You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"So you don't live in the area but are trying to tell people it's not a good area?"
"Paulo is a shadow of what he once was and is getting worse each year. He looks like he hates the collision these days. Sadly that is what he would display if kept around as a leader for our pack for others to follow. Sam T already seems to follow in…"
"Did you watch him play in this years final for Souths? He was owned by old man Gagai. Laurel went missing all game although he did pass the ball from dummy half a lot to the other outside backs to work it out of their end. Massive NO."
Replies
You simply make match payments a mandatory part of the salary cap. The players union and the NRL should agree on a standard match payment if they haven't already - let's say $2000. By my quick calculations that equates to about $800k out of each clubs cap.
So you take $800k away from the $4.1 million cap and say each club has $3.3 million to spend on signing bonuses, plus the $800k on match payments. This makes it very easy for clubs to structure incentive deals and if you're on match payments only you can earn up to $52k per year simply by staying in the first grade team each week.
The players union would probably shy away from this because you would likely have to lower the minimum wage to account for it and it means a player that gets injured on match payments could have no income. However, the NRL could run a salary insurance scheme, in which any player who is robbed of a fair income has their wage topped up to the minumum wage - say $50k. This takes away the financial burden that injuries put on clubs which currently means not only do you pay for injuries in the year they occur, but its ends up hurting your cap in following years because of the way this cap rule works right now.