Hypothetical

[Spirit of 66]

There has been a lot of publicity over the past couple of weeks about Greg Inglis, how hard life has been for him, how he is about to switch to Union and how tragic this would be for the game. This was clearly part of a strategy to get the NRL to open its cheque book and pay him an extra million bucks through its key player retention strategy.

Fair enough - he is a superstar and it would be a marketing disaster to lose him. But here is a hypothetical for you:

After Inglis gets his million dollar subsidy, Israel Folau announces that he wants to join the Roosters. Let's say (hypothetically) that he has become close with some of the Roosters players and staff and is willing to come back, but only as a Rooster. What are the chances of the NRL giving the Roosters a similar million dollar cap concession in this situation?

[rwbfl]

I'd say this will be potentially relevant if SBW decides to return. Assuming he would only play for us, I'd say the NRL would definitely give a concession for us to sign him. In saying this, you'd have to think they would for Folau too as they are both big name players.

I'd say if it was someone like Folau, SBW, Hayne or Burgess, concessions would be made. The NRL would be nuts not too. If they refused to do it for the Roosters but would for the Eels (Hayne), and the Rabbits (Inglis and Burgess), Uncle Nick would absolutely go nuts.

On that note, does would the Rabbits receive two players that can be outside the cap? That would be quite interesting

[c_q]

Check out @FireUpOnFBI on Twitter today. He has a couple of good ideas about this subject.

[Johnny.]

I think the idea of a marquee player subsidy is nonsense. No player is worth 1 million dollars, unless he gets it at the end of the year. Say Folau comes back to league with a million in his kitty and blows his ACL five minutes into his first game. That's a million wasted.

[TDK]

The club would first have to agree to terms with the player at the market value of that player which would have to be approved by the NRL. Once this contract has been tested against the market value then the NRL would step in and indepently value the players worth to the NRL. A player like inglis would still be costing Souths a million plus dollars off their cap with the NRL topping him up based on his marketing worth to the game.

[milanja]

If the NRL pay 1 million dollars for inglis or any other to stay in the game, shouldn't they then have a say who he plays for, ie: goldcoast, canberra.

[Bigchook]

I think the nrl should open its cheque book and buy every big name player they can. They should then auction that player off to any club in the game. If a player wants to earn a top tier salary playing nrl then they forgo their right to choose who they play for imo.

I like the idea of trades as well. Ie let's say parra have hayne and desperately need forwards. Folau comes onto the market and as parra have hayne they don't require folau but they buy folau and trade him to another club who needs a fullback for two props or something along those lines.

These ideas are interesting and something needs to be done to keep the competition equal but to also have the best players in the world playing nrl. In any scenario it needs to be thought through very carefully as this has massive ramifications for what the end product of nrl looks like. Clubs want to get behind their favourite players and not see them in a new Jersey every year.

[Spirit of 66]

If the NRL pay 1 million dollars for inglis or any other to stay in the game, shouldn't they then have a say who he plays for, ie: goldcoast, canberra.

Not if the player says he only wants to play for someone else. The point of my hypothetical was to question how far the NRL might go to attract (or retain) a superstar. If Inglis said to the NRL "I only want to play for Souths, but they can only afford $100K - pay me another $1.5 million or I am off to be the new face of Super Rugby", the NRL would be over a barrel. Similarly, if Folau wants to come back, the NRL would be tempted to agree to anything he demands.

[milanja]

Not if the player says he only wants to play for someone else. The point of my hypothetical was to question how far the NRL might go to attract (or retain) a superstar. If Inglis said to the NRL "I only want to play for Souths, but they can only afford $100K - pay me another $1.5 million or I am off to be the new face of Super Rugby", the NRL would be over a barrel. Similarly, if Folau wants to come back, the NRL would be tempted to agree to anything he demands.

Players have proved that money is the main motivator these days. Code crossing, team swapping, delaying signing contracts, if the NRL said here is 2 million, but you are playing in perth, then so be it.

[Johnny Tobin]

Inglis and his manager are having a laugh. He has no desire to leave. This is just trying to get some extra dough. It's a scam.

The problem is the random use of that money.

The NRL should contract the top, say, 50 players. Or even 20 players. They can pay whatever they want.

Then the clubs sign them and only the club contract is in the cap.

Or have two players at every club cap exempt.

[Guest]

Inglis and his manager are having a laugh. He has no desire to leave. This is just trying to get some extra dough. It's a scam.

The problem is the random use of that money.

The NRL should contract the top, say, 50 players. Or even 20 players. They can pay whatever they want.

Then the clubs sign them and only the club contract is in the cap.

Or have two players at every club cap exempt.

That is actually a good idea.

[Johnny Tobin]

I assume you mean the first one.

It allows NRL to retain best players and raid other codes without impacting the clubs. At the moment clubs crippled by the satay cap are trying to battle other codes themselves. They simply can't win.

[Guest]

No the second one. I like the idea of the top 20 players being contracted to the NRL and their clubs for payment. If we start randomly offering big bucks for guys to stay it is going to become unfair very fast. If the discretionary $$$ are going to happen it needs to be organized imo.

[Johnny Tobin]

that is the first one.

It has to be more than 20. Maybe 40.

[stsae]

That is actually a good idea.

Wassup brother???

Fire up, that idea blows.

We all know it.