For those who know me, I'm a passionate fan of Rugby League (for more information on Rugby League check out Rugby League at Wikipedia). Of the ball sports it is (to me) the best. It is physical, tough, passionate, but it also has finesse, and requires the players to think on their feet. I am lucky in that my wife was a fan of the game before I met her, and she is the one who showed me the light. *LOL* Growing up where I did, the only games were baseball, Canadian football (similar to the NFL, but better), and of course Hockey. There was Rugby Union around, but it was only for those in high school, or University. We could watch some test matches on cable, but with no idea of the rules, or of the game itself (and the announcers refused to explain anything) it was frustrating to watch. Which is a euphemism for BORING !!! *LOL*
I know more people watch/play Rugby Union than League, but to me those first exposures to the game left me wanting. With this in mind, when I first came down-under, my wife (she wasn't my wife then though) tried to get me to watch a game of League. I first said that Rugby was boring, and that I would rather watch the NFL !! She said it wasn't Rugby, but Rugby League, and that it was different. She put on a game, and explained some of the rules, and once I had a very basic grasp of the game I started to really enjoy it.
With the background out of the way, on to the meat of the article. The National Rugby League (the Australian "National" competition) is rapidly approaching a new era. The game has finally created an independent governing body. This is huge, as the game has been run out of New South Wales since the beginning, and there are constant complaints of bias towards the teams and players of that State. Whether there is or not is open to discussion, and depends on what side of the border you live in, and which side you barrack for. Hopefully with the new commission, there will be a balanced approach to not only growing the game, but also in how the games are adjudicated. They will also be negotiating a new TV deal, which should bring a significant increase in revenues to the game.
I hope that the commission doesn't just give the game to 1 free to air broadcaster (as is the current deal) and 1 cable network. This gives the host broadcaster too much power. In fact Channel 9 (the free to air broadcaster) sets the schedule, so they can choose which teams will play on Friday night, or Sunday afternoon (their time slots). Who plays who is known at the beginning of the season, and which weekend (2 games Friday night, 3 games Saturday, 2 Sunday, and 1 Monday night) it will be on, but not which particular day. This is set 5-6 weeks before the game, allowing Channel 9 to tailor their coverage to the teams that will gain them the best ratings. Great for the network, but bad for the fans, and the teams. The League needs to set a firm schedule each year, with dates for all games. I also think that they need to split up the coverage for the free to air games, just like in other parts of the World.
Enough about TV, and on to other stuff. The rules are very good, and I don't think there is much to change there. Where I see a need to change is in how the contracts are dealt with. Over here a contract is still a contract, but with a difference. That being, the player can negotiate with another team while still contracted to another. They can then sign a contract with that other team so that when their current contract expires, they leave and go to their new team. This could be for the next season, or several seasons away. In my opinion, this can't help but to destabilizes a team. I would like to see the League ban this practice, and have all contracts end on the day after the Grand Final, and only when a contract has ended can a player contact another team. To those who think it is bad for the players, I say this; look at the leagues in North America. Have their earnings suffered as a result of this practice ?? The answer is an emphatic NO !! If a player, agent or team is caught violating this, then they should be sanctioned heavily. I would also like to see teams be allowed to trade players during the season, up until a deadline.
Now onto the salary cap. Here is where I would like to see the biggest change. There are some very good ideas out there on how to fix the cap issue, and the one I am writing about is stolen from one of them. ;-) Currently there is a hard salary cap, and all teams must be under the cap at all times. Violating the cap can bring very harsh penalties, just ask the Canterbury Bulldogs, and especially the Melbourne Storm. These teams lost competition points, with the Storm also losing several championships as well for violating the cap. I believe in a salary cap, but it is such a tough thing to balance, so that players get paid well enough, the teams can make money, and the fan isn't priced out of the stadium. One of the downsides of a salary cap, is that loyalty to a team (or player) is somewhat lost in the quest to field a competitive team. Players want that 1 last big contract, but the team may not be able to afford to keep some of it's younger players.
To this I say, why not offer an incentive to the teams to show loyalty to a player that has stayed with the club for a long time. If a player that has been brought through the junior ranks of a team, then the team should get a percentage of the player's salary placed outside of the cap. I would say that for players brought through the team's system, the the cap reduction starts at 25% after 5 years with the team, and increases by 5% each year until a maximum reduction of 50%) For example; a player has played for 5 seasons, the team now gets to lower his cap hit by 25%. If that player manages to play for another 5 years the team's cap hit would only be a maximum of 50%. This way the team would be able to afford to upgrade some of the younger players, while being able to keep the older player around for a last season or two. If a player is bought on the open market, then the team doesn't get to claim any cap reductions for this player. Now if the player stays for a specified length of time, then the team would begin to get some cap relief. Let's say 5% after 5 years, and increases by 5% each year to a total of 25%.
Now we come to 3rd party arrangements, which is considered part of the salary cap. From my limited understanding, if the player (or agent) finds the deal, only a portion is covered by the cap, but if the team arranges a 3rd party deal, then the full thing is under the cap. There needs to be a way for players to be able to market themselves to earn more money because of their exceptional skills, yet allow teams in poorer areas to be competitive. A team with access to many large corporations, has a massive advantage over teams with little to no access. On this I have no real input.
Well that's all the nonsense that I can spew out for today.
