General The idea of having a prime player..

[Wiki_old]

Or something of the like.

I don't know who brought it up, but it sounded like a great idea.

Each club was allowed one player that didn't fit under the salary cap. Meaning, they could pay them $10,000,000 per season if they liked ...anything within their budget and it would not fit into the salary cap.

This would mean the other players wouldn't feel the heat of one big player.

It would also mean each club could keep their heros without losing them just for money i.e. Stacey and the Warriors, Johns and the Knights, Benji and the Tigers.

Good idea, no?

 

[ozbash_old]

i wouldnt like it, it takes away the 'level playing field' thing they keep on telling us about when justifying the cap.

i prefer the draft system myself.

 

[Wiki_old]

i wouldnt like it, it takes away the 'level playing field' thing they keep on telling us about when justifying the cap.

i prefer the draft system myself.

But then you have Manu Vatuvei's playing for our Australian teams. It would take away the New Zealand aspect and we would just be another club don't ya think?

I mean I know players are playing for other teams but don't you think if we find them we should keep them?

 

[ozbash_old]

yep, that would be the ideal but the reality is our talented juniors go offshore under the present system and we seem to end up with a quarter of our team wearing green and gold.

we are very fortunate to have kids like manu and mannering playing for us. you cant blame the others for taking up offers to play premier league and then progressing onto the nrl. we cant offer them anything like it (sorry b/cup) except the hope the nationalistic pride will sway them to stay home.

 

[LeagueNut_old]

Let's pretend that this suggestion had been implemented ... who would you choose as the current Warriors "golden player"?

Obviously Wiki or Price leap to mind, but would you want to spend all that money on someone who is pretty much on their last contract anyway? It's not like too many other clubs would fall over themselves to take them off our hands once their contracts are up.

So do we look to a younger member of the team? IMO it would just be a huge lottery ... hypothetically, the Warriors could choose to make Brent Webb their "star" - but he may go through some kind of drastic form slump or horrific injury run, while guys like Louis Anderson or Manu Vatuvei head off overseas, lured by truckloads of $$$.

The NRL already has Salary Cap discounts for one-club veterans (10+ years service I think), and that's probably the fairest way to go. If anything, I think the rules could be loosened around the murky world of third-party endorsements. That would certainly help with keeping the stars at home.

 

[Wiki_old]

LeagueNut, good observation man. I like the comments and I think they are very valid.

I guess Stacey would be the obvious circumstances. I'm sure we didn't have a problem matching the $$$ , we probably just couldn't afford him under the cap.

 

[LeagueNut_old]

Yeah, Stace would have been an obvious choice. Fittler (when he was around) and Joey Johns would be another two prime candidates.

I guess it's hard to find a solution because each case would be different. Fittler was worth his weight in gold to the Roosters, but I don't remember ever hearing that anyone from Rugby Onion was chasing him. On the other hand, Joey was getting offers from all over the place.

 

[mosh_old]

I think it would have the adverse effect on the team.

Imagine if Wiki was on $2.5 million a year, Price was on $300,000. Both are similar players yet one will feel he should be paid more compared to Wiki. This may result in players not signing with a club because their expectations of a particular salary has increased.

Just like the issue in Union currently where Mark Gasnier may expect a high offer from the ARU because of the reported salary another player is on for switching codes. If that incident was not reported Gasnier's expectations might have been lower.

Also it means players may under perform, they may think that a certain player who is paid considerably more needs to do more of the work while they can be lax throughout the season.

Also what happens if you cunningly promise a player who you know you cannot afford that he in the future will be paid considerably more in 5 years time to make up for the 4 years of neglect plus damages for his talent. For example say we sign up Darren Lockyer for 4 years for $90,000. In the 5th year we select him as our "prime" player and pay him 5 million dollars that will make up for the 4 years with the smaller salary he agreed to.

That would make the purpose of the salary cap null and void and you can manipulate it to suit certain circumstances.