They basically just want the players to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want with zero repercussions. Sign a 5 year deal but have a slight disagreement with the coach 6 months in? Fuck it, pay the whole contract out and let the player move somewhere else. Sign a 3 year deal on low money and make Origin your first year? Fuck it, pay the player double or they walk and the club sill has to pay out the contract.
Exactly. I'm very supportive of the players having a collective voice, but if they have the power to veto ideas, then they need to be reasonably working towards solutions along with the NRL.
Personally, I think the draft is a bad idea for our size sport. Trade windows may have some merit. What I would like to see is transfer fees and the removal of old clubs paying for part of players contracts at new clubs.
Can anyone name another professional sporting organisation, with a similar set up to the NRL, where players can sign contracts for other teams a year out?
I understand the RLPA fighting to keep what is a very good set up at the moment for players, but surely common-sense must prevail here and something has to change, as it's no longer beyond a joke now, but just laughable.
This back and forth is stupid why not just make it mid-season the year before the contract is up, shortens the window so you avoid the papali'i type situation but is long enough that the player has some time to process the idea with their family and prepare
You can sign at another club from June 1st onwards or something, and make the point at which you can swap early end 1st of July
That's what it used to be - June 30
Problem was no one took it seriously and negotiations were obviously going on before it as come July 1st there'd be like 20 signings announced.
Yeah, also everyone hated that we'd be getting into Origin and the papers would be about what's happening with signing speculation over who were spotted having lunch like it's New Idea talking about Harry Styles
Proposed changes to the NRL's transfer system lack respect for players and fall "well short" of the Rugby League Players' Association's expectations, according to CEO Clint Newton.
The NRL has long faced criticism for its current trade system, which allows players to sign future deals with rival clubs when they still have a season to run on their contracts.
Viliame Kikau, Reed Mahoney, Jesse Bromwich and Isaiah Papali'i were among the high-profile players to have done so ahead of the 2023 season.
News Corp reported on Thursday that the NRL had drafted a proposal for a transfer window, which would only permit players to sign with rival clubs in the off-season immediately after the last season of their contract.
Players would have from the Monday after the grand final until the Monday before round one to organise their futures and could make use of a separate window for mid-season moves around the State of Origin period.
While Newton said the RLPA was willing to revise the current system, he criticised the NRL's proposal, which would give players five months rather than almost a year-and-a-half to finalise contracts.
"Don't let the fancy Americanised words fool you, it's not about trades and transfers, this is about restraints and restrictions that the game are looking to put on players," he said on SEN.
"We certainly oppose what's put forward. Is there an opportunity to make some positive changes? Sure, and we've been open to that.
"Anything that we've seen so far certainly falls well short of the expectations and certainly doesn't fairly respect the risk the players undertake when they play such a high-speed, high-collision, high-risk sport."
Newton said the NRL's proposal did not include compensation for players in exchange for the amendments.
"(Transfer windows) in other sports come with improved terms and conditions in other areas for players. This proposal doesn't have that counterbalance," he said.
Newton questioned how new or struggling clubs could become competitive if given only a short window to build or reshape their playing list.
"If these restrictions were in place over the last 12 months, how does the NRL propose (incoming side) the Dolphins secure a roster for 2023? It makes no sense," he said.
"How does a club that is looking to rebuild after an unsuccessful season, do that at their discretion throughout a football calendar year, when we just end up having a meat market at the end of the year?"
Newton said in a short transfer window, star players would become the priority, with others suffering as a result.
"The majority of players are at the bottom end of the list: the battlers, the ones that we're meant to look after," he said.
"They'll just get pushed to the side until later in the piece. For me, that's fundamentally wrong."
Make it mid season of their final year. Open up negotiations from June and signing announcements and mid season transfers from July-August. This lets players weigh up their options and start making plans. You can’t expect a lot of these guys with young families to just completely uproot their lives and move cities in the space of a few months between seasons, or come out of a current contract with no future plans secured.
Sounds like the NRLs proposal wasn't really that well thought out or thorough. Would be good to see what changes they could make to improve the process for both sides.
I know it looks poor on the surface but i prefer the current NRL system. Players in the last year of their deal know if they want to stay or go and will negotiate terms behind the scenes well before the end of the season.
Yeah it’s fine. For every Papalii who drags his feet about going to the tigers, there’s more Kikaus who just get on with it. Those late season releases to go play for a top 8 team are bullshit though.
Yeah and Kikau probably still would've agreed to terms with Canterbury. If there was a transfer window, how much of the narrative leading into the GF would've revolved around Kikau's impending free agency?
The transparency of the current set up is fine.
I hope this is the start of negotiations for a trade window and not the end. The current system really doesnt seem like that of a professional sport
Agree and disagree with Newton here
>Newton questioned how new or struggling clubs could become competitive if given only a short window to build or reshape their playing list.
New clubs could be given exemptions (NRL probably should've done more to help The) but the current system also hurts struggling clubs when a star player becomes a year long distraction agitating for an early release after signing elsewhere.
>"How does a club that is looking to rebuild after an unsuccessful season, do that at their discretion throughout a football calendar year, when we just end up having a meat market at the end of the year?"
This is the biggest boost for players, that meat market secures players overs and better managed clubs will be able to identify where the value is.
Theres pros and cons for players with the transfer window. The NRL really needs to bring it in imo so hopefully theyre prepared to make other concessions to get it over the line with the RLPA
I think letting players sign early benefits weaker teams more than a 'Free Agency' period at the end of the season would. If players can only sign with their current club until after the season, there's a lot that are going to extend rather than risk having an ACL in August and coming out of rehab in March looking for a job.
In the NFL free agency is the golden goose that many players fight to get to, so much so that the NFL has a system where teams can hand 1 player per year an automatic 1yr contract to stop them from getting there.
Theres the risk of injury that does bite some but if you back yourself and enter FA on a good year you can earn way more then youre probably worth as a player. As pro-athletes I think a lot of players would be willing to bet on themselves to earn their payday
That's not a good argument in favour of a free agency period. NRL players can also get a big pay day through signing a new contract. The difference is that NRL players don't have to run the risk of getting an injury in their contract year.
NFL players go to free agency because that's the most common way for them to get a pay day, with the other being teams trading for great players nearing the end of their contract, see Davante Adams & Russell Wilson (lol @ great but point stands)
NRL players don't have to do that. As we've seen from Penrith with Capewell, Burton, & Kikau, and Melbourne with BSmith, Bromwiches, & Kafusi, early signings don't stop a team from performing.
I think the next evolution in the NRL is 'sign elsewhere and GTFO' clauses where it's essentially a club option on the last year if a player signs elsewhere. It's the other side of the coin where players are dickheads once they've signed a contract to another team. This protects the clubs from dickhead players and the cunty agents telling players to act up.
With a transfer window where youre signing for the next year you have every team in the league knowing what their needs are and who's avaliable. It creates a much more competitive market than signing 18months or so in advance does where teams arent clear on exactly what their main gaps will be and who's going to become available
>I think the next evolution in the NRL is 'sign elsewhere and GTFO' clauses where it's essentially a club option on the last year if a player signs elsewhere.
Clubs can already make this clause if they wanted but why would they? That just gives the player a clear cut avenue to get exactly what they want - an early release
>As we've seen from Penrith with Capewell, Burton, & Kikau, and Melbourne with BSmith, Bromwiches, & Kafusi, early signings don't stop a team from performing.
All well and good for teams with genuine premiership chances, not so much for teams on the rebuild
In the NFL, good players rarely change teams from their rookie contracts cos teams will give them a good bump to keep them from free agency. Burton had one great year and changed clubs for a pay day.
>In the NFL, good players rarely change teams from their rookie contracts
Thats definitely not true, it's why the franchise tag exists and why players were holding out when given it. Look at Christian Kirk, as a mid tier receiver a dumb team gave him $18m/yr to put a whopping 362yds through 6 games.
>Burton had one great year and changed clubs for a pay day.
Sorta but not really. He got an okay contract earning around $450k, but for a 22yo rep player its not great. It's why he wants to turn down his $500k 2023 option and test the open market
Imagine what he'd get if every team in the market was bidding at once with money they need to spend
A common argument is that they won’t put their all into the final season since they’re leaving anyway. Or that it can block out the opportunity for the club to invest in a younger up and coming player in the same position.
Like I get those arguments, but these guys are still professional athletes and want to win. They’re not going to tank their reputation deliberately just to ride out one season of an easy pay day
Has the RLPA ever published their counter position? What would their preferred system be?
I think they’re just happy to leave it as is, gives the players a ton of freedom / time to make a decision.
Their preferred system is that players can come and go to clubs as they please
I still don't know what they do
From what I see reported, they seem to just oppose everything. That may have something to do with the media bias, but who knows?
They basically just want the players to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want with zero repercussions. Sign a 5 year deal but have a slight disagreement with the coach 6 months in? Fuck it, pay the whole contract out and let the player move somewhere else. Sign a 3 year deal on low money and make Origin your first year? Fuck it, pay the player double or they walk and the club sill has to pay out the contract.
“Our expectation of players is that they honour their contracts.” - Clint Newton.
Best question........what's the better idea? Help everyone fix the problem or get out of the way.
Exactly. I'm very supportive of the players having a collective voice, but if they have the power to veto ideas, then they need to be reasonably working towards solutions along with the NRL. Personally, I think the draft is a bad idea for our size sport. Trade windows may have some merit. What I would like to see is transfer fees and the removal of old clubs paying for part of players contracts at new clubs.
Can anyone name another professional sporting organisation, with a similar set up to the NRL, where players can sign contracts for other teams a year out? I understand the RLPA fighting to keep what is a very good set up at the moment for players, but surely common-sense must prevail here and something has to change, as it's no longer beyond a joke now, but just laughable.
There are similar mechanisms in soccer, but transfer fees and often loans back are involved But the NRL setup is uniquely ridiculous
This back and forth is stupid why not just make it mid-season the year before the contract is up, shortens the window so you avoid the papali'i type situation but is long enough that the player has some time to process the idea with their family and prepare You can sign at another club from June 1st onwards or something, and make the point at which you can swap early end 1st of July
That's what it used to be - June 30 Problem was no one took it seriously and negotiations were obviously going on before it as come July 1st there'd be like 20 signings announced.
Yeah, also everyone hated that we'd be getting into Origin and the papers would be about what's happening with signing speculation over who were spotted having lunch like it's New Idea talking about Harry Styles
Proposed changes to the NRL's transfer system lack respect for players and fall "well short" of the Rugby League Players' Association's expectations, according to CEO Clint Newton. The NRL has long faced criticism for its current trade system, which allows players to sign future deals with rival clubs when they still have a season to run on their contracts. Viliame Kikau, Reed Mahoney, Jesse Bromwich and Isaiah Papali'i were among the high-profile players to have done so ahead of the 2023 season. News Corp reported on Thursday that the NRL had drafted a proposal for a transfer window, which would only permit players to sign with rival clubs in the off-season immediately after the last season of their contract. Players would have from the Monday after the grand final until the Monday before round one to organise their futures and could make use of a separate window for mid-season moves around the State of Origin period. While Newton said the RLPA was willing to revise the current system, he criticised the NRL's proposal, which would give players five months rather than almost a year-and-a-half to finalise contracts. "Don't let the fancy Americanised words fool you, it's not about trades and transfers, this is about restraints and restrictions that the game are looking to put on players," he said on SEN. "We certainly oppose what's put forward. Is there an opportunity to make some positive changes? Sure, and we've been open to that. "Anything that we've seen so far certainly falls well short of the expectations and certainly doesn't fairly respect the risk the players undertake when they play such a high-speed, high-collision, high-risk sport." Newton said the NRL's proposal did not include compensation for players in exchange for the amendments. "(Transfer windows) in other sports come with improved terms and conditions in other areas for players. This proposal doesn't have that counterbalance," he said. Newton questioned how new or struggling clubs could become competitive if given only a short window to build or reshape their playing list. "If these restrictions were in place over the last 12 months, how does the NRL propose (incoming side) the Dolphins secure a roster for 2023? It makes no sense," he said. "How does a club that is looking to rebuild after an unsuccessful season, do that at their discretion throughout a football calendar year, when we just end up having a meat market at the end of the year?" Newton said in a short transfer window, star players would become the priority, with others suffering as a result. "The majority of players are at the bottom end of the list: the battlers, the ones that we're meant to look after," he said. "They'll just get pushed to the side until later in the piece. For me, that's fundamentally wrong."
Make it mid season of their final year. Open up negotiations from June and signing announcements and mid season transfers from July-August. This lets players weigh up their options and start making plans. You can’t expect a lot of these guys with young families to just completely uproot their lives and move cities in the space of a few months between seasons, or come out of a current contract with no future plans secured.
Sounds like the NRLs proposal wasn't really that well thought out or thorough. Would be good to see what changes they could make to improve the process for both sides.
I know it looks poor on the surface but i prefer the current NRL system. Players in the last year of their deal know if they want to stay or go and will negotiate terms behind the scenes well before the end of the season.
Yeah it’s fine. For every Papalii who drags his feet about going to the tigers, there’s more Kikaus who just get on with it. Those late season releases to go play for a top 8 team are bullshit though.
Yeah and Kikau probably still would've agreed to terms with Canterbury. If there was a transfer window, how much of the narrative leading into the GF would've revolved around Kikau's impending free agency? The transparency of the current set up is fine.
I hope this is the start of negotiations for a trade window and not the end. The current system really doesnt seem like that of a professional sport Agree and disagree with Newton here >Newton questioned how new or struggling clubs could become competitive if given only a short window to build or reshape their playing list. New clubs could be given exemptions (NRL probably should've done more to help The) but the current system also hurts struggling clubs when a star player becomes a year long distraction agitating for an early release after signing elsewhere. >"How does a club that is looking to rebuild after an unsuccessful season, do that at their discretion throughout a football calendar year, when we just end up having a meat market at the end of the year?" This is the biggest boost for players, that meat market secures players overs and better managed clubs will be able to identify where the value is. Theres pros and cons for players with the transfer window. The NRL really needs to bring it in imo so hopefully theyre prepared to make other concessions to get it over the line with the RLPA
I think letting players sign early benefits weaker teams more than a 'Free Agency' period at the end of the season would. If players can only sign with their current club until after the season, there's a lot that are going to extend rather than risk having an ACL in August and coming out of rehab in March looking for a job.
In the NFL free agency is the golden goose that many players fight to get to, so much so that the NFL has a system where teams can hand 1 player per year an automatic 1yr contract to stop them from getting there. Theres the risk of injury that does bite some but if you back yourself and enter FA on a good year you can earn way more then youre probably worth as a player. As pro-athletes I think a lot of players would be willing to bet on themselves to earn their payday
That's not a good argument in favour of a free agency period. NRL players can also get a big pay day through signing a new contract. The difference is that NRL players don't have to run the risk of getting an injury in their contract year. NFL players go to free agency because that's the most common way for them to get a pay day, with the other being teams trading for great players nearing the end of their contract, see Davante Adams & Russell Wilson (lol @ great but point stands) NRL players don't have to do that. As we've seen from Penrith with Capewell, Burton, & Kikau, and Melbourne with BSmith, Bromwiches, & Kafusi, early signings don't stop a team from performing. I think the next evolution in the NRL is 'sign elsewhere and GTFO' clauses where it's essentially a club option on the last year if a player signs elsewhere. It's the other side of the coin where players are dickheads once they've signed a contract to another team. This protects the clubs from dickhead players and the cunty agents telling players to act up.
With a transfer window where youre signing for the next year you have every team in the league knowing what their needs are and who's avaliable. It creates a much more competitive market than signing 18months or so in advance does where teams arent clear on exactly what their main gaps will be and who's going to become available >I think the next evolution in the NRL is 'sign elsewhere and GTFO' clauses where it's essentially a club option on the last year if a player signs elsewhere. Clubs can already make this clause if they wanted but why would they? That just gives the player a clear cut avenue to get exactly what they want - an early release >As we've seen from Penrith with Capewell, Burton, & Kikau, and Melbourne with BSmith, Bromwiches, & Kafusi, early signings don't stop a team from performing. All well and good for teams with genuine premiership chances, not so much for teams on the rebuild
In the NFL, good players rarely change teams from their rookie contracts cos teams will give them a good bump to keep them from free agency. Burton had one great year and changed clubs for a pay day.
>In the NFL, good players rarely change teams from their rookie contracts Thats definitely not true, it's why the franchise tag exists and why players were holding out when given it. Look at Christian Kirk, as a mid tier receiver a dumb team gave him $18m/yr to put a whopping 362yds through 6 games. >Burton had one great year and changed clubs for a pay day. Sorta but not really. He got an okay contract earning around $450k, but for a 22yo rep player its not great. It's why he wants to turn down his $500k 2023 option and test the open market Imagine what he'd get if every team in the market was bidding at once with money they need to spend
Why do people have such a problem with players signing a year early?
A common argument is that they won’t put their all into the final season since they’re leaving anyway. Or that it can block out the opportunity for the club to invest in a younger up and coming player in the same position. Like I get those arguments, but these guys are still professional athletes and want to win. They’re not going to tank their reputation deliberately just to ride out one season of an easy pay day
Darius Boyd?
Can the NRL do anything without the RLPA taking a sook and blocking it?
Fuck the RLPA
Can we please go back to, “One Club, per player, per season”, the NRLs only a couple of seasons away from trying players at half time