General Warriors Salary Cap Discussion

[hotdogRL]

Warriors Salary Cap Discussion
​

i've seen it mentioned on here a few times that the warriors have to often over pay players to get them to the warriors.

the warriors have alot of disadvantages to the sydney based clubs, the main things being-

Australian players having to move to a new country- especially if their more settled in AUS with a family.

the travel during the season,i'm sure the flights to AUS (especially townsville/perth) would be a deterrent, apposed to mostly traveling around sydney and sleeping in your own bed.

i don't know much about AFL but i think that the sydney team since its in NRL territory they have been given a larger salary cap for a few years then the victorian teams so they can encourage players to make the move and to have some immediate success to gain interest in the sport.

maybe even just a cap increase for just NZ born players to help keep them in NZ.

 

[tajhay]

No.

The Warriors asked to join the NRL, then ARL comp, not the other way around. As a result we need to play by their rules.

Sorry, but this question really grates on me...why should the warriors be an exception? Does that mean Brisbane should get less salary cap dollars since cost of living is cheaper there? Would Melbourne get an exemption too since Rugby League is as common as lacrosse in that state? What about Canberra...should they be compensated for living in the shit hole of the country? North Queensland? They have to live in the fear of crocodiles when near waterways. What about the slums of Penrith?

 

[Iafetas Kickstand Wang]

Melbourne DID get exemptions earlier in the piece.

That said, no. Whilst Australians are on overs, I guarantee that is immensely offset by home grown players being on comparative unders.

 

[snake77]

I don't know if there should be different cap levels for different clubs cause that begs the question why was club X give $500,000 more but club Y give $1.5 million more.

It's been brought up in different articles over the years about concessions for different clubs due to various disadvantages they may have due to location or strategically for the good of the game keeping them competitive. What form that would take I don't know but all clubs should pay the same in terms of the salary cap amount. There is enough whining from some clubs about the draw each year with 5/6 day turnaround compared to their rivals or we play to many day games while they don't bake in the heat. Now imagine the outcry if some teams were spending more on players than others (officially not the brown paper bag deals).

In the NRL any concessions for any clubs or additional funding you need to be careful; most of them would just put some of the money into a new way to circumvent the salary cap anyway. Bottom line this is a competition where everyone is looking over the shoulder at any advantages their competitors have and screaming why not me.

 

[Jay M]

I agree with tajhay - answer should be no on this one.

A) the salary cap is denominated in AUD, so that is a benefit for NZ anyway.
B) cost of living when converted from AUD to NZD is lower than in most parts of Aus (maybe not Canberra, Townsville etc)
C) We have a wealth of juniors we can pull through.
D) When did we last spend all of our cap? Was that when we breached it with Wiki and Price? Unless we're spending all of our cap.... this topic is moot surely?

 

[Hadyn]

No.
If we get exemptions it won't end there.
Melbourne will want one on the basis it is too far from Sydney and too cold.
Titans and Cowboys too far from Sydney and too hot.
Souths cause their fans are scum.
Canberra because its cold and their coach is total shit.
Brisbane because they need the money to pay for their coach and so on it would go.
Any advantage the Warriors got would be soon lost and remember advantaging the Warriors is the last thing on the NRL's agenda.

For me I would sooner the NRL enforce the cap properly and ban third party agreements totally and then we would see how good the Roosters,Rabbits,Bulldogs and Broncos really are.

 

[mrblonde]

I agree with tajhay - answer should be no on this one.

D) When did we last spend all of our cap? Was that when we breached it with Wiki and Price? Unless we're spending all of our cap.... this topic is moot surely?

Interesting point you make here - why in the name of God are the Warriors not spending all their cap? Unless there's some rule I'm not aware of that says "Okay, Warriors, the auditors have seen your books and the books say and the auditors confirm you officially spent $5m of your 2015 salary cap. So, that saved $2.5m means your 2016 salary cap now becomes $10m.", that doesn't make sense. If it's true about the unused cap, does this mean we could have spent a bit more keeping one or two younger players, utilising the cap unused on Mark E players, rather than let them seyonara out the door??

Agree with the no crowd. The issue with paying overs for Australian players isn't for me "Why are we paying overs?" but "Why are we paying overs for him?" ie it's less the money, more where the money's being spent.

 

[Leedslion007]

No

The whole point of a cap is to hopefully even out the chances of success across all the 16 clubs.

It's probs the big offers of third party agreements that keep players in Aus rather than the basic salaries as we just have the large commercial sponsorships available to us here in Auckland.

Let's not forget it is an Aussie comp and most of the players simply don't want to leave regardless of offers of big coin.

Id sooner see an AFL draft style rule placed to give the weaker teams a chance of landing big players than just offering more cash...
We don't even spend the cash we currently have to play with.

 

[¿N. ig-mah¿]

No exemptions. Ditch third party deals, and the NRL pays the players directly, removing the possibility of the club overpaying on the cap. Any payments found from clubs to players become illegal and easier to find. The NRL holds the purse-strings but the clubs negotiate their cap allocation to the players.

 

[matiunz]

Dont think we should have any advantages I just dont think we should have any disadvantages either.
Teams outside sydney and to a degree Brisbane dont have the same access to 3rd party deals and that is the aspect that needs sorting out imo.

 

[Ranger]

The Swans and GWS in the AFL have a cost of living allowance, where each player gets an extra 9.8% on top of their contract due to Sydney being more expensive.

I think it's being phased out though?

 

[KPWarrior]

No... We'd never hear the end of it! We're already the most successful club in NYC history, we need to learn how to nurture and transfer that success to the First Grade side. When we hear about junior nurseries, all we ever hear is Parramatta this and Panthers that, how does their Juniors record stack up against ours?

There probably are certain things that could go our way in terms of travel / bye's / ref calls, but a salary cap exemption? No thanks!

 

[charlie bobmarley]

i've seen it mentioned on here a few times that the warriors have to often over pay players to get them to the warriors.

the warriors have alot of disadvantages to the sydney based clubs, the main things being-

Australian players having to move to a new country- especially if their more settled in AUS with a family.

the travel during the season,i'm sure the flights to AUS (especially townsville/perth) would be a deterrent, apposed to mostly traveling around sydney and sleeping in your own bed.

i don't know much about AFL but i think that the sydney team since its in NRL territory they have been given a larger salary cap for a few years then the victorian teams so they can encourage players to make the move and to have some immediate success to gain interest in the sport.

maybe even just a cap increase for just NZ born players to help keep them in NZ.

edd jonno macker you just cant help it can you ?

 

[mt.wellington]

As with most I dont think we should be an exception but there is one aspect of the salary cap that is completely unjust and thats the conversion of the Australian dollar to NZ dollar. There are some years, 2013 as fact, where we lost out on $90,000 because of the fluctuations in currencies. Thats a fairly handy player or contract increase IMO...

 

[gREVUS]

As with most I dont think we should be an exception but there is one aspect of the salary cap that is completely unjust and thats the conversion of the Australian dollar to NZ dollar. There are some years, 2013 as fact, where we lost out on $90,000 because of the fluctuations in currencies. Thats a fairly handy player or contract increase IMO...

I'm guessing here but there are defn ways for a kiwi working in NZ to be paid in Australian dollars, with it going into a NZ bank account. It is then up to them when they want to convert it - or not and therefore the bonus goes to them if they are savey.

I may be wrong but i think this conversation has come up before and at the time it was spoken about there were a number of players doing this, if not all; as it solves the issue of disparity in earnings between a kiwi and an Aussie.

 

[tajhay]

I'm guessing here but there are defn ways for a kiwi working in NZ to be paid in Australian dollars, with it going into a NZ bank account. It is then up to them when they want to convert it - or not and therefore the bonus goes to them if they are savey.

I may be wrong but i think this conversation has come up before and at the time it was spoken about there were a number of players doing this, if not all; as it solves the issue of disparity in earnings between a kiwi and an Aussie.

The salary cap is converted to NZD on Nov 1st for the upcoming season.

 

[InsideBall]

The only change I would force in favor of the Warriors is making at least two Sydney teams bring home games over to NZ - preferably ones that we are only playing once that season. This would work in a number of levels: firstly, we do far, far more travel than any other club in the NRL - especially when we're made to do ridiculous trips to Perth every year. Having a couple away games in NZ would at least reduce some potential travel, balancing that out to a small degree. Secondly, it woud allow us to publicize the game right across the country in any of the major (and perhaps even not so major) centers - we could take two games to different places every year... The country would absolutely lap it up. It'd be a huge promotional coup for the NRL. Thirdly, If it were specifically Sydney teams being made to do the travel - they get such an advantage being where they are (heck, being able to sleep on your own bed, in your own home and amongst your family most weekends is enough of an advantage itself) making them bring one home game across the pond - particularly if it were a team we were only playing once this year, meaning only one trip across the Tasman in a season - that is a drop in the ocean compared with us... And fourth it would do a little to help alleviate the ridiculous over saturation of NRL in the Sydney market - no wonder they get such awful crowds.

I've thought about this often, and there's really no reason why it can't be done.

 

[gREVUS]

The only change I would force in favor of the Warriors is making at least two Sydney teams bring home games over to NZ - preferably ones that we are only playing once that season. This would work in a number of levels: firstly, we do far, far more travel than any other club in the NRL - especially when we're made to do ridiculous trips to Perth every year. Having a couple away games in NZ would at least reduce some potential travel, balancing that out to a small degree. Secondly, it woud allow us to publicize the game right across the country in any of the major (and perhaps even not so major) centers - we could take two games to different places every year... The country would absolutely lap it up. It'd be a huge promotional coup for the NRL. Thirdly, If it were specifically Sydney teams being made to do the travel - they get such an advantage being where they are (heck, being able to sleep on your own bed, in your own home and amongst your family most weekends is enough of an advantage itself) making them bring one home game across the pond - particularly if it were a team we were only playing once this year, meaning only one trip across the Tasman in a season - that is a drop in the ocean compared with us... And fourth it would do a little to help alleviate the ridiculous over saturation of NRL in the Sydney market - no wonder they get such awful crowds.

I've thought about this often, and there's really no reason why it can't be done.

isnt that already happening with the bulldogs? and again in a comp we asked to join why do we get to dictate terms to the stake-holders

 

[sydneywarrior92]

does anyone know how much cap space we have left?

 

[matiunz]

does anyone know how much cap space we have left?

$1,965,324.64