Woo! New site is online - select here to use it!


Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Rugby

Reply
Created by busterwa > 9 months ago, 22 Apr 2010
busterwa
3782 posts
22 Apr 2010 8:43PM
Thumbs Up

Whats the G>O salary cap on players.
??????????? the view topic of hot discussion ATM media has abviously blown it out of proportion again

flipside debate................
If aussie rules is that good it would become a multinational sport.....
aussie rules is international FAIL.....Rugby is the sport

choco
SA, 4187 posts
22 Apr 2010 10:37PM
Thumbs Up

Melbourne Storm has been stripped of it's 2 premierships! does this mean the runner up wins the premiership?

mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
22 Apr 2010 9:13PM
Thumbs Up

busterwa, Melbourne Storm (ex Western Reds) were just dumb enough to get sprung
No doubt the rest are up to some form of jiggering the system some how or other, as suggested by one NRL ex super star tonight on TV Storm were stupid enough to leave a trail. Its not over yet by a long shot. It will be interesting who else, players and officials who may get it in a full broadside for being foolish with salary caps, in the next few months
Anyway, how come the Parra and to a lesser degree Manley haven't been awarded the respective season grand finals

KEARNSY
WA, 1322 posts
22 Apr 2010 9:16PM
Thumbs Up

busterwa said...

flipside debate................
If aussie rules is that good it would become a multinational sport.....



But not played in Australia? I cant see that working somehow.....

Mobydisc
NSW, 9029 posts
22 Apr 2010 11:23PM
Thumbs Up

Its rugby league, not rugby. They are two different games.

The Storm is stuffed. Go Saints!

upwind
QLD, 166 posts
23 Apr 2010 8:26AM
Thumbs Up

yep they are sprung. Take the medicine and get on with it, can't see how they can have no more points for rest of this season ,makes the games a bit hollow?

Ben 555
NSW, 456 posts
23 Apr 2010 9:08AM
Thumbs Up

Buster were you refering to Rugby - the 15 man game.....yes it is international but pales against the size of football (soccer) in terms of international participation

Off topic i know but....

I am happy that our game (AFL) is not international, though the lack of a decent side competition (ie State of origin, internationals etc) I think detracts from the game. I think the AFL commision have been fantastic in providing further interest in the home and away season by using special rounds eg indigenous, ANZAC day matches etc (well before the ARL started similiar promotions).
(Anzac day '94 i think - still sends shivers down my spine - standing room MCG and a cracking match of the then toddler bombers v pies)

Back on topic

I cant remember the draw set up for the ARL but - do some teams play the Melbourne storm twice and others once - if as expected the Storm drop away from their high standard it could lead to some interseting outcomes at the end of the season.

They did wrong - should be punished - but i cant help but feel that there is a restriction of trade - yes players can go overseas...

pooman
WA, 293 posts
23 Apr 2010 9:24AM
Thumbs Up

busterwa said...

Whats the G>O salary cap on players.
??????????? the view topic of hot discussion ATM media has abviously blown it out of proportion again

flipside debate................
If aussie rules is that good it would become a multinational sport.....
aussie rules is international FAIL.....Rugby is the sport


I'm failing to see how AFL being a multinational sport is the flipside debate of salary caps...

Carantoc
WA, 7302 posts
23 Apr 2010 9:29AM
Thumbs Up

Another difference with football (soccer) is that it is not played on a franchise system.

You go get 10 mates, form a soccer team, enter the local league, win, go up a league, win, go up a league, in a few years (8 I think for England) you win the premiership. In one more you are european champion. In one year from starting you could win the FA cup.

There are a few things you have to do, like have a ground suitable to host league matches etc. which is a sfety requirement as much as anything. 20,000 Chelsea fans decending on your back yard would not be a good idea.

But in comaparision if I wanted to win the AFL or super 14, I would have to start not with 10 mates, but with $10 million and purchase a franchise, if and when the game decides I can have one, which would be never.

This is why soccer will always be more popular than franchised leagues games.

pooman
WA, 293 posts
23 Apr 2010 9:39AM
Thumbs Up

I don't think it's been blown out of proportion at all...we're talking over a million dollars of blown salary cap! about $15000 per game extra in match payments.

Undoubtedly that extra money won them their premierships. Won them an extra million dollars in prize money, won them extra memberships and merchandise sales...

Some might say they may have still won, but who's to stay they would have still had the crop..without these extra incentives they may have looked elsewhere....

Salary caps are in for a reason, to attempt to keep clubs on level playing fields. It gives every club equal opportunities at the best talent in the systems.

Yes it might be a restriction of trade, and yes it might mean and has meant that players go overseas but the competition still remains stable and somewhat level not stacked up one end.

Thats My 2 cents...NOW GIVE MANLY THEIR PREMIERSHIP ALREADY haha

grumplestiltskin
WA, 2331 posts
23 Apr 2010 9:42AM
Thumbs Up

mineral1 said...


Anyway, how come the Parra and to a lesser degree Manley haven't been awarded the respective season grand finals

they can't be awarded the Grand Final as regardless of the Storm being stripped of the title, they didn't win.

i.e. History will be recorded as "The Storm won, but were stripped of the title for salary cap breaches!"

Ben 555
NSW, 456 posts
23 Apr 2010 11:52AM
Thumbs Up

+1 pooman......even though I have problems with salary caps on a ethical level - it has a purpose to even the competition out (supposedly).

So with the cap and the draft - why has my (Richmond) Tigers failed miserably for years

pooman
WA, 293 posts
23 Apr 2010 10:08AM
Thumbs Up

Ben 555 said...

+1 pooman......even though I have problems with salary caps on a ethical level - it has a purpose to even the competition out (supposedly).

So with the cap and the draft - why has my (Richmond) Tigers failed miserably for years


Just because there is a salary cap doesn't mean a club can afford it.

The history with Richmonds troubles started back in the eighties they spent too much money on **** players, got themselves into debt...had **** administrators...got even more in debt... lost members...even more debt...bla bla bla bla

since then all they have done is made very poor drafting and trade decisions sticking with established and senior players rather than investing in youth. And without the cash they can't get any really good established players, only has beens.

Only recently(2007) have they finally managed to get their **** together...and delisted all their dead wood and invested in youth...and so begins the 4-5 year rebuilding stage.

Same goes for Melbourne...



shark
WA, 361 posts
23 Apr 2010 10:14AM
Thumbs Up

Carantoc said...


You go get 10 mates, form a soccer team, enter the local league, win, go up a league, win, go up a league, in a few years (8 I think for England) you win the premiership. In one more you are european champion. In one year from starting you could win the FA cup.




I dont know much about the English football setup-but when (if ever) has anything remotely like that looked like happening?

Trant
NSW, 601 posts
23 Apr 2010 4:28PM
Thumbs Up

shark said...

Carantoc said...


You go get 10 mates, form a soccer team, enter the local league, win, go up a league, win, go up a league, in a few years (8 I think for England) you win the premiership. In one more you are european champion. In one year from starting you could win the FA cup.




I dont know much about the English football setup-but when (if ever) has anything remotely like that looked like happening?


Wimbledon kind of did in the early eighties
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon_F.C.

Thus, Wimbledon had reached the First Division, only four years after playing in the Fourth Division and nine years after being elected into The Football League.[4]
: Note, the "First Division" was the top tier at the time, the "Premiership" and "Championship" leagues did not exist.

They were an established club already, but not bad going from complete amateur to top flight in 10 years odd!

But it works both ways, Wimbledon as a football club died, they were bought out and became the MK Dons who are currently sitting in the third tier (confusingly now called the First Division)

Carantoc
WA, 7302 posts
23 Apr 2010 2:40PM
Thumbs Up

Pretty sure Swindon had a similar run of promotions in the early 90s.

Went from regional league to first division in several seasons

Plenty of minnows have done it in the FA cup. Maybe not won in the modern era but gone along way.

Either way the dream can happen, the possibility is there.

Reverse also works, you can plummet if you aren't any good. Can't do that under the franchise system. If your poor for several seasons your still in the same group.

Franchise system is all about commercialising sport, not saying the EPL isn't commercialised but it is more of a free market.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Rugby" started by busterwa