evertonshark
Jaws
Good post mateYeah I get where you and others are coming from. I don't really have time to go into it today (wrote about it here when they introduced it and I don't think many agreed with me then either) hence the short and slightly provocative post. But quickly (IMO):
- This discretionary fund is not about the cap but about competing with money from outside the code (i.e. union and maybe NFL)
- In the example mentioned above, Burgess get an offer from Bath RU or whoever of $1.3m
- NRL Clubs make their offers to Burgess - everyone can have a dip
- Whoever makes the highest bid without assistance - say its $1.1m from Penrith - sets the mark for the level of NRL topup which in that case would be $200k
- Now Burgess can choose between Souths' offer of $1m + the NRL's $200k = $1.2m and Penrith's offer of $1.1m + $200k = $1.3m.
- Assume he chooses Souths. They've got him for less that what Penrith offered but that's normal - happens all the time. They didn't get him because of any advantage - everyone had access to the $200k topup. The NRL essentially pay him an appearance fee to play in their league.
Obviously, none of that includes transfer fees which are an advantage for the wealthy Clubs or the fact that Burgess has a deal with Souths to go there if/when he returns (which I think would have to be voided for my version of this scheme to work).
As for who is marquee and who isn't, it should be a pretty straightforward test - does the player in question significantly improve the quality and value of the code as a whole? Signing say, Adam Ashley-Cooper (while a very good RU player) wouldn't add much to the NRL. Signing Folau obviously would. Preventing Ngani Luamape from going to rugby wouldn't be important, but keeping Karmichael Hunt would be.
I think the "outrage" probably comes more from what would generally be perceived as the nrl doing more to help a club like souths than they ever would to help a club like ours in this instance.