Longing for the day ...

The Melbourne Storm fiasco cont ...

Following on from my original post on this subject, back to Melbourne for a minute more ...

The second issue is that the current NRL administration has been shown to be completely incompetent at policing its own rules. That's taking nothing away from Ian Schubert, who by all accounts has done a great job of policing a really dumb set of rules. It's the people who allowed those rules to persist, despite overwhelming evidence of problems and pressure to change them, who need to be replaced. That the leadership can be so resistant to feedback and change is a problem for any organisation.

This, of course, makes the proposed Independent Commission an even more urgent priority. The game needs to be run by a balanced group of independent decision makers whose immediate source of feedback is those who have the most at stake in the game. Only when consultation happens at this level and results are transparent and accountable will the game develop to its potential.

The final point is that some of the penalties that have been handed out are actually penalising innocent fans and players, not the perpetrators of the crime. This is the worst possible outcome. The fans are not to blame for any of this and the NRL cannot afford to penalise and alienate them. The Club may have committed a sin, but be careful how you define "Club" ... and make sure the punishment fits the crime. This is further evidence that the priorities of the games "leaders" are far removed fro those of the game's supporters ...

So, when it comes to penalties, the crime was stacking the team. A few club officials committed the crime. It's arguably fair to take the winnings off the club, since they won them while breaking the competition's rules, but it's not fair to penalise the players, staff and fans who committed no crime. If the club can get their player payments back below the cap, let them contest the title. The NRL cannot afford to let the Storm fold. I suggest Gus's solution that Melbourne be allowed to compile a $4.1million roster, but I'd let them do it by offering the elite players a new contract at their cap-registered salary. THAT would test their claims that they are a tight club playing for each other and determined to stick together. It might even strengthen their brand beyond this mess.

Incidentally, while I'm ranting about football, can we please have an end to the invasion of the gambling companies? Gambling has nothing to do with football and is a blight on our culture. Ban it from TV advertising in the same way smoking was banned and alcohol gambling has been regulated. I don't care what the latest odds are on the game I'm about to watch (or in the middle of watching) and I'm sick of this corruption of the human spirit!! Join the Facebook group NOW!

The Melbourne Storm fiasco

I'm kinda over this already. It makes me sick to think about it - so totally against everything sport stands for. It's a bureaucrat's issue, not a sporting issue ...

Despite my hatred of his Blues heart, I find myself agreeing with Gus. There are three problems here. The first is that the ridiculous restrictions of the salary cap caused this problem. The second is that the NRL administration and processes that failed to pick it up sooner must be replaced immediately. The third is that the current penalty for the breach is harsh on innocent people and causes as many issues as it solves.

The NRL needs a salary cap. It has brought an evenness - some would say predictability - to the competition that has improved it. But it also acts to penalise clubs who identify and develop talent well. The Broncos' long history of letting quality players go because they can't afford to keep them is legendary. Gus is spot on when he says that this issue has highlighted just how far the salary cap is below the cost of running a competitive team. With the money on offer from other codes and other competitions, NRL clubs basically have to push their boundaries to remain competitive.

The cap was designed to stop the horse-trading of rich clubs buying athletes that other clubs have developed, and it does that well. But it also damages clubs' brands when players who have long been identified with certain clubs have to be let go.Think Petero Civenoceva or Trevor Gillmeister. It's also harsh when a club has developed a player from juniors to representative standard at a young age and then has to let them go to another club where they can earn what they're worth. Think Greg Eastwood, Ashley Harrison, David Stagg ... the list goes on.

I suggest that the first thing that needs to happen is a discount for long-serving players. Say, after 100 games for one club, a player's salary cap payments are discounted 10% on the actual payments; after 150 games, 15%, after 200 games, 20% or something like that ...

The second change is that some reality needs to return to the effect of third-party deals on salary cap payments. But I don't really understand the details of this - I just know that it's complex and confuses the crap out of fans (and probably players). Greater transparency is needed ...

I'd also like to see the overall cap raised, but that's not the first thing to do ...

I'm outta time for today. I'll return to the other issues in future posts ...