You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"This just now confirms that our R&R negotiators are sh*t!"
"As long as I can still declare I'll send " a shit in a box " if it's needed
I'm ok with the changes 🤔😆😆"
I'm ok with the changes 🤔😆😆"
"Squads Finalized. The Fox is in. Samrani still named at centre. Kelly is cut."
"Nothing new to see here that's the third big name target we've had a shot at on the market and can't seemingly compete even offering overs.
The fact Barnett is 32 isn't the worry Brisbane don't care how old he is he's the type of player that they…"
The fact Barnett is 32 isn't the worry Brisbane don't care how old he is he's the type of player that they…"
Replies
I guess the real million dollar question 60's boy is how the NRL intend to implement the marqee allowance. There are several potential ways / theories on how it could be implemented. I got no doubt that we will soon see it in action for the 1st time whether that be for Izzy or the return of Jarrod who knows but the NRL have a war chest ready to go and the Player Mgr's will be hungry to test the waters.
My thoughts are that the NRL should do it in the form of a 1 off sign on bonus IE: they pay player A a hefty sign on bonus and he signs a NRL contract for x amount of years to tie him to the NRL. The NRL then sit back and let the CEO's in club then fight it to get individual's signature on a additional playing contract that ties him to a club.
Do we have a definition of what makes a Marquee player?
Thats our starting point. ie if Merrin gets $600k does that make him a marquee player and if he leaves for union is he someone the NRL would pay extra to get him back?
If the past is any indication they will block us using it to get Jarryd back but allow the Roosters to use it for SBW, The rabbits for Burgess and Brisbane for Izzy. The NRL is a corrupt joke and it's about time that some of that corruption worked in our favour. As for the original question of course we need an allowance, it one season three of the codes biggest stars walked out to play elsewhere.
imo the NRL should have nothing to do with it. A marquee allowance should be someone who is not on the salary cap at all. It'll give the best players in the game more money and give more money to those who are on the cap more money.
Agreed. IMO the clubs without the political clout within the NRL will be disadvantaged. Players come & go but the game goes on. If a player leaves the game it really creates an opportunity for another aspiring player to have a go.
Do we really think we can make it so no player wants to leave?
I say, if they get a better offer and leave, then they leave and if they want to come back, then they do that at whatever the Clubs can realistically afford.
There are always new stars coming up through the ranks and our market is limited.
We were going alright before Sam Burgess came and will be OK now that he's gone.
Yes it's good to have the really good players playing in your comp, but not at the expense of bankrupting your comp or clubs.
Every years theres a new player on the cusp of greatness, so Im happy if those who left, dont come back.
1. The salary cap is a restraint of trade and I'm surprised that someone hasn't challenged its legality. That someone hasn't means rorts are aplenty in the game so there is no need to. Read Bulldogs, Rorters, Broncos et al
2. I disagree that the NRL is on the same financial footing globably as French rugby where clubs are owned by billionaire businessmen and Japanese rugby clubs are owned by big multinational corporations such as Coca-Cola & Sanyo.
3. A marquee allowance may work so we should trial it and it should be partly funded by NRL money. We sbould be protecting our assets but at the moment we aren't and our players are being tempted by the big money available in international rugby.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next