2023 NRL General Discussion

[bort]

‘Lacked respect’: NRL players launch explosive boycott in escalating war with NRL

‘Lacked respect’: NRL players launch explosive boycott in escalating war with NRL

www.foxsports.com.au

While I have no doubt the NRL is just trying to force their way, based on what Chad said players want coupled with the 25% (18% for most players) pay rise the players are certainly seeking a hell of a lot all at once.

They say the game is for the fans but threaten to boycott games if they don’t get all the financial support they want. Don’t see how that benefits the fans

Not sure the RLPA understand one side is not just ‘delaying negotiations’ by not giving you everything you want.

Certainly throwing the cap proposal out there publicly before it’s agreed, just before Christmas, was disrespectful and a **** move by NRL.

If it’s not about the money and it is for the fans well I don’t want to miss any footy because the NRL hasn’t agreed to ‘match payments outside the cap’. The other stuff seems great but costs a lot on top of significant raises at same time

 

[Proud Shark]

‘Lacked respect’: NRL players launch explosive boycott in escalating war with NRL

‘Lacked respect’: NRL players launch explosive boycott in escalating war with NRL

www.foxsports.com.au

While I have no doubt the NRL is just trying to force their way, based on what Chad said players want coupled with the 25% (18% for most players) pay rise the players are certainly seeking a hell of a lot all at once.

They say the game is for the fans but threaten to boycott games if they don’t get all the financial support they want. Don’t see how that benefits the fans

Not sure the RLPA understand one side is not just ‘delaying negotiations’ by not giving you everything you want.

Certainly throwing the cap proposal out there publicly before it’s agreed, just before Christmas, was disrespectful and a **** move by NRL.

If it’s not about the money and it is for the fans well I don’t want to miss any footy because the NRL hasn’t agreed to ‘match payments outside the cap’. The other stuff seems great but costs a lot on top of significant raises at same time

I don't believe the nrls leadership have been in it for the fans either though. Between a terrible TV rights deal and the rules changing every 5 minutes, the product is arguably the worst its ever been.

I don't think the players will actually sit out footy, but I'd accept it if we could transition to a well run organisation.

For the record I agree the RLPA haven't been that great either throughout this. I'm just sick of PVL.

 

[XGinga]

Just read it. Bit disappointing as we were the ones mentioned not doing media duties. Can the sharks release their own articles? Off season is long and boring without being starved of content. Unfair on the fans.

‘Lacked respect’: NRL players launch explosive boycott in escalating war with NRL

‘Lacked respect’: NRL players launch explosive boycott in escalating war with NRL

www.foxsports.com.au

I get it looks bad for us with them suggesting we started it but my guess is the decision was made by the RPLA the night before and we were the first club that had a media commitment booked in.
If it were a day later dragons would be the ones in the headline. Don't think it is something our players have organised even though this is how it is looks when reading it.

 

[Sparkles]

If it’s not about the money and it is for the fans well I don’t want to miss any footy because the NRL hasn’t agreed to ‘match payments outside the cap’. The other stuff seems great but costs a lot on top of significant raises at same time

Surely that breaks the cap? Or is it just about representative games (and maybe finals)?

I can't see how this could be allowed unless it was also somehow capped. Even then it would disadvantage some teams.

 

[bort]

Surely that breaks the cap? Or is it just about representative games (and maybe finals)?

I can't see how this could be allowed unless it was also somehow capped. Even then it would disadvantage some teams.

I think it is like every player has their wage (with a shiny new 18%+ raise) and outside of cap everyone who plays gets $1000 per game.
Because every team has the same amount of players (assuming 18th man gets it regardless of activated or not) it doesn't negatively impact cap.
I'm not sure what the reasoning is to not include it in cap, I think this amount is believed by clubs to have been included in the cap figure NRL released.

Other than players wanting more money I don't see any significant need for this. It uses slightly more of the cap to reward players who actually play - great. It means slightly less money available for anyone who has to grind away trying to make team or who is injured though...
Ryan Matterson will be furious, now he has to decide between a $4000 fine or a 3 game suspension where he misses out on $1000 per game

 

[BurgoShark]

Surely that breaks the cap? Or is it just about representative games (and maybe finals)?

I can't see how this could be allowed unless it was also somehow capped. Even then it would disadvantage some teams.

My guess is that this would be for players not on top dollar. i.e. Sharks get a spate of injuries to wingers and Stonestreet ends up playing 15 games on the wing. If he has some clause in his contract that says he gets $3k/game, that's an extra $45k that goes against the Sharks' cap that they didn't necessarily plan for.

 

[Sparkles]

My guess is that this would be for players not on top dollar. i.e. Sharks get a spate of injuries to wingers and Stonestreet ends up playing 15 games on the wing. If he has some clause in his contract that says he gets $3k/game, that's an extra $45k that goes against the Sharks' cap that they didn't necessarily plan for.

That makes sense
Still could end up a fairly hefty bill for a club to pay... not sure how that might work in practicality. An extra $200k to fork out would have sent us under a few years ago.

 

[bort]

My guess is that this would be for players not on top dollar. i.e. Sharks get a spate of injuries to wingers and Stonestreet ends up playing 15 games on the wing. If he has some clause in his contract that says he gets $3k/game, that's an extra $45k that goes against the Sharks' cap that they didn't necessarily plan for.

The NRL website includes the following info on bonuses

Bonuses (including match fee bonuses) – Payments for appearing in or winning a game are calculated based on the number of NRL games the player played in the prior year multiplied by any applicable bonuses. For win bonuses, the calculation is capped at 13 wins. Example: A player appeared in 10 NRL games in 2020 and now has a 2021 Contract for $100,000 contract fee plus $3,000 per game. His - Salary Cap Value would be $100,000 plus 10 times $3000 = $130,000.

To use your example then, how do you interpret this?

• Is Stonestreet impact against 2023 cap base only, and impact against 2024 cap base plus the 45k in bonuses he earnt in 2023?
• Or, is Stonestreet impact against 2023 cap base plus bonuses earnt and we must consider him base+45k for 2024, although this may not match what his cap impact ends up being?

The second one seems kind of pointless to me as an enforced thing, it should be up to club to determine if they want to account for the bonuses they have promised properly or not, and especially determined by circumstances. If they get it wrong they need to deal with that.

eg if the last of Stonestreets 15 games includes an ACL injury celebrating his last play of the game NRL grand final winning try that would provide the club more info on how many games he may play next season than the fact he played 15 in current season.

 

[BurgoShark]

The NRL website includes the following info on bonuses

Bonuses (including match fee bonuses) – Payments for appearing in or winning a game are calculated based on the number of NRL games the player played in the prior year multiplied by any applicable bonuses. For win bonuses, the calculation is capped at 13 wins. Example: A player appeared in 10 NRL games in 2020 and now has a 2021 Contract for $100,000 contract fee plus $3,000 per game. His - Salary Cap Value would be $100,000 plus 10 times $3000 = $130,000.

To use your example then, how do you interpret this?

• Is Stonestreet impact against 2023 cap base only, and impact against 2024 cap base plus the 45k in bonuses he earnt in 2023?
• Or, is Stonestreet impact against 2023 cap base plus bonuses earnt and we must consider him base+45k for 2024, although this may not match what his cap impact ends up being?

The second one seems kind of pointless to me as an enforced thing, it should be up to club to determine if they want to account for the bonuses they have promised properly or not, and especially determined by circumstances. If they get it wrong they need to deal with that.

eg if the last of Stonestreets 15 games includes an ACL injury celebrating his last play of the game NRL grand final winning try that would provide the club more info on how many games he may play next season than the fact he played 15 in current season.

I was specifically talking about development contracts, which are tier 2 cap. A situation like above may mean you have injuries in the top 30 but can't use another player from tier 2 because you've hit that limit. If you upgrade him in to the top 30, every dollar you've paid him then counts.

I think what they want to avoid is a situation where the lowest paid players in the league are denied the opportunity to get an NRL opportunity because the match payment situation may screw the team over. If you are on $60k and have the opportunity to earn another $30k and showcase your talent at the top level, that's a big deal, and the rules shouldn't prohibit that.

 

[bort]

I was specifically talking about development contracts, which are tier 2 cap. A situation like above may mean you have injuries in the top 30 but can't use another player from tier 2 because you've hit that limit. If you upgrade him in to the top 30, every dollar you've paid him then counts.

I think what they want to avoid is a situation where the lowest paid players in the league are denied the opportunity to get an NRL opportunity because the match payment situation may screw the team over. If you are on $60k and have the opportunity to earn another $30k and showcase your talent at the top level, that's a big deal, and the rules shouldn't prohibit that.

I'd say you just don't give second tier cap players contracts which might **** you.
Don't give Stonestreet a $3000 per NRL game promise unless Katoa & Ronaldo have similar - if they are both playing he isn't, if one of them is out you have the money. No issue.

I follow the logic of what you are saying and don't necessarily think it is a bad thing, but at the moment it is addressing a problem a club would have caused themselves overpromising on a contract.

This is the only other reference to match payments I have seen in relation to new cap / ongoing negotiations
Some in clubland believed the $11.45m, an extra $500,000 on what they originally banked on, factored in the $1000 match payments for every player every week that was expected to get the green light.
It doesn't suggest it would account for a dev player to make $3k a game playing NRL off cap

 

[BurgoShark]

I'd say you just don't give second tier cap players contracts which might **** you.
Don't give Stonestreet a $3000 per NRL game promise unless Katoa & Ronaldo have similar - if they are both playing he isn't, if one of them is out you have the money. No issue.

I follow the logic of what you are saying and don't necessarily think it is a bad thing, but at the moment it is addressing a problem a club would have caused themselves overpromising on a contract.

This is the only other reference to match payments I have seen in relation to new cap / ongoing negotiations
Some in clubland believed the $11.45m, an extra $500,000 on what they originally banked on, factored in the $1000 match payments for every player every week that was expected to get the green light.
It doesn't suggest it would account for a dev player to make $3k a game playing NRL off cap

That's the NRL's offer. Flat $1k payments for all players in the 19. The players are saying that they want something else. I'm just speculating what that might be.

Currently, it's quite possible that two players have contracts for similar "maximum" amounts with completely different structure. One with a higher base and one with higher match payments.

If you sit down in the room with an agent who manages both Stonestreet and Katoa and he says "we want Sam to have $3k match payments" and you respond "well, in that case we are going to have to do the same with Sione and knock $60k+ off his base" do you think Sione sticks around? Heaps of young players have bonuses in their contracts, and there are plenty of examples over the years where a young player's bonus structure made it impossible or impractical for him to play, or him playing early in the year screwed the team later on.

Standardizing match payments is a great idea, but the high-end players are going to want less "at risk" money whereas young players are going to want to keep their higher bonuses. I don't really see a common ground unless that $500k proposed by the NRL is "the first $500k of match payments is covered by this portion of the cap, but if you spill over that number it has to come from your main cap".

 

[bort]

That's the NRL's offer. Flat $1k payments for all players in the 19. The players are saying that they want something else. I'm just speculating what that might be.

Currently, it's quite possible that two players have contracts for similar "maximum" amounts with completely different structure. One with a higher base and one with higher match payments.

If you sit down in the room with an agent who manages both Stonestreet and Katoa and he says "we want Sam to have $3k match payments" and you respond "well, in that case we are going to have to do the same with Sione and knock $60k+ off his base" do you think Sione sticks around? Heaps of young players have bonuses in their contracts, and there are plenty of examples over the years where a young player's bonus structure made it impossible or impractical for him to play, or him playing early in the year screwed the team later on.

This feels like an extremely outlandish scenario - can't imagine them threating to take money off Katoa because a dev players manager asked for something

I think it more likely goes "we want Sam to have $3k match payments" and we say "Because neither Katoa or Mulitalo, who he would likely come in for, have any match payments attached to contracts this would make our cap very hard to juggle if a spot did open up for Sam. He might have to miss games because we simply would not have the cap space - looking at the numbers we could offer a bonus of 5k if he plays a single NRL game and 1k per game after that, up to a max of 10, but that is all we can fit on top of his base wage"

And then the manager says that seems fair and Katoa doesn't look elsewhere because we didn't somehow dock his pay because we are bad at negotiating with development players

I'm not saying young players can't have bonuses just that the club needs to know how they will fit into cap or risk dropping some bad news to a young feller you have to play someone else because of the cap

 

[BurgoShark]

This feels like an extremely outlandish scenario - can't imagine them threating to take money off Katoa because a dev players manager asked for something

I think it more likely goes "we want Sam to have $3k match payments" and we say "Because neither Katoa or Mulitalo, who he would likely come in for, have any match payments attached to contracts this would make our cap very hard to juggle if a spot did open up for Sam. He might have to miss games because we simply would not have the cap space - looking at the numbers we could offer a bonus of 5k if he plays a single NRL game and 1k per game after that, up to a max of 10, but that is all we can fit on top of his base wage"

And then the manager says that seems fair and Katoa doesn't look elsewhere because we didn't somehow dock his pay because we are bad at negotiating with development players

I'm not saying young players can't have bonuses just that the club needs to know how they will fit into cap or risk dropping some bad news to a young feller you have to play someone else because of the cap

Park that conversation. It's probably this that Townsend is talking about...

Inside the secret plan for NRL finals payments outside the salary cap

Players could earn as much as $36,000 outside their normal salary under a State of Origin-style system designed to shake up the finals series.

www.smh.com.au

The players want match payments for finals, on top of the salary cap.
- $4k for week 1
- $8k for weeks 2 and 3
- $16k for playing in the GF

 

[HaroldBishop]

Park that conversation. It's probably this that Townsend is talking about...

Inside the secret plan for NRL finals payments outside the salary cap

Players could earn as much as $36,000 outside their normal salary under a State of Origin-style system designed to shake up the finals series.

www.smh.com.au

The players want match payments for finals, on top of the salary cap.
- $4k for week 1
- $8k for weeks 2 and 3
- $16k for playing in the GF

Tell 'em to get ****ed.

 

[Capital_Shark]

The players want match payments for finals, on top of the salary cap.
- $4k for week 1
- $8k for weeks 2 and 3
- $16k for playing in the GF

Also the players:

To play finals is the best, its what we all play for.

The established players have already eaten up a lot of any cap increase before it was even negotiated. Looking like greedy ****s.

 

[bort]

Park that conversation. It's probably this that Townsend is talking about...

Inside the secret plan for NRL finals payments outside the salary cap

Players could earn as much as $36,000 outside their normal salary under a State of Origin-style system designed to shake up the finals series.

www.smh.com.au

The players want match payments for finals, on top of the salary cap.
- $4k for week 1
- $8k for weeks 2 and 3
- $16k for playing in the GF

I like the concept but cmon RLPA and reps don't piss on our feet and tell us it's raining.
Can't say it isn't about pay it's also about (to quote Chad)
“We want a well-funded Past Players Program (money for players), better funding for the Injury Hardship Fund (money for players), funding for a Medical Support Fund (money for players), agreement rights on our employment conditions, match fees outside the cap (money for players), and a first-ever CBA for women, (money for players)” Townsend wrote.

“Their salary cap announcement doesn’t resolve any of that but it’s their way of hindering our wishes.”

Giving us more money up front doesn't resolve that we also want more money at other times!

I have no desire to paint the NRL as the good guys but I think the players are trying a bit too hard to paint themselves as the good guys when it is just two parties in a pay dispute.

I agree some of those things Chad mentioned like Hardship Fund would be good, NRL could probably put more into it if Chad didn't also need an 18% pay rise... oh and on that, still some complaining 18% pay rise represents less of the NRL income than they used to get, so once again (money for players)

 

[Proud Shark]

Park that conversation. It's probably this that Townsend is talking about...

Inside the secret plan for NRL finals payments outside the salary cap

Players could earn as much as $36,000 outside their normal salary under a State of Origin-style system designed to shake up the finals series.

www.smh.com.au

The players want match payments for finals, on top of the salary cap.
- $4k for week 1
- $8k for weeks 2 and 3
- $16k for playing in the GF

**** that. That will only serve to make the comp more uneven. Its already more preferable to play for the Storm or Roosters before you add the increased likelihood of banking another 30k post season.

 

[bort]

**** that. That will only serve to make the comp more uneven. Its already more preferable to play for the Storm or Roosters before you add the increased likelihood of banking another 30k post season.

Makes the late season swap to a successful team thing much more attractive too... those two factors could be dangerous for balance...
But it's not about the money remember, it's about respect...

 

[Addy]

NRL messed up during Covid. They said if they were to forfeit a round, they'd lose $5m (not actual figure, CBF finding the exact $, for for illustrative purposes, it's $5m)

Now players have this bargaining chip. Make it round 1, and you can double or triple that number.

Your work would never let on how much they'd lose if your whole department took a week off.

 

[Gal The Goat]

Yeah now it’s starting to sound greedy.

I’m all for them getting a proper pay rise to match what the NRL generates. They are paid for 12 months in the year though, November to November I believe, the bonus to play finals and in a grand final is the fact it’s literally what you train and play for all year (whilst getting paid)