“Simplicity wins matches, complexity loses them.”
Jack Gibson
This is one of my favourite quotes from the great man and it’s been stuck in my head since the Dolphins match. In my mind, the lessons to come from this match will find their truth in Gibson’s words.
The Eels have had a good team for the past 4-5 years. However over the course of those seasons they have struggled at times to put lesser teams away.
Sitting in the stands you could often see what our team had to do but sometimes their immaturity saw them play away from their strengths.
In Saturday’s first half I saw something from Parra I have not seen in a good while. It was not simply the points but the way they were scored.
Moses attacks
Parra identified a weakness around the second rowers and halves and just kept going there. They were ruthless and had multiple options for the ball runner and playmakers. The Dolphins could not defend it and the Eels did not deviate.
It was actually ironic that Parra did to Wayne Bennett what he did did to them when he coached the Rabbits. The Eels exposed a flaw and were relentless.
Then half time occurred. Sometimes it can be a blessing. This time it was not.
Parra stopped playing to their strengths, made the game more complex and turned over possession.
Not that we should put a negative spin on such a big win. In fact the game will be wonderful for the coaches to review because of the opportunity for the players to learn about what happens when they execute, and conversely what happens when they don’t.
One moment really stood out for me and that was the controlled aggression/ confidence displayed by Will Penisini.
Penisini scores
They often say that a player starts to feel like they belong when they reached 50 first grade games. Last week Will played his 49th first grade game and you can see the growth and what he has gained.
The fact that Parra’s playmakers and Will are starting to work out how to use his attacking abilities all points towards an exciting next 50 games with endless potential.
I love watching Parra’s young players who have come through the club’s pathways into first grade. They have been well coached by the staff and the senior players and we can all see them start to excel.
My other take from the weekend was not a happy one.
At its core, the NRL should be about the fans. Sadly, what’s playing out at the Dragons with Ben Hunt has zero to do with the fans.
Supporters, such as these wonderful new Dolphins fans, invest money, time and emotion into their club. Players come and go but fans stay solid.
Of course, fans are more likely to stay solid when they feel there is a sense of equality and fairness within the competition.
During the bubble period there was a need to make some changes to allow for short term loans. It made sense and also ensured the games could be played.
However, no governing body of any sport should allow rules or bending of systems that basically corrupt its competition. We have a salary cap in the NRL for a reason. Its sole purpose is to try and spread talent.
And so to the Ben Hunt saga.
Hunt’s last game for the Dragons?
Ben Hunt going to any top club on a bargain basement price for approximately 12 weeks wages is nothing but a corruption of the 2023 NRL premiership.
This is a big test for V’landys and the NRL.
A current Australian player should not be able to be loaned to a table topping team for the run into finals football. If the NRL allow this and/or don’t change rules to eliminate it ever happening again, then they should simply abandon the salary cap system.
Penrith let Api Koroisau go because they had to make choices around the salary cap, same as Parra with Mahoney and Papali’i, and even Melbourne with their forwards.
Brisbane have nine players in their squad who have played origin at some point in their career. They also have a further seven players who have played representative football at either All Stars or international level.
That’s just over 50% of their squad, and if Hunt is allowed to join, it means that a third of their top 30 has Origin experience.
It may not happen. Hunt and the Dragons have this morning released statements about working through the issues for him. However, if something changes in the next couple of weeks, the NRL cannot rubber stamp any move to a table topping club instigated by the player or his agent.
Hard working fans who put money, time and emotion into supporting their team don’t deserve to see such a corruption of the system.
V’landys has said on multiple occasions that he is about the fans,
Now is the time for such words to genuinely mean something.
Shelley
agree with you Shelley it should not be allowed to happen. when pangi junior went to the panthers before going to the dragons. i could not wear that. i just hope the nrl don’t see that as a precedent and allow hunt to go to the bronx. hopefully sanity will prevail
sorry dogs
I didn’t like the Pangai junior situation, but I think there is a difference between a player being cut and one agitating for a release
Tks Shelley. The players association have come out and said that first and foremost, contracts should be complied with. Particularly with some of the shenanigans of agents (and players) in negotiating and achieving outcomes. So that’s first, and second to have a convenient pathway to be able to break a contract and obtain a job that suits exactly what you want in life, well that’s really having your cake and eating it. Then to Shelley’s point, the team running last is hardly going to be in this trick shot circus as a buyer,it is likely any club with a shot at the 8 is the market, so it is an exclusive market. PVL/Abdo, do your job and kill it off.
Also note that the players association has managed to defer consideration to transfer windows.
BDon, it’s pretty easy to kill off. Players who agitate to leave a contract can only be signed for their full contract value against the cap. It doesn’t mean they get paid that by their new club, simply that their value on the cap is their current contract value. A player cut by their current club can be signed for whatever amount is paid as it’s not their fault that they are looking for another club.
So you’re saying if Hunt was signed by the Boncos(as called by a newsreader last night), they would get hit $1million rather than $300k ( the amount yet to be paid for 2023)?
BDon the way I see it is that if the player agitates for a release. He is the one looking to break the contract. Under those conditions the club would not be held responsible for the player being contracted at a new club for less money.
On the other hand if the club is shopping the player around then if he is eventually signed by a new club for less money the club, who in this case is responsible for the short fall in salary.
In the case of Hunt he is still owed around $300,000 for this year’s contract which is the amount that the Broncos would need to stump up for the rest of the season.
John, to amplify the point, if Hunt signs for $300k then simply if the Donkeys reach the GF they would actually be playing $1million over the cap given the full value of Hunt’s contract. Not sure that it should be allowed, if it was , could you imagine the advantage that a club in the Eastern Suburbs would look to exploit.
So it’s a NO from me .
BD the other issue here is Slater sticking up for his SOO player and fellow Queenslander. He says that Clubs break contracts all the time.
That is not true. They may tell a player that he is not in their plans moving forward and that he is free to look around.
Player agents as a ploy to get around this negotiate where possible to get options in favour of the player giving the agent the power in negotiating down the track.
Commentators and people like Slater often make the comment that contracts are not worth the paper they are printed on. That is not true and contracts are a legal document enforceable in a court of law.
For a contract to be broken both parties must agree.
It’s called a salary cap, not a talent cap.
Yes, I like this idea.
That’s not a valid answer 60’s, the CBA requires a certain percentage of the games revenue goes to the players, it’s how the salary cap is calculated. What you’re suggesting is that Ben Hunt’s full salary is counted twice under the cap, once by the Dragons and again by the Broncos. The salary cap is currently $205.7m, that’s spread across 17 clubs and 510 players. If you have to count Hunt’s $1m salary twice, that reduces the overall league wide cap space to $204.7m, so there’s a $1m in salary not going to the players. Ben Hunt’s contract stipulated that he got paid $1m in 2023, so that is how much is counted against the salary cap, the league wide salary cap. If the Dragons had released him, 2/3 of that salary would have been charged to the Dragons cap, the remaining third charged to whichever club, presumably the Broncos, that had the salary cap space to accommodate 4 months of his salary.
That is professional sport.
I’m fully aware of how salary caps are structured Brett. I’m also fully aware of the NRL operating under discretionary powers with certain policies and decision making too. What I have suggested is a discretionary power that involves using the existing value of the player to either prevent or discourage such rorting. In reality, I don’t expect the NRL to adopt anything like it so it’s probably not worth debating. As it stands they are just sitting there and watching and hoping Hunt doesn’t move. By the way, if Hunt paid the Dragons to get out of his deal how would the NRL adjudge that move?
What I’m saying is it’s not a rort. There is 12 months of Ben Hunt available to be used, who says it has to be at one club. The bottom line is that Ben Hunt is going nowhere because the Dragons said so. It has nothing to do with the NRL, nor should the NRL have any part in it. The contract is fundamentally between the player and the club. It only has value if at least one of those parties are determined to exercise it, which the Dragons are.
Good point regarding Ben Hunt. I would include Manly’s request to bump up salary cap now that Tom is out (again). While Manly isn’t in the same position as Brisbane, it also corrupts the system if clubs can request an increase when their stars are unavailable.
Exactly. It means clubs could take a punt on injury riddled stars and get coin back when the inevitable happens
Absolute no sense Shelley re Ben Hunt.
1) Ben Hunt exercised his right to request a release from his contract to the Dragons.
2) This left the Dragons with 3 choices, a) grant release unconditionally, in which case Hunt is free to sign with any club before June 30 at pro rata. B) refuse to release him unconditionally, or c) agree to release under agreed negotiation re compensation, be that financial and/or player trade.
3) If the Dragons had opted for either b or c, he has every right to sign with the Broncos on a pro rata basis.
This is the world of professional sports, every significant major league anywhere in the world has mid season transfers.,
The NRL is a major league, not a pitiful semi pro suburban competition.
Brett you are using the processes and logic to argue that Shelley has no point. Which is in fact missing the point. This was far more than “exercised his right to request a release”. This was agitation through the media in an attempt to make remaining under his current contract untenable. There was the underlying suspicion (factual or not) that there had been some “talks” with the Broncos about landing there, even if it was no more with his manager throwing a hypothetical at them. Being able to go on a pro-rata basis from a struggling team to a club loaded with Origin and international players, at the top of the table, with a near full cap is not in the spirit of the cap. The NRL have literally said they don’t like it – not that they have done anything to prevent it. Fortunately, the Dragons have refused to release him.
Putting restrictions on such outcomes occurring in future seasons is not the stuff of pitiful semi-pro suburban competitions. It should be about preserving the integrity and the intention of the salary cap.
Of course Ben Hunt and his manager leveraged the media to get his release, that is also his right. How is that any different to a club threatening to send a player down to park footy if he won’t be bullied to voluntarily leave a club because the club wants to create cap space to sign another player ? And that happens a lot, far more often than players agitating to get out of their contracts.
Why is it against the spirit of the cap, assuming there is such a thing ?
Ben Hunt has an established salary, he’s requested a release before June 30, the Broncos had or could create the cap space to rent him for four months to help win a premiership. What is wrong with that, it’s the very definition of competition. The absolute idea of the salary cap is to cram as much talent as you can under the cap figure. As long as the Broncos had the cap space to pay Hunt pro rata, then it’s fine to me. Good luck to them. Bigger question is why weren’t the Eels looking to rent him for the rest of the year, given Hodgson & Browns uncertain immediate futures, I would’ve thought it a prudent investment.
You’re arguing processes Brett so let’s start with the NRL’s own words about why the salary cap exists:
”It assists in “spreading the playing talent” so that a few better resourced clubs cannot simply out-bid other clubs for all of the best players. If a few clubs are able to spend unlimited funds it will reduce the attraction of games to fans, sponsors and media partners due to an uneven competition.”
There is the intent. Now the NRL are acknowledging that they are uncomfortable about how the Ben Hunt saga is playing out. The last thing that they would want is the best talent from underperforming clubs to agitate for a release to finals bound clubs in the back half of the season.
Now you can argue the rights and the processes under the current system, but the very point is that the potential for this to happen undermines the intent of the cap which is outlined in the NRL’s own words above.
Its now over to the NRL to come up with rules or processes to try to combat this. Whether they want to change it or whether they could get changes through the necessary negotiations with the RLPA remains to be seen.
The thing is that the NRL have a history of coming up with rules that people find ways to use to their advantage which negates the intention of the rules. This mostly happens with rules of the game – eg the set restart rule where teams would intentionally give away a set restart in the opposition 20 on an early tackle to get their defence set and apply pressure. The NRL had to change the rule. With the salary cap, third party rules had to be introduced because of how clubs have looked to find creative ways to remunerate players outside of the cap.
If Ben Hunt were to join a top of the table club with over two years of his contract remaining, and it was all from his agitation, the salary cap system would be in danger of serious corruption.
First of all, the NRL continues to perpetuate the lie that salary caps are designed to spread the talent, that is not the case. They don’t spread the talent, they thin the talent out. Did you know that the original salary cap implemented by Arko & Quayle in the 80’s was different for each club, and it was based on the clubs revenues. It was implemented not to spread the talent, but to stop clubs from spending more they could afford. Salary caps are budgetary mechanisms, not labour management mechanisms. The muppets running the game since SL simply do not, and have never understood this. Every regime since SL have perpetuated this blatant lie. We know it’s a lie because the talent isn’t evenly spread amongst the 17 clubs, and nor should it be. It is a competition after all.
Secondly, the Broncos can’t spend unlimited funds on players, they can only spend the same amount that the other 16 clubs can spend. If they had the foresight to keep some cap space open for just this kind of eventuality or had the skill to create the cap space on the fly to take advantage, them good luck to them. They are doing exactly what they should be doing, ruthlessly pursuing success.
Finally, I’m not suggesting there doesn’t need to be a more regulated labour management system than we currently have, I have for a long time campaigned for a complete overhaul of the leagues labour management platform, but PVL & Abdo have all the imagination and creativity of a rock.
I’m not holding my breath.
Did the point make a lovely whooshing sound as it rushed over your head Brett?
I’m the not the one missing the point, I’m not the ones stuck in 1985. This is the real world of pro sports.
Brett, you are missing the point about the intent of the salary cap. You are arguing the existing processes and rights, when the entire point is maintaining the intent and integrity of the cap against the attempted exploitation of those processes. The argument is about moving forward with amendments to the system, not moving backwards.
See my reply above
The ‘that’s pro-sport’ perspective is not unreasonable, providing all parties to the contract observe the terms of the contract. Such a legalistically pure perspective dismisses all the human elements of
commitment to team mates, coach, club and fans. These elements, arguably, are foundations on which sport exists. Do we watch just for the execution by participants or to support a team? Elsewise, we simply head to the world of mercenaries and we’ve just had a glimpse of how that world is a soul-less pit. Just send out each team in black or white at all games, let them execute and get paid,and marvel at their skills.
How do Hunt’s team mates think about a guy, a leader no less, who doesn’t want to be on the park with them?
I’m not arguing for a complete open slather, far from it, I’m simply saying there is nothing wrong with what Ben Hunt did, nor would it be wrong for the Dragons to cut their losses or for the Broncos to opportunistically improve their roster. Provided it complies with the conditions of the CBA, then there should be no drama. Personally I think it’s great for the game, it adds to the theatre. Be assured the NRL also love it even though they can’t be seen to. Anything that keeps the game on the back pages is gold to the NRL.
If Ben Hunt broke the terms of the CBA by talking to other clubs about joining them he has broken the conditions of the CBA. He signed a two year extension 6 months ago.
If you watched the game tonight you are very likely watching a team in deep decline.
Nothing Ben Hunt has done has helped that situation.
I fail to see how the NRL administration can be happy about what is happening.
John, they aren’t and in my reply to Brett I’ve included the NRL’s own words about why the cap exists. That is the point of Shelley’s opinion, and I wholeheartedly agree with her. It is totally naive to believe that agents and clubs don’t have communication about “situations”. As long as dollar amounts or an actual deal aren’t offered they wouldn’t be technically breaking rules. If Hunt gets his wishes, watch out for the future.
Hunt is now saying publicly that he is committed to the Dragons til the end of 2023. Doesn’t his contract say 2024? Or, at least, that’s the way it is being reported.
BDon my understanding was 2025. Could be wrong but I thought he signed a new 2 year deal 6 months ago.
That is one of the issues that really riles me. He tried to tie the contract to Hooks tenure at the club and the Dragons rightfully rejected the idea.
My assumption is that he had it on his mind at the time of signing that if Hook went he would go to.
I agree he can’t be allowed to speak to another club whilst under contract without his existing clubs permission. But show me proud he or his manager did ?