum the states can pay a player. They effectivly have a salary cap.

And yes, anything that the sport pays above and beyond that cap much come from the governing body.

A probelm union is finding however is that in Sydney, a sponsor is willing to pay more to a player if they play in the nations biggest market then if they play for one of the other three teams (Geez...isnt union in Australia massive. four teams!).

This means that a player will not only factor in his state salary and his national salary....but what sponsors will pay him will go a long way to dictating where he plays.



Thats why I would have the elite sponorship system controled by the NRL.


Sponsors would sign up with the NRL and the NRL would effectivly manage an elite players sponsorship affairs.

This woould stop the system being broken down and see big market clubs effectivly offering a better big then a small market club based on the fact that a sponsor will pay more if you play in Sydney then they will if your play in Canberra.

[Dakink]

In union I believe there is a maximum the states can pay a player. They effectivly have a salary cap.

And yes, anything that the sport pays above and beyond that cap much come from the governing body.

A probelm union is finding however is that in Sydney, a sponsor is willing to pay more to a player if they play in the nations biggest market then if they play for one of the other three teams (Geez...isnt union in Australia massive. four teams!).

This means that a player will not only factor in his state salary and his national salary....but what sponsors will pay him will go a long way to dictating where he plays.




Thats why I would have the elite sponorship system controled by the NRL.


Sponsors would sign up with the NRL and the NRL would effectivly manage an elite players sponsorship affairs.

This woould stop the system being broken down and see big market clubs effectivly offering a better big then a small market club based on the fact that a sponsor will pay more if you play in Sydney then they will if your play in Canberra.

What he said....

the top players should be payed more. The NRL can top players salaries and they dont count towards the salary cap.