Top two?

[bushman]

With the NRL introducing extra payments above the salery cap who would be our top two? I would thinck Orford number one but after that I am a little gray Billy, Kingy, Cam any thourghts guys? Remembering that you you would have that player for three years.

[Looney]

My money would be on Billy

[Thunderstruck]

Plan is being postponed, Melbourne is one of four teams requiring more tweaking to the rule change. Reason: Any team can hand over a contract worth a million dollars a year to any high profile player. Teams with less sponsorship appeal or with less financially well off sponsors will be disadvantaged.

Should the plan go through, my money's on Orford and Billy. Orford is essential to the team performance, but Billy does that AND boost the club's image. No other player in the team does that as well as he does.

[Super Cronk]

my two would be orford and cam...

[steaming stormer]

With the NRL introducing extra payments above the salery cap who would be our top two? I would thinck Orford number one but after that I am a little gray Billy, Kingy, Cam any thourghts guys? Remembering that you you would have that player for three years.

I would definitely have Orford and Billy, but correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it that the player has to stay in league for more than three years, not necessarily with the club... although obviously you would assume they would with that deal

[Lord Reynoldson]

my two would be orford and cam...

I would have to agree with you on that. While Billy's an excellent player, I would say hooker is a much more vital position, and there isn't a better hooker going around than Cameron Smith. Besides, with the money saved by having Ox and Cam having sponsorship from outside the club but from club sponsors not going towards the salary cap, would probably be able to keep Billy and all the others anyway.

But really, this is just a whole ploy to legitimise the way Newcastle have kept andrew johns.

[Thunderstruck]

But really, this is just a whole ploy to legitimise the way Newcastle have kept andrew johns.

I don't disagree

[simo]

Orford and Billy easy. I still cant get over why Storm havnt shown Billy off more?

[TC]

Plan is being postponed, Melbourne is one of four teams requiring more tweaking to the rule change. Reason: Any team can hand over a contract worth a million dollars a year to any high profile player. Teams with less sponsorship appeal or with less financially well off sponsors will be disadvantaged.

Gallop was on the radio at about 3.30pm today talking to Frank and Nic. Apparently the clubs are taking the idea away for 9 days to consider further. Also Brian Waldron was on a little earlier and he sounded generally positive about the idea - mainly wanting a bit of time to look at all the options and how it would affect the club. I wouldn't be at all suprised to see it given the nod.

[Thunderstruck]

I don't get it, why just the top two, why not the entire playing roster? And I don't mean the top 25. Have a salary cap for the top 25 players in a club and a minimum pay level but let the players get their own additional income from any other company. The club is obligated to adhere to the cap but the players can do whatever endorsement deal they and their agents can get completely outside the club's and the game's administration.

Obviously you can't have a player not paid by the club, otherwise you're just not an employee of the club. This will rid any 3rd party salary cap worries and the onus will be on the players to have enough of a profile to attract good sponsors.

[Surandy]

Hmm, when I read the title of this thread I thought bushman was asking if we thought the Storm would finish the season in the "top two".

I'd say profile wise, Matt Orford and Billy Slater would probably be Storm's top two. Although Matt King seems to be being increasingly used a lot for promotional purposes lately.

[Mike_The_Undertaker]

CAM and Billy

[simo]

I definately think that this needs to go ahead,
we need it to keep players like Sonny Bill and so instead of them going to union or whereever.

[Insomniac]

I don't get it, why just the top two, why not the entire playing roster? And I don't mean the top 25. Have a salary cap for the top 25 players in a club and a minimum pay level but let the players get their own additional income from any other company. The club is obligated to adhere to the cap but the players can do whatever endorsement deal they and their agents can get completely outside the club's and the game's administration.

Obviously you can't have a player not paid by the club, otherwise you're just not an employee of the club. This will rid any 3rd party salary cap worries and the onus will be on the players to have enough of a profile to attract good sponsors.

The only problem with this is that you will then get clubs (the sly ones - we all know who they are ) paying their star players a lot less so they don't take up as much of the salary cap, and then get the sponsors to pick up the rest of the tab. That way, the players still get paid their 'normal' amount, but the team itself can fit more high profile players under the cap. The sponsors would more than likely go for this, as they could be sponsoring player(s) in a super team, thus gaining greater exposure...

I like the salary cap the way it is - just look at how 'balanced' the competition is now (apart from Souths that just don't seem to be able to put it together for a season, although even they are getting closer). This 'top 2' change could have a negative effect on the Storm if we don't have as many sponsors, or our sponsors are paying a lot less, than the bigger clubs.

[Lord Reynoldson]

In the last 6 years there have been 9 different Grand Finalists and 6 different Grand Final Winners. I believe that only Manly and Souths have not made the finals in that time period. The slary cap is working fine. The players being lost to England are generally older ones who's careers ar over the hill, or those that are greedy and think that they are worth more than they really are. And stupid clubs over there pay them the money and when they realise they're getting a dud player for the ammount of money, the player goes MIA in the the Rugby League world. So it's not as though we're losing the best players in the game at all.

As for Union, sure, they got Rogers, Tuqiri and Sailor over recent years, but besides that what big name signings have they gotten? Sure Thorn went, but he's seen the light and come back.

This is a concept that I can't support. It is just a way to legitimise what Newccastle did with scumbag, and a way for the Bulldogs to keep all their players. If the Dogs want to keep them all, then start by paying Braith Anasta what he's actually worth. And their salary cap rort of a couple of seasons ago have pushed up the expectations of players in their club as to what they should be paid, when if they were at other clubs they would realise the reality of their worth. It's their own fault that they have players asking for more and more money and now they can't keep everyone they want. It's the pathetic culture of the club that's gotten them into trouble and I hope they lose half a dozen players that under competant management and leadership over recent years would have prevented such an exodus.

Thunderstruck, as for the sponsorships, it's my understanding that the players can get whatever sponsors they went externally from the club, but if a sponsor is actually also a sponsor of the club in any way, then it falls under the salary cap. For example, Sonny Bill got $50,000 from Gatorade for doing the ads that he's done (Not done considering he would have had to do bugger all) Gatorade sponsors the NRL, but NOT the Bulldogs, so that $50,000 has been judged not to fall under part of the salary cap.